Military Review

Deck aircraft. Part of 3. Europe

54
To date, the second most abundant and combat-capable forces on deck aviation possesses France.



"Charles de Gaulle" (fr. Charles de Gaulle, R91) is the flagship of the French Navy, the only active aircraft carrier of the French Navy, the first French surface combat ship with a nuclear power plant and the first atomic aircraft carrier built outside the United States. Among aircraft carriers in other countries, excluding the United States, this is the second largest (after the Russian "Admiral Kuznetsov"). He came to replace the outdated aircraft carrier "Clemenceau".

Satellite image of Google Earth "Charles de Gaulle" in the GMBB Brest.


Despite the smaller displacement compared to the Kuznetsov, the number of aircraft based on it is much larger. The aircraft carrier is small compared to American counterparts. The length is 261,5 m, width 64,36 m, height 75 m. Displacement is more than 40 600 tonnes. X-NUMX AS-36 MB Panther Search and Rescue Helicopter. A characteristic feature of the air group is the predominance of strike aircraft and the absence of anti-submarine squadrons.

"Rafale-M" - deck multipurpose aircraft. It is similar to the Rafale C aircraft, but is equipped with a landing hook and a modified nose strut of variable length.



The first prototype of the Rafale M single-purpose multi-purpose carrier-based aircraft, designed by AFM (Avion de Combat Marine), made the first flight of 12 December 1991 of the year. The main difference of this modification is the weight of the structure increased by 750 kg, reinforced landing gear. Other differences include 13 suspension units instead of 14, and a maximum take-off weight (2000 kg) reduced by 19500 kg. Rafale M Standart F1 modification adopted in December 2000 year and reached full combat readiness in the year 2004. Since the middle of the 2006, the aircraft of the French Navy began to receive aircraft modification Standard F2. They, like the machines of the French Air Force, were used during operations in Afghanistan and Libya. The Navy demanded 86 machines.

Specifications:
Crew: 1 — 2 person
Length: 15,30m
Wingspan: 10,90 m
Height: 5,30m
Wing area: 45,7 m²
Normal take-off weight: 14 710 kg
Maximum takeoff weight: 24 500 kg
Payload Mass: 9500 kg
Flight characteristics:
Maximum speed at high altitude: ~ 1900 km / h (Mach 1,8).
Combat radius: 1800 km
Combat radius: 1093 km in the variant fighter-interceptor
Ceiling: 15 240 m
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 1,0
Maximum operating overload: -3,2 / + 9,0 g
Armament:
Cannon: 1x30 mm Nexter DEFA 791B (rate of fire 2500 rds / min), ammunition - 125 projectiles type OPIT (armor-piercing-tracer) with bottom fuse.
Missiles: “air — air”: MICA, AIM-9, AIM-120, AIM-132, MBDA Meteor, Majik II
“Air — surface”: ASMP with nuclear warhead, Apache, AM39, Storm Shadow, AASM.

French supersonic carrier-based attack aircraft — Dassault Super-Etandar (fr. Dassault Super-Étendard).



Developed on the basis of the aircraft "Etandar" IVM Made its first flight on 28 on October 1974 of the year. Built 74 aircraft. In the French Navy, aircraft of this type are removed from service, they are planned to be gradually replaced by multi-purpose fighters Rafale-M. Participated in many military conflicts.
Shipped for export to Argentina. The aircraft received great fame during the Falkland War, during which the Argentine E -Tandars, using Exocet anti-ship missiles (ASM), sank two British ships without incurring losses.

Specifications:
Crew: 1 people
Length: 14,31m
Wingspan: 9,60m
Height: 3,8m
Wing area: 28,40 m²
Normal take-off weight: 9450 kg
Maximum takeoff weight: 12 000 kg
Internal fuel tank capacity: 3270 L
Flight characteristics:
Maximum speed at height of 11 000 m: 1380 km / h
Maximum speed at the ground: 1180 km / h
Combat radius: 850 km
Practical ceiling: more than 13 700 m
Rate of climb at ground: 100 m / s (6000 m / min)
Armament: up to 2100 kg of load on 6 pylons, including
including two SD "Exochet", NAR, bombs, nuclear ammunition, two SD "air — air"
"Magik", two containers with DEFA air cannons (mm 30).

Helicopter AS-565 "Panther" - in the French Navy used as a search and rescue, transport and combat helicopter.



Armament, depending on the purpose of the helicopter, can include two Mistral-type Mistral missiles with an infrared guidance system, two cannon-mounted cannons with CIAT M-621 guns of 20mm caliber (180 ammunition), eight Hot or Tank-off ATGM, installation NAR caliber 70mm. Weapon kits are suspended on removable beams. For fire control, a stabilized SFIM "Vivian" sight or third-generation sights with enhanced image brightness are provided.

Universal landing craft (UDC) type "Mistral"(as part of the Navy - 2 units) carries up to 16 helicopters - the standard composition of the 8 air group of amphibious assault helicopters NH90 and 8 assault Tiger helicopters.

Satellite image Google Earth: UDC "Mistral" in the naval base of Toulon.


NH90 - a multi-purpose helicopter developed by the Franco-German consortium Eurocopter.



There are options: NH90 NFH - naval transport and combat helicopter, designed to solve anti-submarine and anti-ship tasks.

Used from the deck of the ship. May be considered a replacement for Westland Lynx or AB 212ASW helicopters.
NH90 TTH - a transport and landing helicopter, designed to solve amphibious tasks, but could be equipped to solve search and rescue tasks, including in combat conditions, for electronic warfare.

Percussion Helicopter "Tiger" --- developed by the Franco-German consortium Eurocopter.



The fuselage, completely made of composite materials, can withstand the hit of projectiles of caliber up to 23 mm. The crew cabin is double, the seats are arranged in tandem. The shape of the cockpit with a sliding lamp of armored glass minimizes the reflection of light and radar radiation (the rest of the fuselage is also designed in accordance with this principle).

The helicopter is equipped with a mobile gun of caliber 30 mm with ammunition in 150 shells, 4 SD of air-to-air class and NAR blocks.
Depending on the version, the sight can be mounted above the main rotor hub or in the forward fuselage.

On landing ships of type "Food" (2-pcs), are based 4 assault helicopters AS.332 Super Puma.

Military version of the model, AS.332B, Designed for the transport of 21 paratrooper.

The helicopter is equipped with a thermal imaging system for viewing the front hemisphere, weather radar or search radar, inflatable ballonets, a winch compatible with night-vision goggles with cockpit instrumentation, fuel tanks of increased capacity.

United Kingdom

The Navy is the only light aircraft carrier "Illastries" type "Invinsible".



Aviation group: up to 22 aircraft and helicopters. Until recently, the main striking force was the HS Harrier, a carrier-based vertical take-off and landing bomber. Created on the basis of the land-based "Harrier" aircraft.



The most modern version of the "Harrier" II-- - the second generation of attack aircraft
vertical take-off and landing "Harrier". The British version is based on
American aircraft AV-8B, which, in turn, was developed based on
British "Harrier" of the first generation. The British version of Harrier II differs from the American AV-8B by the presence of an additional pylon for placing missiles under each wing of the wing and using original avionics.

Flight characteristics:
Maximum speed: 1065 km / h
Combat radius: 556 km
Ceiling: 15 000 m
Rate of climb: m / s 74,8
Armament:
Cannon: 2 × 30 mm ADEN cannon
Suspension points: 9 (8 under the wing, 1 under the fuselage).
The combat load: 3650 kg
Guided Missiles:
air-to-air missiles: 6 × AIM-9 Sidewinder
air-to-surface missiles: 4 × AGM-65 Maverick
Unguided rockets:
4 × 18 × 68 mm SNEB missiles in Matra blocks
4 × 19 × 70 mm CRV7 missiles in LAU-5003 blocks
Bombs: Free Falling and Adjustable.
The UK government has decided to sell all the aircraft of this type in the United States. For weapons aircraft carriers under construction to purchase the deck version of the F-35.

Satellite image of Google Earth: the aircraft carrier Invincible.


Helicopter carrier "Ocean" Combines the functions of a helicopter carrier, troop transport and a staff ship. The ship is created on the basis of the project of a light aircraft carrier type Invincible. The main task of the helicopter carrier is the quick delivery and landing of amphibious assault troops from helicopters. The 170m x 32.6m ship’s flight deck is designed for twelve EH101 Merlin helicopters and six Lynx helicopters and has two elevators for transporting helicopters from the hangar to the deck.

Marine Deck Helicopter EH101 "Merlin" for anti-submarine defense developed in two different versions, differing equipment for the fleets of England and Italy.

Helicopters can be used for independent anti-submarine and anti-ship operations, with waves of 6 points, as well as for search and rescue operations, for reconnaissance and electronic countermeasures. The maximum anti-submarine patrol time is 5h. In addition to special equipment and weapons, the naval version is characterized by an increased length and volume of the cargo compartment, folding main rotor blades and tail boom.


A transport parade capable of carrying up to 30 paratroopers with weapons or weight up to 3. The presence of this version of the helicopter rear cargo hatch with a ramp and the size of the cargo compartment (6.50х2.50х1.83м) allow it to carry light army all-terrain vehicles and artillery guns;

Multipurpose ship helicopter Lynx HAS.8 is in service with the aviation of the British Navy and is designed to fight both submarines and surface ships of the enemy.



In the anti-ship version of the Lynx HAS.8 with four anti-ship missiles "Si Skyug" or "Penguin" McNUMX mod.2 can be in the air 7 h 3 min and have a range of up to 35 miles To combat submarines, it is possible to equip the Super Links with a lowered AN / AQS-160 type of gas or Cormoran, a magnetometer (AN / ASQ-18 or AN / ASQ 81). With one torpedo and OGAS, the search for submarines can be carried out for 504 h 2 minutes at a distance of 25 miles from the ship. In the shock version (two torpedoes) the range reaches 20 miles.

When conducting search and rescue operations, the maximum distance from the base is 340 miles, under normal conditions with additional fuel tanks - from 150 to 260 miles. The Lynx HAS.8 (“Super Lynx”) helicopter can also solve the tasks of conducting reconnaissance, including radio engineering, and supplying ships at sea.

Italy

The Navy has 2 aircraft carriers, armed with an AV-8В "Harrier" VTOL, and helicopters EH101 "Merlin" British-Italian helicopters.
The flagship of the Naval Forces of the Republic of Italy aircraft carrier "Cavour" (pennant C550) is one of the newest ships of this class in the world.



It was laid down July 17, 2001, launched on July 20, 2004, transferred the fleet 27 March 2007 city
Full operational readiness of the ship was reached 10 June 2009.
The creation of this rather large (full displacement up to 30,000 tons, twice the size of another Italian aircraft carrier - "Giuseppe Garibaldi") and a powerful ship marked the taking of course for the qualitative expansion of the capabilities of the Italian fleet and its claim to the status of a global maritime power. Holds 8 fighter "Harrier" and 12 helicopters.

"Giuseppe Garibaldi" entered service in 1985 year.

It is the smallest aircraft carrier in the world, having a full displacement of 13.850 tons.
It is intended to combat submarines and surface ships at the head of the search and strike group, to perform the functions of the flagship of the Italian Navy, to gain local air superiority and to provide direct air support to ground forces in amphibious operations of limited scale. It was decided to convert it into a helicopter carrier.

Landing ships of the Italian Navy are airborne helicopter ships-docks (DVKD) type "San Giorgio".

Tactical design assignments provided for their dual purpose: in wartime and in crisis situations - the transfer of the sea and landing on the unequipped coast of the landing forces, weapons and military equipment, and in peace - assisting the population in emergency situations caused by earthquakes, floods, fires, etc. The landing of assault marine units can be carried out with the help of two heavy transport assault helicopters SN47. In addition to transport assault helicopters, an air group of five multi-purpose helicopters can be based on the ship. AB-212 (licensed version of Bell 212).

Deck aircraft. Part of 3. Europe


These helicopters, depending on the weapons and equipment installed, can perform the functions of a transport-assault (X-NUMX-10 soldiers), anti-submarine and combat helicopters. The designers also worked on the ability of the X-NUMX-12 fighter aircraft to perform vertical or shortened take-off and landing of the AV-3B Harrier.

Spain

Aircraft carrier "Prince of Asturias" - joined the Spanish Navy in 1988
Google Earth Satellite Image: Prince of Asturias Aircraft Carrier

This ship, to a greater degree than aircraft carriers of the Invincible and J. Garibaldi types, is adapted for the basing of vertical take-off and landing aircraft. This ship was the first to use the original architecture of the hull with a significant rise of the flight deck in the forward part of the entire width instead of the ramp installed by the English in the nose of the flight deck on the Invinsible aircraft carrier. This deck lifting (5 ... 6 °) should provide take-off and vertical take-off aircraft. Aircraft carrier displacement - 16 200 t, hull length by KVL - 196 m, flight deck length - 175 m., With a width of 27 m. The main armament of the ship consists of 20 aircraft.

In this case, the composition of the air group may vary depending on the problem being solved. As a rule, it includes six to eight Matador vertical take-off and landing aircraft (the Spanish designation of the English carrier-based Sea Harrier), six to eight anti-submarine helicopters "Sea King" and four to eight AB 212 type helicopters.
Helicopter "Sea King".

Spanish landing ship "Juan Carlos I"in its concept is close to the class of US amphibious assault ships of the Wasp type. This ship is named after Juan Carlos I, the current king of Spain.



The ship was laid in 2005 year. The 2008 is launched. In 2011, he joined the Navy. The new ship will play an important role in the Spanish Navy. The ship has a flight deck of length 202 m with springboard. On the deck, there are 8 landing sites for Harrier airplanes, F-35 or medium helicopters, 4 landing points for heavy CH-47 Chinook helicopters and 1 point for the convertible plane V-22 Osprey. The air group includes up to 30 aircraft and helicopters.

Sources:
http://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Военно-морские_силы_Франции
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Воздушные_силы_флота
http://commi.narod.ru/txt/1995/0801.htm
topwar.ru/1101-desantnyj-vertoletonosec-korabl-dok-juan-carlos-i-dlya-vms-ispanii.html
http://www.paralay.com/rafale.html
http://www.redov.ru/transport_i_aviacija/aviacija_i_kosmonavtika_2009_10/p5.php
Author:
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Nayhas
    Nayhas April 24 2013 09: 27 New
    +3
    In Europe, only France has a real aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle. Everything else crafts are not of particular value. The review on UDC is somehow one-sided, all European UDC and DVKD are listed, in the USA they were limited only to a photograph of Wasp. I understand that the topic is carrier-based aviation, but it would also be interesting to read about basing ships.
    1. Civil
      Civil April 24 2013 09: 44 New
      +2
      there would be appropriate aircraft .. it would be better to buy 2 Hun Carlos ...
    2. lx
      lx April 24 2013 10: 13 New
      0
      Any vessel with which the aircraft of the required class can actually take off and land, performing combat missions, is quite a real aircraft carrier. The Falkland War demonstrated this quite well.
      By the way, from the wing of Charles De Gaulle is not indicated such an important thing as an AWACS plane
      E-2C. In general, I agree - the review is weak.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 24 2013 10: 18 New
        +6
        "The air group includes: 36 Rafal-M fighter-bombers or Super Ethander attack aircraft, 2-3 aircraft AWACS E-2C "Hokai", 2 search and rescue helicopters AS-565 MB "Panther" "- at the very beginning.
        1. lx
          lx April 24 2013 11: 19 New
          0
          Sorry, to blame :) Honestly, I did not read, I ran through my eyes. Just in case, the search was done before the post, but for some reason he did not catch anything :)
      2. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 24 2013 10: 54 New
        +3
        Quote: lx
        By the way, from the wing of Charles De Gaulle is not indicated such an important thing as an AWACS plane

        Such an important thing is indicated that France has only one aircraft carrier

        Large nuclear power plants (such as Nimitz or Ch. De Gaulle) spend most of their lives in the repair dock - an overly complex and expensive construction inevitably leads to a loss of reliability.

        As a result, the minimum required number of built-in aircraft carriers to achieve constant combat readiness is at least 2 units. For example, Yankees with 10 Nimitsev can simultaneously exhibit no more than 4-5 battle groups.
        Quote: lx
        The Falkland War demonstrated this quite well.

        What is it?
        1. lx
          lx April 24 2013 11: 41 New
          +5
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Quote: lx
          By the way, from the wing of Charles De Gaulle is not indicated such an important thing as an AWACS plane

          Such an important thing is indicated that France has only one aircraft carrier

          As it turned out with AWACS, I was mistaken (although, maybe they managed to fix it). In principle, yes - it is better to have at least two. France has this issue at the decision stage - everything rests on the budget. In this sense, helicopter carriers are quite a good economy. decision. On such ships and aircraft, in principle, can be based.

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

          Large nuclear power plants (such as Nimitz or Ch. De Gaulle) spend most of their lives in the repair dock - an overly complex and expensive construction inevitably leads to a loss of reliability.

          Unreasonable statement. And in fact C. de Gaulle took part in all major operations of France (the Mistrals, by the way, are also used in all)
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

          Quote: lx
          The Falkland War demonstrated this quite well.

          What is it?

          The fact that the Britons were outdated (they were going to write them off), but the working aircraft carriers, which gave them a significant advantage in the air in that conflict, and the only Argentina aircraft carrier was sky-ready and not at all because he was alone and was being repaired . As a result, although the theater of operations was much closer to Argentina (in their opinion, it was Argentina), the Argas had big problems with the insufficient combat radius of the aircraft.
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe April 24 2013 11: 55 New
            +2
            Quote: lx
            France has this issue at the decision stage - everything rests on the budget.

            The construction of two De Gaulles was planned. 10 years ago they refused to build a second ship.
            Quote: lx
            Yes, and in fact C. de Gaulle participated in all major operations of France

            For example? And what are the results?)))
            Quote: lx
            (Mistrals, by the way, are also used in full)

            The low-speed barge Mistral did not stand close in complexity and laboriousness of service with De Gaulle
            Quote: lx
            and the only Argentina aircraft carrier was the skies

            why so?)))
            Quote: lx
            The fact that the Britons were outdated (they were going to write them off), but the working aircraft carriers, which gave them a significant advantage in the air in that conflict

            Aircraft carriers in the Falklands are boring. British aircraft carriers were useless

            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)

            Subsequently, the aircraft operated from the Harrier FOB ersatz aerodrome in the bay of San Carlos

            1. MilaPhone
              MilaPhone April 24 2013 12: 14 New
              +1
              It is surprising that being able to build atomic carriers and 4+ generation fighters, France does not produce its own AWACS aircraft, but buys the American Grumman E-2 Hawkeye.
              And the rest of France’s fleet is very decent:
              1. lx
                lx April 24 2013 15: 16 New
                +4
                Also a budget issue. We thought that the creation program would be unreasonably expensive.
                1. Kassandra
                  Kassandra 8 January 2015 18: 45 New
                  0
                  they still used the American F-8 for a long time ...
              2. Nayhas
                Nayhas April 24 2013 23: 10 New
                +1
                Well, there’s a question of expediency, if there is an ally who already has what you need and is of excellent quality, it’s easier to buy from him than to spend several times more money and especially time to create your own “bicycle”. For example, the US Navy purchases Penguin anti-ship missiles from Norway, they are quite satisfied with both quality and price, creating an analogue would take time and money.
            2. lx
              lx April 24 2013 15: 39 New
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Quote: lx
              France has this issue at the decision stage - everything rests on the budget.

              The construction of two De Gaulles was planned. 10 years ago they refused to build a second ship.

              Yes, it is, but now there is a new project of a non-nuclear aircraft carrier of a joint project with the Britons, which the Britons are already building, and the Franks have not decided yet.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

              Quote: lx
              Yes, and in fact C. de Gaulle participated in all major operations of France

              For example? And what are the results?)))

              Of course, I meant for the time starting from when it was put into operation.
              These are missions in Afghanistan and Libya. The result is more than a thousand sorties.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

              Quote: lx
              (Mistrals, by the way, are also used in full)

              The low-speed barge Mistral did not stand close in complexity and laboriousness of service with De Gaulle

              Of course, an atomic aircraft carrier is much more complicated, therefore UDC has an advantage in ease of maintenance and low cost. But how does this negate the fact that at least 2 out of 3 Mistral UDCs are constantly present on the western and eastern shores of Africa on various missions? He can project a force with a good wing of attack helicopters.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

              Quote: lx
              and the only Argentina aircraft carrier was the skies

              why so?)))

              A question for me?)) Ask this crazy colonel (I don’t remember his name), who started this doomed adventure. For me, as a whole, args were generally ready-made (for at least six months they would at least have more exosets installed and they would have better mastered them).
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

              Aircraft carriers in the Falklands are boring. British aircraft carriers were useless

              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)

              hmm, in the end, according to the data you presented, there are only 16 harriers (actually they brought more, like about 40), while the total wing of the two aircraft carriers was, according to various sources, from 20 to 30 (s) harriers. So the statement
              "aircraft carriers were useless" too unprovenly strong. The fact that at the second pace the air group was increased not at the expense of the aircraft carriers (there were no more of them) does not mean their futility. About the boring topic - you decide. By the way, the Sea Harrier could well take off from container ships (returning to my first statement), and a significant number of different types of helicopters speak of their importance and the potential of inexpensive (relatively) helicopter carriers.
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe April 24 2013 23: 46 New
                0
                Quote: lx
                These are missions in Afghanistan and Libya. The result is more than a thousand sorties.

                Window dressing and nothing more.
                It took tens of thousands NATO sorties. The usual F-16 and F-15E took all the work on themselves, with the support of strategists
                Quote: lx
                He can project a force with a good wing of attack helicopters.

                Why such difficulties?
                It is much easier to capture the capital's Mali airport (Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal?) And transfer the Foreign Legion with transport sides. Together with the squadron of Rafaley.
                The usual way of colonial wars is Afghanistan (1979), Somalia (1993), etc.
                Quote: lx
                Ask this crazy colonel (I don’t remember his name), who started this doomed adventure.

                You don't seem to be familiar with this story.
                In short: On 1 on May 1982, the nuclear-powered submarine Conkerror sunk the cruiser General Belgrano. The Argentinean fleet urgently returned to base. Where the nuclear submarines went into battle, the 25 May carrier had nothing to do.

                The torpedo salvo "Konkorror" decided the outcome of that war. The fall of the blocked Falkland garrison was only a matter of time.
                Quote: lx
                "aircraft carriers were useless" too unproven

                1 / 3 ships were sunk or damaged by Argentinean Air Force planes - Harriers failed the task of air cover for the squadron

                Shipborne air defense systems (air defense systems, anti-aircraft guns, MANPADS - even though the British air defense was pretty primitive) destroyed 2 times more enemy aircraft than all Harriers combined.

                Sinking "General Belgrano." The same fate would be expected for any ship of the Navy of Argentina, who risked approaching the Falklands
                1. lx
                  lx April 25 2013 11: 35 New
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Quote: lx
                  These are missions in Afghanistan and Libya. The result is more than a thousand sorties.

                  Window dressing and nothing more.
                  It took tens of thousands NATO sorties. The usual F-16 and F-15E took all the work on themselves, with the support of strategists

                  The fact that the role of France in Afghanistan was auxiliary, and indeed, for rafals and FGD, it was more likely the first test in combat conditions (and not window dressing at all - as this is an important measure to increase combat readiness), does not completely cancel the facts I have indicated, that for France it was still a major operation and the FGD took part in it directly.
                  Well, in Libya, he performed one of the main roles.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                  Why such difficulties?
                  It is much easier to capture the capital's Mali airport (Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal?) And transfer the Foreign Legion with transport sides. Together with the squadron of Rafaley.
                  The usual way of colonial wars is Afghanistan (1979), Somalia (1993), etc.

                  Yeah, and uncle in Kiev? And what about Mali and Somalia?
                  And in general, you probably do not understand that there is military planning. operations in different conditions and different phases of the deployment of forces?
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                  You don't seem to be familiar with this story.
                  In brief: On May 1, 1982, the nuclear submarine Concerror sank the cruiser General Belgrano. The Argentinean fleet urgently returned to base ....

                  Completeness! Do you know how many hours Argentine pilots flew on freshly bought super-etendard from the deck of May 25? The answer is 0 (he was converted for them after the war). But could the A-4s based on it be able to take off to counter the British squadron even before the sinking of Belgrano? no, they couldn’t - the bad wind did not allow them to fly up with a combat load. It was only then that the aircraft carrier was ready for war (that is, its combat readiness was> 0 in general, but practically = 0 under the given specific conditions) was supplemented by the sky preparedness of the entire Argentine fleet under these conditions, which did not have enough anti-submarine warfare. Probably according to your logic it turns out that the Navy is a useless window dressing?
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                  1 / 3 ships were sunk or damaged by Argentinean Air Force planes - Harriers failed the task of air cover for the squadron
                  Naval air defense systems (...) destroyed 2 times more enemy aircraft than all Harriers combined.

                  Even if your data presented is considered correct (and this is not so), they indicate the essential role of aircraft in providing air defense. In addition, they worked on the ground, providing training for the landing. And so - yes, although the shaves were better than the args, but also not brilliant - they had problems with the organization, as well as technical problems with communication and radar.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    Santa Fe April 25 2013 15: 37 New
                    0
                    Quote: lx
                    The fact that the role of France in Afghanistan was auxiliary, and indeed, for the rafals and the FGD, was more likely the first test in combat conditions

                    During the operation, the Super Ethander and Hokai planes made several sorties, however, Rafal fighters took part only in training flights in conjunction with US carrier-based aircraft.

                    In fact - FGD was completely useless.
                    Quote: lx
                    Well, in Libya, he performed one of the main roles.

                    ))))
                    Aircraft Wing SHDG 12 Rafaley and 6 SuperEstandards
                    Total attacks on Libya were dealt by 200 of NATO Air Force combat aircraft
                    Quote: lx
                    And what about Mali and Somalia?

                    Real conflicts in Africa
                    Quote: lx
                    And in general, you probably do not understand that there is military planning. operations in different conditions

                    Operations against the "Papuans" (a weak and unprepared enemy) are always carried out according to one scenario - the capture of the capital's airfield.
                    Quote: lx
                    bad wind did not allow them to fly with a combat load

                    Horrible. Deck Aviation Once Again Demonstrated Uselessness
                    Quote: lx
                    supplemented by the readiness of the entire Argentine fleet in these conditions, which did not have enough anti-submarine warfare

                    Enough is how much, in your opinion?
                    Quote: lx
                    Even if your data are considered correct (and this is not so)

                    give your details))
                    Quote: lx
                    In addition, they worked on the ground.

                    Purely symbolic effect
                    200 + dropped bombs. Do you want to say that this was enough to destroy all the goals of the Argentines?
                    For comparison, the British ships fired 14000 4,5 'shells at targets on the shore, the average consumption for each of the 105 mm howitzers of the British - 500 shells.

                    HMS Cardiff destroyer after night shelling of the coast
                    1. lx
                      lx April 25 2013 16: 53 New
                      0
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                      During the operation, the Super Ethander and Hokai planes made several sorties, however, Rafal fighters took part only in training flights in conjunction with US carrier-based aircraft.

                      about "only" - this is not so (the truth is that the rafals really trained on US aircraft carriers - unification)
                      http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/dassault-aviation-a-magazine-focusin
                      g-on-defense / rafale-over-afghanistan.html? L = 1
                      "A few days later, on 28 March, a Rafale M / F2 from 12F squadron, operating from the Charles-de-Gaulle carrier, became the first omnirole F2 Rafale to drop bombs in combat"
                      And again (the last one) I repeat that I cited this fact as a refutation of the statement that the SDG is in the dock for repair most of the time.

                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                      Quote: lx
                      Well, in Libya, he performed one of the main roles.

                      ))))
                      Aircraft Wing SHDG 12 Rafaley and 6 SuperEstandards
                      Total attacks on Libya were dealt by 200 of NATO Air Force combat aircraft

                      do not confuse the total number of aviation units with strike aircraft, and even more so aircraft that actually delivered strikes.

                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                      Quote: lx
                      And what about Mali and Somalia?

                      Real conflicts in Africa
                      Quote: lx
                      And in general, you probably do not understand that there is military planning. operations in different conditions

                      Operations against the "Papuans" (a weak and unprepared enemy) are always carried out according to one scenario - the capture of the capital's airfield.

                      You would be more careful, otherwise, when we begin to turn to real data, you will again sit in a puddle.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe April 25 2013 19: 39 New
                        0
                        Quote: lx
                        "A few days later, on 28 March, a Rafale M / F2 from 12F squadron, operating from the Charles-de-Gaulle carrier, became the first omnirole F2 Rafale to drop bombs in combat"

                        it means the aircraft carrier has been sticking there since December 2001, only at the end of March it dropped the first bombs, and in July it arrived home in Toulon

                        What was the cost of these dropped bombs?)))

                        meaning of the whole circus? The French would bring many times more benefit to their overlord (and less expense to themselves), send your Rafali to AB Manas
                        Quote: lx
                        do not confuse the total number of aviation units with strike aircraft, and even more so aircraft that actually delivered strikes.

                        According to 6, F-16 aircraft were allocated: Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and the UAE
                        Canada - 7 CF-18
                        Italy - 8 Tornado and F-16
                        Qatar - 6 Mirages
                        Spain - 4 EF-18
                        UAE - 6 more Mirages
                        Total ~ 60 Drum Machines
                        Now, attention, the US Air Force:
                        - 10 F-15E
                        - 20 F-16
                        - 5 strategists B-1B and B-2
                        - 6 A-10 Thunderbolt
                        - 2 ganship AC-130

                        Airbases:
                        Italy: Aviano, Siganella, Trapani, Decimomannu
                        Greece: Araxos and Souda (on Crete in 300 km from Libya)
                        Great Britain: Lakenheath
                        Quote: lx
                        do not confuse the total number of aviation units with strike aircraft

                        The Rafali with the ShDG were good for nothing without EW Groler and EC-130 aircraft from airbases in Italy and Greece, E-8 JSTARS and AWACS with AB Spangdalen and EP-3 from Sigonella

                        Conclusion: the frog aircraft carrier was there nafig not needed
                        They drove him to the coast of Libya, only because he is and must be used at least somewhere
                      2. lx
                        lx April 25 2013 20: 17 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Quote: lx
                        "A few days later, on 28 March, a Rafale M / F2 from 12F squadron, operating from the Charles-de-Gaulle carrier, became the first omnirole F2 Rafale to drop bombs in combat"

                        it means the aircraft carrier has been sticking there since December 2001, only at the end of March it dropped the first bombs, and in July it arrived home in Toulon

                        no not like this.


                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                        meaning of the whole circus?

                        already explained.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                        Quote: lx
                        do not confuse the total number of aviation units with strike aircraft, and even more so aircraft that actually delivered strikes.

                        .
                        Total ~ 60 Drum Machines
                        Now, attention, the US Air Force:
                        - 10 F-15E
                        - 20 F-16
                        - 5 strategists B-1B and B-2
                        - 6 A-10 Thunderbolt
                        - 2 ganship AC-130

                        In! Not 200 anymore. progress :)

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                        Airbases:
                        Italy: Aviano, Siganella, Trapani, Decimomannu
                        Greece: Araxos and Souda (on Crete in 300 km from Libya)
                        Great Britain: Lakenheath
                        Quote: lx
                        do not confuse the total number of aviation units with strike aircraft

                        The Rafali with the ShDG were good for nothing without EW Groler and EC-130 aircraft from airbases in Italy and Greece, E-8 JSTARS and AWACS with AB Spangdalen and EP-3 from Sigonella

                        Fantasize more carefully - then AB Spangdalen is gone, and then suddenly there is.
                        By the way, Growler - what is he based?

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                        Conclusion: the frog aircraft carrier was there nafig not needed
                        They drove him to the coast of Libya, only because he is and must be used at least somewhere

                        ah-ah-ah, Oleg! We roll into the jargon.
                      3. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe April 25 2013 21: 13 New
                        0
                        Quote: lx
                        no not like this.

                        ?
                        Quote: lx
                        already explained.

                        You could not bring a single case that confirmed the justification for the existence of SDG
                        Quote: lx
                        In! Not 200 anymore. progress :)

                        More than a hundred shock machines
                        Now, let's see how far Rafal will fly without EW, AWACS, Joint Stras and RT razdechikov aircraft

                        total - 200 warplanes against 12 rafals and 6 super Deck Aircraft Standards.
                        Quote: lx
                        ah-ah-ah, Oleg! We roll into the jargon.

                        less water. we are discussing SDG, not each other’s identities
                        An example with Libya is in fact useless - the land-based aviation took out all the work
                        Quote: lx
                        Fantasize more carefully - then AB Spangdalen is gone, and then suddenly there is.

                        ?

                        Quote: lx
                        By the way, Growler - what is he based?

                        They flew with AB Sigonella and Aviano

                        Sheikh Isa Air Base, Bahrain. What a mess, F / A-18 and EA-6 prefer to be based on land)))
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov April 25 2013 21: 21 New
                        -1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Sheikh Isa Air Base, Bahrain. What a mess, F / A-18 and EA-6 prefer to be based on land)))

                        These may be aircraft of the Marine Corps. They also have the Hornets (223) and the Prowlers (29) in service.
                      5. lx
                        lx April 25 2013 22: 03 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Quote: lx
                        no not like this.
                        ?

                        SDG was present in the region from 2001 to 2007 (here was just the first scheduled major overhaul) including super-ethandars who worked with it. Rafahl Pruflink is just another puddle you stepped into while trying to cite “facts”.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                        Quote: lx
                        already explained.
                        You could not bring a single case that confirmed the justification for the existence of SDG

                        I was not going to do this. Moreover, you did not ask me about this
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                        Quote: lx
                        In! Not 200 anymore. progress :)
                        More than a hundred shock machines
                        Now, let's see how far Rafal will fly without EW, AWACS, Joint Stras and RT razdechikov aircraft

                        How to look? Fly away - do not hesitate. Literate tactical use of all the necessary means in the complex is considered normal, and you are all rushing about with your universal prodigy.
                        You already forgot that my first comment on this article was about the fact that there are AWACS aircraft in the ShDG air wing. Rafal is a multi-purpose aircraft - including a scout. In general, check once again the list of aircraft you provided, without which the rafal will not fly away in the Libyan operation, until I again got into the reference data.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                        total - 200 warplanes against 12 rafals and 6 super Deck Aircraft Standards.

                        ShDG air wings. The Americans still harriers with UDC worked.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                        Quote: lx
                        ah-ah-ah, Oleg! We roll into the jargon.
                        less water. we are discussing SDG, not each other’s identities

                        That’s why it’s more correct to express yourself.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                        An example with Libya is in fact useless - the land-based aviation took out all the work

                        bored again about the universal prodigy.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                        Quote: lx
                        Fantasize more carefully - then AB Spangdalen is gone, and then suddenly there is.
                        ?

                        Oleg, really somehow becomes bored. You don’t even need to go into the directories, since you contradict yourself in 3 lines. First, give a list of the bases from which you worked in the operation, and then blurt out about Spangdalen, which is not in the above list of bases.
                        Well, the pictures do not help.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                        Quote: lx
                        By the way, Growler - what is he based?
                        They flew with AB Sigonella and Aviano

                        Well, so do you know?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                        Sheikh Isa Air Base, Bahrain. What a mess, F / A-18 and EA-6 prefer to be based on land)))

                        do not confuse hornet with super-hornet - one letter in the index, but a very big difference.
                      6. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe April 26 2013 12: 00 New
                        0
                        Quote: lx
                        SDG was present in the region from 2001 to 2007

                        a few weeks a year on average)))
                        with a three-year break 2002-2005.

                        There was not a single case in which FGD would really be needed. In that region, the United States and NATO dozens of land bases - where to place 12 Rafaley)))
                        Quote: lx
                        here is just the first scheduled overhaul)

                        which dragged on for three years
                        The period of periodic downtime for maintenance and repairs (IPER) of the building lasted a year and a half in the arsenal of Toulon. Since its return to service in December 2008, he was again unavailable due to premature wear of parts of the propulsion system. Most of 2009 will be devoted to repairs

                        The fact remains: SDG spent half of its worthless life at the docks and repairs
                        Quote: lx
                        The Americans still harriers with UDC worked.

                        As many as 4 aircraft with USS Kearsage.

                        You wishful thinking. Trying to justify the deck of loafers, you repeat about 12 Rafaley and 4 "Harrier", but stubbornly do not notice 100 ground-based attack aircraft)))
                        Quote: lx
                        until I again got into the reference data.

                        do this more often
                        Quote: lx
                        First, give a list of the bases from which you worked in the operation, and then blurt out about Spangdalen, which is not in the above list of bases.

                        Pretty worthless nitpicking
                        I write from memory - if you want a complete list of databases - open the directory. And be amazed at the scale of the air war - the SDG did not stand close here.
                        For example, B-2 generally flew with Whiteman (the Yankees were kidding, practicing extra-long sorties)
                        Quote: lx
                        Well, the pictures do not help.

                        You say that because you have nothing more to object to
                        Quote: lx
                        Well, so do you know?

                        You can put Growler on the deck. And even the primitive AWACS E-2 Hawkai
                        But you can not plant:
                        - Scout and VKP E-8 JSTARS
                        - RT reconnaissance RC-135 Rivet Joint
                        - "jammer" EC-130H
                        - special aircraft EC-130J
                        - high-altitude reconnaissance U-2
                        - EP-3E Aries - otherwise who will look for the beacons of downed pilots
                        ps / photo "Hercules" and U-2 on the deck of an aircraft carrier do not need to post - it was a pure profanity
                        Quote: lx
                        don't confuse a hornet with a super hornet

                        And here is Super Hornet?
            3. lx
              lx April 25 2013 16: 53 New
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

              Quote: lx
              supplemented by the readiness of the entire Argentine fleet in these conditions, which did not have enough anti-submarine warfare

              Enough is how much, in your opinion?

              enough to provide protection for a particular compound in specific conditions. In this case, Belgrano had none of these funds at all. The args also had submarines, only they didn’t drown anything and even nothing is known about their attacks - "the submarine fleet once again proved its worthlessness"?
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

              Quote: lx
              Even if your data are considered correct (and this is not so)

              give your details))

              Ah ah ah. Do not substitute like that. I gave you the opportunity to quietly leave.
              Perhaps the most detailed work on this conflict
              BATTLE ATLAS of the FALKLANDS WAR 1982 by Land, Sea and Air by Gordon Smith
              For damaged and lost ships it’s not so interesting (although there is also less than 1/3 - you can have fun yourself), here are the data about aviation
              http://www.naval-history.net/F64argaircraftlost.htm
              10 args only. aircraft (helicopters were mostly on the ground) were destroyed by direct fire from ships and 23 Brit. harriers - that is, exactly the opposite ratio.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

              Quote: lx
              In addition, they worked on the ground.

              Purely symbolic effect
              200+ dropped bombs. Do you want to say that this was enough to destroy all the goals of the Argentines? ...

              Listen, what kind of logic is that with your words, artillery was not enough to destroy all goals - has artillery proven worthless? Tell us about your secret universal prodigy.
              PS: Pictures do not give credibility :)
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe April 25 2013 19: 11 New
                0
                Quote: lx
                In this case, Belgrano had none of these funds at all.

                Yes, even if they were))
                Effective means to counter nuclear submarines do not exist - a modern nuclear-powered ship with a trained crew will pass everywhere.
                Quote: lx
                Args also had submarines, only they didn’t drown anything.

                two old diesel engines ("Santa Fe" - WWII) are in principle incomparable with nuclear powered
                Quote: lx
                and even their attacks are not known

                on 1 May, was on medium sized warships
                with helicopters as identified by sonar only. These warships were the HMS Brilliant and the HMS Yarmouth. The attack was unsuccessful and the San Luis was counterattacked for 20 hours with depth charges and at least one torpedo

                source - http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA279554&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
                p. 10 bottom paragraph

                Quote: lx
                10 args only. aircraft (helicopters were mostly on the ground) were destroyed by direct fire from ships and 23 Brit. harriers - that is, exactly the opposite ratio.

                this is absurd
                Argentinean Air Force lost hundreds of aircraft in the conflict (data from Arg and Brit slightly diverge, but overall ~ 90 ... 100)
              2. lx
                lx April 25 2013 20: 05 New
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                Quote: lx
                and even their attacks are not known

                on 1 May, was on medium sized warships
                with helicopters as identified by sonar only. These warships were the HMS Brilliant and the HMS Yarmouth. The attack was unsuccessful and the San Luis was counterattacked for 20 hours with depth charges and at least one torpedo

                It is curious, but does not change anything, except that something is still known about the attacks G)
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                Quote: lx
                10 args only. aircraft (helicopters were mostly on the ground) were destroyed by direct fire from ships and 23 Brit. harriers - that is, exactly the opposite ratio.

                this is absurd
                Argentinean Air Force lost hundreds of aircraft in the conflict (data from Arg and Brit slightly diverge, but overall ~ 90 ... 100)

                So there everything is painted in detail - in general, it is really exactly 100.
                Your tablet is cool - where does it come from?
                By the way, not to say that the data on this plate are fundamentally different from my pruflink. It just does not have detailed details and data on aircraft. According to the plate, the ship’s air defense systems total 21 confirmed and 2 not confirmed. I threw out the helicopters (since they did not attack the ships) both for the air defense of the ships and for the harriers, then there are really victories that cannot be attributed to someone’s account and with a certain probability can be attributed to the air defense of the ships, since they were in that area. Argi lost some of the aircraft due to technical problems / weather and were shot down by "friendly" fire. Well, the rest, as I said, was destroyed by shaving from the ground. Well, I probably didn’t count 1-2:) But in any case it turns out that the air defense of ships is less than "all harriers".
              3. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe April 26 2013 11: 19 New
                0
                Quote: lx
                Curious but doesn't change anything

                What exactly should (or should not) change?
                Quote: lx
                where is she from?

                http://historiwars.narod.ru/Index/XXv/Folk/F11.htm
                Quote: lx
                On the plate, the ship’s air defense systems of all 21 confirmed and 2 not confirmed are obtained.

                SAMs of British ships did not differ much in capabilities from MANPADS)) especially the "Sea Wolf" and "Sea Kat"
                + anti-aircraft artillery (everything was shot at the args - from the 4,5 'sea gun to the FN FAL rifles)
                + MANPADS (included in the set of anti-aircraft vehicles)
                Quote: lx
                But in any case, the ship’s air defense is less than "all harriers".

                obtained.

                How about this list:

                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"

                Your favorite Harriers failed to provide air cover for the squadron. Even despite the fact that they were mainly opposed by subsonic A-4 (mirages did not have refueling systems, there were only 5 super-standards). It was the old Skyhawks that caused the British maximum damage.

                HMS Antilope Ammunition Cells Explosion
              4. lx
                lx April 26 2013 12: 00 New
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                http://historiwars.narod.ru/Index/XXv/Folk/F11.htm
                SAMs of British ships did not differ much in capabilities from MANPADS)) especially the "Sea Wolf" and "Sea Kat"
                + anti-aircraft artillery (everything was shot at the args - from the 4,5 'sea gun to the FN FAL rifles)
                + MANPADS (included in the set of anti-aircraft vehicles)
                Quote: lx
                But in any case, it turns out less air defense ships than "all harriers."

                obtained.

                That's good, that turns out. By your link there is even a separate plate
                Losses of aircraft and helicopters of the Argentine Air Force from ship anti-aircraft weapons

                where
                Total: 21 (Reliable losses) 2 (Probable losses)

                ibid.
                in air battles (with English “sea harriers”) only 28 Argentinean aircraft were shot down
                even if you so want to attribute all portable air defense systems (9, + 2 ver.) to ship's air defense from this data, then there can be no question of any 2x superiority
                This, mind you, I operate on your data and accept your assumptions, while my link describes each loss in detail.
                But you, as in that joke, are not the reader? Well, you’re not good at counting

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                How about this list:

                what about this list? count. You have 20. Do you know the number of British ships in operation?
                By your own link
                Ships and ships of Argentina and Great Britain that took part in hostilities
                Total (UK): 136

                Ku


                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                Your favorite Harriers failed to provide air cover for the squadron.

                Yes, they are not my favorites. Oleg, I’m sorry, but you are like a child.
                Well, that's all. Thank you for the conversation, though not very informative, but in some places, with pictures. Goodbye. Sew further your fantasy opuses.
              5. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe April 26 2013 12: 19 New
                -1
                Quote: lx
                even if you so want to attribute all portable air defense systems (9, + 2 ver.) to ship’s air defense from this data

                anti-aircraft guns went unnoticed again))
                Quote: lx
                Ships and ships of Argentina and Great Britain that took part in hostilities
                Total (UK): 136

                Ku

                absurd figure
                even half of these ships did not reach the combat zone. + part arrived after the war
                really, there were about 30 combat and 30-40 support ships

                Of course, I can give a complete list - with the nature of the cargo and the dates of arrival in the database area. And you, to put it mildly, are disgraced
                Ku
                Quote: lx
                Well, that's all. Thank you for the conversation, though not very informative, but in some places, with pictures. Goodbye. Sew further your fantasy opuses.

                Naturally. After all, in essence, you have nothing to object to.
                You can only discuss personalities.
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 8 January 2015 18: 28 New
    0
    she made this volley because Americans or her nimrods sent her over the satellite, and the work of the Argentinean anti-submarine aircraft was hindered ... by harriers.
  • Kassandra
    Kassandra 8 January 2015 18: 28 New
    0
    in the future (and not all), but first? bully

    yes, such a useless thing, and several countries have ....
    Harrier-2, by the way, is English, America unlicensedly copied it from the British and called it AV-8B (like the F-35 from Yak after that), and since it has a raised cockpit (to look back), it’s not a stormtrooper at all.

    like F / A-117 or F-111 - not fighters ...
  • Bongo
    April 24 2013 15: 21 New
    +2
    Read carefully ....
  • Bongo
    April 25 2013 01: 33 New
    +4
    The article is called "Deck Aviation" and not "Aircraft Carriers". Although it is possible in the future I will consider your wishes.
  • Sirocco
    Sirocco April 24 2013 09: 49 New
    +3
    I will say this, the fact that someone has something that we don’t have is not a cause for disappointment. Well, it did not work for us for more than twenty years of restructuring, (with the direct assistance of the EU) to create aircraft carriers. But there is a reason for sadness for these happy owners of AUG, both in the EU and in the USA. We have the means to destroy these “SCARRY”, so to speak, for third world countries. Recent events show that these AUGs are not participating anywhere, they are on the roadstead, and their cheeks are puffed up, as is the case with LIVIA. And what can 60 to 120 aircraft with AUG do? despite the fact that thousands of planes from the EU and the countries of the Arab world worked in Libya.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre April 24 2013 20: 53 New
      +1
      Quote: Sirocco
      And what can 60 to 120 aircraft with AUG do? despite the fact that thousands of planes from the EU and the countries of the Arab world worked in Libya.


      Do you think that 70 planes is not enough? And if there are several aircraft carriers? Amers only have as many aircraft based on aircraft carriers as we have them in the Air Force. And where is the nonsense about thousands of aircraft from the EU? They don’t have as much (if we talk about fighters)
  • Kavtorang
    Kavtorang April 24 2013 12: 54 New
    +3
    Well it is more like Yes. One aircraft carrier, in relation to France, Britain, India (in the future, one more will be added), Brazil (now China is on our heads) and aircraft carriers / light aircraft carriers for Spain, Italy, Thailand (in the future a couple more for Australia) - controversial .There is safety in numbers. For nobody has repealed the laws of planning.
    Crazy throwing about our country. It is necessary - it is not necessary, how much, where, what. Yes, develop the application concept within the framework of the declared naval doctrine and everything will be clear am What is needed: an air defense umbrella for the withdrawal of strategists, a cover for the KMG (and where do we send it what ), landing support, attacks on enemy ships or on its shore? Or a knightly battle with Nimitz? Although even on this site on "Kuznetsova" they have a bad habit of praying, as if for gentlemen. “Kuznetsov” is not a very successful attempt to get three in one.
    Dear, you don’t need to evaluate the probable opponent or opponents from the bell tower of the presence of the absence of WMD - this is the wrong approach. WMD is ultima ratio regis. The use of WMD to resolve a low-intensity conflict is to hit fleas with a torpedo.
    The "bloopers" in the article are annoying. The French already have three UDCs in the fleet. Third, if someone does not know “Dixmund”, but “Fudra”, on the contrary, there is only one left and the output line is with him.
    Even the annoyance of forum users is more annoying - such as a kind of patriotism. I will remind Peter I about the first newspaper Vedomosti: it’s expensive that its own. Let’s decide what we need and do our own, and then we will be malicious.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate April 24 2013 13: 29 New
    +5
    the presence of an aircraft carrier as part of a ship’s formation significantly increases the combat stability of this group, its awareness of what is happening around it for many hundreds of kilometers, respectively, such a group has the initiative and the ability to attack such an enemy group, but without an aircraft carrier, with a more advantageous position and a large lead in time . Further, it is foolish to deny that the augmentation system has orders of magnitude greater strike capabilities along the coast than the combination of surface ships without an aircraft carrier.

    Quote: Sirocco
    We have the means to destroy these “SCARRY”, so to speak, for third world countries. Recent events show that these AUGs are not participating anywhere, they are on the roadstead, and their cheeks are puffed up, as is the case with LIVIA. And what can 60 to 120 aircraft with AUG do? despite the fact that thousands of planes from the EU and the countries of the Arab world worked in Libya.


    Duck, dear, the scarecrow will be surface ships without an aircraft carrier, such as kakogonat an atomic cruiser, accompanied by a pair of destroyers and ammunition with three four supply vehicles)). What can such a group do along the coast? what? to land a company of marines? shoot granites at important sites? so few of them, granites, then, and not for this they were made. From an artifact to sink a couple of fishermen’s life and destroy ten dozen houses? well funny. The possibilities of aug are MUCH broader when working on any enemy, and on the coast it’s even funny to compare).
    Again, why distort the facts, no one here says that with the help of augs you can conquer countries and continents and why prove that it is much more convenient to fly from multi-kilometer concrete runways, this is understandable to a fool. Normal military people do this, since there are a lot of convenient bases and allies nearby, but that was not always the case, and here the aircraft carriers will render enormous help (even basic in some cases).
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 April 24 2013 14: 03 New
      +4
      The aircraft carrier itself is a floating airfield. We need airplanes, we need pilots and technical staff. We need bases in all parts of the ocean. Without all this, an aircraft carrier is a pile of iron. A plus.
    2. Sirocco
      Sirocco April 24 2013 14: 46 New
      -5
      Quote: barbiturate
      Again, why juggle the facts

      At the expense of facts, please, in the studio your facts. After all, the USA AUGs were originally created to fight against the Navy of the Soviet Union. But there was a cold war - neither they, nor we did not fire a single shot and not a single flight against each other.
      Quote: barbiturate
      The possibilities of aug are MUCH broader when working on any enemy, and on the coast it’s even funny to compare).

      You are naive as a child who will let your AUG approach the distance of a direct strike along the enemy’s shore. Again, I will give Libya as an example. They stood and puffed out their cheeks. Here at VO, we already discussed topics about vulnerability, AUG, we gave a couple of examples about how in the AUG warrant our submarine popped up asking for medical help. And one time our people were shumanuli when the US president himself was on board. So let's stop being measured by members, the adversary’s ACG are pretty well studied, the action plan is known, and counteraction plans are worked out. That’s precisely why, no one from the United States will dare to use the ACG against a strong enemy. And only the lazy one doesn’t kick the weak. I recall Afghanistan, as the United States made noise about thousands of sorties with AUGs and their work in Afghanistan. Here is an example of the application of this POWER from 60 aircraft against a farmer with a chopper. hi
      1. Windbreak
        Windbreak April 24 2013 21: 17 New
        0
        Quote: Sirocco
        Again I will give Libya as an example
        In Libya, the French just used their aircraft carrier
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra 8 January 2015 18: 09 New
          0
          and Italians are two ...
  • Kavtorang
    Kavtorang April 24 2013 14: 01 New
    0
    Quote: barbiturate
    the scarecrow will be surface ships without an aircraft carrier, such as kakogonat an atomic cruiser, accompanied by a pair of destroyers and amphibious assault ships with three four supply vehicles)).

    Well, the atomic cruiser, we only left, at best there will be two if the Nakhimov decide to repair it. The thing, of course, and even near and on board - fellow still want to. But, alas, one in the field is not a warrior.
    I can’t agree with you - this is no longer a scarecrow - this is a specific smut, but not yet deadly. In the tactics of using the combination KUG + ADG + the echelon of combat support, you are mistaken in terms of the echelon of support. He will be, but not on the same day.
    Quote: barbiturate
    What can such a group do along the coast?

    You’ll be surprised, but there’s a lot - to suppress about 200 SLCMs to suppress, sweeping everything out of FIG, throw the EBM to the shore, cover up tightly from the coastal aviation for a couple of days, yes, those same AEGIS BISS - FOREWER! Have you thought about what?
    To call back support (what you were talking about), support for the AUG, MTR on duty, support for submarines with SLCM from those on combat patrol.
    Somewhere like that.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 April 24 2013 14: 09 New
      +4
      A full-fledged AUG can do much more. Many, many more. Sailors, in fact, do not need to do anything - the pilots of naval aviation will do everything.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate April 24 2013 14: 42 New
    +4
    Quote: Andrey77
    I can’t agree with you - this is no longer a scarecrow - this is a specific smut, but not yet deadly.


    it will be a pain in the neck if it is used against the same group of ships without an aircraft carrier on the high seas, if your connection is close to the coast, then even changing the mig-17-19 from the coast of a third country will pose a serious danger with mass raids on current cardboard ships .How do you think how many bombs of caliber even 250kg will be enough to turn a modern, electronic-stuffed cruiser into a helpless vessel? But there are examples of hits in modern ships. If the enemy has aug, then it’s hard here, they will start to gutting long before you know the location of the enemy’s ships.




    Quote: Kavtorang
    You’ll be surprised, but there’s a lot - to suppress about 200 SLCMs to suppress, sweeping everything out of FIG, throw the EBM to the shore, cover up tightly from the coastal aviation for a couple of days, yes, those same AEGIS BISS - FOREWER! Have you thought about what? Call back support (what you were talking about), support from the AAG, MTR on duty, support from submarines with SLCM from those on combat patrol. Something like that.


    Let me disagree. You’ll be surprised, but 200krmb is very small and it’s not enough to suppress a huge number of targets, given the fact that in practice 1kr is far from destroying one goal. Landing on shore such a group of ships? without air support? without the possibility of direct support by artillery (small ammunition, and it’s better not to approach the shore, a cruiser for a couple of billion dollars - not a support monitor and no armor)? Another question is how to hide from aviation? Aegis, like our ship’s air defense systems, obeys the laws of physics, and physics tells us about the presence of a radio horizon. It will be enough for airplanes to approach ships at low altitude, make a slide and ... dozens of missiles rush toward the target) with a persistent distance of about 30-35 km (radio horizon). An aircraft carrier does not come close to the shore (100-150 km) + has a picture for hundreds of miles in the area, but you, standing on the bridge of the cruiser (the most modern), will only suspect the presence of an enemy (at an altitude of 12 km, your surveillance radar will take airplane drlo km for 400 so), this is with luck)
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco April 24 2013 14: 58 New
      -2
      Quote: barbiturate
      and here you are, standing on the bridge of the cruiser (the most modern), you will only suspect the presence of an enemy (at an altitude of 12 km, your surveillance radar will take the plane drill for 400 km so), if you're lucky)

      What class are you in, young man? Have you heard about the A-50U long-range radar patrol aircraft, which is an analogue of the American Avax? Have you heard about intelligence satellites? I think when there is an AUG order, it is far visible and even more so audible. Look at least a photo of an order from an airplane. And understand what it is about. Yes, also take into account the problem of data transmission from satellites, the order is at a glance and the course is known laughing
      1. Bongo
        April 24 2013 15: 29 New
        +6
        The Russian reconnaissance satellites grouping is very limited and cannot solve such problems. In the case of a “special period,” there are still ancient film machines on the HH, with a descent capsule. The Tu-95РЦ reconnaissance aircraft that were supposed to follow the AUG are all written off. Like most reconnaissance aircraft. ships. DRLO A-50U, exists in the 1-th copy, and is sharpened for other tasks. So that we should not underestimate our current capabilities in terms of intelligence ...
        1. Sirocco
          Sirocco April 24 2013 17: 44 New
          -4
          Quote: Bongo
          . AWACS A-50U, exists in the 1st instance, and is imprisoned for other tasks.

          I would also advise you to google first before writing stupidity. Or are you from the same team?))) Despite the presence of certain problems, the Russian Air Force continues to carry out the tasks assigned to them, which to a large extent is facilitated by fairly reliable models of aircraft that are in service. Among them is an A-50 long-range radar patrol and guidance aircraft. Currently, the Air Force has 16 aircraft of this type. Colonel General Vladimir MIKHAILOV, Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force of the Russian Federation, spoke about the capabilities and prospects of the A-50 in an interview with the military-industrial complex. http://vpk-news.ru/articles/1310
          1. Bongo
            April 25 2013 01: 45 New
            +4
            DRLO modification A-50U, exists in one copy, for this I do not need to google. If you are not able to distinguish between A-50 and A-50, then this characterizes you properly. Of the 16 available A-50, God forbid, so that half could complete the task. Some of them are being repaired, in Taganrog. In addition, especially for you I report, tracking AUG, has never been a priority for this model of aircraft. Domestic satellites are not able to carry out reliable detection of AUG and tracking live.
            As for the team, it’s not surprising that different people cannot agree with superficial interpretation and dilettante statements.
            1. Kaa
              Kaa April 25 2013 02: 05 New
              +1
              Quote: Bongo
              Domestic satellites are not able to carry out reliable AUG detection and live tracking.
              In 2013, Roscosmos and the Russian Ministry of Defense will complete the creation of the latest Russian satellite intelligence system Liana in orbit. It will consist of four latest radar reconnaissance satellites, which will be based at an altitude of about 1 thousand km above the planet’s surface and constantly scan ground, air and sea space for the presence of enemy targets.
              “The four satellites of the Liana system - two“ Peonies ”and two“ Lotus ”- will in real time detect enemy objects - airplanes, ships, cars. The coordinates of these goals will be transferred to the command post, where a virtual real-time map will be generated. In case of war, high-precision strikes will be delivered at these facilities, "the representative of the General Staff explained the principle of the system." The first satellite, Lotus-S, with index 14F138, had a number of drawbacks. After putting into orbit, it turned out that almost half of the on-board systems did not function. Therefore, we demanded that the developers bring the equipment to mind, "said the representative of the Space Forces, which are now included in the Aerospace Defense. At one of the enterprises that participated in the development of the Lotus satellite, they explained that all the satellite’s shortcomings were due to shortcomings in satellite software. “Our programmers have completely redesigned the software package and have already reflashed the first Lotus. Now the military has no complaints against him, ”the Izvestia source said.
              According to him, two more satellites for the Liana system will be launched into orbit before the end of 2013 - one Lotus-S 14F145, which will intercept data communications, including enemy communications (radio intelligence), and a promising radar reconnaissance satellite "Peony-NKS" 14F139, which will be able to detect an object the size of a car on any surface. The development of "Peony" will be completed at the end of 2013. However, Liana will be able to start working without it. Until 2015, another “Peony” will be included in Liana, thus, the size of the system constellation will expand to four satellites. After entering the calculation mode, the Liana system will completely replace the outdated Legend - Tselina system, built back in Soviet times, which ceased to function in 2008 due to the depletion of satellite resources. According to Igor Lisov, columnist for the specialized publication Cosmonautics News, the Liana system will several times increase the capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces to detect and destroy enemy targets. “After the Legends was decommissioned, the Ministry of Defense had a great need for surveillance and target designation. Now the Liana system will be able to satisfy it. "Legend" was created for a narrow task - tracking American warships, in particular aircraft carriers. Its radars could detect objects several tens of meters long. “Liana, on the other hand, solves a wider range of tasks and can detect small targets,” Igor Lisov explained. Currently, according to Jane, the Russian orbital constellation consists of six spacecraft (SC) of radar reconnaissance (2 - 11F688 and 4 - 17F688), six Tselina radio-intelligence reconnaissance spacecraft, and about three dozen Araks photo intelligence and optoelectronic reconnaissance spacecraft .http: //army-news.ru/2012/09/sputnikovaya-razvedka-liana-zarabotaet-v- 201
              3/
              1. Bongo
                April 25 2013 02: 10 New
                +5
                Let's talk about what is today. And not about the "bright future", lately so much promised. God forbid that half of this come true ...
                And given the state of the space industry, "hand on heart", do you really believe that?
          2. zyablik.olga
            zyablik.olga 7 November 2013 13: 34 New
            +7
            Do you believe everything our officials say, are you so naive?
    2. Kavtorang
      Kavtorang April 24 2013 15: 08 New
      0
      Well, nice to talk to drinks
      Judging by your opinion, you have never been at the preparation of the decision of Kom. The Navy did not defend their decision in front of a pack of wolves of natural animals and field investigators.
      Let's go According to your theses or allow in the general mass? If whistle wink
      1. Against the same group of ships, nothing will ever be applied. - because the Russian Navy does not have such a group. Understanding your final thought - a direct collision of 30 units of the ship structure of the Russian Navy and 150 units of the US Navy (if they managed to assemble them on one theater) we will say frankly -. From the field: a spherically white elephant in a vacum. Everything will begin and end much in one day.
      Quote: barbiturate
      You’ll be surprised, but 200krmb is very small and it’s not enough to suppress a huge number of targets, given the fact that in practice 1kr is far from destroying one goal

      My dear heart, tell me, at least 200 targets for the firing range of Tomahok SLCMs from the territorial waters of the Russian Federation when entering from the Yellow-East China Sea from Bassen. There is no need to be a genius - you need an Atlas of the seas and Oceans and compasses wink
  • lx
    lx April 24 2013 16: 05 New
    +3
    Quote: Kavtorang

    About our country - crazy throwing.


    In! Because the concept is no army and navy - the so-called white paper. Reform (which already counts) and its goals are classified. There is only a lot of talk and as a symbol of this balabol Rogozin with an incomprehensible sphere of responsibility. However, this is true in the whole country (hello to the beloved commander in chief!) I won’t develop the topic further - don’t react to my provocation!)
    Quote: Kavtorang

    The "bloopers" in the article are annoying. The French already have three UDCs in the fleet. Third, if someone does not know Dixmund ...

    This is all from scorn to Wikipedia. We would go over the links, check it, otherwise they would copy ancient articles from obscure resources.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate April 24 2013 16: 18 New
    +3
    Quote: Sirocco
    What class are you in, young man? Have you heard about the A-50U long-range radar patrol aircraft, which is an analogue of the American Avax? Have you heard about intelligence satellites? I think when there is an AUG order, it is far visible and even more so audible. Look at least a photo of an order from an airplane. And understand what it is about. Yes, also take into account the problem of data transmission from satellites, the order is at a glance and the course is known


    The young man has already graduated from the institute for 12 years and is an engineer)
    What grade are you in? What kind of hodgepodge are you singing to us here ??? Where will the A-50 appear (especially in a single modification of U)? What bases? It was created for flights over the sea to support ship formations ?? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Do you understand technical techniques at least? and in real life, how many such planes, what are they for and where are they based?
    When there is an AUG order it is heard far and visible to those who see and hear far !! And the warrant itself is far from being blind (apl and in the air planes are flat and drunk) Photos from the plane?)) So what? what does it prove? that aug can be photographed?)) What satellites are you planning to transmit data from?) Do you have the problem of finding an order in the open ocean that is smaller than a pin in a haystack, at comparable scales. Under the USSR, a whole satellite system "Legend" was launched with nuclear reactors on board, aug 949 (or some other) were constantly accompanied by them, and then they were constantly lost. Now we have none of this!

    Again, where does this narrow thinking come from, all the time (and others like you) contrast Russia and the USA, take the situation of global war and prove the uselessness of aircraft carriers. Are there no more conflicts and countries in the world? You made me laugh, laughed at the computer for about 30 seconds.)) Everything in a heap and go !!! we have)))
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco April 24 2013 16: 40 New
      -4
      You probably have not read the comment from Kavtoranga addressed to you. Do not make people laugh with your ignorance. Speaking of the institute. Recently on TV they showed graduates from Moscow who could not answer elementary questions, and passed paid tests. You are probably one of these.
      Quote: Kavtorang
      Well, well, it's nice to talk. Judging by your comment, you have never been in the preparation of a decision by Kom. The Navy didn’t defend its decision in front of a pack of wolves of natural-beast operatives. Let's go According to your theses or let me in total? If something whistle 1. Against the same group of ships, nothing will ever be used - for such a group the Russian Navy does not have. Understanding your final thought - a direct collision of 30 units of the ship structure of the Russian Navy and 150 units of the US Navy (if they managed to assemble them on one theater) we will say frankly -. From the field: a spherically white elephant in a vacum. Everything will begin and end in much more days. Quotation: barbiturate You will be surprised, but 200krmb is very small and it will not be enough to suppress a huge number of goals, given the fact that in practice 1kr is far from destroying one goal, Native heart, tell me at least 200 goals for the firing range of the Tomahawk SLCM from the territorial waters of the Russian Federation when entering from the Bassen Yellow-East China Sea. There is no need to be a genius - you need an Atlas of the seas and Oceans and compasses

    2. Sirocco
      Sirocco April 24 2013 17: 32 New
      -2
      Quote: barbiturate
      Now we have none of this!

      You amaze with your ignorance and idle talk along with madness. Wouldn’t be too lazy to google, would look smarter.In 2013, Roscosmos and the Russian Ministry of Defense will complete the creation of the latest Russian satellite intelligence system Liana in orbit. It will consist of four latest radar reconnaissance satellites, which will be based at an altitude of about 1 thousand km above the planet’s surface and constantly scan ground, air and sea space for the presence of enemy targets. hi

      “The four satellites of the Liana system - two“ Peonies ”and two“ Lotus ”- will in real time detect enemy objects - airplanes, ships, cars. The coordinates of these goals will be transferred to the command post, where a virtual real-time map will be formed. In case of war, high-precision strikes will be delivered at these facilities, ”the representative of the General Staff explained the principle of the system.
      Currently, according to Jane Publishing House, the Russian orbital constellation consists of six spacecraft (SC) of radar reconnaissance (2 - 11F688 and 4 - 17F688), six spaceborne reconnaissance reconnaissance spacecraft “Tselina” and about three dozen reconnaissance and optical-electronic reconnaissance spacecraft Araks systems. I hope you are funny, sec. at 30 laughing I almost forgot, google about the A-50 Aircraft, their performance characteristics and so on. You’ll also become smarter. Till lol
      1. Windbreak
        Windbreak April 24 2013 21: 20 New
        +2
        This Izvestia amazes with its ignorance and idle talk along with madness.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN April 24 2013 16: 20 New
    +1
    The sunset of England as a naval advanced power is very evident for aircraft carriers - there is only one small one, and this is after the fact that in the 2nd MV there was an armada of aircraft carriers.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate April 24 2013 16: 27 New
    +4
    Quote: Kavtorang
    Let's go According to your theses or allow in the general mass? If something whistle 1. Against the same group of ships, nothing will ever be used - for such a group the Russian Navy does not have. Understanding your final thought - a direct collision of 30 units of the ship structure of the Russian Navy and 150 units of the US Navy (if they managed to assemble them on one theater) we will say frankly -. From the field: a spherically white elephant in a vacum. Everything will begin and end much in one day.


    my final thought is precisely that I do not tie the aircraft carrier to the conflict between Russia and the USA, but I prove the HUGE profit of the aircraft carrier as part of the combination of ships and take 30 ships, against the same 30, only with (as they try to prove here) aircraft carrier) The result of the battle to predict? Toto naval commanders of the USSR demanded aircraft carriers and advised designers "not to be wiser" and "to make an air group like in Nimitz." I do not need to attribute nonsense about the collision of 30 to 150, etc. (in general, where does this come from and where do the aircraft carriers come from?). I never wrote such nonsense.


    Quote: Kavtorang
    My dear heart, tell me, at least 200 targets for the firing range of Tomahok SLCMs from the territorial waters of the Russian Federation when entering from the Yellow-East China Sea from Bassen. There is no need to be a genius - you need an Atlas of the seas and Oceans and compasses


    you really don’t need to be a genius, just look at where and in how many (and how many days in a row) Tomahawk shells were used, look at the difference in area and military potential of these countries from Russia (since you are all talking about it, I’m talking about an aircraft carrier as such, of its usefulness in general, without reference to specific countries) and to think whether there would be enough for 200 missiles, if for MUCH more modest countries, there were more than 700 of them launched in the first strike (about subsequent launches, as well as that it was only the crowds and the main damage was not at all from cruise missiles, I am silent)
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate April 24 2013 16: 46 New
    -3
    Quote: Sirocco
    You probably have not read the comment from Kavtoranga addressed to you. Do not make people laugh with your ignorance. Speaking of the institute. Recently on TV they showed graduates from Moscow who could not answer elementary questions, and passed paid tests. You are probably one of these. Quote: KavtorangNu, well, it's nice to talk. Judging by your comment, you have never been in the preparation of a decision by Kom. The Navy didn’t defend its decision in front of a pack of wolves of natural-beast operatives. Let's go According to your theses or let me in the mass? If something whistle 1. Against the same group of ships, nothing will ever be used - for such a group the Russian Navy does not have. Understanding your final thought - a direct collision of 30 units of the ship structure of the Russian Navy and 150 units of the US Navy (this is if they managed to be assembled on the same theater) directly. From the field: a spherically white elephant in a vacum. Everything will start and end in much more days. Quotation: barbiturate You will be surprised, but 200krmb is very small and it will not be enough to suppress a huge number of goals, given the fact that in practice 1kr is far from destroying one goal, Native heart, tell me at least 200 goals for the firing range of the Tomahawk SLCM from the territorial waters of the Russian Federation when entering from the Bassen Yellow-East China Sea. There is no need to be a genius - you need an Atlas of the seas and Oceans and compasses


    You update the site more often, I already answered this post and so far, only you amaze your ignorance (just misunderstanding what to write about, everything in a heap). And about the tests, if you are accepted to the institute, then you will have fun watching programs about paid tests, but now I’m not advising you to gnaw about what you have not experienced)
    I’m going to lie in the bath, you’ll look and you will give birth in half an hour to read a new one) Good luck, even laugh at bedtime)
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco April 24 2013 17: 13 New
      -5
      You at least yourself understand what you write. fool The main thing is not to choke, and do not drown. Oh yeah, it doesn't sink lol
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate April 24 2013 17: 34 New
    -1
    oh, how nice it is after the bath) and then the whole site general-lieutenant sagged up)) How many pluses did you get? (although I do not care about them, but still). These are the generals we have here, the golem will suck nonsense, the nirozhna doesn't understand what she is writing about, she throws herself with slogans like

    Quote: Sirocco
    The enemy’s ACGs are fairly well understood, an action plan is known, and counter plans are developed.


    where bullshit and hatred at zero point and hell of a tenth in a pocket carries a mile away.))
    PS The only thing I liked about you was your emoticons (on the question of the institute and fifth graders)
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco April 24 2013 17: 48 New
      -2
      Quote: barbiturate
      PS The only thing I liked about you was your emoticons (on the question of the institute and fifth graders)

      I’ll disappoint you, there isn’t anywhere in my comments about the fifth graders. Are you also prone to lies? Well, how do you google it? wiser? I hope now bullshit about satellites, and do not wake the A-50 to write. hi
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate April 24 2013 18: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: Sirocco
    I’ll disappoint you, there isn’t anywhere in my comments about the fifth graders. Are you also prone to lies? Well, how do you google it? wiser? I hope now bullshit about satellites, and do not wake the A-50 to write.

    I will also disappoint you, about fifth graders it is about you from me, the answer for the institute and paid tests) And about the satellites and the A-50, I hope that you stop talking nonsense. I have not met such illiteracy a long time ago.
    If you want to argue, give an example, they say a combat episode, the aug turned out to be weaker than the connection of ships without an aircraft carrier, or the A-50 monitors augmented areas of the world’s oceans and aim for ships and planes. Give an example of what Russia has deduced over the past 20 years, how you can follow the Aug ("Legend" has long been bg). Give an example that, they say, some cruisers or battleships there) worked much more efficiently along the coast than they + an aircraft carrier. Compare the range of mutual detection of aug and the grouping of ships without it. Etc.

    And to write nonsense, any dunce can, whom you are, you don’t want to, you got personal here, you started hinting about the bath, so go through the forest, an illiterate creature (google)))