Military Review

Reflections on the future of aircraft carriers

187
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/
Author:
187 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Predator-74
    Predator-74 April 22 2013 07: 57 New
    +1
    T.O. At this point in time, US aircraft carriers are a huge burden for American taxpayers, which is certainly "on hand" to us, as a likely enemy of the United States.
    This looks even more depressing against the backdrop of the enormous economic problems of the states.
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 22 2013 08: 16 New
      19
      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 those who will save on it unnecessarily ...
      1. Canep
        Canep April 22 2013 08: 37 New
        -2
        Quote: svp67
        And the Army in general is a “high-cost” structure. But woe to those who will save on it unnecessarily ...

        Woe to him who throws grandmothers left and right.
        1. Delta
          Delta April 22 2013 11: 02 New
          17
          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.
          1. Canep
            Canep April 22 2013 11: 23 New
            +5
            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 bucks, and with escort ships this figure surpasses 50 billion, for this money you can build 50 submarines of the Borey type. that's the whole layout.
            1. Delta
              Delta April 22 2013 11: 34 New
              +8
              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 submarines of the Borey type

              We did not build them. That's the whole layout
              1. Canep
                Canep April 22 2013 11: 56 New
                -1
                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, the Kursk 5 times conducted training with conditional launches of torpedoes on the ships of the 6th fleet in the Mediterranean Sea. Including aircraft carriers. It was not detected. 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 Government Debt" and for one divide this debt into the US population - every American must have a "Maybach"


                Quote: Delta
                Quote: Canep
                for this money, you can build 50 submarines of the Borey type
                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.
                1. Delta
                  Delta April 22 2013 12: 01 New
                  +5
                  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, the Kursk 5 times conducted training with conditional launches of torpedoes on the 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 Government 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
                  1. Canep
                    Canep April 22 2013 12: 15 New
                    -4
                    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.
                    1. Delta
                      Delta April 22 2013 12: 22 New
                      +6
                      Quote: Canep
                      Gennady Lyachin was given the star of the hero for drowning Kursk.

                      What was the entire Kursk crew awarded for? 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
                      1. Canep
                        Canep April 22 2013 12: 37 New
                        -3
                        Quote: Delta
                        What was the entire Kursk crew awarded for? 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.
                      2. Delta
                        Delta April 22 2013 12: 44 New
                        +8
                        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 they did not follow the Kursk? from the memoirs of Admiral Ryazantsev: "In the mid-90s of the 949th century, the Pacific Fleet’s XNUMX A nuclear submarine carried out tasks in the Pacific Ocean. During sailing, she discovered the US Navy AUG, which was making the transition from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean, to the Persian Gulf , and established covert surveillance for her.After a while, by order of the headquarters of the Pacific Fleet, the AUG monitoring was stopped and the submarine returned to base.For the successful completion of combat training missions at sea, the submarine’s crew was presented with state awards.
                        Two months have passed. One of the officers of the General Staff of the Navy in Moscow received a letter from a friend of the 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 was on the ships of the USG Navy 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 submarines, when observing American warships, clearly complied with the requirements of bilateral agreements between the United States and Russia and did not come closer to the AUG’s distances closer to the Treaty. "

                        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.
                      3. Canep
                        Canep April 22 2013 13: 04 New
                        -5
                        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.
                      4. Delta
                        Delta April 22 2013 13: 08 New
                        +8
                        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
                      5. Canep
                        Canep April 22 2013 13: 20 New
                        -7
                        But in the Barents Sea, this did not stop them from drowning the Kursk (Memphis tried). Or we will continue to carry the version of the torpedo that Putin was forced to come up with so as not to bring to the war.
                      6. Delta
                        Delta April 22 2013 13: 28 New
                        +4
                        Quote: Canep
                        continue to carry that version about the torpedo

                        of course, of course, Memphis
                      7. silver_roman
                        silver_roman April 22 2013 15: 09 New
                        0
                        I’m interested in something else: the Amer’s nuclear submarine could not attack the Russian nuclear submarine without a command from above ??? nevertheless, at that time their impudence 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 bucks. Therefore, could not the Amer’s leadership for “training firing with torpedoes”, and not a conditional attack, pay such money? Maybe memphis was indicated by its impudence ??? Although of course there can be as many speculations as you like, but still kapets are interested in how ....
                      8. Delta
                        Delta April 22 2013 15: 15 New
                        +2
                        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
                      9. silver_roman
                        silver_roman April 22 2013 16: 39 New
                        +2
                        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
                      10. Canep
                        Canep April 22 2013 17: 07 New
                        -1
                        After 38 years. Maybe I’ll survive.
              2. Old_kapitan
                Old_kapitan April 22 2013 17: 12 New
                +6
                But in the Barents Sea, this did not stop them from drowning the Kursk (Memphis tried).

                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.
        2. Atrix
          Atrix April 22 2013 21: 52 New
          +1
          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
    silver_roman April 22 2013 15: 00 New
    +2
    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 drinks
    1. Delta
      Delta April 22 2013 15: 02 New
      +4
      Quote: silver_roman
      That’s what undermined the economy.

      it is impossible to undermine the economy with 5-6 aircraft carriers, which also did not have a large air wing. Well, it’s not Nimits
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman April 22 2013 16: 41 New
        +1
        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
    Delta April 22 2013 12: 54 New
    +3
    Quote: Canep
    The commander of Memphis was punished “including” for which he took revenge in the Barents Sea.

    your imagination has no limit
    1. Canep
      Canep April 22 2013 13: 15 New
      -7
      Any other arguments? If Memphis did not drown the Kursk, then it turns out that the crew received awards for drowning the Kursk, if they were presented for the awards for a Mediterranean campaign, then the loss of a ship in peacetime is a crime for which submissions respond.
      1. Delta
        Delta April 22 2013 13: 19 New
        +6
        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
        1. Canep
          Canep April 22 2013 13: 26 New
          -3
          The hole in the right side of the Kursk with the edges bent inward from where it came from. There was a version that this was a technological hole of the depth remaining after removing the rudder, but there is no such hole on the port side. And once again I repeat for the loss of a warship in peacetime they do not reward.
        2. Delta
          Delta April 22 2013 13: 30 New
          +6
          Quote: Canep
          A hole in the right side of the Kursk with the edges bent inward 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
      2. Canep
        Canep April 22 2013 13: 29 New
        -4
        If Russia declared that the Americans drowned the Kursk, this would mean the beginning of the 3rd World War.
      3. Delta
        Delta April 22 2013 13: 33 New
        +3
        Quote: Canep
        If Russia declared that the Americans drowned the Kursk, this would mean the beginning of the 3rd World War.

        Well, right, but no demand from you))) you can
      4. Canep
        Canep April 22 2013 13: 43 New
        -2
        The last comment I did not understand. But there was a case with the Kostroma nuclear submarine, the one with an asterisk and the number “1” on the add-on, take an interest. The Americans then did not scream either.
        To summarize our discussion: - aircraft carriers are the best ships, no one can destroy them because no ship of the Nimitz class was sunk. This axiom.
      5. Delta
        Delta April 22 2013 13: 47 New
        +5
        Quote: Canep
        there was a case with the Kostroma nuclear submarine

        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 no ship of the Nimitz class 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
      6. Canep
        Canep April 22 2013 13: 55 New
        -5
        As for the Kostorma, it was not a collision, but a ram, after which the American boat was decommissioned and cut. I don’t believe that the commander of the Kostroma did not know that he had a strange boat at the ascent rate, across, at periscope depth. And I made my conclusion based on your arguments.
      7. Delta
        Delta April 22 2013 14: 10 New
        +2
        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
      8. Canep
        Canep April 22 2013 14: 48 New
        0
        We don’t hear each other, at the expense of the Kursk you ran into the official version, although it was a contradiction: they awarded the submariners for the loss of the ship, the conditional destruction of 2 aircraft carriers was not an argument: they didn’t drown. And the fact that in the 70-80s the Americans did not carry out a single peacekeeping operation apart from the capture of Grenada is a fact, I believe they were chasing our boats. Memphis drowns Kursk - the same is not a fact, they themselves cut a hole in the board, and Memphis (or Toledo) climbed into the Norwegian dock does not come out painting. Buoy green at sea - hallucination. I did not find your arguments in our dialogue, only the cons.
      9. Delta
        Delta April 22 2013 14: 54 New
        +5
        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
      10. Canep
        Canep April 22 2013 15: 06 New
        -3
        A hole in the board of the mouse was gnawed.
      11. Delta
        Delta April 22 2013 15: 10 New
        +3
        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
      12. Canep
        Canep April 22 2013 15: 23 New
        -3
        Then you have to admit that the crew was posthumously awarded for the loss of a warship.
      13. Delta
        Delta April 22 2013 15: 28 New
        +4
        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?
      14. Canep
        Canep April 22 2013 15: 35 New
        -2
        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.
      15. Delta
        Delta April 22 2013 15: 44 New
        +3
        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 ...
      16. Canep
        Canep April 22 2013 15: 50 New
        -3
        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.
      17. Delta
        Delta April 22 2013 15: 56 New
        +4
        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?
      18. Canep
        Canep April 22 2013 16: 08 New
        -2
        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.
      19. Canep
        Canep April 22 2013 16: 50 New
        0
        Silence - no argument?
      20. Delta
        Delta April 22 2013 19: 05 New
        +1
        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)))
    2. Canep
      Canep April 22 2013 16: 59 New
      -1
      As for the ban on removing the boat from the starboard side - the information is reliable, I recently quit the army (had permission), I thought: - "what can be more secret on the starboard than on the starboard"
    3. Delta
      Delta April 22 2013 19: 08 New
      +1
      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?
    4. Canep
      Canep April 22 2013 19: 16 New
      0
      I'll see (and another minus - not an argument)
    5. Delta
      Delta April 22 2013 19: 39 New
      +1
      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
    6. Canep
      Canep April 22 2013 19: 47 New
      -1
      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
    7. Delta
      Delta April 22 2013 19: 49 New
      0
      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
    8. Canep
      Canep April 22 2013 20: 09 New
      -2
      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.
    9. Delta
      Delta April 22 2013 20: 26 New
      +1
      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!
    10. Canep
      Canep April 22 2013 20: 44 New
      -2
      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.
    11. Delta
      Delta April 22 2013 20: 50 New
      +1
      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
    12. Canep
      Canep April 22 2013 20: 57 New
      -1
      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.
    13. Canep
      Canep April 23 2013 05: 51 New
      -2
      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.
    14. Delta
      Delta April 23 2013 17: 46 New
      +1
      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
    bulgurkhan April 22 2013 22: 54 New
    +1
    Here is a photo of a durable case just under the hole of a light case.
  • Vashestambid
    Vashestambid April 22 2013 14: 56 New
    -1
    Have a camomile here smile

    DELTA - Human Aircraft Carrier Steers !!
    good
    Minesweeper - you are mistaken of emotions and not of any facts !! fool

    Attention! You do not have permission to view hidden text.
  • Canep
    Canep April 22 2013 15: 14 New
    -3
    You do not want to see the facts, the Americans removed 4 admirals for missing Kursk. After which he crashed. Yes, and the AUG can be destroyed by a ballistic missile, just do not talk about missile defense, it's a bluff. A hundred warheads will fly with one warhead.
  • Delta
    Delta April 22 2013 15: 17 New
    +3
    Quote: Canep
    Americans removed 4 admirals for missing Kursk. After which he crashed.

    these are your speculations, and certainly not the facts
  • Vashestambid
    Vashestambid April 22 2013 15: 48 New
    +1
    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 !! smile
  • Delta
    Delta April 22 2013 15: 49 New
    +2
    Quote: VashEstambid
    with a ballistic missile you can destroy anything, even a city, but that’s no reason not to build them !!

    laughing
  • Canep
    Canep April 22 2013 15: 55 New
    -4
    Cities are not an army combat unit.
  • Delta
    Delta April 22 2013 15: 58 New
    +4
    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
    Canep April 22 2013 16: 15 New
    -2
    I agree with this 100%, but it’s impossible to destroy the submarines with a ballistic missile, we need to find ahead.
  • Delta
    Delta April 22 2013 19: 09 New
    +1
    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
    patsantre April 22 2013 17: 49 New
    +1
    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
    Canep April 22 2013 18: 03 New
    -3
    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.
  • iinverse
    iinverse 2 May 2013 18: 12 New
    0
    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
    patsantre April 22 2013 17: 34 New
    +2
    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.
    1. Canep
      Canep April 22 2013 18: 15 New
      -1
      As for the tasks: nuclear submarines are needed to protect the homeland, and aircraft carriers are used mainly to establish democracy and intimidate the presidents of the banana republics. The desire to get dirty with American methods — we are building attack aircraft carriers, no — ships are smaller for air cover of formations of surface and submarine ships. 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.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre April 22 2013 18: 49 New
        +1
        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.
        1. Canep
          Canep April 22 2013 18: 57 New
          -2
          10 billion remains on all escort ships, including material support ships.
          1. patsantre
            patsantre April 22 2013 22: 34 New
            -2
            Total - just 20ka.
  • Atrix
    Atrix April 22 2013 21: 44 New
    +1
    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 bucks, and with escort ships this figure surpasses 50 billion, for this money you can build 50 submarines of the Borey type. that's the whole layout.

    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
    Atrix April 22 2013 22: 37 New
    +3
    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
    Civil April 22 2013 08: 39 New
    +4
    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
    1. redwolf_13
      redwolf_13 April 22 2013 09: 28 New
      +3
      Yes, but only here 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 at the same time. These are the pitfalls about which the UAV concept breaks down. And then having an aircraft with UAVs and not resolving these problems, you can not only spend money in vain but also get it from your own weapon and it will be like a “wedding in the Robin”. “We have 3 machine guns, one broke, another fires on my own and 3 I changed on these riding breeches wink "
  • SPACE
    SPACE April 22 2013 22: 45 New
    +3
    Quote: svp67
    And the Army in general is a "high-cost" structure. But woe to those who will save on it unnecessarily

    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
    Nick April 23 2013 00: 06 New
    +2
    Quote: svp67
    And the Army in general is a "high-cost" structure. But woe to those who will save on it unnecessarily ..

    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?
    1. Kaa
      Kaa April 23 2013 00: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: Nick
      isn't it easier to lessen your fervor, given the current economic difficulties of the United States
      "" The fact that the Americans re-elected President Obama suggests that they have no reason to abandon the previous line in foreign policy. This line is significantly less aggressive than the one shown by the Republicans during the election campaign. "The fact that Obama won gives him a certain margin of safety in order to keep from sliding into some new power actions in the Near and Middle East, because it 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
    2. svp67
      svp67 April 23 2013 22: 14 New
      0
      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 "burnout" of greatness. But the further the financial situation worsens, the faster it will go with them. And besides, they understand very well that now they’re starting a massive reduction, this will primarily affect units and subunits abroad and from the outside it may resemble flight. And on the "shoulders" of the "fleeing" troops, those with whom America has fought so hard have come to America.
  • svp67
    svp67 April 22 2013 08: 15 New
    +1
    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 what time their aircraft carrier is able to work with such intensity, without refueling? And what is the daily rate of sorties for aircraft carriers with a “springboard” launch?
    1. Delta
      Delta April 22 2013 11: 05 New
      +3
      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 two times less than in a combat situation, replenishes aviation fuel supplies once a week. Accordingly, Ford will spend more. Although he will take more fuel (with certain changes in design compared to Nimitz. This is only my opinion). Hence the conclusion about 3-4 days
  • vadson
    vadson April 22 2013 08: 29 New
    -5
    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
    1. Canep
      Canep April 22 2013 08: 43 New
      -4
      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.
      1. vadson
        vadson April 22 2013 09: 17 New
        0
        Why Iran Yao? they need a flurry and that's it
  • mojohed
    mojohed April 22 2013 08: 30 New
    +4
    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.
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko April 22 2013 09: 00 New
      -1
      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 lies with the “drones,” and already in which Epostasy is already the nuances.
  • Canep
    Canep April 22 2013 08: 35 New
    -2
    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
    common man April 22 2013 09: 14 New
    +4
    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
    shurup April 22 2013 09: 19 New
    +1
    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
    Nayhas April 22 2013 09: 39 New
    +4
    Fans of missile cruisers and destroyers forget about the information field or the "fog of war." Not a single AWACS helicopter can replace Hokai, the size of the antenna, the amount of equipment needed, the energy consumption of this economy is not available for installation in a helicopter.
    1. Canep
      Canep April 22 2013 18: 24 New
      -1
      Hokai will successfully replace the ground-based A-50, with refueling it can be on duty for days.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 22 2013 20: 24 New
        +2
        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
    Santa Fe April 22 2013 09: 40 New
    +2
    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 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 + the unique capabilities of Aegis cruisers (air defense, missile defense, interception of targets on a non-explosive force) + anti-submarine functions.
    1. avt
      avt April 22 2013 10: 13 New
      +3
      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! laughing Whatever in a nightmare they didn’t dare to think. laughing
    2. Delta
      Delta April 22 2013 11: 24 New
      +5
      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)))))
      1. avt
        avt April 22 2013 11: 54 New
        +3
        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 laughing , 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. laughing
    3. Per se.
      Per se. April 22 2013 12: 34 New
      +8
      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 himself will say for himself, but I will note from myself that in the 1982 year, 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, you need to work hard on the American site, convincing the Yankees that this class of ships is "unnecessary", and we have all kinds of "eccentrics", lobbyists and traitors, and so the whole carrier fleet has been practically destroyed.
      1. Delta
        Delta April 22 2013 12: 47 New
        +6
        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 there the Harrier took a container ship. And when he remembers that the aircraft carriers were there, he will say that the Harriers shot down a 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)))
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe April 22 2013 20: 07 New
          +1
          Quote: Delta
          The Harrier transported 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 a 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" should have shot down all 100%, otherwise what good is it)))

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

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

          damage:
          - destroyer Glamorgan (hit RCC "Exoset")
          - frigates "Diamond", "Electricity", "Arrow"
          - landing ship "Sir Bedivere"
          - military transport "Stromness"

          Harriers were unable to provide air cover for the squadron
          1. Delta
            Delta April 22 2013 20: 31 New
            0
            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 everyone shot down the "Harriers" - so the aircraft carriers are useless))) the logic is iron
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe April 22 2013 20: 45 New
              -1
              Would you like to comment?)))

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

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

              damage:
              - destroyer Glamorgan (hit RCC "Exoset")
              - frigates "Diamond", "Electricity", "Arrow"
              - landing ship "Sir Bedivere"
              - military transport "Stromness"

              they were bombed by subscriber Skyhawks with free-falling bombs, the Daggers and the combat training Aermakki were shot from a shaving flight
              Harriers, help! Attack from the air! Air alert !!!
              1. Delta
                Delta April 22 2013 20: 55 New
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Would you like to comment?

                what else is there to comment?)))) I said above about your logic, according to which the Harriers should have shot down all 100% of Argentineans' aircraft, and the benefits from aircraft carriers are zero. You just confirmed it. What else to comment on? By the way, you contradict yourself (as usual). You say that the Harrier delivered the container ship there, then you say that the aircraft carriers were useless. What was so bad about them if they didn’t take part in the battles? so all nuclear missiles are bullshit. And only because they have never shown themselves. So?))
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe April 22 2013 21: 08 New
                  0
                  Quote: Delta
                  I said above about your logic, according to which the Harriers were supposed to bring down all 100% LA of Argentines

                  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
      2. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 22 2013 19: 50 New
        0
        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]
      3. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 22 2013 19: 53 New
        0
        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
        1. Per se.
          Per se. April 22 2013 23: 22 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          I have a very serious argument about this
          I reread your article with interest by reference, but regarding a serious argument, I allow myself to disagree. The so-called FOB, ersatz airbase in the bay of San Carlos, was created, rather, as a necessary measure, due to the lack of a full-fledged modern aircraft carrier. The Britons were very lucky that the Argentines did not smash it (here, by the way, there was a plus of the VTOL, in terms of the possibilities of disguising them and using them from small bands). But, a suitable piece of land in the ocean is not always found near the place where the fleet will have to accept the battle. Your conclusion is that a conventional airfield on land is incomparably better than an aircraft carrier ... Well, you can say that a villa in the valley is better than a cabin on a cruise ship, but the villa does not sail by sea. Why even contrast what should not mutually exclude, but complement each other? Indeed, according to your logic, it would be better to replace all ships with sailors with land, “normal” weapons, and conduct actions in an environment more suitable for humans. However, the fleet cannot be dispensed with, and the fleet should not be neutered in capabilities, but full-fledged, with air cover anywhere in the world’s oceans, that is, with aircraft carriers.
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe April 23 2013 00: 15 New
            0
            Quote: Per se.
            The so-called FOB, ersatz airbase in the bay of San Carlos, was created, rather, as a necessary 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 the country, give it a cruiser"

            Obviously, today only the United States can maintain a system of "full-fledged modern aircraft carriers". But what to do the rest?
            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
            1. Per se.
              Per se. April 23 2013 07: 05 New
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              the trick is that for an aircraft cover anywhere in the ocean does not require an aircraft carrier
              You will no doubt be right if for this you cover the entire globe with a multitude of air force bases and ensure their supply and security. Here, only, the maintenance of such "unsinkable aircraft carriers" will cost incomparably more expensive than aircraft carriers. As for the operation "Eldorado Canyon", one thing is a one-time strike in special operations on a fixed target, pre-planned, quite another, a lot of operational sorties, in an ever-changing environment where you can’t run into so much from the base. It is possible, after all, to get to the logic of Khrushchev, where not only the aircraft carriers seem superfluous, but also the aircraft itself (why, when there are missiles). In general, the fact that it is possible to fly around the globe without landing is not an argument for the uselessness of aircraft carriers.
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe April 23 2013 12: 10 New
                0
                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
                + potential ability to use air bases and civilian airfields in allied countries (a favorite focus of the US Air Force; during the Desert Storm, the Yankees occupied all 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 (believe in the Echelon global RT intelligence system? wink )

                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)))
                1. Per se.
                  Per se. April 23 2013 12: 52 New
                  +1
                  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.
                  1. Delta
                    Delta April 23 2013 17: 48 New
                    +1
                    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
    Boa kaa April 22 2013 09: 41 New
    10
    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
    Santa Fe April 22 2013 09: 49 New
    0
    Quote: BoA 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 Bismarck, the British of the 4 year tried to destroy his Tirpitz sistership. The German battleship fettered all the forces of the British fleet in the North Atlantic, led to the defeat of the PQ-17 convoy and withstood the 700 raids of British aircraft
    Quote: BoA 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
    1. Delta
      Delta April 22 2013 11: 28 New
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      After meeting Bismarck, the British of the 4 year tried to destroy his Tirpitz sistership. The German battleship fettered all the forces of the British fleet in the North Atlantic, led to the defeat of the PQ-17 convoy and withstood the 700 raids of British aircraft

      and nevertheless, the fact remained that the Bismarck was sunk with the help of a deck

      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
    2. tlauicol
      tlauicol April 22 2013 12: 12 New
      +2
      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.
      1. Kars
        Kars April 22 2013 13: 25 New
        0
        this aircraft carrier collided with a pair of light battlecruisers.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol April 22 2013 13: 44 New
          +2
          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
          1. Kars
            Kars April 22 2013 14: 03 New
            +1
            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
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol April 22 2013 14: 33 New
              +2
              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!
              1. Kars
                Kars April 22 2013 15: 19 New
                +1
                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.
                1. Delta
                  Delta April 22 2013 15: 25 New
                  +1
                  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, entered the US escort aircraft carriers. Sank only ONE, while losing several heavy cruisers. No one is trying to oppose an aircraft carrier to a battleship. The Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sank the aircraft carrier only because it was unguarded. Two destroyers do not count. Modern AUGs consist of cruisers and submarines. Are there many surface ships capable of engaging in battle with this force? and most importantly, where and in which country has so many surface ships?
                  1. Kars
                    Kars April 22 2013 15: 33 New
                    +1
                    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?
                    1. Delta
                      Delta April 22 2013 15: 40 New
                      +4
                      Quote: Kars
                      . And it's all about Japanese shells

                      as you said above - "these are his problems." Here are the problems with the shells - their problems. The result is important. You contrasted the aircraft carrier with the battleship saying "there is no chance." Here is an example from the story I have given. Submarines sunk the flagship before the battle, after which they did not intervene in the battle. Where were the planes from? not with 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
                      1. Kars
                        Kars April 22 2013 16: 35 New
                        0
                        Quote: Delta
                        Here are the problems with the shells - their problems

                        naturally.
                        And for them, Americans should thank Tsushima.
                        Quote: Delta
                        You contrasted the aircraft carrier with 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


                      2. Delta
                        Delta April 22 2013 19: 11 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        fact, and the most natural.

                        fact is something accomplished))) WHERE?
                      3. Kars
                        Kars April 22 2013 20: 21 New
                        0
                        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?
              2. fzr1000
                fzr1000 April 22 2013 15: 37 New
                0
                And there are other stories when the campaigns of Japanese aircraft carriers (sometimes the first exit) nipped American submarines.
            2. tlauicol
              tlauicol April 22 2013 15: 34 New
              +2
              Until the age of 45, Suodfish was actively used, and Tirpitz climbed into a hole even before the Barracudas began to build
              1. Kars
                Kars April 22 2013 17: 18 New
                0
                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
    Boa kaa April 22 2013 15: 11 New
    +5
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    the British of 4 of the year tried to destroy his Tirpitz sistership.

    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 Tirpice. The battleship went into the Norwegian skerries not from a good life, but under the protection of coastal air defense, air cover of coastal fighters. But! He and here got the (first) aircraft carrier. The 3.04.44 raid resulted in 19 direct hits of air bombs in the ship: 5X800 kg and 15x100-250kg bombs. As a result, the fire and 3 of the month of restoration, the relocation from the Altenfjord to the Tromsfjord (from sin, or rather from the British aviation, away), but, as you know, the Lancaster found it there. 5,5 t he could not bear the super bomb.
    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.
    1. common man
      common man April 22 2013 17: 18 New
      +1
      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.
    2. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe April 22 2013 20: 35 New
      0
      Quote: BoA KAA
      I think the comments are superfluous.

      Pretty boring examples)))
      Quote: BoA 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 - a failure of carrier-based aviation. A mediocre planned operation, as a result of which the Japanese sank all 4 of obsolete troughs from the First World War (the loss of the old minzag, 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 “donated” one million barrels of oil to the Americans 4 - the US Navy's oil storage facility, the main filling station in the Pacific, remained unharmed. For comparison, in December 1941, oil reserves at Pearl Harbor exceeded all Japanese reserves!
      Quote: BoA KAA
      About Tirpice. Battleship went to 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 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

      Mark.53 anti-aircraft missile with a radar fuse - if the japas had such toys, they would have killed American “Avengers” and “Hellkets” as a smoke and safely reached Okinawa
  • VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 22 2013 09: 55 New
    -5
    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.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe April 22 2013 10: 24 New
      +5
      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
      ))))
    2. Parabelum
      Parabelum April 22 2013 11: 07 New
      +1
      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.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre April 22 2013 18: 12 New
        -3
        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.
      2. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 22 2013 19: 17 New
        +3
        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. They are spoken of little and never shown on TV. Here it is, the real strength of the American Navy - capable of delivering a millionth army to the other end of the world


  • nagi
    nagi April 22 2013 10: 18 New
    0
    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.
    1. Delta
      Delta April 22 2013 11: 30 New
      -1
      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
      1. gauche
        gauche April 23 2013 07: 50 New
        -3
        Read about Detroit, girl. And do not argue with men! love
        1. Delta
          Delta April 23 2013 17: 50 New
          +1
          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
    Standard Oil April 22 2013 10: 50 New
    +4
    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
    Canep April 22 2013 11: 03 New
    -3
    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.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol April 22 2013 12: 17 New
      +3
      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
      1. Canep
        Canep April 22 2013 18: 33 New
        +2
        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.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol April 24 2013 06: 05 New
          0
          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.
      2. gauche
        gauche April 23 2013 07: 48 New
        -2
        ... or one big firework soldier
  • vardex
    vardex April 22 2013 11: 27 New
    -1
    There are two types of ships in the fleet, these are targets and submarines !!!!!!!!!!
  • vardex
    vardex April 22 2013 11: 35 New
    0
    THERE is more that today nuclear submarines with military arsenals of its low noise ............. try to find .....
  • vardex
    vardex April 22 2013 11: 36 New
    +2
    The fleet has two types of target ships and submarines ........
    1. Canep
      Canep April 22 2013 12: 28 New
      -4
      There are also aircraft-carrying targets.
  • Semurg
    Semurg April 22 2013 12: 01 New
    +3
    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.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol April 22 2013 12: 37 New
      +4
      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
      1. SPACE
        SPACE April 22 2013 21: 21 New
        0
        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.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa April 22 2013 15: 39 New
      +3
      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. AMG has a “security” zone, which is strongly discouraged from entering: 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, it is impressive to inflict damage to the enemy by the hands of "rioters", but after undermining Amer. EM in the port with a 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
    Pashhenko Nikolay April 22 2013 12: 33 New
    0
    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.
    1. Delta
      Delta April 22 2013 12: 35 New
      +6
      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
    Simple April 22 2013 13: 48 New
    0
    Scheduled Autonomous Air Refueling (AAR) Tests X-47B
    on FY 2014 will be removed from the program in the FY14 budget.
    Captain Jaime Engdahl, Navy UCAS Program Manager: "We plan to conduct final AAR flight tests at the end of 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
    igor36 April 22 2013 14: 21 New
    0
    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.
    1. Delta
      Delta April 22 2013 14: 23 New
      0
      and why was the SSBN created? for firing rockets?
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate April 22 2013 15: 26 New
    0
    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
    Thomas A. Anderson April 22 2013 15: 36 New
    -3
    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)
    1. patsantre
      patsantre April 22 2013 18: 21 New
      +2
      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
    kontrol April 22 2013 16: 16 New
    -3
    some comments today are not very patriotic. no Yankees or liberals on the site wink
    1. patsantre
      patsantre April 22 2013 18: 22 New
      0
      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
    1c-inform-city April 22 2013 16: 55 New
    +2
    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
    xomaNN April 22 2013 17: 09 New
    +4
    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
    Megatron April 22 2013 17: 15 New
    +1
    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.
    1. Canep
      Canep April 22 2013 17: 23 New
      -3
      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
    77bor1973 April 22 2013 17: 41 New
    +1
    It’s just that some who advocate aircraft carriers as a panacea for armed confrontation at sea forget that the carrier-based aircraft was ten times heavier since the Second World War, and its striking power was not significantly increased. The old Essex of World War II is, in my opinion, a more formidable force in those years than George W. Bush at present.
    1. Delta
      Delta April 22 2013 19: 16 New
      0
      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." Apart from guided weapons, which (in experience, not in theory) can be so effective that one rocket worth 100 thousand dollars destroys a ship worth millions of dollars.
      1. 77bor1973
        77bor1973 April 22 2013 20: 52 New
        +1
        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.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe April 22 2013 20: 58 New
          +2
          Quote: 77bor1973
          And the loss of an aircraft worth 57 million dollars

          Super hornet
          > 80 million as of 2012 year
        2. Delta
          Delta April 22 2013 20: 58 New
          +1
          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 the destroyer with one missile. And the plane returned to base. As an example? is it good? But where does the evidence that the Hornet is taking off is far from full load?
        3. Windbreak
          Windbreak April 22 2013 21: 34 New
          +1
          Better write about the combat load of deck aircraft of World War II, ten times less in weight than modern deck aircraft
    2. Windbreak
      Windbreak April 22 2013 21: 28 New
      0
      Quote: 77bor1973
      forget that a decker aircraft has been ten times heavier since the Second World War, and not significantly increased impact power
  • Jurkovs
    Jurkovs April 22 2013 18: 11 New
    +4
    Still, the aircraft carrier is a large “gunboat” that keeps third world countries at bay. All cases of combat use of AOG are associated with weak countries and this is their main purpose. I affirm that aircraft carriers were not created for the conditions of the war against the Soviet Union / Russia. The 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 just crowded and they become easy prey for coastal rocket batteries. In addition, aviation from land airports is much more efficient 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 become afraid of us. Take into account not intentions, but opportunities.
  • Canep
    Canep April 22 2013 18: 38 New
    0
    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
    1c-inform-city April 22 2013 18: 50 New
    +3
    Summary Aircraft carrier at the moment is a way to cut money and show oneself. It does not fit our doctrine.
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol April 22 2013 18: 57 New
    +1
    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
    SPACE April 22 2013 20: 58 New
    +1
    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.
    1. Mikola
      Mikola April 22 2013 23: 29 New
      0
      There are newer examples (Falkland, Yugoslav, Libyan) but you stubbornly see only 70 years ago)
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 23 2013 00: 45 New
        0
        Quote: Mikola
        Yugoslav, Libyan

        ?
        Explain your point
  • Mikola
    Mikola April 23 2013 00: 01 New
    +1
    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. Once the main weapon of an aircraft carrier is airplanes. That evolution of this type of ship depends on the evolution of aircraft. As soon as there are planes that can fly around the earth at one gas 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 means "more shocking" aircraft carrier in the sea there is nothing ...

    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.
    1. Mikola
      Mikola April 23 2013 00: 15 New
      +1
      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 in the modern world is possible. The AUG compound has been tasked with getting lost in the ocean and “stabbing” Pearl Harbor. The “adversary” knew that a strike was being prepared and used it (up to the 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 in the Pentagon questioned the feasibility of the AUG and it was decided to develop the Nimitz class, while the British decided to design new aircraft carriers.
  • I think so
    I think so April 23 2013 01: 22 New
    0
    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
    gauche April 23 2013 06: 43 New
    -1
    Quote: BoA KAA
    AMG has a “security” zone, which is strongly discouraged from entering: 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 g. Sea of ​​Japan. The Soviet nuclear submarine K-1984, observing the maneuvers of the AUG led by the Kitty Hawk, “accidentally” breaks through the bottom with retractable devices.
    2. 1983 Sargasso Sea. The K-324 submarine “accidentally” wound a towed antenna onto the propeller during the TASS system tests by the McCLoy frigate.

    Carriers are the legacy of the pirate past of the founders of the United States. This is a means of terror and the spread of democracy. It’s not like the enemy is a storm. Project 949A nuclear submarines (for example) drown this handsome man almost guaranteed. This is not counting the shock missiles with the Tu-22M3. Equipping the Russian SSBNs with maneuvering warheads, coupled with bringing to mind the space systems of target designation and reconnaissance, puts an enduring cross on the threat from the AUG. In the best case, their remnants will be able to become the "island of dead ships" - before the generation of nuclear fuel.

    All the more criminal is the squandering of Russia's resources for the construction of floating command graves on the basis of the Mistral. Their only application is the suppression of rebellion in the coastal regions of Russia itself - such as the ever-memorable "war" with coastal partisans.

    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.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre April 23 2013 17: 43 New
      -4
      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 g. Sea of ​​Japan. The Soviet nuclear submarine K-1984, observing the maneuvers of the AUG led by the Kitty Hawk, “accidentally” breaks through the bottom with retractable devices.
      2. 1983 Sargasso Sea. The K-324 submarine “accidentally” wound a towed antenna onto the propeller during the TASS system tests by the McCLoy frigate.


      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
      1. SPACE
        SPACE April 23 2013 22: 07 New
        -1
        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 laughing Only in one case is an aircraft carrier unsinkable ... this is when it is aground lol
        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 949 apl is guaranteed to be drowned by an aircraft carrier”, it’s almost the same as “not a single aircraft carrier has been destroyed in the last 70 years” wassat
        1. gauche
          gauche April 24 2013 05: 51 New
          -1
          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 wassat Listed incidents, testifying (very convexly) about, shtak, the extreme vulnerability of the AUG even from the unintentional ("random") actions of the submarines. A boat in the center of the order is detected by a hole in the bottom - and during maneuvers. Is there any doubt that, in this situation, ANY submarine goes UNSATCHED at the firing line of even a "dagger" torpedo attack (Flurry). And, even more so, whether it is worth tormenting with doubts whether the 949th boat will reach the launch range of its Granite Swarm. I did not begin to mention Aport and Atrin - 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, believe that an aircraft carrier is the essence of a good, suitable weapon. Indications for use - air defense of surface units, support for landings. "Kuznetsov" is the golden mean. My post was more political - about Amer’s AUGs. And this, I repeat, is a purely means of exporting democracy.
          1. patsantre
            patsantre April 24 2013 17: 09 New
            -3
            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 wassat Listed incidents, testifying (very convexly) about, shtak, the extreme vulnerability of the AUG even from the unintentional ("random") actions of the submarines. A boat in the center of the order is detected by a hole in the bottom - and during maneuvers. Is there any doubt that, in this situation, ANY submarine goes UNSATCHED at the firing line of even a "dagger" torpedo attack (Flurry). And, even more so, whether it is worth tormenting with doubts whether the 949th boat will reach the launch range of its Granite Swarm. I did not begin to mention Aport and Atrin - 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, believe that an aircraft carrier is the essence of a good, suitable weapon. Indications for use - air defense of surface units, support for landings. "Kuznetsov" is the golden mean. My post was more political - about Amer’s AUGs. And this, I repeat, is a purely 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.
        2. patsantre
          patsantre April 24 2013 17: 07 New
          -2
          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.
    2. Delta
      Delta April 23 2013 17: 57 New
      0
      Quote: thick
      at the same time, the subject conducts public auto-training:

      minor miracle, go home, play. What led you to the torpedo and the collision of submarines with surface ships and a wound antenna? what kind of 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. That topic concerned the Kursk and its alleged killer MK-48. Learn its effect))))
      1. patsantre
        patsantre April 23 2013 19: 49 New
        -2
        Why talk about this clown when he offers satellites to launch satellites.
        1. SPACE
          SPACE April 23 2013 21: 34 New
          +2
          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]
          1. patsantre
            patsantre April 24 2013 17: 11 New
            +1
            I agree, my jamb.
        2. gauche
          gauche April 24 2013 05: 59 New
          -2
          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
    Waterfall April 23 2013 12: 08 New
    +1
    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 the Sea of ​​Japan. The Soviet nuclear submarine K-314, observing the maneuvers of the AUG led by Kitty Hawk, “accidentally” breaks through the 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.
    1. gauche
      gauche April 24 2013 03: 45 New
      +2
      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
    Ratibor12 April 24 2013 05: 32 New
    +4
    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 hoot and all enemy submarines will float up with their belly up!" Well, we already heard something similar: “Abrams” do not burn, “Stealth” cannot be knocked down, and diapers remain dry and breathe.
    Others, on the contrary: “As I give one, you’ll go to the bottom! Our missiles and with one Mach seven AUG beating! And if they are a supersonic fire, they will drown with fear even before they reach them!”
    Oh, these tales! Oh, these storytellers!
    Everything that one person built, another can destroy. And for every tricky ass there is a x ... p with a screw. "The war is not someone who shoots, but someone changes his mind!" So, with aircraft carriers everything will be simple. They will meet a commensurate opponent - they will have to fight seriously. Someone they will sink, someone will sink them. War is a dumb thing and full of surprises. And immortality and endless ammo, this is from another opera.
    1. gauche
      gauche April 25 2013 03: 21 New
      +1
      "... Release into the sea, the division commander, I’ll drown five aircraft carriers by Easter. I know it firmly - let it not write, the Russian land as he is like me ..." angry
      There is also nothing complicated - who in childhood watched The Secret of the Third Planet and Guest from the Future - and now shows them to their children. And some of them are Star Wars and Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers. For the second, the war will be a complete surprise - and "full of surprises." I mean a serious - "dumb" - war ... And with drool, I’m drunk on the western “techies miracles”, and I spit into a frenzy in the face of anyone who could doubt their strength - you can do the kule, everyone chooses faith.