Military Review

The ship is the same course, or why Russian fleet?

233
The ship is the same course, or why Russian fleet?



Office of the President of the Russian Federation.
- Just one second. Commander of the Navy fleet to me! Was there a loss in the fleet today?
- No, no!
- Hello, George? A-4, by


The service of the Russian admirals is difficult and dangerous. Stormy attacks of media representatives, accompanied by daily press conferences and reports in the offices of higher instances. The allegations of corruption, negligence and improper performance of their official powers, sounding from all points.

The people are eager for bread and circuses: are there many chances for the nuclear-powered cruiser Orlan to defeat the American aircraft carrier group? When will the battle with NATO ships off the coast of Syria begin? Will Russian sailors be able to defend the Kuriles in case of possible aggression from Japan?

The intellectual stratum of society requires an immediate presentation of a clear concept of development and use of the Russian Navy over the coming years. Where is the course of our fleet? What are its tasks and opportunities?

It is possible to understand well the brave officers with gold admiral shoulder straps: what could be the answer to the question about the concept of using the Russian Navy, if the fleet contains the entire 4 of a ship capable of providing zone defense of a squadron. No matter how strong Peter the Great's TARKR and the three Atlant missile cruisers are, the US Navy has 84 spacecraft equipped with long-range anti-aircraft systems.

Despite the terrible statements of the General Staff, the absolute majority of Russian ships are not capable of hitting tactical targets deep in the coast. In this sense, the only unique ship of the Russian Navy is the Dagestan patrol ship stationed in the Caspian Sea - it was the first to install a module from 8 launch cells for the Caliber family cruise missiles (similar to the American Tomahawk).

In the absence of real positive News, admirals engage in fantasy and shock the public with a statement about the sending of strategic submarine missile carriers to the South Pole of the Earth.


Russian SSBN Ave. 667BDRM

The strategic missile submarine cruiser (SSBN) is not intended for dashing round-the-world trips through NATO storms, reefs and anti-submarine barriers. Combat patrol looks much more prosaic - two hundred meters deep, five-node move, minimal noise. The entire SSBN campaign carefully writes out in the ice fog of the GXNUMX, hiding from anti-submarine aviation thick shell of arctic ice.

It is worth noting that all Russian 667BDRM, Sharks and Boreas are designed for seawater temperature close to 0 ° - leaks will open in the tropics and serious technical problems will begin. And why should they tropics? - The range of the Bulava and Sinevy allows you to cover the “likely enemy” right from the pier in Gremikha.
Finally, combat patrols of the SSBN in the Southern Hemisphere have no practical meaning. Who are you, dear admirals, gathered to punish with a "nuclear sword"? Unhappy Zimbabweans or New Yorkers?

And suddenly - like a bolt from the blue - a message about sending the Navy to the aid of the fighting Syria! Finally, the navy will take part in the present case.


Large landing craft project 775


A lot of surprise caused the squadron of the Russian Navy. The main part - the big landing ships. BDK - specific vehicles, completely defenseless in front of modern means of attack. They themselves need a reliable escort, which is usually absent. Then why are these ships included in the squadron? Is a landing operation planned in the port of Tartus? Of course, there is no mystery here: strong BDK Polish built - one of the few Navy ships who are able to get to the coast of Syria.

The decision to send the Navy to the Mediterranean Sea gave the most positive result. Despite the shortage of ships, the sailors brilliantly fulfilled their task - the Russian military presence did not go unnoticed by foreign politicians and the media. Noise grenade worked - the West abruptly restrained its ardor against Syria.

But every trip to the Arab-Israeli conflict zone is fraught with great risk. Unarmed BDK can at any moment be hit from the shore. In 2003, the Hezbollah fighters bought a batch of Chinese anti-ship missiles and sometimes entertained themselves by firing at the ships going far from the coast - it does not matter to them, this is a peaceful Egyptian long boat or Israeli corvette Hanit.


Damage to INS Hanit, 14 July 2006. Israel was lucky - a rocket hit the helipad.
The ship temporarily lost speed, the "total" 4 of the sailor died

What will happen if an Injee firefire hits the side of a crowded BDK? And who then will answer for this? Surely again that crank with golden epaulets, who in August 2000-th sweetly broadcast from television screens: “There is a connection with the crew of Kursk. Air is being supplied to the emergency submarine. ”
However, this is just a terrible tale. I am sure that our guys will get lucky and everyone will return home alive and unharmed.

***

It so happened that in the second half of the twentieth century, aviation, nuclear weapon and ballistic missiles seized most of the important functions from the Navy. Something the fleet was able to return (placing the SNF on submarines), but the general conclusion is disappointing - the whole surface component: powerful nuclear cruisers, aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates - all these ships lost their strategic "defensive" value. The navy has become a purely tactical tool to solve pressing problems.

This is easily seen by looking at the fleet of the most warring power in the world - numerous US Navy. With the exception of the Ohio 14 missile carriers, the entire US fleet is used exclusively to support ground forces in local wars. In total, the US Navy has two key functions:

1. Delivery of personnel, equipment, food and equipment to foreign shores (including covering transports at transoceanic crossings, trawling fairways, ensuring security of delivery and unloading at destination ports).

2. Fire support - a massive strike with high-precision cruise missiles on the first day of the war.

Having provided the transfer of thousands tanks to the Persian Gulf region and having “knocked out” Iraqi command posts, airfields and air defense systems with the help of the Tomahawks, American sailors can safely go home and “hang out” nights in taverns and nightclubs in Norfolk. They have nothing more to do in the war - then the Air Force and the Ground Forces decide everything.


The main one who goes to the left. In a combined-arms operation, the value of an aircraft carrier is negligible, but it would be impossible to wage a modern war without the help of Tomahawks.

If we consider the issue in a broader sense - the naval forces of various countries of the world perform dozens of other, less significant, but quite relevant tasks:

-Egis destroyers are included in the strategic missile defense system as mobile launch platforms for interceptor missiles. Alas, a major “problem” arises here: the flight of Russian ICBMs takes place along the shortest and most efficient route - through the North Pole. Those. for effective interception, destroyers should be placed in the middle of the Arctic ice, and this, as you understand, is unrealistic.

However, the Yankees know what to do - the Spacedard 3 interceptor missiles can be used to destroy enemy spy satellites and emergency spacecraft in low-Earth orbit. The interception is facilitated by the emergency mobility of the platform itself - the destroyer can take a position anywhere in the oceans.



- Protection of territorial waters. Violators, most often, are their own poachers, illegal migrants and drug couriers - work for boats and Coast Guard helicopters.

- Protection of overseas possessions. This graph is relevant only for the United States and the former colonial power of Great Britain - our country has no such territories.


Open covers of MK.41 UVP launchers on the American Orly Burk destroyer
In each of them hid "Tomahawk"

- Control of marine communications. A foggy concept, consonant with the terms "blockade", "deblokada", "isolation" ... Much depends on the country's position on the world map - for example, it is impossible to block Russia from the sea, because Russia's vital interests are in no way connected with the sea routes. It is no less difficult to imagine how China will block the United States from the sea or the Indian aircraft carrier Vikramaditya to go raiding the Atlantic. In this sense, the fleet lost its strategic function - a more reliable means appeared in its place - the “nuclear club”.

However, the concept of “blockade” is still relevant for a number of small players in the geopolitical arena. An example is the Israeli blockade of Gaza from the land and from the sea.

- The notorious "demonstration of the flag." The presence of a warship in any part of the ocean unambiguously hints that the state has its own interests here and is ready to protect them. However, everything is not easy here. The demonstration of power must be supported by political will and readiness to use this force. You need to be clear about your requirements and just as realistic to formulate your threats. Just to drive the cruiser to the shores of India or France, in the hope of "scaring" these countries, means throwing money away.


TFR "Fearless" on a long hike

- Special operations: ensuring the safety of navigation, covert surveillance of the coast, point landing of sabotage groups, search and rescue operations, delivery of humanitarian aid, the fight against maritime piracy ...

Sometimes as one of the most important functions of the Navy is called the task of "covering areas of combat patrols SSBN." In fact, this is a purely “disservice” - the underwater bomber does not need any help, and the ships and aircraft circling near it only unmask its position. In addition, in peacetime, it is impossible to prevent the flight of foreign anti-submarine aircraft in any way (unless they violated the airspace of the Russian Federation).

In the old days, the fight against strategic "city killers" was actual - alas, in our time it has become useless to put barriers in the way of submarines, modern missile carriers can launch missiles without leaving territorial waters.

***

What is the meaning of the existence of the modern Russian fleet, taking into account all the above circumstances? What is the most realistic scenario for the development of the Russian Navy? What does the Russian seafarers expect in the near future?

It is often said that the fleet should be well balanced. Correct, in its essence, the statement does not help in determining the future appearance of the Navy. The term “balanced fleet” merely means the compliance of the ship composition with the tasks facing the fleet. But what specific tasks facing the Russian Navy are not known even in the General Staff.

However, some conclusions can be made now:

The submarine component of the Russian Navy is one of the key elements of ensuring the sovereignty of our country and the most important factor of strategic nuclear deterrence. It is for these tasks that the Borey-type submarine cruisers are created - this is the basis of our fleet, its Main Task and the main purpose.

As for surface combat ships, let us be honest: despite the loud reassurances of the need for the emergence of "ocean combat groups" of the Russian Navy, no one is able to give a concrete answer: what role will these connections play and what tasks will be assigned to our sailors.

"We will fight in these waters, we have no others, and here we must make every effort, but try to solve this problem"

- Order of Admiral Essen on the Baltic Fleet

The glorious admiral well understood the limited capabilities of the Russian Navy, which are limited, first of all, by the geographical position of Russia. For a purely continental power, the fleet has never been a priority for the Armed Forces, usually performing auxiliary tasks on the flanks. In difficult times, Russian sailors preferred to sink their ships and fight the enemy on the coast - the fate of Russia was always decided on land.

Therefore, there is no point in taking an example from the US Navy or the Royal Navy of Great Britain. It is equally pointless to refer to the former glory of the USSR Navy - the Soviet Union had satellite allies and naval bases in both hemispheres of the Earth, the fleet served as a powerful link that allowed to link all the separate components into a single combat network. Now this, with all the desire, is not observed.



Following the precepts of Admiral Essen, tasks for sailors are always there - and recent events off the coast of Syria are a clear confirmation of this. The main thing is to try to clearly distinguish the functions of the Navy and build up power in the chosen direction.

First of all, a demonstration of the military presence in the zones where the state interests of Russia and foreign powers collide. Of course, for this purpose it is not bad to replace the BDK with more suitable means — for example, the upgraded heavy nuclear cruiser Orlan or the helicopter carrier Mistral. Despite their seeming uselessness, both ships have a formidable monumental appearance and solid dimensions - what is needed to display the St. Andrew’s flag. Escort - a pair of modern frigates or upgraded BOD.

Of course, there can be no question of conducting any wars far from home shores - for such operations, in addition to the Eagles and Mistral, hundreds of warships and support vessels are needed, which, of course, now there is no place to take. But you should not despair - Russian sailors are not faced with the task of “democratization” of countries on the other side of the Earth.

How all this will look in reality - time will tell, to make any accurate predictions about the future of the Russian Navy is completely ungrateful. As is known, in the Russian Navy they plan one thing, do another, and report the third. To understand what is actually happening is almost impossible.

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Bongo
    Bongo 18 June 2013 08: 42
    +3
    Weighted article, bold "+"
    1. ziqzaq
      ziqzaq 18 June 2013 10: 44
      +3
      Unclear article, left after reading an unpleasant aftertaste. The author somehow reasoned simplistically, although maybe this is the purpose of the article ???
      1. afire
        afire 18 June 2013 14: 30
        -2
        It seems to have dug deep, but the article does not leave a feeling of the surface of the article.
        Too one-sided: it’s good for them, it is bad for us. They can, we cannot.
        Minus because it’s impossible, with all our capabilities, we have ... People!
        People who do not need to be persuaded to defend their homeland - this is the first.
        The second - for demonstration, not such a large fleet is needed, for the Syrian missions the fleet does an excellent job, and this, I'm sorry, is the fighting! Well, who is brave to shoot boats? This is a sovereign state. And you need to be a dibil to cause a blow of his weapon on yourself.
        Third, Russia fought a little behind the cordon, where so many ships are needed - they are all on land, therefore, there wasn’t so much needed of the corresponding fleet, but they are always hunted for this, since they are cut off from everyone and this is their only fist, and against yus ship grouping, it is necessary to create a lethal non-swimming weapon - shot at - forgot = -1 100% (99.9%)
        1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Barabas
    Barabas 18 June 2013 08: 55
    -3
    for example, the modernized heavy nuclear-powered cruiser Orlan or the helicopter carrier Mistral. Despite their seeming futility, both ships have a formidable monumental appearance and solid dimensions - what is needed to demonstrate the St. Andrew flag.

    -can buy from the states a used aircraft carrier, raise a hefty flag on it and show it to the small ones!

    Of course, there can be no question of waging any wars away from their native coasts - for such operations, in addition to the Eagles and Mistral, hundreds of warships and support vessels are needed, which, naturally, nowhere to take from.

    -Well, the kid’s soup will be minced! Ne patriotic !! the local goals are different. LOAD Vigilance. And arm the army with inflatable mockups !!!!! crying
    1. Mairos
      Mairos 18 June 2013 10: 16
      0
      Do not be sarcastic, no one minuses him. And how do you know the goals of the "local" so confidently?
      1. old man54
        old man54 18 June 2013 11: 58
        +1
        Quote: Mairos
        Do not be sarcastic, no one minuses him. And how do you know the goals of the "local" so confidently?

        it was he who, after an article about sudden inspections of the Air Force, became so afraid that he would go to deep minuses! :) Very much with a mockery he commented on the current state of our Navy in it, so the guys made it clear to him that he wasn’t behaving like that. The truth is true, but no one has yet canceled tact and respect!
        1. Barabas
          Barabas 18 June 2013 12: 10
          +6
          I’m happy to leave in the red! But I won’t let the talkers calmly deceive the people!
          1. Constantine
            Constantine 18 June 2013 12: 40
            +1
            Are you talking to yourself? )) after so many comments, you still have not substantiated or reinforced any of your thesis at all. Well, perhaps with their conclusions, in the moment, very doubtful.
            1. Barabas
              Barabas 18 June 2013 13: 49
              +4
              no, I’m talking about people like you who sold an aircraft carrier to China for pennies, sold weapons-grade plutonium to the states, sold the secrets of bookmarks of the US embassy in Moscow, betrayed their compatriots everywhere around the world, betrayed their allies everywhere around the world, and finally all carriers I blame the stars on epaulets for betraying the people and breaking the oath !!!
              1. Constantine
                Constantine 18 June 2013 14: 13
                +5
                The charges must be substantiated. How am I involved in the sale of an aircraft carrier? What do I have to do with plutonium sales? In general, I am a believer and try to lead a righteous lifestyle, exposing evil whenever possible. Of course, it doesn’t always come out, but I try. You absolutely unreasonably and unreasonably attribute me to those people against whom I am ready to stand to death at any level and apply, if necessary, my entire resource, regardless of the proportionality of my actions.

                You played with words and for good should take your words back. Despite the fact that speech has moved to the plane of honor and dignity, I do not hold you angry because it’s not worthy in principle, and if you get lost, then you can’t be mad at you all the more. I ask you to continue to be careful in expressions and once again I ask you to justify your position, for the sake of your own good. The more you say without justifying your position, the more you discredit yourself in the first place. I know perfectly well and without you who I am and where I am going, but do you know about yourself what I know about myself - a question. Weigh what you say.
                1. rolik
                  rolik 18 June 2013 16: 24
                  +4
                  Quote: Constantine
                  The charges must be substantiated.

                  I repeat in a slightly different style:
                  -You have to answer for the bazaar bully
                  In general, the article just blows a thought, what for, we need a fleet.
                  It was especially interesting to read about the BDK to Syria. Because as follows from the article, there are simply no other ships and they send the BDK. This is of course interesting. And the fact that these BDKs can carry a certain load in themselves, for some reason, does not occur. And that these ships were under the guise of armed comrades, did not sound either.
                  And about boats aimed at the south pole of the planet - this is generally a song)))) Rather, the author confused the poles a little. Nothing happens.
                  1. Barabas
                    Barabas 18 June 2013 16: 31
                    -8
                    here it is gangster mug and got out!
                    come to me there is something to meet you!
                    1. rolik
                      rolik 18 June 2013 16: 56
                      0
                      Quote: Drum
                      here it is gangster mug and got out!

                      Here is a moron ..... sorry, insane))))) They say the truth:
                      - If God decides to punish someone, he deprives him of his mind.
                      Here it is providence and it happened, it was on this ...... man.
                    2. Setrac
                      Setrac 19 June 2013 03: 06
                      +1
                      Quote: Drum
                      here it is gangster mug and got out!
                      come to me there is something to meet you!

                      Yes, how many times have you come, your Moldova is like a courtyard, we know what you will meet and we know with what - bread, salt and other personal property, if only the "evil" Turks, Russians, Germans (to choose from) would not give the tinsel.
                    3. Asketxnumx
                      Asketxnumx 19 June 2013 09: 27
                      -1
                      Exactly! Anger, hatred, envy, stupidity climb out. Many of our ex have these diseases. But nothing is normal. The dog barks, and the caravan goes on. Our caravan.
                2. Barabas
                  Barabas 18 June 2013 16: 28
                  -4
                  What anathema? so I am free, and I don’t bear obligations to the cross!
                  1. Constantine
                    Constantine 18 June 2013 16: 56
                    +5
                    Well, as you wish. Hody is unreasonable. hi
                3. chaushevski
                  chaushevski 19 June 2013 22: 38
                  0
                  "You absolutely unreasonably and unreasonably attribute me to those people against whom I am ready to stand to death at any level and apply, if necessary, all my resources, regardless of the proportionality of my actions" well, where is your resistance, keyboard fighter)
              2. chaushevski
                chaushevski 19 June 2013 22: 37
                0
                here in kind said well catch +
        2. chaushevski
          chaushevski 19 June 2013 22: 36
          -2
          here you g * avnar
      2. Barabas
        Barabas 18 June 2013 12: 06
        -5
        read comments ... now a bunch of balloons, imagining themselves airships, will roll the author, quoting about two friends, the Army and the Navy.
        and goals, what goals! blabber problems! such in 41 convinced. that the German proletariat will begin to fraternize right on the border, well, maybe a little later.
        1. afire
          afire 18 June 2013 14: 49
          +5
          Barabas
      3. Constantine
        Constantine 18 June 2013 12: 10
        +5
        Judging by how the subject is noted in other topics, trolling here is his main task.
      4. Airman
        Airman 18 June 2013 15: 46
        +1
        Quote: Mairos
        Do not be sarcastic, no one minuses him. And how do you know the goals of the "local" so confidently?


        This is just a reflection of ALUMINUM, the author does not give an analysis of the current state of our fleet, and especially the development prospects. It seems so to him.
  3. avt
    avt 18 June 2013 09: 06
    +2
    “The composition of the squadron of the Russian Navy caused a lot of surprise. The main part is large landing ships. BDK - specific vehicles, completely defenseless against modern means of attack. "----- What is it not clear here? They carry out prosaic transportations which, under legal clues and just insolently, have recently been blocked for us by common people to carry goods with civilian vehicles. Well, the St. Andrew's flag is not an attack guarantee. It is clear to the most stupid spirit from the leadership, that in the event of a provocation, the answer will be received by ALL and sometimes ALTERNATIVE means. ”And seeing the clear position of the GDP that does not disagree with the deeds, no one yet rock the boat.
    1. little man
      little man 18 June 2013 10: 04
      +2
      A clear position of GDP in what exactly ??
      As you know, they plan one thing in the Russian Navy, do another, and report the third. It’s almost impossible to figure out what is actually happening. Most likely it is.
    2. Santa Fe
      18 June 2013 11: 55
      +5
      Quote: avt
      And seeing a clear position of GDP which does not differ from business

      Quote: avt
      Chegozh is not clear then? Perform prosaic transportation

      In 2007, Syria ordered 24 MiG-29 combat aircraft from Russia, but they have not yet been delivered, since international sanctions were imposed on the Bashar al-Assad regime. In connection with this, it was decided to sell part of them to other countries, for example, to Serbia.


      In the summer of 2012, Russia postponed the delivery of 20 Mi-25 combat helicopters to Syria until the "normalization of the situation" in the country. An informed source from Interfax then stated that Moscow was concerned about the aggravation of the situation in Syria and the military activity of the opposition, in which the Syrian authorities "cannot guarantee the safe acceptance of helicopters."



      "As for the S-300, this is really one of the best air defense systems in the world, if not the best. The best, probably. It is, of course, a serious weapon. We do not want to upset the balance in the region," the Interfax news agency quoted Putin as saying.


      On May 30, the website of the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar, affiliated with Hezbollah, announced that an interview with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will be broadcast on Al-Manar and on Syrian TV, in which he, in particular, will announce the receipt of Russia's first batch of S-300. But Assad did not make such statements.

      Syria has a lot of Iskander complexes, T-90 tanks and other modern systems? The fact is obvious: Assad is fighting with outdated weapons, with those that were set back in the USSR and in the 1990s. The only exception is Shell C1, but they were delivered legally from 2008 to 2011 - as soon as international sanctions were introduced, the supply of SPRAK was turned off

      So you can tell tales about "secret transportation" of military aid to Assad on the BOD in kindergarten. Maximum - they brought two zinc cartridges and a package of aspirin
      Quote: avt
      prosaic transportations which, under legal clues and just impudently blocked us, have recently been carried by human beings by civilian transport

      "As for Russian supplies, let me remind you that Russian arms supplies to Syria are carried out on the basis of transparent internationally recognized contracts. They do not violate any international provisions. And they are carried out exclusively and entirely within the framework of international law," Putin said.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 18 June 2013 13: 01
        +1
        SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Yeah, well, for sure, on transports against aircraft carriers. It’s not funny for yourself?
        Of course, carry. And what can be transported to Syria on warships? Of course, a weapon. And, it is clear that no one will seriously talk about this. But Assad would still have to keep his mouth shut. Let them think that he has only the old T-72 and C-200.
      2. avt
        avt 18 June 2013 13: 31
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Syria has a lot of Iskander complexes, T-90 tanks and other modern systems? The fact is obvious: Assad is fighting with outdated weapons, with those that were set back in the USSR and in the 1990s. The only exception is Shell C1, but they were delivered legally from 2008 to 2011 - as soon as international sanctions were introduced, the supply of SPRAK was turned off

        And what's actually reprehensible? Well, they get that weapon with which they have long been familiar and trained to handle, as well as spare parts for the equipment that is. Vaughn and Najib in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq were left without spare parts, so what? The spirits entered Kabul on foot, while the Iraqis buried the planes in the sand and sold Saddam for a fraction of the price. Everything is going smoothly so far, they do not tease the geese with special "status" species, leaving room for diplomatic bargaining and do not leave without help, but what is being supplied, so, by and large, it should not be especially advertised. So there is no need to make much noise and demand, it is desirable to actually do what he said on time or in a timely manner.
        1. Constantine
          Constantine 18 June 2013 14: 18
          +3
          The man forgot to mention that at a critical moment, the supply of anti-ship complexes to Syria saved it and covered it from the sea. I forgot that the appearance of "Moscow" with, according to unofficial data, special. combat units to the main armament, greatly cooled the ardor of the "Western partners". The commentator forgot that the appearance of the Russian fleet relieved tension in relation to the 6th US fleet, which, apparently, decided not to go to the bank at that time. Much of what was delivered to Syria, we will never know because brought it on warships and under the guise of exercises. The author forgot a lot.
          1. Santa Fe
            18 June 2013 14: 52
            0
            Quote: Constantine
            at a critical moment, the supply of anti-ship systems to Syria saved her and covered her from the sea

            yes, this is a strong argument))))

            Syria is a purely continental country surrounded on three sides:
            - Turkey (US satellite)
            - Iraq (US colony)
            - Israel (also good)

            In such conditions, a short coastline <150 km long does not play any role.
            Quote: Constantine
            the emergence of "Moscow" with, according to unofficial data, special. combat units to the main armament, greatly cooled the ardor of the "Western partners"

            very funny

            ... exercises of the Russian Navy from 19 on 29 of January in the waters of the Black and Mediterranean Seas, took place on January 31 aboard the guards missile cruiser Moskva, which arrived at the port of Limassol (Cyprus) the day before.

            Syrian army command stated 30 Januarythat Israeli aviation struck a military research center in Damascus.
            Quote: Constantine
            The author has forgotten a lot of things.

            And it would be nice for you to learn geography

            Where do you think the main threat comes from? From the Mediterranean?
            Or the main supplies of the American army go through the Persian Gulf and, then, through the Syrian-Iraqi border?
            Cruiser "Moskva" weakly block the Persian Gulf ??
            1. old man54
              old man54 18 June 2013 15: 05
              +3
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              [
              Syria is a purely continental country surrounded on three sides:
              - Turkey (US satellite)
              - Iraq (US colony)
              - Israel (also good)

              In such conditions, a short coastline <150 km long does not play any role.

              and here is your lie, Oleg !! Poland, a sample of 1920, is a "purely continental" country, or not? :)) access to the Baltic Sea somewhere in the size of today's Syria, or thereabouts. But it was through this "window" that England, at a critical moment of the war with the USSR, when Warsaw was surrounded by it, began to supply weapons to Poland, which would take a very long time for Pilsudski to arm the newly formed reserves and strike into the rear of Tukhachevsky's army. So, does the 150 km coast play a role in the war or not? :)))
              1. Santa Fe
                18 June 2013 15: 19
                +1
                Quote: old man54
                Poland, model 1920

                Poland sample 1920 - this is not Syria 2012

                In Syria there are more convenient ways of delivering weapons or passage of the American army - through Iraq or Turkey
                1. Constantine
                  Constantine 18 June 2013 15: 31
                  +2
                  AUG just do not drive. There is always a reason.
                2. old man54
                  old man54 18 June 2013 17: 01
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                  Poland sample 1920 - this is not Syria 2012

                  I'm talking about the similarity of the coast and its access to the sea, that there is the possibility of free access to the Union countries and getting help from them, regardless of the opinion of other neighboring countries. You said above that 150 km of the seashore doesn’t solve anything, I gave you an example that sometimes they decide, and even a lot.
                  In Syria there are more convenient ways of delivering weapons or passage of the American army - through Iraq or Turkey

                  Well, these paths are convenient for the "democratizers", and for the legitimate government there is 150 km of the Mediterranean Sea. I'm actually talking about this.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    18 June 2013 20: 29
                    +3
                    Quote: old man54
                    I'm talking about the similarity of the size of the coast and its access to the sea, that there is the possibility of free access to the Union countries and getting help from them, regardless of the opinion of other neighboring countries

                    Initially, it was not about help but about a military invasion (the comrade argued that the supply of coastal complexes to Syria from the anti-ship missiles "cooled the ardor of the West" - the anti-ship missiles could not "cool off the ardor of the west" in any way, because the invasion would be from the land side)
                    Quote: old man54
                    You said above that 150 km of the seashore doesn’t solve anything, I gave you an example that sometimes they decide, and even a lot.

                    Sometimes a stream can become a strategically important route ("the road of life" - Lake Ladoga)
                    But in this case, NATO does not care whether Syria has access to the sea and RCC or not - the war will begin on the part of Turkey, Iraq and, probably, Israel
                    1. Constantine
                      Constantine 18 June 2013 21: 06
                      +1
                      Are you so privy to the plans of the West that you can reliably assert that they did not initially want to take Syria in "ticks" from the sea and from land? They did not want to support the land offensive with volleys of tomahawks, cut off the possibility of supplying aid by sea, etc.

                      All that you give out here are the same conclusions as mine. I see no reason to believe that you are right, but I do not, as well as vice versa. Offensive plans are the strictest secret that neither I nor you know, and you can argue accordingly only within the framework of logic. I justified my position, you justified your own, and only time will judge us.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        19 June 2013 00: 23
                        +1
                        Quote: Constantine
                        Are you so privy to the plans of the West that you can reliably assert that they did not initially want to take Syria in "ticks" from the sea and from land?

                        We have seen enough of their strategy: Vietnam, two wars in the bay.
                        НАТО always begins the invasion from the land, which is logical - the tanks can not walk on water.
                        Quote: Constantine
                        initially take Syria in "ticks" from the sea and from the land?

                        attend geography lessons and don't write nonsense anymore

                        "Ticks" will be from Turkey and Iraq
                        Optional - Israel and Jordan
                      2. Constantine
                        Constantine 19 June 2013 01: 19
                        +1
                        With all due respect, arguing with you is how to play chess with a pigeon. Think what you want - your right. I expressed my opinion.
                      3. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 20 June 2013 15: 33
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Optional - Israel and Jordan

                        I wonder why American troops are stationed in Jordan and not in Israel. Maybe just staying there is cheaper?
                        Of course, for this purpose it’s nice to replace the BDK with more suitable means - for example, the modernized heavy nuclear cruiser Orlan or the helicopter carrier Mistral. Despite their seeming futility, both ships have a formidable monumental appearance and solid dimensions - what is needed to demonstrate the St. Andrew flag. Escort is a pair of modern frigates or modernized BODs.
                        And if this company included two modernized nuclear submarines of pr.941 "Akula", where each would have 250 cruise missiles on board, then there would be no smiles at the Russian fleet. As a last resort, if scientific thought in Russia is not able to modernize it for cruise missiles, then mine layers can be made of them. But the Vtormetovskie lobby in Russia is clearly stronger than the Navy.
                      4. chunga-changa
                        chunga-changa 22 June 2013 18: 32
                        0
                        Saturn no longer pour.
        2. Constantine
          Constantine 18 June 2013 15: 29
          +3
          Geography is all right. From the ships on the beach they shoot, and the bridgehead under the cover of the fleet, no matter how narrow it would be, is still a bridgehead. + This is not about shooting over the horizon with Yakhont rockets from the Bastion complex. In itself, the missile is a danger to the AUG due to its characteristics + launchers for the Syrians are mobile, not stationary.

          Anyway, these actions cooled the ardor of the Americans, that there is a consequence, which has certain reasons. You can interpret the situation as you want, but what happened was what happened and it led to the results that it led to.
  4. postman
    postman 18 June 2013 20: 08
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Syria has a lot of Iskander complexes, T-90 tanks and other modern systems? The fact is obvious: Assad is fighting with outdated weapons, with those that were set back in the USSR and in the 1990s. The only exception is

    Man, why are you doing this?
    And the "rebels" (opposition) in Syria are armed with M1A2, F-15E, F-16, Tomahawks, Appaches and Patriots? Laser rifles and compact YAZ?
    The army (full-fledged) of not the last state (Algeria has a thread on it) in the region is fighting against ... WHO? Armed with what?
    Well, yes, it’s lower there: deliveries via the Iraq / Syria border, Turkey / Syria, etc.
    Are there any facts?
    Does the embargo only affect the Russian Federation?
    ?
    Something somehow does not fit
    1. Santa Fe
      18 June 2013 20: 43
      +1
      Quote: Postman
      And the "rebels" (opposition) in Syria are armed with M1A2, F-15E, F-16, Tomahawks, Appaches and Patriots? Laser rifles and compact YAZ?

      Someone signed a contract with the Syrian appendix for the supply of M1A2 F-16 or, at least, MiG-29, Mi-25, Shell and S-300 ???

      "The contract was signed several years ago. It has not yet been implemented," Putin said on Tuesday at a press conference after the Russia-EU summit.

      "As for the S-300, this is indeed one of the best air defense systems in the world, if not the best. The best, probably. It is, of course, a serious weapon. We do not want to upset the balance in the region," the Interfax news agency quoted Putin as saying.
      1. postman
        postman 18 June 2013 22: 11
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Someone signed a contract with the Syrian appendix for the supply of M1A2 F-16 or, at least, MiG-29, Mi-25, Shell and S-300 ???

        no no..
        I'm not talking about that.
        you write: "The fact is obvious: Assad fighting obsolete weapon "
        Question: with whom (fighting)?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

        "The contract was signed several years ago. It has not been implemented yet,"

        I do not know if Syria paid for past deliveries. Rather, I'm sure not.
        May be enough?
        And will the S-300, T-90, MIG and SU save?
        / we ourselves are missing /
  5. Gromila78
    Gromila78 18 June 2013 21: 07
    +2
    Dear Oleg, after several of your articles about the Russian Navy and the Navy of foreign states, I would like to ask a question: Your knowledge is based on higher military education or watching films like "Sea Battle" and cartoons like "Ghost Ship". No offense.
  • Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 18 June 2013 19: 53
    +3
    Another thing killed me - "It is worth noting that all Russian 667BDRMs," Sharks "and" Boreis "are structurally designed for an outboard water temperature close to 0 ° - in the tropics, boats will leak and serious technical malfunctions will begin."

    According to the author, are all our ships trough? It sounds crazy.
    1. Gromila78
      Gromila78 18 June 2013 22: 09
      +4
      Here Oleg almost guessed, but a little in the wrong steppe. The fact is that (as far as I remember) we have GOST temperature of 15 degrees, and pind-s of 25, so our ships are more designed for low temperatures, but leaks do not open, and problems begin with cooling EC and other technical means. On the other hand, look at the original Mistral - there’s not even a ramp up to the top of the docking chamber, imagine what’s going to be on the SF in winter laughing
      1. postman
        postman 19 June 2013 01: 38
        +1
        Quote: Gromila78
        The fact is that (as far as I remember) GOST temperature we have is 15 degrees, and for pind-s 25

        Eeeee.
        You mean
        GOST 15150-69. Execution for various climatic areas
        ?
        1. This is "Versions for different climates areas", ie for land and aviation, surface ships, and not submarines
        2. Even Products in versions U and UHL can operate in warm, humid, hot dry and very hot dry climatic regions according to GOST 16350, in which the average of the annual absolute maximums is air temperature above 40 ° C and (or) a combination of temperature equal to or higher than 20 ° C and relative humidity equal to or above 80%, observed more than 12 hours a day for a continuous period of more than two months a year
        3. Quite the contrary: for a macroclimatic region with a tropical marine climate, including for coastal vessels or others intended for navigation only in this area-TM, i.e. for the tropics cannot be used in the north
        but everything else:
        For macroclimatic regions with both a moderately cold and tropical marine climate, including vessels of an unlimited navigation area-OM
        Products intended for use in all macroclimatic regions on land and at sea, except for the macroclimatic region with a very cold climate (all-climatic modification) -B
        Very even without any leaks. Confused Oleg
  • ZIV
    ZIV 18 June 2013 09: 41
    +6
    It is worth noting that all Russian 667BDRM, Sharks and Boreas are structurally designed for sea water temperature close to 0 ° - leaks will open in the tropics on boats and serious technical problems will begin.


    Rave!!! However, like most of the article.
    1. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 18 June 2013 13: 16
      +4
      I agree - complete nonsense. Is the putty melted? Plus this one:
      Combat patrols look much more prosaic - two hundred meters deep, five-node move, minimal noise. The SSBN’s entire expedition carefully writes out in the ice of the G8, hiding from anti-submarine aircraft with a thick shell of Arctic ice.
      Dear Oleg, depth 60 meters, speed 5-6 knots. And "hiding behind anti-submarine aircraft with a thick shell of Arctic ice" began only in the 80s, but still this is more the exception than the rule.
      1. Santa Fe
        18 June 2013 13: 53
        +1
        Quote: Old_Kapitan
        And "hiding behind anti-submarine aircraft with a thick shell of Arctic ice" began only in the 80s

        Started, then good))

        we do not take into account obsolete and retired R-27s with a range of 3000 km - we are talking about an SSBN with modern SLBMs
        1. Old_kapitan
          Old_kapitan 18 June 2013 15: 25
          +2
          We not only started well, we also broke the ice with the hull and fired rockets.


          1. old man54
            old man54 18 June 2013 17: 05
            0
            But how did a man with a ruler get out of the boat through the ice? The cabin is all in ice! :)))
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 18 June 2013 17: 09
              +1
              Quote: old man54
              But how did a man with a ruler get out of the boat through the ice? The cabin is all in ice! :)))
              Normally got out. The VRL is located not on top of the cabin, but inside it. There to the roof of the cabin even more than 2 meters. And there are enough holes in it to get out wink
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 18 June 2013 16: 10
        +1
        Quote: Old_Kapitan
        And "hiding behind anti-submarine aircraft with a thick shell of Arctic ice" began only in the 80s, but still this is more the exception than the rule.

        This became the rule already in the 80s. And 200 m patrol depths have become common.

        But what should be changed in the article is the signature of the very first photograph. Both sides of the 667 project, but obviously not only not BDRM, but even not BDR. Believe the one who served on both. Here is the BDRM winked
        1. Santa Fe
          18 June 2013 16: 37
          0
          Quote: Misantrop
          that’s what the article NECESSARY to change is the signature of the very first photograph. Both sides of the 667 project, but obviously not only not BDRM, but even not BDR

          Thanks for the addition, by the way, you posted this photo a week ago)))
          I had to ask you right away
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 18 June 2013 17: 12
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Thanks for the addition, by the way, you posted this picture a week ago)))
            Seriously? Well, I like it, even though my steamer is not on it. And here is mine winked
        2. Old_kapitan
          Old_kapitan 18 June 2013 20: 10
          +1
          so this is the signature of the very first photo

          Left 667A, right 667B. I served on the "beech". And a man with a ruler near the "bukahi" - SSBN K-447
      3. rolik
        rolik 18 June 2013 17: 22
        0
        Quote: Old_Kapitan
        Dear Oleg, the depth is 60 meters, the speed is 5-6 knots.

        Forgot to mention about "Mad Ivan". A very interesting maneuver.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 June 2013 18: 37
          +2
          Quote: rolik
          Forgot to mention about "Mad Ivan". A very interesting maneuver.

          He lost relevance with the advent of towed CEOs.
    2. mark7
      mark7 18 June 2013 20: 31
      0
      yes, as in the movie "the boss was all gone, etc." the article put a minus, the new minister did not wind up his tails at the shipyard for nothing
  • Zhuchok
    Zhuchok 18 June 2013 09: 50
    +4
    The answer to the question in the title of the article "Why does Russia need a fleet?" very simple: a fleet is needed insofar as potential adversaries of Russia have one. It is needed not to compete with them across the globe, but to defend its territory. A very good article by K.V. Sivkov on the significance of the Pacific Fleet: http://akademiagp.ru/kto-pravit-na-more-tot-pravit-i-na-sushe/. There is no question of building an expensive fleet, but the point is that it is necessary to have a fleet that can withstand a naval conflict near our borders and inflict maximum damage on the enemy. How will we, not having a sufficient composition of surface forces, defend against an enemy who has a strong surface fleet, for example, Japan? And the Americans will also come to the aid of the Japanese. Yes, we do not need aircraft carriers at this stage, it is probably cheaper to build ground airfields for naval missile-carrying aviation. But a sufficient number of versatile modern surface ships - missile destroyers, missile frigates and submarines - must be available, especially in the Far East, since there is now the most dangerous situation there.
    1. Santa Fe
      18 June 2013 12: 18
      0
      Quote: Zhuchok
      and to protect their territory

      enough for coastal aviation to protect the 12 mile zone
      Quote: Zhuchok
      able to survive in a naval clash at our borders

      who are you going to fight with?
      Quote: Zhuchok
      And the Americans will also come to the aid of the Japanese

      Then all tryndets
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 18 June 2013 13: 05
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        enough for coastal aviation to protect the 12 mile zone


        And you can’t recall how the amers rolled Japanese land aircraft on the Pacific islands?
        Any defensive system must be balanced.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 June 2013 13: 21
          0
          Quote: alicante11
          And you can’t recall how the amers rolled Japanese land aircraft on the Pacific islands?

          What are you getting at?
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 18 June 2013 15: 19
            0
            Yes, everything is simple. Amers will roll out our aircraft from their ABs, as well as Japanese at the time. Defense must be balanced.
            1. Santa Fe
              18 June 2013 15: 45
              +1
              Quote: alicante11
              Amers roll out our aircraft

              And get the Mace straight to Washington

              To attack a nuclear power is not to bomb Iraq
              Quote: alicante11
              Aviation from its AB, as well as Japanese at the time

              Judging by this statement, you have no idea about those events.
              Quote: alicante11
              Defense must be balanced.

              Do you need paddle galleys?))) Airships? Chariots? Perhaps come in handy ...
              1. alicante11
                alicante11 18 June 2013 16: 15
                +1
                You see, what a deal.
                Waving the Mace once again is not advisable. Since after its application the fleet will have no one to defend. Therefore, in the event of a conflict, it would be good, nevertheless, to repel it with conventional weapons. This is the first.
                The second one. For example, Russia is being attacked by Japan, South Korea, Iran, Turkey, Poland, Sweden, Finelandia, and Norway. Perhaps their use of American ships and aircraft. Will we also wave the Mace? And what does the rest of the world have to do with it, to which the krants will come out anyway?

                Judging by this statement, you have no idea about those events.


                I'm afraid that you have no idea of ​​those events, my dear.
                Maybe enlighten how Japanese coastal aircraft drowned American aircraft carriers on 10 in an hour?

                Do you need paddle galleys?))) Airships? Chariots? Perhaps come in handy ...


                Trolllo.
                1. Santa Fe
                  18 June 2013 16: 53
                  +1
                  Quote: alicante11
                  Waving the Mace once again is not advisable. Since after its use the fleet will have no one to protect

                  Naturally))
                  Therefore, the Yankees do not even dream of fighting with nuclear powers - the risk of receiving a deafening response is too high
                  Quote: alicante11
                  Japan, South Korea, Iran, Turkey, Poland, Sweden, Fineland, Norway

                  All will decide the Air Force and Ground Forces
                  river IAC and air force in the Caspian will deal with Iran
                  South Korea will not attack, for it is not impossible unographically

                  Every time the Navy will have nothing to do with it
                  Quote: alicante11
                  Maybe enlighten how Japanese coastal aircraft drowned American aircraft carriers on 10 in an hour?

                  Oh, it was a terrible battle at Okinawa
                  The Yankees had 1000 warships, including up to 50 aircraft carriers
                  A week later, about 20 aircraft carriers of the US Navy were damaged by kamikaze aircraft flying from coastal bases.

                  The entire wing of the Bunker Hill burned down and more than 400 people died, but the Franklin was especially badly damaged (pictured)

                  ps / Do the names "Repals" and the battleship "Prince of Wells" say anything?

                  pps / This time you drove off. Learn history, otherwise they will laugh at you

                  Quote: alicante11
                  How did Japanese coastal aircraft sink American aircraft carriers at 10 per hour?

                  laughing
                  1. Gromila78
                    Gromila78 18 June 2013 22: 17
                    0
                    That is, you want to say that the amers to Okinawa should have been sent not by aircraft carriers, but by Patton tanks laughing
                    1. Santa Fe
                      19 June 2013 00: 30
                      +1
                      Quote: Gromila78
                      That is, you want to say that the amers to Okinawa should have been sent not by aircraft carriers, but by Patton tanks

                      WWII aircraft carriers were useful machines, though with specific properties and limitations

                      Well, where without tanks Patton
                      Check out the scale of the landing in Okinawa
                  2. alicante11
                    alicante11 19 June 2013 01: 10
                    -1
                    Naturally))
                    Therefore, the Yankees do not even dream of fighting with nuclear powers - the risk of receiving a deafening response is too high


                    What are they dreaming about, you hardly know. Still, not a medium, I guess. And the medium does not always know what is on the mind of a mad dog. The sun must defend, not destroy its people, albeit simultaneously with the enemy. The more the Mace swings, the more chances it will ever have to use.

                    Every time the Navy will have nothing to do with it


                    Well, if you think that we have several thousand extra planes and a couple of hundred extra divisions, then of course. You probably did not understand the example of the vulnerability of troops between the World Cup and CaspM. Moreover, the fleets are just the best protected from exposure to air.

                    Oh, it was a terrible battle at Okinawa


                    And you will deny that the Americans won it? And even one of their AB died?

                    ps / Do the names "Repals" and the battleship "Prince of Wells" say anything?


                    And for some reason, I knew that you would raise this battle. However, do not recall how many aircraft carriers were in this English formation?
                    I can remind you of the Japanese raid on British bases in Ceylon, if you're interested. Well, Pearl Harbor is somehow not convenient to use as an example. But the Battle of the Philippine Islands, in which the Taiho was killed, fits very well into this list, since the Japanese also hoped for land based aviation there. But in the end, AB with half-trained air groups found themselves face to face with the superior forces of amers. Since the ground aircraft was destroyed during the battles over airfields in advance.

                    pps / This time you drove off. Learn history, otherwise they will laugh at you


                    I’m afraid that they will still laugh at you. Attach the sinking of the POU and Ripals into the conversation about the destruction of ground aviation by aircraft carriers. It’s not just funny, it’s, excuse me, a clowning. if not trolling.
                    And the picture shows 10 sunk AV in an hour? Maybe I should buy glasses? I see only one.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      19 June 2013 02: 51
                      +1
                      Quote: alicante11
                      Moreover, the fleets are just the best protected from exposure to air.

                      But poorly protected from exposure from under water)))
                      Quote: alicante11
                      And you will deny that the Americans won it?

                      The Allied fleet off the coast of Okinawa consisted of 1 ships. Among them, 600 aircraft carriers, 40 battleships, 18 cruisers and 32 destroyers. - it would be a shame not to win
                      Quote: alicante11
                      And even one of their AB died?

                      For all the days of the battles, 368 allied ships (including landing craft) were damaged, another 36 (including 15 landing ships and 12 destroyers) were sunk.

                      About aircraft carriers, ask the crew of the strike AB "Bunker Hill" on which 80 aircraft and 400 crew members were burned

                      Okinawa, May 11, 1945 Bunker Hill Burns Burning

                      Quote: alicante11
                      However, do not recall how many aircraft carriers were in this English formation?

                      there was "Hermes" on Ceylon - did it help a lot?)))
                      Quote: alicante11
                      here is the Battle of the Philippine Islands, in which "Taiho" died

                      What does "Taiho" have to do with it? it was scored by the submarine Cavella
                      Quote: alicante11
                      Since land aviation was destroyed in the course of battles over airfields in advance.

                      Did you know that most Amer aircraft in the Pacific were based on island ersatz airfields?
                      After aoina, Yankee had a hard time for TWO YEARS. what to collect people and equipment from countless islands and atolls (operation "magic carpet")

                      In the end, what are you trying to prove? That land aviation is weaker than deck aviation?)) It all depends on how the patrol is organized and whether there is an early warning of danger.
                      In Pearl Harbor, the Japs walked along the "razor's edge" because were discovered long before the attack - the Daponians were saved only by the stupidity and carelessness of the Yankees
                      Quote: alicante11
                      And the picture shows 10 sunk AV in an hour? Maybe I should buy glasses? I see only one.

                      You jerk because you have nothing to say in essence. It looks sorry
                      1. alicante11
                        alicante11 19 June 2013 08: 17
                        0
                        But poorly protected from exposure from under water)))


                        PLO has not yet been canceled. This is "one". Moreover, it is especially dangerous for attacking submarines, unlike SSBNs. Second, submarines have never won wars. Two attempts by the Germans failed miserably. Why do you think that something will change now? And third, no one is going to give up the PL. Below there are my posts, where I have described what ships our fleets should consist of. PLs are not forgotten anywhere. No diesel-electric submarines, no multipurpose nuclear submarines.

                        The Allied fleet off the coast of Okinawa consisted of 1 600 ships. Among them are 40 aircraft carriers, 18 battleships, 32 cruisers and 200 destroyers. - it would be a shame not to win


                        And what will prevent the Amers from concentrating such forces against one of our groups now? In the event of war, the Russian Federation will now be in the position of the Japanese at the end of WWII.
                        Those. victory amers you do not deny? Thank God. And there are always losses in war.

                        there was "Hermes" on Ceylon - did it help a lot?)))


                        Which was not a single fighter. And how could he help? In addition, it was used very ineptly. Instead of attacking Japanese ABs with swordfish under the guise of coastal fighter aircraft, he flew with the rest of the English fleet.

                        What does "Taiho" have to do with it? it was scored by the submarine Cavella


                        Yes Taiho nothing to do with. I just thought that I could have incorrectly indicated the name of the battle. I’m writing from memory. It was about the fact that the amers destroyed the Japanese coastal aviation, which was supposed to level their superiority over Japanese aircraft carrier aviation.

                        Did you know that most Amer aircraft in the Pacific were based on island ersatz airfields?


                        And you do not confuse with the Japanese? This is precisely how aviation was scattered about them. As a result, amers aircraft carrier groups destroyed Japanese airfields individually. Amers from land had a lot of aircraft. But basically they acted in the last stages of the war, when they actually bombed Japan. But how many amers lost planes on Guadalcanal when they acted from the coastal airfield against the Japanese fleet - this is not an advertisement for land aviation.

                        In the end, what are you trying to prove? What land aviation is weaker than deck?))


                        I am trying to prove that defense must be balanced. And include both land and sea components. That's all.

                        You jerk because you have nothing to say in essence. It looks sorry


                        I answer all your questions. You started to laugh. So that ...
                        But this is the second time you are trying to silence me with "funny" and "pathetic" - probably, too, there are not enough arguments.
                      2. Santa Fe
                        19 June 2013 15: 03
                        +1
                        Quote: alicante11
                        Secondly, the wars were never won by submarines. Two attempts by the Germans failed miserably.

                        Look at the number of forces involved to suppress the underwater flocks of Grand Admiral Doenitz. It's not about the submarines, but the multiple numerical superiority of the Allies + hacked Enigma codes
                        Quote: alicante11
                        PLO has not yet been canceled.

                        During WWII Kriegsmarine lost 783 submarines
                        The Allies lost 2600 ships and vessels, tonnage 13 million tons
                        among the victims: aircraft carriers Eagle, Ark Royal, Korejdes, battleships Barham and Royal Oak, cruiser Edinburgh with a load of gold ...

                        And these are pathetic pelvis that spent 90% of the time on the surface !!
                        Quote: alicante11
                        And what will prevent the Amers from concentrating such forces against one of our groups now?

                        Russian strategic nuclear forces
                        Quote: alicante11
                        And there are always losses in war.

                        Those. there are no more questions in Okinawa?))
                        And then first - "guard !! US Navy carrier-based aviation spreads land airfields"))))
                        Quote: alicante11
                        Yes Taiho nothing to do with

                        Not just Taiho. IT on the Pacific from the submarines killed the heavy aircraft carriers Sekaku and Shinano, the American Wasp and the damaged Yorktown by then
                        Quote: alicante11
                        And you do not confuse with the Japanese? It’s just that they had aviation so scattered

                        No.
                        Operation Magic Carpet was carried out for a reason. Collected 3 million Americans scattered around the islands in the Pacific Ocean.
                        Quote: alicante11
                        But basically they acted in the last stages of the war, when they actually bombed Japan

                        Nothing like this. See attached photo
                        Quote: alicante11
                        But how many amers lost planes on Guadalcanal when they acted from the coastal airfield against the Japanese fleet

                        This indicates the low training of the Yankees pilots, and nothing more

                        about "balance", there is such an axiom - when the enemy has multiple numerical superiority, it is preferable to bury himself underground, be covered with armor and concrete, or hide under water.

                        At the end of the war, the Japanese tried to use aircraft carriers against the Yankees, but they died before even reaching the DB zone. In contrast to submarines - the largest loss of the US Navy in terms of casualties: the cruiser "Indianapolis", sunk by submarine I-58 on August 16, 1945
                      3. alicante11
                        alicante11 19 June 2013 15: 58
                        0
                        Look at the number of forces involved to suppress the underwater flocks of Grand Admiral Doenitz. It's not about the submarines, but the multiple numerical superiority of the Allies + hacked Enigma codes


                        So you are not trying to understand that no one is stopping the Amers and our other well-wishers from setting up as many PLO corvettes as the Angles set up drifters in PMV and frigates Amers and Angla in DVD / If we don’t have another fleet other than submarines, then they will not need to spend money on counteracting it. And they will throw all their strength into the construction of PLO ships. After all, on the same Doenitz got burned. And "enigma has nothing to do with it." They were caught by aerial reconnaissance when they were recharging the batteries. Incl. and using radars later.

                        During WWII Kriegsmarine lost 783 submarines


                        You do not understand? The end result is important. Emden, too, sank the ships of the Allies more than he himself cost. But did this help the Kaiserflot?

                        Russian strategic nuclear forces


                        SNF is an ultima rater. I have already spoken about this. After their application, the Russian fleet will definitely not be needed, no more.

                        Those. there are no more questions in Okinawa?))
                        And then first - "guard !! US Navy carrier-based aviation spreads land airfields"))))


                        Of course flattened without the help of the fleet. Stopudovo. And Okinawa confirmed it well. Because the amers were able to concentrate SUCH forces due to the fact that there was no need to oppose the Japanese fleet, which actually eliminated due to losses and lack of fuel. It will be the same with us if we do not have a fleet.

                        Not just Taiho. IT on the Pacific from the submarines killed the heavy aircraft carriers Sekaku and Shinano, the American Wasp and the damaged Yorktown by then


                        And did this somehow strategically affect the situation, or at least on an operational scale?

                        No.
                        Operation Magic Carpet was carried out for a reason. Collected 3 million Americans scattered around the islands in the Pacific Ocean.


                        So this, you probably are not aware that the amers deployed during WWII on the islands a huge number of rear units that were engaged in providing military operations for strike groups. They were engaged in logistics so that the advanced troops did not feel any infringement. Amer do not like to deny anything to themselves. In general, this operation is really quite instructive. but I’m afraid it would be too wasteful for us.

                        Nothing like this. See attached photo


                        And what is in this photo? What is this island? What time? If you want to confirm your words, then upload summary data. What islands and how many aircraft were based and at what time? Or links to research. Because one photo is one basing fact, which may well be an exception. Or it can be a Japanese airfield, used for any purpose, for example, to distill aircraft as a jump airfield.
                      4. Santa Fe
                        19 June 2013 17: 12
                        0
                        Quote: alicante11
                        And they will put all their strength into the construction of PLO ships. Indeed, on the same Doenitz was burnt.

                        Doenitz burned out due to US industry
                        the Yankees built 2 warships and 3 transports DAILY
                        During the war years, the States threshed planes, more than the Reich, Japan and the Soviet Union combined - in such circumstances, the axis was doomed
                        Quote: alicante11
                        SNF is an ultima rater. I have already spoken about this. After their application, the Russian fleet will definitely not be needed, no more.

                        The Yankees are bombing Russian cities, there is a war to destroy all living things - as it was on Okinawa ... not to sit idly by. Let Poplar and Mace fly, visit Washington
                        And it's a shame to die just like that ... right?

                        The Yankees will not "concentrate forces" and "bomb Russia", and we will not touch their aircraft carriers - as long as the strategic nuclear forces exist
                        Quote: alicante11
                        Because amers were able to concentrate such forces due to the fact that there was no need to oppose the Japanese fleet

                        Because the Yankees built 160 aircraft carriers and 850 destroyers during the war years))) AMERICA INDUSTRY WINS WAR
                        Quote: alicante11
                        And Okinawa confirmed it well.

                        So what did Okinawa confirm?
                        What, even with 10 superiority, did the Yankees suffer huge losses from coastal air strikes?
                        Quote: alicante11
                        So this, you probably are not aware that amers deployed a huge number of rear divisions on the islands during WWII

                        And on every island there was an airfield
                        Quote: alicante11
                        If you want to confirm your words, then upload summary data. What islands and how many aircraft were based and at what time? Or research links

                        Please fight at about. Midway

                        June 3, 1942 The Americans struck the first blow: nine heavy B-17 bombers, rising from Midway Base, at 16:23 struck the transport ships of the Japanese group. As it turned out later, not a single bomb hit the target.
                        At 4:30 a.m. on June 4, the first wave of Japanese bombers and cover fighters launched. At 4:45 a.m., the planes landed and set off on a given course - 36 Nakajima B5N Kate torpedo bombers from the Hiru and Soryu aircraft carriers, 36 Val dive bombers from the Akagi and Kaga aircraft carriers and 36 Zero fighters , 9 from each aircraft carrier. Cover fighters were commanded by Lieutenant Sugani Minoru. At 6:20, an attacking group of 108 aircraft reached the atoll and hit the base, causing significant damage to it.
                        American fighters F4F-3 and F2A-3 (under the command of Major Parks and Captain Armstade), who were at the base, entered the battle and, despite heavy losses, shot down several bombers and at least three Zeros. Most of the American cars were shot down by Lieutenant Suganami fighters. 10 out of 25 planes returned, with 4 crashed during landing. The 221st air group was destroyed.
                        Anti-aircraft artillery achieved greater success: about a third of the attacking bombers were shot down.


                        The Yankees' problem was not in the land airport, but in poor preparation and weak aircraft

                        Another, shock AB "Inderpid" received a Japanese greeting, April, Okinawa
                      5. alicante11
                        alicante11 20 June 2013 11: 14
                        0
                        Doenitz burned out due to US industry


                        This is, excuse me, stupidity. It is simply impossible to build ships faster than they will be drowned without effective anti-ship warfare.

                        During the war years, the States threshed planes, more than the Reich, Japan and the Soviet Union combined - in such circumstances, the axis was doomed


                        Not planes fight, but people on them. And the command that uses them effectively. On the 22 of June the USSR had more than ten thousand tanks, and aircraft superiority is not frail. However ... all this remained at the border as scrap metal. In the RPE, Russia in two TOEs had 14 full battleships against 6 among the Japanese. The result is Tsushima and Port Arthur. The Franks had more tanks than Hitler, with it, heavy and medium. You know the result yourself. So no argument.

                        Let Poplar and Mace fly, visit Washington
                        And it's a shame to die just like that ... right?


                        Isn’t it difficult to die so offensively? maybe life is better to live? In fact, the task of the armed forces is to protect the population, and not its death at the same time as the enemy population.

                        Because the Yankees built 160 aircraft carriers and 850 destroyers during the war years))) AMERICA INDUSTRY WINS WAR


                        I said that this is not an argument. There were victories over a stronger opponent in the history and I brought them. And I myself can attest from the experience of KSHI that 3-multiple superiority still does not guarantee victory, and at sea even five-fold.

                        What, even with 10 superiority, did the Yankees suffer huge losses from coastal air strikes?


                        That without a fleet, it is impossible to resist a landing by air alone. No need to look at one operation from the point of view of the whole war. It's not for nothing that I cited the example of the battle for the Philippines. The Japanese had a real opportunity to disrupt the amers' landing with the help of the fleet. In operations in the Philippines, they already had no such chances.

                        Please fight at about. Midway


                        Again, you are trying to illustrate a trend in one battle. The fact of the matter is that before the appearance of strong aircraft carrier groups, the amers also used island airfields in the same way. in the Philippines, on Guadalcanal, on Midway. For example, I don’t know that amers use aviation from island airfields heavily at the end of the war. With the exception of basing long-range bomber aircraft. Maybe you have data on the amer operation at the end of the war, in which large ground forces would take part?

                        The Yankees' problem was not in the land airport, but in poor preparation and weak aircraft


                        The Yankees' problem was in the minds of their stupid admirals. Which superior aviation forces could not use normally. They were just stupidly lucky.

                        In general, you pose the question incorrectly. If you rivet ten thousand aircraft, set up airfields for them, then perhaps they will be able to repel an invasion from the sea. But will it be cheaper than building a balanced fleet? I doubt it very much.
                      6. Setrac
                        Setrac 20 June 2013 12: 50
                        +1
                        Quote: alicante11
                        On June 22, the USSR had more than ten thousand tanks, and air superiority was not frail.

                        Just a minus, how many times these stamps of Western propaganda have been chewed.
                      7. Santa Fe
                        20 June 2013 17: 31
                        +1
                        Quote: alicante11
                        This is, excuse me, stupidity. It is simply impossible to build ships faster than they will be drowned without effective anti-ship warfare.

                        The fact remains - German submariners banged 13 MILLION tons of tonnage

                        The Yankees built ships faster than they could sink
                        2710 Liberty-class cargo ships, average construction rate -24 days, record ("Robert Peary") - 4 days 15 hours.

                        If it weren’t for the US industry, which made it possible to compensate for ANY losses, the Kriegsmarines had a chance to get Britain out of the war (hunger, lack of resources)
                        Quote: alicante11
                        Not planes fight, but people on them

                        The first half of the war - the Japanese had better training with an equal number of forces. The result - a series of brilliant victories of the Imperial fleet (pogrom near the island of Savo, for example)

                        By the middle of WWII, the Yankees and Japanese had the same training, but the Yankees had 10 times more equipment. The result - the complete defeat of Japan, the ratio of losses in personnel 1: 9

                        US industry won the war
                        Quote: alicante11
                        Isn’t it difficult to die so offensively? maybe life is better to live?

                        What can I do if the Yankees "concentrated forces" and attacked Russia)))
                        You do not want to recognize the main thing - in a global war (and it doesn’t happen otherwise, if it is a question of the Russian Federation, the USA or China) any aircraft carriers, tomahawks and destroyers are useless. Wrong caliber.
                        Quote: alicante11
                        That without a fleet, it is impossible to resist a landing with one aviation

                        As for Okinawa, the Japanese were doomed. The ratio of forces is 1:10, with equal training, nothing will help here. No matter how "balance" the fleet - the battle is lost
                        Quote: alicante11
                        For example, I don’t know that amers use aircraft from island airfields heavily at the end of the war

                        Fight at Samar Island, October 25 1944
                        Quote: alicante11
                        Maybe you have data on the amer operation at the end of the war, in which large ground forces would take part?

                        Oh sure
                        Illustration:
                        Two of twelve US A-20 Havoc light bombers on a mission against Kokas, Indonesia in July of 1943. The lower bomber was hit by anti-aircraft fire
                        Where did the "Havoki" come from over Fr. Cocas? Did they take off from the aircraft carrier?
                      8. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 20 June 2013 18: 31
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        You do not want to recognize the main thing - in a global war (and it doesn’t happen otherwise, if it is a question of the Russian Federation, the USA or China) any aircraft carriers, tomahawks and destroyers are useless. Wrong caliber.

                        Useless - wrong definition. It’s just that each of these means of attack is in itself useless. But their competent use in the complex will matter in any war. Although we say that after a nuclear exchange, a kayuk, we still understand that the kayuk is incomplete. And if in Siberia and the Far East, survivors can migrate to the north of Siberia and Yakutia, then the surviving Russians in the European part, in order not to become completely mutants, will be forced to pick up any weapons, sit down on everything that moves and go in search of a new homeland . This is where tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers come in handy.
                        And everything that floats and flies, especially if it shoots, is also very useful.
                      9. Kars
                        Kars 20 June 2013 18: 40
                        +1
                        Quote: bot.su
                        . Although we say that after a nuclear exchange, a kayuk, we still understand that the kayuk is incomplete.

                        As I understand it, the concept of nuclear winter doesn’t exist for you? Destruction of the technosphere of the planet? Now there are many dangerous industrial objects that will destroy the environment when infrastructure is destroyed. There are also nuclear power plants, metallurgical plants, and chemical production.

                        so you won’t conquer with tomahawks and aircraft carriers. Especially aircraft carriers that after the loss of bases will fail on their own within a few months. Almost all high-tech weapons will lose their value in the first place firearms.
                      10. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 20 June 2013 19: 32
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Especially aircraft carriers that after the loss of bases will fail on their own within a few months. Also, almost all high-tech weapons will lose their value in the first place firearms.

                        So yes. But you give several months to aircraft carriers. But the tanks, I think, will last longer, though the fuel will quickly end. During this time, survivors need to pack up and move as far south as possible. And weapons will be needed to create and protect a new residence from the natives of Africa or Australia, if you succeed in sailing there. Something like this.
                        Well, or you can stay in Russia, among the centers of nuclear explosions and flaming radioactive debris.

                        Nuclear winter won't come overnight. First, a nuclear "night" in the temperate zone of the northern hemisphere and nuclear "twilight" in the rest of the planet, and only then a gradual cooling ...
                      11. Kars
                        Kars 20 June 2013 19: 39
                        +2
                        Quote: bot.su
                        But you give several months to aircraft carriers

                        yes it’s quite possible that it will be possible to live on them even for several years. but to conduct military operations is much less.
                        Quote: bot.su
                        Nuclear winter won't come instantly

                        if honestly, I think those who die instantly will be happier than the survivors.
                      12. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 20 June 2013 19: 52
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        if honestly, I think those who die instantly will be happier than the survivors.

                        Probably. But honestly answer - would you rather die instantly or survive? I would still survive, always have time to die.
                        Quote: Kars

                        yes it’s quite possible that it will be possible to live on them even for several years. but to conduct military operations is much less.

                        Yes, and God bless them, with the fighting, let him ferry new "Huns" through Gibraltar, for example. I think that such a migration of peoples will begin that at first everyone will not be up to the war. By the way, Australia, South Africa and Brazil will be the new superpowers ...
                      13. Kars
                        Kars 20 June 2013 21: 50
                        +1
                        Quote: bot.su
                        But honestly answer - would you rather die instantly or survive?

                        And if you think well? Yes, and who and where will provide medical care?

                        And so there is an interesting film with Brando about a US submarine that refused to launch rockets.
            2. alicante11
              alicante11 21 June 2013 02: 32
              +1
              The fact remains - German submariners banged 13 MILLION tons of tonnage


              Damn, how much can you? You do not see the forest behind the trees!
              The peak of Doenitz’s wolves was in my opinion in the 42 year, when they drowned about 1mln tonnage in a MONTH. Imagine what would happen if such a tendency persisted? No industry could handle it. It was the PLO that crushed the Germans. What in WWI, what in WWII.

              US industry won the war


              There was no talk of war. It was about battles. In which there was a tendency that land-based aviation always fought with an aircraft carrier. Of course, each time had its own reasons. But there is a saying that "eggs interfere with a bad dancer." Any defeat can be explained. But a trend is a trend.

              What can I do if the Yankees "concentrated forces" and attacked Russia)))
              You do not want to recognize the main thing - in a global war (and it doesn’t happen otherwise, if it is a question of the Russian Federation, the USA or China) any aircraft carriers, tomahawks and destroyers are useless. Wrong caliber.


              Yes, a lot of that. Even in modern condition. By and large, if we reduce everything to the KSHI, then the confrontation between Russia and the United States and even NATO in a war using conventional weapons can be a very interesting war, at least for me, for the Russians. And if you create a normal fleet - not a Soviet monster, of course, but a normal enough fleet, then there will also be chances to fight back. But there is no point in talking about it, since everyone plans subjectively and believes that his plan is the best. But wagering gives 100% result. But ... I'm afraid this is too global a project. Although I would love to participate in it.

              As for Okinawa, the Japanese were doomed. The ratio of forces is 1:10, with equal training, nothing will help here. No matter how "balance" the fleet - the battle is lost


              That's exactly what they were doomed there. because the fleet was no longer there to draw back forces, or reduce the enemy’s advantage.
              And compare with the same battle you mentioned about Samar. There, like a rakh, the Japanese fleet inflicted losses on the Amers and, if Kurita had not lost nerves, it could have put an end to - destroying the landing. Of course, this would not have stopped the amers for long. And they would still have gathered a new troop. But for this battle, the fleet was still the only option to win it. Even that was no longer in Okinawa. Not counting the Yamato kamikaze. But it would be better if he became a kamikaze in the Philippines. More sense would be.

              Fight at Samar Island, October 25 1944


              So there, the main part was taken by kaz kras carrier aircraft. 3 and 7 fleets. And the land only provided support. so that’s not an example topic.

              Oh sure
              Illustration:


              If I understood correctly, since it is not Copenhagen from the bourgeois, then two Amer’s planes destroyed some Japanese in the 1943 year. The battle is clearly the size of the Midway or Guadalcanal.
              Moreover, it is not clear where this happened, but it is clear that in 1943, i.e. not at the end of the war, as I asked you to give an example. That is, completely off topic.
            3. Santa Fe
              21 June 2013 03: 26
              +1
              Quote: alicante11
              No industry could handle it. It was the PLO that crushed the Germans.

              But where did the PLO come from?
              The answer is simple: the Yankees have thrashed 850 destroyers, 130 escort aircraft carriers, thousands of Catalin patrols and naval reconnaissance officers at the Liberators base.

              Yankees overwhelmed Kriegsmarine with naval equipment

              + American efforts to recover the HEAVY LOSSES of the merchant fleet, Liberty transports were built by the thousands for a reason
              Quote: alicante11
              In which there was a tendency that land-based aviation always fought carrier

              Not always
              Quote: alicante11
              confrontation between Russia and the USA and even NATO in a conventional arms war

              In what year was the agreement with America on refusing to use strategic nuclear forces signed?
              Quote: alicante11
              That's exactly what they were doomed there. because the fleet was gone

              By the summer of 1945, Japan already had nothing)))

              The war was a deliberate adventure - the possibilities of industry in the USA and Japan were disproportionate. On 1, the Japanese ship amers answered 10. For one Japanese plane - a hundred.
              Quote: alicante11
              So there, the main part was taken by kaz kras carrier aircraft. 3 and 7 fleets. And the land only provided support. so that’s not an example topic.

              Do you want to read Paul Steven Dall on this subject?

              There was a small nuance - aircraft carriers refueled and replenished b / c at the airports of Leyte Island. As a result, the aircraft carriers did not have to adjust their course under the wind - therefore they were saved (+ help from the destroyers)
              Quote: alicante11
              If I understood correctly, since it is not Copenhagen from the bourgeois, then two Amer aircraft destroyed some Japanese in 1943

              No.
              These are a pair of A-20 "Havok" attack aircraft, one of which was shot down by anti-aircraft fire during a raid on Japanese positions (Kokas Island). Where did land planes come from in the middle of the ocean ??
              The answer is simple - they flew from the nearest air base

              I have a lot of photographic material - for example, a B-25 "Mitchell" is bombing a Japanese convoy
            4. alicante11
              alicante11 21 June 2013 14: 58
              0
              But where did the PLO come from?


              What's the difference from where?
              The fact remains. And the military-industrial complex of Amer remains the same force. Therefore, why repeat the mistakes that have already been made? We must look for other ways.

              Not always


              Always, not always, give examples. Why in vain do you pound your tail?

              In what year was the agreement with America on refusing to use strategic nuclear forces signed?


              Are you fooling around? (C).


              The war was a deliberate adventure - the possibilities of industry in the USA and Japan were disproportionate. On 1, the Japanese ship amers answered 10. For one Japanese plane - a hundred.


              Captain obvious?

              Do you want to read Paul Steven Dall on this subject?


              Sherman was enough for me.

              There was a small nuance - aircraft carriers refueled and replenished b / c at the airports of Leyte Island. As a result, the aircraft carriers did not have to adjust their course under the wind - therefore they were saved (+ help from the destroyers)


              And what is it for? How does this confirm the strength of land aviation in front of the sea? That from the sunk AV planes escaped on land?

              These are a pair of A-20 "Havok" attack aircraft, one of which was shot down by anti-aircraft fire during a raid on Japanese positions (Kokas Island). Where did land planes come from in the middle of the ocean ??
              The answer is simple - they flew from the nearest air base


              Who argues? Just TWO planes - compared to the seven hundred of the 3 fleet - that's cool. They cover the turtle like God.
            5. Kars
              Kars 21 June 2013 15: 26
              +1
              Quote: alicante11
              But where did the PLO come from?

              What's the difference from where?



              Well it must be, it seems like the Immaculate Conception))))
              Quote: alicante11
              Sherman was enough for me.
              ))))))) Is there really only one source of wisdom? Have you not read the Polmar?
              Quote: alicante11
              what is it for? How does this confirm the strength of land aviation in front of the sea? That from the sunk AV planes escaped on land?

              Is it really not clear why? And everything is logical as 2 + 2
              Quote: alicante11
              Who argues? Just TWO planes - compared to the seven hundred of the 3 fleet - that's cool. They cover the turtle like God.

              With what, did you decide that there were only two? By the way, what for did the amers use frog jumping tactics? And why did they build on the atals of GDP for long-distance bombers to iron Japan? When they had so many aircraft carriers? And how did the USSR win the war without them? And they helped would a pair of three aircraft carriers in 1051-45?
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 20 June 2013 20: 06
      -2
      The amazingly obvious answer is that you must be able to fight. The USSR, by the way, was able and tentatively inflicted 1,5-1,8 million losses to the Germans only in the 41st year, not having a numerical superiority in the troops actually participating in the battles.

      When will you learn to count factors together, and not either-or?

      If you rivet ten thousand aircraft, set up airfields for them, then perhaps they will be able to repel an invasion from the sea. But will it be cheaper than building a balanced fleet? I doubt it very much.


      Will be. And it will take 10 times fewer cars to send all American vessels to the bottom, or to the docks.
    3. alicante11
      alicante11 21 June 2013 02: 34
      0
      Is it possible to calculate? in principle, there were such calculations in the Union. And they came to the conclusion, on the fact of the existence of the fleet, that the fleet is also needed.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 19 June 2013 15: 59
    +1
    about "balance", there is such an axiom - when the enemy has multiple numerical superiority, it is preferable to bury himself underground, be covered with armor and concrete, or hide under water.


    You will tell about this to the French on the Maginot Line, dates on the Mannegraham Line, the SWF troops on the fortified areas of the Old Border, the troops of the Western and Reserve fronts near Vyazma, the Baltic Fleet sailors at the Riga MAP in the WWI, the sailors of the 1st TOE, which was afraid to stick out its nose and Port- Arthur, Royal Navy sailors who died on barrage drifters in the English Channel and Italians who drowned when Austrians hit the Otrant barrage. Etc. etc. Blind defense is the worst type of warfare. The enemy must be forced to fight in an unfavorable situation for him. A very good example is the attack by the Japanese Combined Fleet of the American amphibious forces to invade the Philippines. When the Japanese, with small forces, almost thwarted the actions of the enemy landing forces. But here it was just stupidly unlucky and the nerves passed. The battle for Midway Atoll is also an excellent illustration of active defense. An example of an extremely successful active defense on land can be the combat path of the 5th Army of the South-Western Front in 1941, but its death just became possible after Potapov was ordered to "bury".

    This indicates the low training of the Yankees pilots, and nothing more


    This suggests that without air supremacy, coastal aviation cannot withstand the enemy fleet.

    At the end of the war, the Japanese tried to use aircraft carriers against the Yankees, but they died before even reaching the DB zone. In contrast to submarines - the largest loss of the US Navy in terms of casualties: the cruiser "Indianapolis", sunk by submarine I-58 on August 16, 1945


    At the end of the war - a loose concept. The only Japanese AV that did not get to the theater is Shinano. But he has not even entered service.

    After the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Japanese no longer tried to use their AB. Even with the reflection of the landing on the Philippines, the connection of Ozawa was already only a bait. And the main blow was delivered by artillery ships. So I don’t see where your statement is true.
  • Santa Fe
    19 June 2013 17: 29
    -3
    Quote: alicante11
    You tell the French about it on the Maginot Line, dates on the Mannegraiam Line

    Frogs themselves to blame
    The Finns fought with dignity - they exhausted the 10-multiple enemy forces and maintained their independence
    Quote: alicante11
    Deaf defense is the worst option for warfare.

    I still didn’t talk about defense, but about ship classes
    When the enemy is numerically superior, it is preferable to use highly protected ships (cruiser / battleship) or secretive (submarines). They have a chance to inflict considerable damage to the enemy, unlike aircraft carriers, which will come from one bomb.
    Quote: alicante11
    A very good example is the attack by the Japanese Joint Fleet of Amer’s amphibious invasion forces on the Philippines. When the Japanese, with small forces, nearly disrupted the enemy’s landing forces

    Kurita’s squadron lasted 3 hours under the attack of 500 American aircraft - and yet, almost all returned to their native Japan
    It’s scary to imagine what would happen if you were in the place of the cruisers aircraft carriers - all would die
    Quote: alicante11
    This suggests that without air supremacy, coastal aviation cannot withstand the enemy fleet.

    And what should I do?)))
    Quote: alicante11
    After the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Japanese no longer tried to use their AB

    Naturally, they all died. Unlike cruisers, battleships and submarines
    Quote: alicante11
    After the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Japanese no longer tried to use their AB

    But the submarines were used until the end of the war
  • alicante11
    alicante11 20 June 2013 11: 41
    0
    Frogs themselves to blame
    The Finns fought with dignity - they exhausted the 10-multiple enemy forces and maintained their independence


    Who is to blame, who is not to blame - this is a kindergarten, sorry.
    And now we open at least Vicki and look at the balance of power at the beginning of the war.
    The personnel of 1: 1,6 on guns and machine guns 1: 5,4. Total superiority only in aircraft and tanks. Which, as subsequent events of the 41 year have shown, does not guarantee success. Without creating sufficient superiority in manpower. Moreover, in wooded areas and off-road conditions, tanks play a very small role, and aircraft greatly reduce their effectiveness.
    By the way, the most impressive successes were achieved by maneuvering warfare, and not by sitting on the defensive.
    And about "defended independence" - it's not even funny. Stalin did not need this "Phenicia".

    I still didn’t talk about defense, but about ship classes


    Ah, well, that’s another question. Simply, aircraft carriers can also be made armored, the Angles, for example, bother with this. But the amers did not want to repair armor on the flight deck after each battle. It was better to remake a light flight deck. But the amers were not badly armored. For example, the Lexingtons retained a significant amount of armor when remaking from battlecruisers. Yes, and essexes also had an internal reservation. By the way, not one of them, probably due to this, was killed. Unlike unarmored independencies. Only Japanese AB were cardboard. By the way, the armor did not help Lexingtn. Yes, and not a lot of hits were needed to send him to rest. As well as the armor and Musashi, who failed during the attack of Kurita, did not help. As she did not help his sidekick Yamato, when he was trampled under Okinawa. Well, earlier Ripalsu and POW. So also not a panacea.

    And what should I do?)))


    Create a balanced fleet. What I wrote about in my posts.

    Naturally, they all died. Unlike cruisers, battleships and submarines


    Well, not all, some of the small ABs were finished off during the bombing of Japan. But I mean, after all, the battle where Taiho died. after him, the Japanese still had ABs, but the Japanese mainly engaged artillery ships in the assault on the landing. Since for all the remaining ABs they had more than 150 aircraft with underestimated crews.

    But the submarines were used until the end of the war


    Because they are more difficult to detect than AB :).
  • Santa Fe
    20 June 2013 17: 45
    +1
    Quote: alicante11
    But the amers did not want to repair armor on the flight deck after each battle

    Holes in the flight deck are nonsense
    bad when 30 decked aircraft refuel

    The aircraft carrier is a specific vehicle. Due to the minimal combat resistance, it is suitable only for "raiding operations" (Ceylon, Pearl Harbor, raid on Tokyo) - where the chance of getting hit by return fire is minimal

    In heavy offensive battles (Philippines, Okinawa) - where the chance of getting hit by an enemy is high, aircraft carriers suffer heavy losses

    In defensive battles, with multiple superiority of the enemy, they die like houses of cards, not having time to inflict any serious damage to the opponents

    AB NOT SUITABLE FOR DEFENSE
    Quote: alicante11
    But the submarines were used until the end of the war
    Because they are more difficult to detect than AB :).

    That's the whole trick. Under conditions of enemy domination at sea and in the air, submarines work best
    Quote: alicante11
    Simply, aircraft carriers can also be made armored, the Angles, for example, bother with this.

    For an aircraft carrier, armor is irrelevant. Refueling aircraft on the flight deck remain unprotected

    Burnt ruins - just the British "armored" aircraft carrier "Indomitable", the storming of Okinawa, 1945
  • Delta
    Delta 20 June 2013 18: 07
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Burnt ruins - just the British "armored" aircraft carrier "Indomitable", the storming of Okinawa, 1945


    forger. Burnt ruins are add-ons that ANY ship has. The armored flight deck meant that the ship was very easy to bring to a combat ready state by removing burned aircraft. What does the ability to fly your wing into the air mean - the main task of an aircraft carrier would be completed. So armor played a role. Destroying ALL aircraft carrier aircraft is not an easy task and this was extremely rare. In addition, if the aircraft carrier is not alone, then the surviving aircraft of the damaged aircraft carrier can be used from other aircraft carriers (as it was in the Pacific Ocean), even if unarmored aircraft carriers are used
  • Santa Fe
    20 June 2013 23: 10
    -1
    Quote: Delta
    forger

    Did you want to be dishonored again?

    If you don't like HMS Indomitable, here is another example:

    On the same day, May 4, 1945, a kamikaze attacked the British HMS Formidable of the same type. A kamikaze blow and subsequent bomb blasts suspended under the wings of ready-to-take-off planes pierced a 6-meter hole in the armored flight deck. 11 planes burned in the fire; 8 dead, 51 wounded. The aircraft carrier crashed for 5 hours, losing speed, all radars and the ability to receive and send aircraft
    Quote: Delta
    What does the ability to fly your wing into the air mean - the main task of an aircraft carrier would be completed.

    But it was not completed, that’s the trick)))
    "Formidebl" completely lost combat capability in the midst of the battle
    Quote: Delta
    it’s very easy to bring a ship into combat state by removing burnt planes

    Your fantasies have nothing to do with reality

    After the second strike by the kamikaze, on May 9, only 15 intact aircraft remained on the Formideble (or did you think that the burnt-out aircraft was resurrected, like in a fairy tale?)
    The crippled ship left the war zone
    Together with him, his twin Illastries, also crippled by a kamikaze, went for a four-month repair
    Quote: Delta
    it’s very easy to bring a ship into combat state by removing burnt planes

    figured it out myself?

    firefighting on the deck of "Formidebla", 4.05.1945/XNUMX/XNUMX, at about. Okinawa
  • Delta
    Delta 20 June 2013 23: 53
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Did you want to be dishonored again?

    Well, I'm not talking about torpedo tubes located PERPENDICULARALLY LONGITUDINAL AXIS of the submarine. And I do not post a photo of an aircraft carrier with a roll to the starboard side, but I write about the roll to the left. Next to list? so who is disgraced here from topic to topic - it can be seen)))

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    A kamikaze blow and subsequent bombings, suspended under the wings of ready-to-take-off planes, pierced a 6-meter hole in the armored flight deck.

    I did not say that there is armor that cannot be pierced by anything. And the old woman is a slammer. But your example just did not like, because there the deck was not broken. If you want to prove - give examples of the broken armor immediately

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: Delta
    it’s very easy to bring a ship into combat state by removing burnt planes

    Your fantasies have nothing to do with reality


    Well, yes, and the Enterprise, which was almost completely burnt out, was not repaired in a few days. But the planes were not burned on it, it was just right to write off for scrap. That's the reality.


    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    figured it out myself?

    where am I to you in fantasies)))
  • Santa Fe
    21 June 2013 01: 30
    0
    Quote: Delta
    Well, I'm not talking about torpedo tubes located PERPENDICULARALLY LONGITUDINAL AXIS of the submarine. And I do not post a photo of an aircraft carrier with a roll to the starboard side, but I write about the roll to the left. Next to list?

    You can list
    when your mind is gone - it remains to look for typos in other people's texts
    Quote: Delta
    Well, yes, and the Enterprise, which was almost completely burnt out, was not repaired in a few days.

    the fire occurred on January 14, 1969, 70 miles off the coast of Hawaii, the Enterprise urgently returned to Pearl Harbor for repairs
    Holes urgently patched, and on March 11 of the same year, the ship went on a military campaign to Vietnam
    Characteristically, the accident was not in vain - On August 12, 1969, the Enterprise got into a real repair at the dock, which lasted until 1971.
    Quote: Delta
    I did not say that there is armor that cannot be pierced by anything. And the old woman is a slammer

    alas, armored flight decks were damaged even by simple means

    The same "Indomitable" received a German 500 kg bomb and was treated for six months in the United States. By the way, here are the consequences of that hit (August 12, 1942):
  • alicante11
    alicante11 21 June 2013 02: 45
    0
    It is typical that the accident was not in vain - on August 12 of the 1969 of the year, Enterprise got up to the present repair in a dock lasting until the 1971 of the year


    From this, the Japanese are probably very, very. Well, it’s VERY MUCH easier in ... 1969 year.
  • Santa Fe
    21 June 2013 02: 54
    +1
    Quote: alicante11
    From this, the Japanese are probably very, very. Well, it’s VERY MUCH easier in ... 1969 year.

    It was about a disaster on the nuclear CVN-65 Enterprise. where are the Japanese?
  • alicante11
    alicante11 21 June 2013 07: 38
    -1
    Ugh, is this called another pull away? Delko was taken away, already at 20-25 years.
  • Delta
    Delta 21 June 2013 10: 25
    0
    Quote: alicante11
    Ugh, is this called another pull away? Delko was taken away, already at 20-25 years.


    this episode is unknown to him (smart). I will have to look for a book, quote something
  • Delta
    Delta 21 June 2013 10: 24
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    You can list
    when your mind is gone - it remains to look for typos in other people's texts

    Well, yes, you have a little more mind - to accumulate books and comment on your own sick fabrications to them))) if there were typos - there would be no question of them. I have already said nothing about the "current" submarines in the tropics. Also a typo, yeah.

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    the fire occurred on January 14, 1969, 70 miles off the coast of Hawaii, the Enterprise urgently returned to Pearl Harbor for repairs
    Holes urgently patched, and on March 11 of the same year, the ship went on a military campaign to Vietnam
    It is typical that the accident was not in vain - on August 12 of the 1969 of the year, Enterprise got up to the present repair in a dock lasting until the 1971 of the year


    it is clear that it was not in vain. But at the same time, this aircraft carrier fulfilled its function. By the way, you have forgotten about the "Enterprise" of the Second World War, which was just as quickly patched up (because only he could close the holes at that time) and it went into operation, although in an amicable way it should have been scrapped. Forgot?
  • Santa Fe
    21 June 2013 12: 00
    0
    Quote: Delta
    But at the same time, this aircraft carrier performed its function

    Yes, the Yankees took on the show off the whole world.
    The merit of American science - to create a ship with nuclear warheads and radars with headlamps in the early 60s was a real masterpiece.

    From a military point of view - ordinary junk. There was nothing to talk about. I went to Vietnam and Iran several times. And every time I looked sorry

    However, the Soviet Navy was more impressed by the atomic "Long Beach" - the study of the possibility of creating cruisers with YSU began
    Quote: Delta
    By the way, you also forgot about the "Enterprise" of the Second World War, which was just as quickly patched up

    This is already American industry - the Yankees were able to build a ship in 4 days

    You directionally try to prove the high survivability of AB. statistics indicate the opposite - they have no resistance. A couple of small bombs - and AB comes the lid.
  • Delta
    Delta 21 June 2013 12: 21
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    You directionally try to prove the high survivability of AB. statistics indicate the opposite - they have no resistance. A couple of small bombs - and AB comes the lid.

    you are trying in vain to prove otherwise. Especially considering the example I gave. And the "cover" can be for ANY ship when even one bomb or torpedo hits. And such cases are immeasurable. Remember some battleships. They were already booked for, and even then there were cases of death from ONE torpedo. What should be a better aircraft carrier? it's still a ship too
  • Santa Fe
    21 June 2013 12: 45
    0
    Torpedoes are different. Underwater explosion of a couple of hundred kg of torpex + underwater damage - really dangerous situation

    I could not find cases where heavy cruisers and LK died from one small-caliber bomb ("Arizona" can be omitted as an example, in Pearl Harbor the fleet was standing with "pants down" and open hatches) - usually WWII armored artillery ships did not pay attention to bomb explosions with a caliber of less than 500 kg
  • Delta
    Delta 21 June 2013 13: 04
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    "Arizona" can be omitted as an example

    Yes, everything "does not count" for you, if it is against your concept)) No matter how you stand, the result is obvious. Yes, about the torpedoes - why did some withstand them almost a dozen, while others drowned from one already running? By the way, why doesn't your electoral memory remember AB "Yorktown"? he received EMNIP two torpedoes and at least one bomb. And after that he remained afloat for a long time, to the surprise of those who hastened to leave him. And if not for the 4 torpedoes of the Japanese submarine, he would have been saved. Savsem cardboard, yeah
  • Santa Fe
    21 June 2013 13: 57
    0
    Quote: Delta
    Yes, everything "does not count" for you, if it is against your concept)) No matter how you stand, the result is obvious.

    No, of course there are examples of the death of LK from one or two hits. It's another matter that they don't give you anything - LKs did not die from ordinary bombs ("Fritz-X" or reworked 356 mm shells weighing 800 kg). Nothing like the death of Kaga or Akagi
    Quote: Delta
    AB "Yorktown"? he received EMNIP two torpedoes and at least one bomb

    Torpedoes don't count, we're talking only about bombs
    Torpedoes are equally fatal for ANY ship

    Yorktown received three bombs, but after a couple of hours was able to pick up planes again. The reason is simple - during the attack there were few planes on it (more than half of the air wings died in battle)
    Quote: Delta
    And if not for the 4 torpedoes of the Japanese submarine, he would have been saved.

    The crew left Yorktown immediately after the first torpedo attack (fires, roll 26 degrees)

    AB drifted for a day until it turned out that the Japanese were running and it could be towed
  • alicante11
    alicante11 21 June 2013 02: 42
    0
    Holes in the flight deck are nonsense
    bad when 30 decked aircraft refuel


    Well, amers were perverted with "fireproof" partitions, fire extinguishing systems. Etc. And I understand them. After all, they give a crew to drink, which will die, women give birth to new ones. But AB that is so out of order that when the armored deck is defeated without ignition in the hangar. And to fix it much faster in the first case. They said it themselves.

    In defensive battles, with multiple superiority of the enemy, they die like houses of cards, not having time to inflict any serious damage to the opponents


    Again. If you understand defense as a battle on the fly, or standing in a port and releasing aircraft from coastal airfields, yes. And if you strike at the flanks and rear of the enemy and spray his strength - NO!

    That's the whole trick. Under conditions of enemy domination at sea and in the air, submarines work best


    That's just what they did not affect. as well as AB and LC. So to talk about their effectiveness is not necessary.

    Burnt ruins - just the British "armored" aircraft carrier "Indomitable", the storming of Okinawa, 1945


    The ruins are beautiful, of course. That's just not "burned out". Scrapped in 1955. Something like that, sir. And again by.
  • Santa Fe
    21 June 2013 03: 52
    0
    Quote: alicante11
    Again. If you understand the defense as a battle on the battle, or standing in the port and the release of aircraft from coastal airfields

    Defense begins where the INITIATIVE ENDS. In conditions when it is necessary to repel enemy attacks, the aircraft carrier turns into a flammable target with minimal combat resistance.

    The Japanese situation was aggravated by the numerical superiority of the Yankees
    Quote: alicante11
    Well, amers were perverted with "fireproof" partitions, fire extinguishing systems

    Helped?
    In 1966, "Oriskani" almost burned out from a SIGNAL ROCKET - the ship lost all the aircraft in the hangar and 44 sailors
    Quote: alicante11
    But AB that so fails that when the armored deck is defeated without fire in the hangar

    Without armor, he will be killed by a small-caliber bomb, as did the aircraft carrier Princeton (CVL-23)
    Quote: alicante11
    And repair is much faster in the first case

    This is a fantasy. In any case, long-term repairs at the shipyard will be required

    Damage to the aircraft carrier "Interpid" near Okinawa (strike type "Essex"). Poor repair on the high seas?)) The Yankees also turned out to be weak - four days later the ship arrived in San Francisco for a month's repair
  • alicante11
    alicante11 21 June 2013 15: 12
    0
    Defense begins where the INITIATIVE ENDS. In conditions when it is necessary to repel enemy attacks, the aircraft carrier turns into a flammable target with minimal combat resistance.


    Sorry, but you are bullshit. Having lost the initiative, it is necessary not to defend, but to intercept it. Or retreat, if this is not possible yet. A great example is the battles of the summer of the 1941 year.
    Tactically, a sudden strike by the Nazis allowed them to take the initiative. Which our tried to return in the border battle with the help of counterattacks by mechanized corps. But unsuccessfully, there were reasons for that. Then they made a strategic retreat. Then there was another attempt to seize the initiative during the Smolensk battle. Which, by the way, almost succeeded. GA Center was stopped and our troops fought offensive. But the Germans were again able to seize the initiative, striking at the South-Western Front, which was in stiff defense along the Dnieper. After that, our troops switched to a tough defense, which led to the disaster near Vyazma and the enemy’s breakthrough to Moscow during a new strategic retreat, during which ours were able to find an opportunity to re-seize the initiative and strike at Rostov and Moscow.
    And look. Everywhere where stupidly defended - a disaster. Kiev boiler and Vyazemsky (and also was Bryansk) - the largest boilers. And strategic retreats with an interception of initiative made it possible to stop the enemy (battle of Smolensk) or even go on a counterattack (Moscow, Rostov).

    Helped?
    In 1966, "Oriskani" almost burned out from a SIGNAL ROCKET - the ship lost all the aircraft in the hangar and 44 sailors


    What is it for? I said that they were "perverted".

    Without armor, he will be killed by a small-caliber bomb, as did the aircraft carrier Princeton (CVL-23)


    In my opinion, you are a masochist :).
    I pointed out that the Essexes (not to mention the Lexington and Saratoga) had their own reservations. Only there was no armored flight deck. That's all.
  • Santa Fe
    21 June 2013 17: 40
    0
    Quote: alicante11
    Having lost the initiative, it is necessary not to defend, but to intercept it

    Words and nothing more
    Quote: alicante11
    Then there was another attempt to seize the initiative during the battle of Smolensk

    why do you cite land battles as an example?
    especially, equal in strength opponents
    Quote: alicante11
    In 1966, "Oriskani" almost burned out from a SIGNAL ROCKET - the ship lost all the aircraft in the hangar and 44 sailors
    What is it for?

    Statement of fact. No measures can be taken to increase the survivability of Av - it can die from one small bomb or "Zuni" racket
    Quote: alicante11
    I pointed out that the Essexes (not to mention the Lexington and Saratoga) had their own reservations. Only there was no armored flight deck

    Essex had a skinny horizontal belt - completely useless in real battles
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 20 June 2013 20: 23
    0
    I would not underestimate the armor, the battleships went to the bottom after such severe damage that a ship like the same "Peter the Great" would not withstand in principle. Many types of weapons, such as "exocet", which in the wars of the second half of the 20th century were sent to the bottom from one hit by frigates and destroyers on the armor of "Iowa" will simply crack without much damage. 50k tonnes of displacement is serious, you can have on board hundreds of millimeters of armor steel, anti-torpedo protection, an excellent hospital, a cinema, and a brothel. Here you need a more powerful weapon, like the ZM-80 "Mosquito", but you can't hang it on every airplane.
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 20 June 2013 20: 17
    0
    The Finns fought with dignity - they exhausted the 10-multiple enemy forces and maintained their independence


    Bullshit, the ratio of forces at the beginning of the war was almost 1: 1, as soon as the ratio of forces was brought to 3: 1, all the pillboxes were simply broken up by artillery and the Finns ran to surrender. The main losses of the Red Army fell on the parts performing forest detours, where there were no decisive commanders. In this case, even in such conditions, tons of weapons and ammunition allowed to stay. Finnish losses themselves may well be equal to Soviet ones, because artillery does not like to joke.
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 20 June 2013 20: 11
    -1
    This suggests that without air supremacy, coastal aviation cannot withstand the enemy fleet.


    But nothing that gaining dominance in the air is one of the main tasks of aviation, and any, even land, even deck. And if it does not reduce the enemy’s presence in the air to insignificant, then it’s just not up to the ships, but in modern conditions, when fighters can make up 100% of the Air Force all the more.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 21 June 2013 15: 15
    +1
    Duc, of course, only Sweetsistin does not understand this.
    Or maybe he thinks that we have the opportunity to gain air supremacy with the help of land aviation.
  • old man54
    old man54 19 June 2013 17: 04
    -2
    Quote: alicante11
    Secondly, the wars were never won by submarines. Two attempts by the Germans failed miserably.

    Nichrome to themselves "failed miserably" !! :)) Britain, the world power number 1 before the 2nd MV, literally put cancer alone by the DPL, and so that Churchill really thought about peace with Hitler, tk. they had nothing to oppose! US German Pls bent very much. Learn the "materiel" dear! And the Germans did not lose the war at sea, i.e. not their submarines, but simply in Berlin in 1945 T-34s with infantry arrived and the topic was covered! It’s strange that they didn’t go through this at school?
  • Delta
    Delta 19 June 2013 18: 01
    -2
    Quote: old man54
    But the Germans did not lose the war at sea, i.e. not their submarines, but simply arrived in Berlin in 1945 with a T-34 infantry and covered the topic!


    The Germans lost the war at sea in the 42nd. Long before the arrival of the T-34 in Berlin. And mainly due to the development of the British PLO. This is according to the memoirs of Doenitz, Kretschmer, Werner, Winter and many others. As well as from the recollections of the English submarines.
  • Santa Fe
    19 June 2013 18: 10
    +1
    Quote: Delta
    The Germans lost the war at sea in the 42nd.

    strange, at this time came the peak of allied losses


    However, there is no mystery here - the Yankees built their "Liberty" faster than the Germans could drown them + Liberators of the naval patrol aviation, of which the Yankees built thousands

    US INDUSTRY WINS BATTLE FOR THE ATLANTIC
  • Delta
    Delta 19 June 2013 18: 25
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    strange, at this time came the peak of allied losses


    Nothing strange. Allied losses were high, and the ability to sink boats just increased, along with the development of techniques for detecting submarines and their destruction. What affected in the future. So the 42nd year was precisely the turning point. And the United States at that moment, by the way, did not actually deal with the Atlantic.
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 20 June 2013 20: 24
    0
    Well, then they won when there was a moment of greatest tension in the war. It has the greatest losses.
  • old man54
    old man54 20 June 2013 12: 15
    +1
    Quote: Delta
    The Germans lost the war at sea in the 42nd. Long before the arrival of the T-34 in Berlin. And mainly due to the development of the British PLO. This is according to the memoirs of Doenitz, Kretschmer, Werner, Winter and many others. As well as from the recollections of the English submarines.

    Yes, there is delirium there by 50%, especially since they are not particularly worth believing in memories, because they were published after the 45th, i.e. under the occupation regime of the Anglo-Saxons in West Germany, and many memoirs in general in the USA and Britain scoffed! What else could they allow to publish then? :)
    And about the memories of English submariners in general laughter. What can they know about their German colleagues? And what did they themselves sink during the 6 years of the war? :)
    in the 42nd year there really was a significant turning point in the battle for the Atlantic, I do not argue. But this was not a Germans' loss, but a consequence of the adoption of new tactics in the Anglo-Saxon PLO, the connection of IBA shaving to combat submarines, a number of technical innovations on the detection of submarines, and the use of air-based radars. The Germans simply lacked their own IA to cover submarine-based locations in northwestern France, because they fought a war on 2 fronts, which is their main strategic miscalculation! But in September 1939, the Kreismarin had 57 submarines in service and how they fucked them up, didn’t they? :))
    And you are kind, my dear, that from the middle of the 44th they began to receive submarines of the new generation, XXI and XXIII projects, with which the fleet would be saturated (and in the absence of an eastern front) I would not put Anglo-Saxons at all! They simply did not have enough time, they started the war early!
  • Delta
    Delta 20 June 2013 18: 13
    0
    Quote: old man54
    And about the memories of English submariners in general laughter. What can they know about their German colleagues? And what did they themselves sink during the 6 years of the war? :)


    you at least read carefully. I talked about the English SUPERVISORS drowning German boats

    Quote: old man54
    But in September 1939, the Kreismarin had 57 submarines in service and how they fucked them up, didn’t they? :))


    and this, in fact, why? Yes it was. This is just an indicator that the British kept their PLO at the level of the First World War, when they still did not know how to deal with submarines. By the 41st year, the Germans had much more submarines, and drowned them already almost more than they managed to build


    Quote: old man54
    And you are kind, my dear, that from the middle of the 44th they began to receive submarines of the new generation, XXI and XXIII projects, with which the fleet would be saturated (and in the absence of an eastern front) I would not put Anglo-Saxons at all! They simply did not have enough time, they started the war early!


    I just do not deny that the Germans could have won the submarine war if they had not been drawn into the war with the USSR and the USA. The blockade was almost complete. If my memory serves me, then in Britain there was a moment when some supplies remained for a month or two. And all because of the submarines.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 20 June 2013 13: 04
    0
    Who told you such nonsense? Look at the sunken tonnage for months and years. There is data on the WWII and WWII. After the peak, there was a catastrophic decline.
    I return your advice to you. Learn the materiel.

    There is, of course, the opinion that the German wunderwafers in the area of ​​the submarine fleet of the last years of the war could again change the balance of forces. But ... this is just an opinion.

    Yes, I forgot about the infantry and T-34 in Berlin. I completely agree. Only the Germans also lost the war at sea with a bang.
  • Misantrop
    Misantrop 20 June 2013 20: 49
    +2
    Quote: alicante11
    There is, of course, the opinion that the German wunderwafers in the area of ​​the submarine fleet of the last years of the war could again change the balance of forces. But ... this is just an opinion.

    The 613 project, which until recently was still in service, was precisely that German 21W ... If they massively (as planned) went to sea, then in the Atlantic many would be uncomfortable ...
  • alicante11
    alicante11 21 June 2013 02: 47
    0
    Well, I say that there is such an opinion. and TTX sound very menacing. But ... tanks in Berlin are stronger than any German submarines in Kiel :).
  • Gromila78
    Gromila78 18 June 2013 22: 14
    0
    Interestingly, and the shelf is also within 12 miles recourse
    1. Santa Fe
      19 June 2013 00: 33
      0
      Quote: Gromila78
      Interestingly, and the shelf is also within 12 miles

      Airplane IL-38 anti-submarine / patrol aircraft
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 19 June 2013 08: 18
        +1
        Which with pleasure will be carried by deck fighters. Or even air defense of large ships.
        1. Santa Fe
          19 June 2013 14: 10
          0
          Quote: alicante11
          Which with pleasure will be carried by deck fighters. Or even air defense of large ships.

          But, as you see, they did not demolish it - it flies calmly over the aircraft carrier))
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 19 June 2013 15: 59
            +1
            Well, yes, there’s just no war.
            1. Santa Fe
              19 June 2013 17: 16
              0
              Quote: alicante11
              Well, yes, there’s just no war.

              This is the whole trick

              Yankees will not be touched by IL-38, while Russia has strategic nuclear forces
              1. Avenger711
                Avenger711 20 June 2013 20: 29
                -1
                Nothing like this. Direct battles between aircraft of the USSR and the USA took place many times, and only the appearance of air defense systems drove the Yankees out of the Soviet sky. Plus all sorts of ridiculous incidents, which were then settled. The Yankees will not bring down each anti-submarine approaching an aircraft carrier. They will be trained in interception, but making sure that there is no threat will be left behind.
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 20 June 2013 20: 51
                  +1
                  Quote: Avenger711
                  making sure that there is no threat will lag behind.

                  They will simply "squeeze" aside, it is not necessary to shoot down
                  1. Santa Fe
                    20 June 2013 23: 15
                    0
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    They will just "squeeze" aside

                    Wring out - he will return again))

                    Although "squeezed out" - from the category of naval tales, the Yankees did not do it - too dangerous aerobatics and senseless risk
                  2. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 20 June 2013 23: 27
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Yankees didn’t do it - too dangerous aerobatics and senseless risk
                    Even photographs were shown when the Tu-16 was sent on a close-up shot of the aircraft carrier in the North Atlantic. Then a pair flew up to meet, first one was squeezing from the side, and the second was from below, covering the lenses of the standard photo optics with its fuselage. And then, apparently, they got the go-ahead for shooting, so they began to press from the sides / from above, bringing our Tu-16 clearly to the aircraft carrier (they said which one, but I don't remember exactly). And when we got on the course, they showed us from the cabins to take pictures. The pictures turned out to be gorgeous, I saw them at the division headquarters several years later. This case then turned out to be quite noisy, since all this "acrobatics" spent a lot of fuel and had to go back in a straight line through Scandinavia.
                  3. Santa Fe
                    20 June 2013 23: 40
                    0
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    The pictures turned out gorgeous, I saw them at the division headquarters a few years later

                    Q.E.D))

                    Regarding flights - usually "Phantoms" just accompanied sea scouts
                  4. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 21 June 2013 00: 05
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Regarding flights - usually "Phantoms" just accompanied sea scouts

                    Accompanied almost always, but often squeezed. Let's just say that both of them often violated the security regime. Some of the hooliganism, some - by order. My father served the entire service in naval missile carriers, so he told a lot ...
  • Zhuchok
    Zhuchok 18 June 2013 09: 54
    +3
    And one more thing: a dangerous situation was created around Syria, and we decided to put weapons to its legitimate government for protection against external aggression. How will we deliver these weapons? It is with the help of the BDK, but they need a strong escort, and there are almost no ships to escort - everyone is out of date. So now desperately needed destroyers and frigates.
  • SOZIN2013
    SOZIN2013 18 June 2013 09: 57
    +5
    Stupid question, why does Russia need a fleet? Why does a man need legs?
    1. Santa Fe
      18 June 2013 11: 34
      -4
      Comparison is extremely incorrect
      The legs have a clear function.
      The Russian Navy cannot find such a thing, with all the desire (special weapons: SSBN and Bulava do not count)
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 18 June 2013 13: 06
        0
        That all fools would ask this question :) (c)
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 18 June 2013 16: 16
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The legs have a clear function.
        The Russian Navy has this, with all desire,

        No function? And if you recall that what is recessed near its base, in any way will not come to harm the shores of Russia. Not an argument? Coastal aviation is a good thing. That's only when there is not only it, but also its basing system. With this, is Russia now all chocolate? And how many sorties will you have per kilometer of the northern border?
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 20 June 2013 20: 30
          -1
          And the fleet will solve the problems of the northern borders, where there is only ice for 1000 km, and ejection aircraft carriers do not operate at all due to icing of the deck.
      3. Gromila78
        Gromila78 18 June 2013 22: 25
        +2
        Some do without a head, apparently. For reference, 2/3 of global shipments are at sea. Amers use their fleet to defend their economic interests and project power. Who owns the sea - owns the world. Russia needs an ocean fleet to protect its interests. Remember even Spain 36-39 years, when they wanted to help, but could not, and Germany and Italy actually imposed a blockade.
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 20 June 2013 20: 31
          -1
          And as a result, therefore, Russia can become a bridge between Europe and China. In a straight line. Without sailing around India and in the Sunda archipelago.
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 19 June 2013 03: 36
      -1
      Quote: SOZIN2013
      Stupid question, why does Russia need a fleet? Why does a man need legs?

      I will ask one more "stupid" question - why does a man need a fishtail?
      Feet is a railway, not a fleet.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 20 June 2013 20: 55
        +2
        Quote: Setrac
        Feet is a railway, not a fleet.
        Interesting anatomy, legs - inside the body ... belay lol Are you going to the USA by train? In order to explain to these guys that they are wrong, sending their AUGs in batches to the Pacific and Atlantic lol
  • Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 18 June 2013 10: 24
    +3
    Quote: SOZIN2013
    Stupid question, why does Russia need a fleet? Why does a man need legs?

    One of the two allies of Russia. The second is the army.
  • Per se.
    Per se. 18 June 2013 10: 30
    11
    Another talented provocation of the author. Our home - the steppe, our "sea" - rivers and lakes ... In short, everything is in the past, coastal life, forget to compete with the maritime powers, although China and India do not complex here. If you, Oleg, remember Nikolai Ottovich von Essen, it is useful to recall how he, having become the commander of the battleship Sevastopol, prepared for a single breakthrough from the already doomed Port Arthur to join the 2nd Pacific squadron. Essen, a supporter of Admiral Makarov, could not imagine Russia without an ocean-going fleet, and if you pull phrases from history, you can quote anything you like to support your conclusions. Long-distance campaigns are needed, this is not only a demonstration of the flag, but also combat training. Order, simply, it is necessary to establish in the country, to end with thieves and bandits, to send good American advisers to three signs, then the fleet will be revived. For provoking the topic +.
    1. Santa Fe
      18 June 2013 11: 31
      0
      Quote: Per se.
      forget to compete with the sea powers, although China and India do not complex here

      Great examples)))

      Indonesia is a state on 1000 islands in the middle of the ocean

      China - Seriously at odds with Taiwan. Regularly butts with Japan over scraps of land in the ocean (China has the right to do such "nonsense" - in addition to the fleet, it has the world's first economy)
      Quote: Per se.
      Essen, a supporter of Admiral Makarov, could not represent Russia without an ocean fleet

      Imagine, could not imagine - in 1914 Russia did not have any ocean fleet. The backward tsarist industry blew the battle overseas, along with its only overseas colony - Port Arthur

      Throughout the entire existence of Russia, the Russian (Soviet) ocean fleet existed for only 30 years - from 1960 to 1990. But, you must admit, it was no accident - in those days, the Union REALLY fought for world domination, had super-industry and the fleet had tasks
      Quote: Per se.
      Long trips are needed, this is not only a demonstration of the flag, but also combat training

      Learn what?))
      Russia is not going to fight and does not plan to fight on narrow shores
      And without this, a large and numerous Navy loses its meaning
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 18 June 2013 13: 06
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Indonesia is a state on 1000 islands in the middle of the ocean
        You are, of course, aware that the length of the coastline of the Russian Federation is 37653 kilometers, while our "brothers in arms", the USA, have 19924 kilometers? And, you also call Russia a "land" power, yes, fullness ... Poor China has so many disputes with its neighbors that it needs a fleet, and we, like the Yankees, have a border with Canada and Mexico, calm and smooth, and , China, on our lands do not creep, like everyone else, good people! Yes, after Tsushima, Russia’s fleet was actually destroyed, but it had it, and it would be oceanic if the Tsar-PERSONALITY was in power, and not Nicholas II. It’s not up to us to decide on which shores we will have to fight, but we need to study military affairs, otherwise there is no point at all from the army and navy itself, fly back and under America or China.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 June 2013 13: 45
          +2
          Quote: Per se.
          the length of the coastline of the Russian Federation is 37653 kilometers, and our "brothers in arms", the United States, 19924 kilometers?

          Sergey, these are just populist slogans

          2/3 of the coastline of Russia are in the extreme climatic zone beyond the Arctic Circle. Many-meter pack ice and frost -50 Celsius protect the coast of the Russian Federation more reliably than any AUG and Coast Guard

          The remaining kilometers are on the wild, uninhabited shores of the Far East, where of the more or less large cities, only Vladivostok, Magadan and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky are many thousands of kilometers of the coast !!!

          Nothing like the United States - where all the major industrial centers and major cities are located on the shores of the warm ocean.
          Quote: Per se.
          otherwise there is no sense at all from the army and navy itself, the fly back and under America or China.

          You see, Sergey, the large fleet in no way protects Russia from the United States (this is the exclusive function of the SSBN and Strategic Missile Forces)
          And with China, a naval conflict is in principle impossible - we have no maritime borders, but there are 3000 km of land dividing line.
          1. Dasha
            Dasha 18 June 2013 21: 16
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And with China, a naval conflict is in principle impossible - we have no maritime borders, but there are 3000 km of land dividing line.


            amendment 4209,3 km of the Russian Federation and China land
            Why not possible?
            The second longest maritime border (16 997 kilometers) runs along the coast of the seas of the Pacific Ocean: Bering, Okhotsk, Japan. The southeast coast of Kamchatka goes directly to the ocean. The main non-freezing ports are Vladivostok and Nakhodka.
            Railways go to the coast only in the south Primorsky Krai in the port area and in the Tatar Strait (Sovetskaya Gavan and Vanino). The coastal areas of the Pacific coast are poorly developed and populated.

            There is also the Republic of China (Taiwan), which claims the Republic of Tyva, and is it far from the "seas" of the PRC to the border of the Russian Federation and the DPRK (Sea of ​​Japan)?
            22,1 kilometers (which is close to the maritime border with Norway is 23,3 kilometers
          2. Per se.
            Per se. 18 June 2013 23: 06
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            these are just populist slogans
            No, this is a statement of a geographical and political fact. Yes, Russia with its "facade" goes out to the northern seas, but the zone of interests of many countries, including China, is now shifting to the Arctic. The ice in the Arctic is melting, this has already been recognized by scientists, including ours, in the foreseeable future it is assumed the possibility of navigation without the help of icebreakers, that is, ice ceases to be an obstacle for foreign ships. There is no point in competing with the United States in terms of the number of warships, but the fleet should not be castrated, but full-fledged in order to perform all the functions assigned to the Navy. A country like Russia cannot do with a coastal fleet. In addition to the Arctic, we also have the Kuriles, and national interests in other seas cannot be limited to one demonstration of the flag. These are obvious things, if for you such populist slogans, in working for the public, there is no point in discussing this, especially since, rather, the denial of the role of the fleet for Russia can be considered populism, with an appeal to the suffering ones to have sausage instead of the army.
            1. nerd.su
              nerd.su 19 June 2013 11: 08
              +3
              Quote: Per se.
              Ice in the Arctic is melting, it is already recognized by scientists, including ours

              It can be recognized by scientists, it remains to be recognized by the Arctic ice itself :)
            2. Avenger711
              Avenger711 20 June 2013 23: 03
              0
              The area freed from ice is still covered by aviation.
        2. old man54
          old man54 18 June 2013 14: 03
          +4
          Quote: Per se.
          Yes, after Tsushima, the fleet of Russia was actually destroyed, but it was with her, and would be oceanic if the TsAR PERSONALITY were in power, and not Nicholas II.

          Nonsense about the economic power of Tsarist Russia. And it’s not only in Nikolashka, the system itself has rotted in it! If not for Stalin and his refrms of the 30s / 40s, then we would not have seen the ocean fleet as our ears!
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 18 June 2013 23: 33
            +1
            Quote: old man54
            Nonsense about the economic power of Tsarist Russia.

            The point is not in the economic strength or weakness of tsarist Russia, but in maritime traditions, sovereign affairs, and without Peter I, they would have sat without a fleet. Stalin was a person, and the Secretary General of the superpower communist Gorbachev? Now that’s what we’ve left, we’ll return to that, like Tsarist Russia, before Tsushima, we start ordering ships for ourselves in France. We still live on the Soviet margin of safety, and then? I do not believe in capitalist happiness, without a strong people's party, without a leader who is more important than personal well-being of the country and people, we really can again become Muscovy, losing not only the achievements of the Soviet Union, but also the efforts of our ancestors to make Russia great power, sea power.
            1. old man54
              old man54 19 June 2013 12: 04
              -1
              Quote: Per se.
              I don’t believe in capitalist happiness, without a strong people's party, without a leader who is more important than personal well-being of the country and people, we really can again become Muscovy,

              I agree with you in many ways, but ... maybe someone will become Muscovy again, and in fact, don't give a damn about this dirty city, but we are and will be Siberia! Whether in the future "Muscovy" will be with us, or somehow, it will be up to her to decide. Something like this, sorry!
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 18 June 2013 16: 20
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        in those days, the Union REALLY fought for world domination, had super-industry, and the navy had tasks

        And now Russia has only a battle ahead for a trough with American scraps? No other prospects? In such a situation, not only the fleet will be an excess ... wink
      3. Misantrop
        Misantrop 20 June 2013 21: 32
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The backward tsarist industry blew the battle over the sea
        Yeah, backward industry. One of two countries in the world to equip its ships with radio communication, the first in the world to provide automatic stabilization of artillery guns in waves and, half a century ahead of time, created 3-gun turrets of the main caliber. And created (in hardware, not just on paper) destroyers of the "Novik"
        1. Kars
          Kars 20 June 2013 21: 52
          +1
          Quote: Misantrop
          Yeah, backward industry.

          Backward, backward is also very corrupt and bureaucratic. And some successes only slightly brighten the overall picture. The world leader is building ships abroad like Japan.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 20 June 2013 21: 56
            0
            Quote: Kars
            Backward, backward is also very corrupt and bureaucratic

            Again, confuse production with the country's leadership? wink
            1. Kars
              Kars 20 June 2013 22: 22
              +1
              Quote: Misantrop
              Again we confuse production with the country's leadership

              Everything is complex. And it feels like you were not interested in the era of armadillos at all.
          2. Misantrop
            Misantrop 20 June 2013 22: 16
            +1
            Quote: Kars
            very corrupt and bureaucratic.

            The project of creating an armored car “Kozak”, taking into account the experience of leading countries of the world, is currently frozen. An army SUV with a purely Ukrainian name was first shown in 2009.

            He was personally presented to Viktor Yushchenko on Independence Day of Ukraine. And although there was a lot of talk about the active use of this car in the army, it didn’t go beyond words. There is information that two Kozaks are waiting for a “good future” on the outskirts of Kiev.

            "Kozak" was developed for the forces of special operations by the scientific and production association "Practice". The car has an anti-mine bottom structure, and the body is made of three parts, which are fixed to the chassis separately from each other.

            This car could be used as part of the army and peacekeeping units, in use during special operations.

            But unfortunately, the leadership of law enforcement agencies did not find application for this car. Although during Euro 2012, security officials were in dire need of such a car, it was decided to purchase civilian versions of the Hummers and L-200 pickups that were completely unprepared for special tasks.
            http://warfiles.ru/33241-ukrainskiy-broneavtomobil-kozak-gniet-pod-kievom.html
            Do you think these stupid, corrupt and bureaucratized factory workers made a worthless car, or didn’t they put the general on their paws so that they move? wink
            1. Kars
              Kars 20 June 2013 22: 21
              +1
              Quote: Misantrop
              Do you think these stupid, corrupt and bureaucratized factory workers made a worthless car, or didn’t they put the general on their paws so that they move?

              Actually, I don’t understand why they did it at all and who needs it. Like the Hummers with pickups. But this does not apply to the Republic of Ingushetia and naval issues. And Yushchenko apparently liked the name.
    2. vyatom
      vyatom 18 June 2013 12: 07
      -4
      Quote: Per se.
      Order, simply, it is necessary to restore order in the country, to finish with thieves and bandits, send good American advisers to three signs, then the fleet will be reborn. For fussing threads +.

      At whose expense is the banquet? On the construction and maintenance of the ocean fleet?
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 18 June 2013 12: 44
        +2
        Quote: vyatom
        At whose expense is the banquet?
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 18 June 2013 16: 24
        +5
        Quote: vyatom
        At whose expense is the banquet? On the construction and maintenance of the ocean fleet?

        Serdyukov and his "ladies of the heart" are sacred, can't you touch them? But there would be enough for a very good squadron. Tellingly, they are not the only ones ... There will be enough not only for the ocean, there will be enough for the space fleet lol
        1. Santa Fe
          18 June 2013 17: 32
          +1
          Quote: Misantrop
          Serdyukov and his "ladies of the heart"

          Will not be enough.

          Obramovich’s fortune is estimated at $ 12 billion.
          For comparison - the construction of the aircraft carrier "Ford" flew to the US budget of 13,2 billion (excluding aircraft wing, operation and R&D) and continues to grow

          destroyer "Zamvolt" cost 3 billion without R&D and ammunition
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 18 June 2013 23: 01
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            For comparison - the construction of the aircraft carrier "Ford" flew to the US budget of 13,2 billion (excluding aircraft wing, operation and R&D) and continues to grow

            And I have no doubts. Americans have enough of their Serdyukovs, and they are no less greedy
    3. Avenger711
      Avenger711 20 June 2013 20: 33
      -1
      India is a peninsula. China is an island between the deserts in the west and the sea in the east, and its trade routes lie through Indonesia. No way without a fleet. Russia itself is the mainland.
  • Kazanok
    Kazanok 18 June 2013 11: 30
    -8
    wonderful article ..... everything is amazingly accurately said .... I support the author ....
  • jandjella
    jandjella 18 June 2013 11: 42
    +3
    Despite the menacing statements of the General Staff, the vast majority of Russian ships are not capable of hitting tactical targets deep in the coast. And they forgot about the grenade cruise missiles, they fly 2000 km. True submarine fleet can only be used. Thank God the fleet is still oceanic and new ships are being added to the fleet. without an ocean fleet, there will be no country's defense capability.
    1. Santa Fe
      18 June 2013 12: 08
      0
      Quote: jandjella
      tactical goals deep in the coast. And they forgot about the grenade cruise missiles, they fly 2000 km

      Pomegranate has a completely different purpose
      1. ZIV
        ZIV 18 June 2013 12: 29
        0
        And what? smile
        If the "GRANAT" cruise missile is designed to destroy enemy ground targets and has a firing range of up to 3 km. It can be equipped with a nuclear warhead with a capacity of 000 kt. "

        "http://kremalera.narod.ru/granat.htm
        1. Santa Fe
          18 June 2013 13: 24
          +1
          Quote: ZIV
          And what?

          Nuclear conflict

          it was initially highlighted there - it was about tactical weapons
          1. ZIV
            ZIV 18 June 2013 15: 17
            -1
            So after all "can be equipped ...", but maybe not. smile
            1. Santa Fe
              18 June 2013 16: 59
              +1
              Quote: ZIV
              So after all "can be equipped ...", but maybe not.

              no such data. The missile was created as a strategic weapon

              Do not try to compare Grant and Tomahawk. These are completely different rockets created for different tasks.
              1. nerd.su
                nerd.su 18 June 2013 23: 47
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Do not try to compare Grant and Tomahawk. These are completely different rockets created for different tasks.

                These are rocket analogues. Ours is created as an answer to the Tomahawk. These are small-sized subsonic missiles having several modifications, can be used as strategic or tactical weapons. So either name what fundamentally different tasks of these missiles (and generally fundamental differences) or you, as always, are wrong smile
  • SIT
    SIT 18 June 2013 12: 22
    +4
    The author’s analysis is correct - there is no clear and precise role of the Navy in the muddy modern military doctrine of the Russian Federation. The conclusion is also correct - in any case, it is necessary to improve the SSBN as the main part of the nuclear triad. As for the surface fleet, the copying of the US Army AUGs is indeed a dead end. They simply have no other choice - all world problems are brewed and solved in the Old World, which means that the United States is forced to drag across the ocean to take part. What have we forgotten on both American continents? To defend their coast and inspire respect, neighbors need to have new means of landing amphibious assault forces and ships that can provide fire support, air defense and protection from the enemy’s Navy.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 18 June 2013 16: 27
      +7
      Quote: SIT
      What have we forgotten on both American continents?
      If you create a scandalous neighbor problems in his own garden, then he will definitely have no time to run through the whole village lol
  • Santa Fe
    18 June 2013 12: 38
    +2
    Quote: SIT
    then copying the state’s AUGs is really a dead end.

    This is not so much about the AUG as about the US Navy as a whole - a gigantic (redundant) formation, where, in addition to 10 nuclear aircraft carriers, about which so many copies are being broken, there are 80+ missile cruisers and destroyers, 60 multipurpose / attack nuclear submarines (not counting SSBNs -PLARB) and more than 100 giant TRANSPORTS (dimensions like those of the TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov")

    Military Sealift Command high-speed transports are the main striking force of the US Navy; without them, the Yankees would sit on their continent and be silent like fish.
    Quote: SIT
    all world problems are brewed and solved in the Old World, which means that in order to take part the United States is forced to lug across the ocean

    That's it!

    The Pentagon drives the snowstorm about Nimitsa, but never talks about its little secret
    Here they are, babies - Bob Hope, Shugart, Gordon ... Without them, fighting on the other side of the Earth would be unrealistic
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 18 June 2013 16: 30
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Here they are, babies - Bob Hope, Shugart, Gordon ... Without them, fighting on the other side of the Earth would be unrealistic
      What an amazing group target ... winked Or do you propose to wait until they, loaded to the eyeballs, are off the coast of the Russian Federation?
      1. Delta
        Delta 18 June 2013 17: 31
        +4
        Quote: Misantrop
        What an amazing group target ... Or suggest you wait until they, loaded to the eyeballs, are off the coast of the Russian Federation?


        yeah ... really. You see, aircraft carriers are an excellent target, but transports are not. Kaptsov in his repertoire
      2. Santa Fe
        18 June 2013 17: 35
        +1
        Quote: Misantrop
        Or do you propose to wait until they, loaded to the eyeballs, are off the coast of the Russian Federation?

        This is not for us.

        For us
        1. Kars
          Kars 18 June 2013 17: 47
          +3
          A similar picture once made me pay $ 25 for an Ohio model))))
          1. Santa Fe
            18 June 2013 20: 16
            0
            Hmm ... well interesting here
            bare cylinder and all

            no "spreading" antenna branches and beam guides PU
            no add-ons, no masts, no helipad
  • old man54
    old man54 18 June 2013 12: 53
    +7
    The article is very entertaining, like many others of Mr. Kaptsov. I believe that the frequent provocative message in his articles is not accidental, but has a hidden specific meaning to make people think about global and strategic issues not only among members of the forum (who are mostly only letters with Jews ... to compete on the topic of whose tanks are better) but also people with gilded admiral's shoulder straps, who, perhaps, from time to time read this site. :) To the author "+", for tireless attempts to get away from the routine of speculating the performance characteristics of various military engineering structures and provoke a lively discussion of the current and future strategic tasks of the Navy.
    Let me voice my understanding of the tasks of the fleet today. :)
    Alas, we can't compete with the guys under the flag of the prison uniform in the ocean. Even more so with NATO. Your shores, islands in the Far East and offshore economic interests around the Russian Federation can and should be protected by ships of the SKR class (frigates), MPK, border corvettes and patrol boats. But these are the daily tasks of the near sea zone, which, in general, is nothing more than the defense of what we have! The presence of a powerful multi-type MA, both patrol and IA, IBA, helicopter with an extensive coastal-based network, is essentially the same, i.e. support of their NKs in their near sea zone. For small showdowns such as the 2008 war, possible further Norwegian claims and the Baltic claims of former "friends", these forces will be quite enough. But the ships of the far sea zone, the ocean, are also needed, albeit in a more limited number than the USSR had them, than the USA has them. Protecting one's interests in the 200-mile zone is nothing more than defense, by analogy with a combined-arms frontal battle, and the presence of ocean-going UGs and a squadron of multipurpose nuclear submarines is already at least a counteroffensive. I think the priority is now clear. The author says that now we have no allies in the distant seas and countries, but since only the treacherous orientation towards Zionist America will leave the "minds" of the country's leadership, then, I assure you, allies and true friends will immediately appear. And to have a serious oceanic military fleet, albeit a very small one, in order to be respected in the international arena, is it worth it, isn't it? :) After all, when we leave the house on business and wear clean, high-quality generally accepted in society and sometimes beautiful and fashionable clothes, not because they are warmer or more functional than drawn, leaky leotards and an old worn sweater, but because we are not indifferent to what other people think of us and how business partners will look at us. So why should everything be different with the country? :)
    Today our country is not ready in principle for real, possible DBs in the ocean with the world's leaders of the planet! Neither economically, nor technologically, nor politically in the first place! But if you try again to primitively "catch up" with the fleet of leaders in terms of the number of units, as Tsarist Russia once did, then this is an unambiguous dead end! what is needed is an asymmetric response, the creation of a new one both in armament and in the tactics of its application, which will nullify the current superiority of a number of countries at sea. The history of the 2nd MV and the German path of war at sea is a vivid example of this. Or, the heyday of aircraft carriers at the beginning of the 2nd MV in spite of the prevailing dominance of shock artillery ships (battleships, main warships).
    The author somehow passed by the multipurpose nuclear submarines and submarines, which is very strange, having only touched on the SSBN. But in vain! The function of multipurpose nuclear submarines is very multifaceted and profound, and the frightening effect is no less effective than the presence of an Orlan-class cruiser at sea. Your dearly beloved war for the Falkland Islands is an example of this - the sinking of the Argentine cruiser by the British nuclear submarine.
    You didn’t quite open the topic, Oleg. :)
  • True
    True 18 June 2013 13: 46
    -2
    Everyone knows the sayings of Peter I and Alexander III about the fleet, that without it in any way. But we must honestly admit that then these words were spoken in a different situation. Then there was no aviation and missile weapons.
    Following the results of the First World War and the Second World War, the following should be said.
    Black Sea and Baltic Fleet locked off their shores and destroyed once or twice. Their capabilities are very limited.
    Northern Fleet. Most of the time is locked in ice. Freely, relatively, only submarines can act. Surface ships are extremely limited in scope.
    Pacific Fleet. Locked by Japan. And the point here is not the notorious Kuril Islands. The Laperouse Strait between Sakhalin and Hokkaido is completely frozen. In addition, he shoots well with Japan. The only good strait is the Tsugaru Strait, between the Japanese islands of Hokkaido and Honshu or to the south, but again completely under the control of all the same Japanese.
    It makes no sense to compare with the United States - their coastlines are not covered by ice, they are actively navigating. Plus huge overseas territories and satellites. So it goes.
    1. old man54
      old man54 18 June 2013 14: 40
      +4
      for "True"
      LLC, I'm sorry, but here I can’t keep silent either!
      Pacific Fleet. Locked by Japan. And the point here is not the notorious Kuril Islands. The Laperouse Strait between Sakhalin and Hokkaido is completely frozen.

      You apparently were not in the Sea of ​​Japan and the sir didn’t even open it! The Strait of Laperouse never freezes at all!! The Tatar Strait freezes in winter, for 5/6 months between the mainland and Sakhalin Island!
      Northern Fleet. Most of the time is locked in ice. Freely, relatively, only submarines can act. Surface ships extremely limited space

      One of the main reasons for the creation of the Arctic squadron in the 30s under the USSR, which was later renamed the Northern Fleet, in the most difficult conditions of the Arctic and the most difficult conditions for ships and parts of the Navy based there, was precisely the fact that the Kola Bay is located in that part of the Barents Sea, which does not freeze, partly due to partial washing by the warm Gulf Stream. The bay itself is partially captured by ice, but not when this western part of the Barents Sea itself. The exit from the main bases of the CSF is not limited by anything, neither by ice, nor by countries. I think we won’t count Norway, a country with 7 million people is not a rival to us! The fact that the passage to the north and east along the Northern Sea Route is closed by ice 9 months a year does not mean that the fleet is locked in its bases! The problem of access to the Atlantic for the NK fleet exists at the turn of the islands of Britain-Foresike-Iceland, yes, this is true. But the exit from the base in the Barents, Norwegian seas is not locked by anyone or anything!
      The Black Sea and Baltic Fleet are locked off their shores and are destroyed for one or two. Their capabilities are very limited.

      They are not "locked" on their shores, but in the event of war, they are blocked in the waters of their seas, i.e. cannot leave them through the natural straits. And then only if these straits are closed by the countries that control them, such as Turkey and Denmark. But these seas themselves are at their disposal. Destruction of these fleets on these MTVDs is a very controversial issue and concerns the tactics of using these fleets, the thoughtfulness of the actions of the command and the preparedness of the coastal support structure.

      It would be nice if you read the lecture, dear, or at least Wikipedia.
  • knn54
    knn54 18 June 2013 14: 46
    +3
    Why does Russia need a fleet? A question that might have seemed to eb I. l. n.a. m even to Tsar Ivan Vasilievich.
    -True.
    Why then do the Finns and Swedes (neutrals) contain squadrons with a power exceeding each BF by 1,5 ... 2 times.
    I'm not talking about South Korea, whose fleet is more powerful than the Pacific Fleet.
    Here, I agree with you on the effectiveness of nuclear submarines, which can also deal with the enemy fleet and get enemy territory with ballistic missiles.
    At the same time, the coastal zone should be left to the "border guards", the FSB Coast Guard and, possibly, the Ministry of Emergencies.
    Well, this is already on the topic "WHAT DOES Russia need a fleet.
    Who cares, S. Gorshkov “Sea power of the state”, M., 1980, which has not lost its relevance today.
    PS For the Navy of the USSR by the military-political leadership of the USSR in the period 1945-1991. The following tasks were identified:
    1945-1955 - support of ground forces in the coastal direction;
    1955-1960 - violation (disruption) of ocean-sea communications;
    1960-1970 - destruction of enemy naval strike groups and destruction of ground targets;
    1970-1985 - destruction of ground targets and strike groups of the naval forces of the enemy;
    1985-1991 - Destruction of ground targets and strike groups of the naval forces of the enemy in retaliatory oncoming strikes.
    And today it is ACTUAL to ensure the development and rational use of natural resources in territorial waters, the economic zone and on the continental shelf in the presence of territorial claims against the Russian Federation by a number of neighboring states.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 18 June 2013 15: 04
    +3
    Does Russia need a fleet? The question is stupid.
    The normal question is: WHAT fleet does Russia need?
    To understand which fleet we need, we must understand what tasks our fleet must solve.
    I see the following tasks that the Russian fleet must solve.
    1. Coastal defense and base defense.
    Russia has huge landing coasts. The most important in this regard is the Black Sea coast. Since the Black Sea Fleet together with the Caspian Flotilla covers the flanks of our Caucasian group, the most modern and combat-ready. Which may set offensive tasks. Therefore, the landing on the Black Sea coast, or on the Caspian, withdraws enemy troops to the rear of this group. Or makes it weaken its impact force to protect the coasts. Not to mention the developed transport infrastructure, which can allow development of active hostilities in the most economically developed regions of the Russian Federation.
    The coasts of the northern seas are less important economically, but they have a significant infrastructure of merchant and military fleets (ports, shipbuilding and ship repair yards). The same can be said about the Baltic, however, there are already anti-Russian bridgeheads in the Baltic states without landing here.
    The defense of the coast of Kamchatka, Sakhalin, Khabarovsk and Primorsky territories, not to mention the Kuril Islands, is possible almost exclusively by sea forces. Since the land road network is underdeveloped in the Far East.
    How is this defense carried out at present? As for the bases, the main part of the defense is to ensure air defense against attacks by missiles and enemy aircraft with the help of air defense systems, including air defense systems, air defense systems and IA. To counter the enemy naval grouping, land missile systems and attack aircraft can be deployed.
    But it’s impossible to defend all airborne hazard directions with these forces. Land anti-ship systems do not have sufficient mobility to cover all possible landing sites. Against the same air force striking units, the enemy can concentrate superior forces of sea-based aviation. Apart from striking at airfields based.
    To delay the landing of the enemy, you can use minefields. But without cover from the shore, or by the fleet, mines quickly settle out.
    I also draw attention to the fact that modern ships have very high protection against missile weapons and air strikes due to the use of naval air defense systems and breech systems. In Soviet times, a regiment of long-range bombers was painted to destroy the AUG alone, regiment for the destruction of the AUG, i.e. the loss of the regiment would be tantamount to its destruction. And this is in the presence of a powerful Soviet Navy.

    2. Providing shipping.
    This, of course, is not about anti-offensive operations during the WWII or WWII. Here we can rather talk about ensuring the delivery of goods to the union states such as Syria or Cuba. Which may be blocked by administrative measures.

    3. Anti-piracy actions.
    Unfortunately, this is the reality of our days. Moreover, there are already at least two pirate areas - the Philippines and Suez.

    4. Support for special operations in regions remote from the territory of the Russian Federation.
    Those. in the event of a threat to the interests of Russia, or its citizens (for example, the evacuation of citizens and property from the conflict zone), the fleet should be able to ensure the transfer and deployment of special operations forces and provide fire and air cover for their actions.
    1. old man54
      old man54 18 June 2013 20: 45
      0
      Quote: alicante11

      1. Coastal defense and base defense.
      Russia has huge landing coasts. The most important in this regard is the Black Sea coast.

      Unfortunately, the Black Sea coast has remained with Gulkin x ... th! Anyway, today you need to protect your coastline from the sea landing and not at all with the fleet, but IBA MA, coast-based missile defense system, mobile coastal batteries and minefields of course! Namely, the presence of a perfectly armed and trained 58 army in the Caucasus makes a sudden landing operation on our Black Sea coast extremely unlikely. And in general, the Caucasian coast is pinned to the mountains, which is not a buzz, we will not expand normally. Good landing sites in the Novorossiysk region and on the Sea of ​​Azov, but hardly anyone will snoop into Azov, if not suicide.
      Therefore, the landing on the Black Sea coast, or on the Caspian, withdraws enemy troops to the rear of this group.

      And who will arrange for us naval landings in the Caspian, if not a secret? Iran? Interesting. :) Why would he suddenly? Maybe Azerbaijan? Very funny! Forum users from Azerbaijan let them answer for their cunning plans! And most importantly, what kind of melt. will he do this with amphibious means? On fishing vessels? Or Kazakhstan? Even funnier. Wow they are mean, I didn’t think that they were plotting such a thing there, in Astana. :)))
      The defense of the coast of Kamchatka, Sakhalin, Khabarovsk and Primorsky territories, not to mention the Kuril Islands, is possible almost exclusively by sea forces. Since the land road network is underdeveloped in the Far East.

      they are not there at all, roads!
      1. Santa Fe
        18 June 2013 21: 02
        +1
        Well yes, something like this

        Quote: old man54
        Or Kazakhstan? Even funnier. Wow they are mean, I didn’t think that they were plotting such a thing there, in Astana. :)))

        laughing
      2. alicante11
        alicante11 19 June 2013 08: 28
        0
        Anyway, today you need to protect your coastline from the sea landing and not at all with the fleet, but IBA MA, coast-based missile defense system, mobile coastal batteries and minefields of course!


        Mobile BBs are much less mobile than the enemy’s fleet. And coastal aviation is vulnerable at airfields. Therefore, mobile anti-ship missiles are more profitable to use after all, in the defense of bases and areas adjacent to them. And no one refuses from coastal aviation. But, again, at present, the ships of all fleets are just well protected from aviation and missile weapons by air defense systems.

        Namely, the presence of a perfectly armed and trained 58 army in the Caucasus makes a sudden landing operation on our Black Sea coast extremely unlikely


        And if 58 I go to chase rodents, aisers and help the Armenians against the Turks? Who then will cover its rear from the landing?

        And who will arrange for us naval landings in the Caspian, if not a secret? Iran? Interesting. :) Why would he suddenly?


        Of course, Iran. Iran plays its games. Today we are on his way against the Amer and for Syria. And tomorrow, the question of dividing the oil reserves of the Caspian Sea may be raised. And Iran has, to put it mildly, far from the last armed forces in the region, including and ship grouping in the Caspian.

        they are not there at all, roads!


        That is exactly what, therefore, maneuver by defensive ground units is not possible. Those. you must either inflate the defense in all important directions, or make it maneuverable by sea.
  • alicante11
    alicante11 18 June 2013 15: 04
    +1
    Thus, the Russian fleet should include the following permanent operational formations.
    1. Northern Fleet. Black Sea Fleet, Caspian Flotilla. The composition of these compounds should provide maneuverable coastal defense under the cover of land-based aviation and land-based anti-ship missiles. Rapid transfer to dangerous areas of the Marine Corps and land systems of RCC. With the provision of anti-aircraft defense and air defense. These tasks can be solved by small artillery and missile ships (corvettes and boats) of the coastal zone, diesel-electric submarines, mine-layers, minesweepers. And also MDK.

    2. Pacific Fleet.
    Given the size of the potential theater of operations, covering Kamchatka, Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands is uneconomical. Since it will require deployment of maximum forces in all these directions. Therefore, the Pacific Fleet should be aimed at carrying out counter-landing, together with land-based aviation and airborne forces. This is especially true of the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka.
    For this, the Pacific Fleet must have a powerful group of surface strike ships in the ocean zone. The structure of which should include ships of the destroyer class, a frigate, perhaps several large missile cruisers. As well as multi-purpose submarines and diesel-electric submarines. Which, in cooperation with land-based aviation, can briefly gain dominance at sea in a selected area in order to carry out an operation to destroy an enemy landing force, or a base that provides enemy landing operations. And provide fire support for the landing. Naturally, TSh, MZ and BDK are necessary.

    3. Given the developed shipbuilding and ship repair base in the Baltic, as well as the size of the theater of operations and the presence of bridgeheads in the Baltic states, a permanent fleet there is not particularly needed. It is quite possible to get by with temporary formations of ships sent for repair, modernization and undergoing combat training after construction.

    4. To ensure maritime transport and anti-piracy operations, detachments of transport ships and ships of the oceanic zone, such as frigates, should be deployed in all fleets, which could ensure their safety from "accidents" that can occur in the ocean with an unarmed single ship. These ships should be able to provide the potentially necessary volume of traffic and presence in pirate areas. From these same forces, temporary and / or permanent connections can be formed for various small theaters of war - like the Mediterranean, where we do not need to hold strong positions.

    5. Fleet of the Open Sea.
    For special operations and for representative functions. It is necessary to have 1, and preferably 2 (in case of long repairs and modernization of large ships) shock groups. Which should include AB and several large missile cruisers with the corresponding escort from frigates and multipurpose nuclear submarines. For the transfer of special operations forces, it is necessary to have a BDK and high-speed transport ships.
    In addition to providing special operations, such a connection can provide, for example, moral and informational support to the allies, being directed to their coast. And to help them repel the attack, together with their fleet and aircraft.
  • Coward
    Coward 18 June 2013 17: 40
    +5
    It is worth noting that all Russian 667BDRM, Sharks and Boreas are structurally designed for sea water temperature close to 0 ° - leaks will open in the tropics on boats and serious technical problems will begin.

    For the sake of this, I even registered on the site.
    Can someone, and in particular the author, explain: why on civil vessels having ice amplifications from L3 to ULA, according to the old classification of the Register, such problems do not arise? The strength of their hulls will be lower than that of submarines.
    1. Delta
      Delta 20 June 2013 23: 57
      +1
      the author will not answer. He does not answer uncomfortable questions that do not fit into his concept
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 18 June 2013 17: 56
    +3
    The article is sad, but in general, IMHO, dear SWEET_SIXTEEN is right. The dream of the "ocean fleet" should be postponed until better times and focus on the nuclear submarine.
    I only disagree with the fact that we need "ships to display the flag." Why waste money and energy on toys?
    And I think that for the Pacific Fleet on surface ships it is necessary to "make an exception." They are needed there.
    It is very doubtful that we will be able to keep Japan alone Ash. The nuclear weapons are not applicable against her. The cat wept over there.
    And in general, the Asia-Pacific region is a key economic region in the world.
    1. old man54
      old man54 18 June 2013 20: 56
      0
      Quote: Odyssey
      It is very doubtful that we will be able to keep Japan alone Ash. The nuclear weapons are not applicable against her. The cat wept over there.

      Of course we can't do it with Ash alone, I agree! But have you noticed that lately, after the tsunami and Fokushima, Japan has almost quieted down on the topic of the "northern territories"? :) And for some reason she constantly began to hysteria that "some unknown submarine seemed to be seen in their waters "or near. Have you ever wondered why it would be? Or maybe it was the tsunami that caused the Focusim tragedy of a non-natural character? Maybe some "evil" government hinted to the Japanese that they would not be forgotten and sat down on their priests and sat quietly, huh? What do you think?:)
      1. nerd.su
        nerd.su 19 June 2013 00: 07
        +2
        Quote: old man54
        Or maybe it was the tsunami that caused the Focusim tragedy of a non-natural character? Maybe some "evil" government hinted to the Japanese that they would not be forgotten and sat down on their priests and sat quietly, huh? What do you think?:)

        Although the question is not for me, I think that it is much more likely that this is not an "evil" state, but a hint from above. This despite the fact that I am an atheist.
        And our media began to hysteria about our planes and submarines off the coast of Japan. The Japanese do not forget about the islands. Under the pretext of incidents on Senkaku, they abandoned the defense concept of creating marines and other means of attack.
      2. Odysseus
        Odysseus 19 June 2013 03: 13
        +1
        Quote: old man54
        Maybe some "evil" government hinted to the Japanese that they would not be forgotten and sat down on their priests and sat quietly, huh? What do you think?:)

        Climatic weapons? Of course, everything is possible, but I think it's fantastic.
        As for Japan, botan.su told you everything correctly. They do not forget about the "northern territories" and continue to arm themselves.
        The point is that since 1945, Japan, to put it mildly, has been very dependent on the United States, and for the Americans, China’s main opponent. Accordingly, Japan’s main efforts are now directed at confronting China. Plus, the Korean problem.
        But at any moment the United States can "give the go-ahead", and then all of Japan's attention will be turned to us.
        1. old man54
          old man54 19 June 2013 12: 32
          0
          Quote: Odyssey
          Climatic weapons? Of course, everything is possible, but I think it's fantastic.
          As for Japan, botan.su told you everything correctly. They do not forget about the "northern territories" and continue to arm themselves.

          Intervention From above it is certainly not bad and tempting, but ... for some reason, the epicenter of that earthquake was a vokurat at the fault of tectonic plates, which is by no means obligatory and a rarity at all ?! In the vicinity of the epicenter, a release of cesium, a radioactive element was detected, which is very strange and indicates a nuclear explosion, don’t you think so? :) The team of the Amer ship that arrived there first (why should they climb into a simple earthquake epicenter) received serious radiation doses!
          Fiction say? :) Once upon a time, everything was fantastic: both airplanes, and submarines, and missiles and nuclear weapons! The fact that the USSR has been developing the theme of creating a management of tectonic shifts for 30 years and creating the strongest tsunamis with it is no secret. I did not expect such innocence from you, you thought more knowledgeable, I'm sorry. It is clear that no one openly admits this, but it is not necessary. Hinted, put in place. The Japanese hopefully realized that if something happens, 50% of Japan will simply be washed off into the ocean! The network is full of videos where our scientists, who used to be engaged in this Voros, openly say that creating an artificial wave (tsunami) of about 70/80 meters in height is not a problem today! The sensational tsunami in Southeast Asia in 2003 was caused by a wave of 10 meters! And in Indonesia, more than 300 people died from it. Look wider and the world will smile at you! I’ll look for links on the net, and I’ll discard you if you wish.
          1. Thunderbolt
            Thunderbolt 19 June 2013 12: 53
            0
            Quote: old man54
            In the area of ​​the epicenter, a release of cesium, a radioactive element, was recorded, which is very strange and indicates a nuclear explosion,
            There is such a scientific "sign" - if the content of radioactive radon rises in well water or in an artesian well, then it will soon "shake". Electrically charged gases are released before an earthquake. hiBut that's not all, check out (especially at the end) http://stringer-news.com/publication.mhtml?Part=48&PubID=16285
            1. old man54
              old man54 20 June 2013 12: 40
              0
              Quote: Thunderbolt
              There is such a scientific "sign" - if the content of radioactive radon rises in well water or in an artesian well, then it will soon "shake".

              I agree that earthquakes are accompanied by similar effects. But is the release of radioactive cesium, which is evidence of a man-made nuclear explosive and a sharply increased, dangerous for a person, radioactive background of the place are the accompanying factors of earthquake? And this is even taking into account the thickness of sea water and currents, which quickly neutralize the consequences of the application of nuclear weapons.
          2. Odysseus
            Odysseus 19 June 2013 16: 59
            0
            Quote: old man54
            In the vicinity of the epicenter, a release of cesium, a radioactive element was recorded, which is very strange and indicates a nuclear explosion, don't you think so? :)

            Not at all necessary. In general, a nuclear explosion is tracked quite clearly. I did not see any evidence that nuclear weapons were used there.
            But, of course, I could be wrong.
            Quote: old man54
            The fact that the USSR has been developing the theme of creating a management of tectonic shifts for 30 years and creating the strongest tsunamis with it is no secret. I did not expect such innocence from you, you thought more knowledgeable, I'm sorry

            Sorry I didn’t live up to the confidence smile
            Live and learn. I, of course, have heard about developments in this area. But here is that some practical results have been achieved, no. Perhaps the tolerance level is not the same.
            Quote: old man54
            Look wider and the world will smile at you! I’ll look for links on the net, and I’ll discard you if you wish.

            I’ll try. Well, if we have weapons of such strength, we are not afraid of anything)
            And it would be interesting to look at the links.
            1. old man54
              old man54 20 June 2013 14: 27
              0
              Quote: Odyssey
              In general, a nuclear explosion is tracked quite clearly. I did not see any evidence that nuclear weapons were used there.

              That North Korea won the nose the whole world community drove more than one year on the topic whether it has nuclear weapons or not! or she’s just in the mines a certain amount of TNT exploded. And you say that it’s easy to determine. And when under the water and still immediately begin a real earthquake, is it easy to determine?
              Sorry I didn’t live up to the confidence

              no, it’s you, forgive me, that something has come to frustration a bit. :) I just always found your comments here very reasonable and not stupid, that’s ...
              Well, if we have weapons of such strength, we are not afraid of anything)
              And it would be interesting to look at the links.

              But I wouldn’t rely too much on it, there are a lot of nuances. Here, I found it! I was looking for something for a long time, I did not have it in copies.
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sx7Q85zZ88

              I was looking for another one, about a purely climatic weapon, a video related to last year’s heat in central Russia from Ivashov, but I can’t find something. Maybe later. Health to you! :))
          3. nerd.su
            nerd.su 19 June 2013 17: 35
            +2
            Quote: old man54
            for some reason, the epicenter of that earthquake was a wokurat at the fault of tectonic plates, which is by no means obligatory and a rarity at all ?!

            In general, a rarity is an earthquake where there are no active faults. In Western Siberia, for example.
            The center of the earthquake was at a depth of 40-50 km. What processes occur at these depths and how to influence them, we present purely theoretically, based on geophysical data. And geophysics, I’ll inform you, is like a girl in a miniskirt, shows a lot, but gives little smile The deepest well, I recall, Kola is a little deeper than 12 km. By the way, she showed that the theoretical constructions about the deep structure of the Earth are not entirely true. So for the creation of tectonic weapons there is not even a reliable theoretical basis. Earthquakes have not yet been reliably learned to predict, and you scare the Japanese with tectonic weapons what
            1. old man54
              old man54 20 June 2013 13: 16
              0
              Quote: bot.su
              In general, a rarity is an earthquake where there are no active faults. In Western Siberia, for example.

              No, 99% of earthquakes occur in areas with "unstable" geology, that is, with increased activity and so on. faults in this case are not a guarantee of cataclysm. Vaughn Ural, Mountains, fault line tectonic plates, so what? Are there often earthquakes? And just the epicenter of the eruption, clearly along the fracture line of the plates, is not deserted, rather not a fact!
              The deepest well, I recall, Kola is a little deeper than 12 km. By the way, she showed that the theoretical constructions about the deep structure of the Earth are not entirely true.

              I agree with you here more than. But I myself do not know this theory more than the average man. There, it seems that the places of the greatest stresses at the joints of the plates are determined, the minimum nuclear charge is used as a type detonator, the rest is done by the ready-made voltage energy of these tectonic plates, i.e. in part, everything naturally happens. Therefore, it is difficult to detect and prove anything! A fault shift forms a tsunami. The only question is to determine the fault lines in the sea (on land, on the territory of another state, it is problematic to lay nuclear weapons) and to find the places of their greatest stresses at this time.
              So for the creation of tectonic weapons there is not even a reliable theoretical basis. Earthquakes have not yet been reliably learned to predict, and you scare the Japanese with tectonic weapons

              Well, I would not be so categorical that there is no reason for that! The whole world after the 91st is concerned about this when leaks in our harrow together with specialists on this topic occurred. :)
              And I do not scare anyone, you shouldn’t, I read, analyze, come to conclusions, read the conclusions and assumptions of others on the network and conduct parallels. For me, this is a pretty clear picture, especially against the background of Japan's unexpected "pacification" on the issue that it has been talking about for 50 years!
              1. nerd.su
                nerd.su 20 June 2013 19: 21
                +1
                Quote: old man54
                No, 99% of earthquakes occur in areas with "unstable" geology, that is, with increased activity and so on. faults in this case are not a guarantee of cataclysm. Vaughn Ural, Mountains, tectonic plate fault line, so what?

                So I'm talking about the same thing, you just misunderstood me. Unstable geology just involves ACTIVE faults. And in the Urals, their activity has passed a long time. There is now no strong movement of the plates. Figuratively, you can compare the earth's crust with the skin. The Urals is an old, healing wound, a scar. If you move the skin, it no longer hurts, it can itch only slightly. But in the Far East, wounds are fresh and there is constantly shifting the skin, then stretch it. That wounds hurt and do not heal - earthquakes, volcanoes and other joy.

                Quote: old man54
                Often there are earthquakes?

                On the scale of geological time in the Urals, meteorites very often fall! laughing
                And earthquakes happen, only mainly of man-made nature. By the way, even they have not yet learned to confidently predict and, especially, use. Although already at these depths everything has been studied in detail.

                Quote: old man54
                And just the epicenter of crushing clearly along the line of breaking the plates is not painful, rather not a fact!

                Here, too, is not so simple. The fault itself, it's not some clear plane a meter thick. This is a zone up to several km wide, if it is a deep fault of great length. In addition, the epicenter is the projection of the center of the earthquake (hypocenter) on the surface of the Earth. And if the fault is inclined, and off the coast of Japan they are mostly such, then the epicenter on the surface of the earth will shift away from the fault. The hypocenter is still in the fault zone, at great depths.

                Quote: old man54
                There, it seems that the places of the greatest stress at the joints of the plates are determined, the minimum nuclear charge is used, as a type detonator

                In theory, so far. But this is where the theory ends. If the places of the greatest tension can still be justified somehow, even with a pitchfork in the water, then the number of charges, the place of the explosion, the depth of the charge can be calculated or determined by fortune telling on coffee grounds with equal probability.
                So yes, while I am categorical - there is no reliable theory for the development of tectonic weapons. At this stage, one can throw atomic charges into a deep-sea trench and wait for an equiprobable event of three: 1) nothing will happen except radiation contamination of the ocean floor, 2) Japan will suffer to one degree or another, 3) both Japan and the Kuril Islands will go under water and even Sikhote-Alin, and the tsunami to reach the Urals.

                And a clear picture of Japan's "pacification" is emerging because our media, against the background of Fukushima, are simply not interested in the annoying Japanese screams. However, if you read the Japanese press in the original, then maybe ... but it cannot, the Japanese, I think, are also more interested in Fukushima than about the northern territories. Not only is something new, but also dangerous right in the house, what kind of territory is there.
  • MG42
    MG42 18 June 2013 18: 13
    +3
    This article is a continuation of the moaning that the s-300 has no chance in Syria by the same author .. long live the insurmountable Amer AUGs. drinks
    .. in the style of sowing supposed air defense district by a thousand charms laughing
    the vast majority of Russian ships are not capable of hitting tactical targets deep in the coast. In this sense, the only unique ship of the Russian Navy is the Dagestan patrol ship, deployed on the Caspian Sea - for the first time, a module of 8 launch cells for Caliber family cruise missiles was installed on it

    read at your leisure >>
    http://www.newsfiber.com/p/s/h?v=EHy51KhCgQLc%3D+KdWo3CwgJhw%3D
    1. Constantine
      Constantine 18 June 2013 18: 18
      +2
      I agree. I am accompanied by similar sensations + words like "If you can't break - lead" come to mind, well, then it's a matter of technology :)
      1. MG42
        MG42 18 June 2013 18: 29
        +3
        Hurray-patriotism is harmful, but even more harmful is <the cry of Yaroslavna> ..
        In Ukraine, there are those who also prove that the army is not needed at all, it is necessary to reduce, reduce, because we are not going to fight with anyone anyway, no one will attack us, there are guarantees when we abandon nuclear weapons and the main thing is expensive ..
        In Russia, the same problems are visible, although the budget is not comparable ..
    2. Santa Fe
      18 June 2013 18: 35
      -2
      Quote: MG42
      http://www.newsfiber.com/p/s/h?v=EHy51KhCgQLc%3D+KdWo3CwgJhw%3D

      And what's new here?
      1. MG42
        MG42 18 June 2013 19: 17
        +2
        This is not reflected in your article, but affects the balance of power ..
        "Why does Russia need a fleet?" I think it's not too smart or just provocative, any country that has access to the sea / ocean must have a fleet to protect both the coast and territorial waters. The Amer use their fleets for other purposes as well.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 June 2013 20: 17
          0
          Quote: MG42
          This is not reflected in your article.

          What is it?
          1. MG42
            MG42 18 June 2013 20: 47
            +4
            It was necessary to do a detailed analysis of the comparison of fleets, there were fewer questions, and so why and why, we will send the fleet <to the South Pole>
            The United States preferred the naval forces and, above all, their nuclear missile component, focusing on nuclear missile submarines up to 65 - 70% of their nuclear potential. And mine minutemans III just live out their term.
            How to deal with them is just the project 885, including the one called to fight against them. About onyx and calibers have already read this add-on ..

            Т
            Who are you, dear admirals, going to punish with the “nuclear sword”? Unfortunate inhabitants of Zimbabwe or civilians from New Zealand?

            Why ?, Zimbabwe is threatening something, but Somali pirates, for example, can be dealt with with ordinary patrols, like the USAG and bases on the islands you can get to them ..
            By ensuring the transfer of thousands of tanks to the Persian Gulf region and “knocking out” Iraqi command posts, airfields and air defense positions with the help of Tomahawks, American sailors can safely go home and hang out for nights in the taverns and nightclubs of Norfolk. They have nothing more to do in war - then the Air Force and Land Forces decide everything.

            US Marines are just DOS. their striking force, and the fleet dropped them off and dumped thumps in Norfolk bars, they have nothing to do .. Too primitively, will the Air Force supply the entire fleet, not the fleet, but do planes take off from any carriers, not from aircraft carriers, by accident?
            You can still quote a lot, too lazy ..
            1. Santa Fe
              18 June 2013 21: 04
              -3
              Quote: MG42
              but Somali pirates, for example, have them can be dealt with by ordinary patrolling

              obviously not on strategic missile carriers)))
              Quote: MG42
              and planes take off from which carriers, not from aircraft carriers by accident?

              Of course not
              90% of combat sorties from ground airfields


              Sheikh Isa Air Force Base, Bahrain
              1. MG42
                MG42 18 June 2013 21: 09
                +5
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                obviously not on strategic missile carriers)))

                I'm talking about the fleet in the complex, no need to troll .. like in the article

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Of course not
                90% of combat sorties from ground airfields

                Where is the source about 90% is your speculation, but at least 1% of departures, but that means that the aircraft carrier has remained, and it must be covered bully
                1. MG42
                  MG42 18 June 2013 21: 25
                  +5
                  For a snack >>
                  Shooting of Somali pirates from Marshal Shaposhnikov
                  1. Santa Fe
                    19 June 2013 00: 37
                    -3
                    Window dressing

                    Somali horn shipping safety is the task of private armed guard

                    http://topwar.ru/26085-somaliyskie-piraty-otpuscheny-na-svobodu-v-300-milyah-ot-

                    poberezhya-kazhdomu-vydan-spasatelnyy-yakor.html
                2. Santa Fe
                  19 June 2013 00: 40
                  -2
                  Quote: MG42
                  Where is the source about 90% is your speculation,

                  there are data on conflicts in Iraq-1991, Yugoslavia-1999 and Libya-2011
                  If interested - I will give the numbers
                  Quote: MG42
                  but this means that the aircraft carrier has remained, and it must be covered

                  Usually atomic giants do not leave the base in Norfolk
                  For applying it is expensive, inefficient and by and large useless
                  1. MG42
                    MG42 19 June 2013 12: 11
                    +3
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    there are data on conflicts in Iraq-1991, Yugoslavia-1999 and Libya-2011

                    Yes, it’s very interesting, for example, in Iraq from January 17-19, 1991 out of 4700 sorties 600 It was carrier-based aviation, and this is clearly more than 10% if you are friends with math, so minus the lies.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Usually atomic giants do not leave the base in Norfolk
                    For applying it is expensive, inefficient and by and large useless

                    I really don’t understand, then you are promoting the US army, then vice versa .. what
                    During combat operations, on the contrary, AUSs with all the consequences can be created from the AUG, they are useless unless in Afghanistan because of geography ... it is effective to use carrier-based aviation 200 miles from the carrier ..
                    Quote: Setrac
                    This is open information, if you use Google you will also find it.

                    Even skeptic bloggers write
                    Contribution of US Navy aircraft carriers to world conflicts: Iraq - 17% of the total number of aviation sorties, Yugoslavia - 10% of all aviation sorties
                    1. Santa Fe
                      19 June 2013 14: 29
                      -1
                      Quote: MG42
                      in Iraq from January 17-19, 1991 out of 4700 sorties 600

                      It seems you are beginning to understand something ...

                      4700 sorties: 4100 from coastal airfields, 600 from decks (14%)
                      It turns out that the main role is played not even by aircraft carriers - the overwhelming majority of sorties were made by ordinary air forces

                      At the same time, it is simply incorrect to compare the combat load of the deck "Hornet" with the combat load of the powerful F-111 or F-15E - in fact, the contribution of deck-based aircraft was even less!

                      Interesting details about Yugoslavia:
                      The only aircraft carrier took part (3000 sorties versus 30 sorties of the NATO group - only 000%). At the same time, "Theodore Roosevelt" arrived only on the 10th day of the operation (before that there was bad weather over the Adriatic).
                      Amer aircraft carriers did not participate in Libya (contribution - 0%)
                      Quote: MG42
                      When fighting, on the contrary, from the AUG can be created AUS with all the consequences

                      And what will happen?)) Many planes will work out?)))
                      2600 aircraft took part in Operation Desert Storm, not counting turntables, various Apaches, etc.
                      In Yugoslavia, the NATO group consisted of 1000 aircraft.

                      That's how much equipment is needed to bomb a third world country a little !!! AUG and AUS are powerless to do anything
                      Quote: MG42
                      Iraq - 17% of the total number of sorties, Yugoslavia - 10% of all sorties

                      Libya - 0%

                      ps / there were as many as 6 AUG in Iraq! And all the same,> 80% of the sorties fell on land aviation! (we will not compare the bomb load of the deck A-6 and B-52, as well as the performance characteristics of the AWACS E-2 Hawkeye and E-3 Sentry)
                      1. MG42
                        MG42 19 June 2013 14: 45
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        It seems you are beginning to understand something ...

                        We will do without curtsies wink
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        4700 sorties: 4100 from coastal airfields, 600 from decks (14%)
                        Coming out

                        out you lied about 10% in Iraq, by the way, there it is also for the first 2 days of the company, and so about 17%
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Libya - 0%

                        Yes.
                        It is necessary to consider AUG in a complex, as you for example will take to strengthen. an island in the Pacific Ocean, coastal aviation is short-lived.
                        The main advantage of AUG = mobility can appear where there are no loyal countries and bases within the radius of a military solid fuel and good survival ... coastal airfields coordinates are known can be bombed with the same cruise missiles, damaged takeoff and everything, unless of course there is no vertical take-off .. and coastal aviation is limited to radius of action = it will need refueling in the air, of course, the bombers have a much higher range, but that without cover, they run into decks ..
                      2. Santa Fe
                        19 June 2013 15: 19
                        -3
                        Quote: MG42
                        it turns out you lied about 10% in Iraq, by the way there it is also for the first 2 days of the company, and so about 17%

                        If you have nothing else to do, you can continue to enjoy the impotence of US Navy carrier-based aviation ... 10, 15, 17% - this is a shame for the invincible AUG))) Aircraft carriers do not solve anything even in a small local war

                        And the numbers are different:
                        During the 2 weeks of the war, Allied aircraft made more than 30 thousand sorties - (3,5 thousand of them were carried out by carrier-based aviation)
                        http://merkulof.com/page697.html
                        So who is the meadow here, remains to be seen, but one thing is clear - you do not know anything on this topic, but are trying to argue
                        Quote: MG42
                        It is necessary to consider AUG in a complex, as you for example will take to strengthen. an island in the Pacific Ocean, coastal aviation is short-lived.

                        This does not happen
                        The US Air Force has bases ANYWHERE, on all continents and in any corner of the Earth
                        Quote: MG42
                        and coastal aviation is limited in range = it will need air refueling

                        This is much easier than building and operating a squadron of aircraft carrier ships.
                      3. MG42
                        MG42 19 June 2013 15: 31
                        +4
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        So who is the meadow here, remains to be seen, but one thing is clear - you do not know anything on this topic, but are trying to argue

                        No, you’re stubborn 30 and 000 is 3%; go to school at the desk ..
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        This is much easier than building and operating a squadron of aircraft carrier ships.

                        We are waiting for an article from you, an article that all aircraft carriers will be cut into metal, because they are not profitable to exploit .. You will be in the pros.
                        laughing bye Bye..
                      4. Santa Fe
                        19 June 2013 15: 46
                        -3
                        MG42 could not be answered - he didn’t have any arguments anyway and he is not able to analyze the facts

                        Quote: MG42
                        Well, you are stubborn 30 and 000 is 3% go to school at the desk ..

                        For 2 weeks of war, Allied aircraft committed more than 30 thousand sorties - (3,5 thousand of them were performed by carrier-based aircraft)
                        Portfolio in hand, and jogging to school - for a reading lesson
                        Quote: MG42
                        all aircraft carriers cut into metal, because they are not profitable to exploit

                        US public debt counter on a street in New York

                        MG42, the Yankees are building their fleet for your money, and they really how many ships cost. You can continue to rejoice
                        bye Bye wink
                      5. MG42
                        MG42 19 June 2013 16: 02
                        +3
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        MG42, the Yankees are building their fleet for your money, and they really how many ships cost.

                        Yes, you are really strange and touchy, they carry water on offended ones ..
                        Whose for yours? What is your nationality? check box proxy? I have ukroinskoe
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        US public debt counter on a street in New York

                        America discovered, at least Columbus fellow otherwise I didn’t know about the public debt counter, I spread it in posts in real time 2 times too ..
                        The last time, when there was a relatively recent conflict between Japan and China over the US island, they sent AUG with the aircraft carrier George Washington as an observer to the South China Sea, so you don’t have to write it off, everyone knows how to count money and what’s what ..
                  2. nerd.su
                    nerd.su 19 June 2013 16: 35
                    +3
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The US Air Force has bases ANYWHERE, on all continents and in any corner of the Earth

                    Ah, ah, ah, on every continent, in every corner. In Antarctica, no. And in 2041, the protocol ending the economic activity there will end winked
                  3. MG42
                    MG42 19 June 2013 17: 15
                    +3
                    Quote: bot.su
                    Ah, ah, ah, on every continent, in every corner

                    That's the trouble shuffling from side to side >> in article one >> why does Russia need a fleet?
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The US Air Force has bases ANYWHERE, on all continents and in any corner of the Earth

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    US Navy ... 10, 15, 17% - it's a shame for the invincible AUG))) Aircraft carriers do not solve anything even in a small local war

                    And the bases should be kept free of charge for the budget, although they themselves occupy the pyramid, the end may come, no matter how much the rope is not curled, they will be shortened ..
                  4. Santa Fe
                    19 June 2013 17: 50
                    -3
                    Quote: MG42
                    And the bases contain for free for the budget

                    Military airbase cannot be compared with an aircraft carrier
                    These are political influence, transport hub, basing of strategists and reconnaissance (U-2, RC-135), heavy fighters (F-15, F-22), deployment of air defense / missile defense systems, RT reconnaissance equipment (Echelon system) + hospitals , arsenals, storage


                    In remote areas of the Earth, the Yankees operate even easier - they rent any civil airport for a while (as it was in the "Desert Storm" - they occupied all the nearby airports of the UAE, Saudis, Jordan)
                  5. Delta
                    Delta 19 June 2013 18: 02
                    +3
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    In remote areas of the Earth, the Yankees operate even easier - they rent any civil airport for a while (as it was in the "Desert Storm" - they occupied all the nearby airports of the UAE, Saudis, Jordan)


                    and here the question arises: why are they and aircraft carriers kept? Well really all Americans are dumber than Kaptsov?))))
                  6. Santa Fe
                    19 June 2013 18: 11
                    -4
                    Quote: Delta
                    Well really all Americans are dumber than Kaptsov?))))

                    and you look at their public debt counter
                  7. Delta
                    Delta 19 June 2013 18: 26
                    +3
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    and you look at their public debt counter


                    looked. And you look at their aircraft carriers))) well, looked? Does it look like they are expecting recycling or selling to China?
                  8. old man54
                    old man54 20 June 2013 12: 48
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    and you look at their public debt counter

                    absolutely right! One of the signs of the approaching war is the country's high international debt and negative balance, especially if this country has an appropriate army for this. Debts somehow need to be "written off", if the economy itself cannot cope!
                  9. Delta
                    Delta 20 June 2013 18: 16
                    +1
                    Quote: old man54
                    One of the signs of the approaching war is a high international debt and a negative balance of the country.

                    the question is not what is approaching there. And in what we have today. And today, for ten years now, aircraft carriers and the flag have been demonstrating (I would even say - a fist, not a flag) and have actively participated in the hostilities, and not only lit flags at parades and somehow do not go to utilization, despite the whole crisis of their rotting economy
                  10. Santa Fe
                    20 June 2013 23: 22
                    -1
                    Quote: Delta
                    And today, for ten years now, aircraft carriers and the flag have been demonstrating

                    A rather mediocre predestination for a ship worth $ 6 billion.
                    Quote: Delta
                    and participated in hostilities actively

                    Are you kidding me?
                    in Yugoslavia acted alone, while the remaining 9 stuck out for fun
                    did not participate in Libya
                    something fluttered in Iraq, but the result is known - 6 AUGs provided only 17% of the Coalition Air Force sorties
                    Quote: Delta
                    somehow they don’t go for recycling, despite the entire crisis of their rotting economy

                    The national debt is growing. How much will the amers have the audacity?
                    20 trillion? 30 trillion?
                    Congress is talking about sequestration. It becomes interesting)))
                  11. Delta
                    Delta 21 June 2013 00: 03
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    A rather mediocre predestination for a ship worth $ 6 billion.

                    ok, let the States leave corvettes for this)))) or the Premier League

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    in Yugoslavia acted alone, while the remaining 9 stuck out for fun
                    did not participate in Libya
                    something fluttered in Iraq, but the result is known - 6 AUGs provided only 17% of the Coalition Air Force sorties


                    who told you that they had to bomb everything and provide all 100% of sorties? where did you get this from?
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The national debt is growing. How much will the amers have the audacity?
                    20 trillion? 30 trillion?


                    yes it is their concern. Not yours. As we see - while they cope with them. Why do you need something?
                  12. Santa Fe
                    21 June 2013 01: 16
                    +1
                    Quote: Delta
                    As you can see - while they cope with them

                    They DO NOT Cope with them

                    Whether you like it or not, the US public debt exists and continues to grow. And this delivers a butchert to Congress and Obama, who every year remove the threshold limit - as long as the Yankees have the audacity. Last year we seriously talked about sequestration
                    Quote: Delta
                    who told you that they had to bomb everything and provide all 100% of sorties?

                    After analyzing the results of "Desert Storm", the stories about "force projection" and "rapid concentration of forces" with the help of AUG lose their meaning

                    What kind of "quick response" can we talk about if the SIX aircraft carrier groups do not decide anything even in the conflict with Iraq?
                    Quote: Delta
                    ok, let the States leave corvettes for this))))

                    You have never seen a ship near. Even a small corvette surprises with its size - a man looks like a grain of sand against a huge rock

                    Seriously though, the Berk destroyers are not bad for "demonstrating the flag" (in fact, they usually do this due to the fact that 60+ of them have been built and their operation is not as expensive as that of larger ships)
                  13. Delta
                    Delta 21 June 2013 10: 30
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    They DO NOT Cope with them

                    The United States has already requested humanitarian assistance from Russia and Ukraine, promising to give their aircraft carriers for this to these countries?))))))

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Quote: Delta
                    who told you that they had to bomb everything and provide all 100% of sorties?
                    After analyzing the results of "Desert Storm", the stories about "force projection" and "rapid concentration of forces" with the help of AUG lose their meaning


                    Well this is not the answer to the question. I asked - why should the ACG solve ALL the tasks of destroying the enemy? that's clearer? Who declared such a possibility at all? who wrote in recruitment brochures in the U.S. Navy that AUG will win the war alone?

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    You never saw a ship near


                    laughing thanks, laughed
                  14. Santa Fe
                    21 June 2013 11: 44
                    0
                    Quote: Delta
                    US has already requested humanitarian assistance from Russia and Ukraine

                    The United States can cool its welfare, medicare and defense budget. The third point is most interesting to me.

                    Whether you like it or not, the US public debt is increasing - in Congress, there is talk of sequestration
                    Quote: Delta
                    I asked - why should the ACS solve ALL the tasks of destroying the enemy

                    Because this is the meaning of the mythical "quick response" and "projection of force anywhere in the world" with the help of AUG


                    In fact, this is not observed - AUGs carry out a small fraction of sorties in a local war.

                    What kind of "quick response" can we talk about if the AUGs IN SIX are not able to beat even the unfortunate Iraq on their own? - waited six months for the Coalition forces to gather in the region
                  15. Delta
                    Delta 21 June 2013 11: 59
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The United States can cool its welfare, medicare and defense budget. The third point is most interesting to me.

                    I don’t understand why talk about what will happen, or even more so - maybe in the future. Are you a fortuneteller? it’s more logical to talk about what is now

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Because this is the meaning of the mythical "quick response" and "projection of force anywhere in the world" with the help of AUG


                    In fact, this is not observed - AUGs carry out a small fraction of sorties in a local war.

                    What kind of "quick response" can we talk about if the AUGs IN SIX are not able to beat even the unfortunate Iraq on their own? - waited six months for the Coalition forces to gather in the region



                    with your logic, it’s just right for you to declare that since Germany was defeated in WWII, it no longer needs tanks. They turned out to be worthless
                  16. Santa Fe
                    21 June 2013 13: 00
                    0
                    Quote: Delta
                    why talk about what will happen or even more so - maybe in the future. Are you a fortuneteller? it’s more logical to talk about what is now

                    You see, the current waste of funds by the US leadership (and this is a waste) and inadequate allocations for the army, welfare, benefits, etc. "fight against global warming" - the reason for the terrible sequestration of the US budget. The whole question is when? how much the Yankees have the audacity? 20 trillion? 30 trillion?
                    Quote: Delta
                    since Germany was defeated in WWII, it no longer needs tanks. They turned out to be worthless

                    That's right - if the war is lost, then everything turned out to be in vain

                    Of course, you can drop geopolitics and turn to the tactics of using tanks. It turns out that the German "fours" and "Tigers" have a bright combat history - the Panzerwaffe inflicted colossal damage to all enemies of the Reich (the ratio of losses is always in favor of the Germans)

                    Nothing like the "Nimitzes", most of which did not participate in the database. The same Enterprise - there is simply nothing to tell, an empty and sometimes shameful story
        2. nerd.su
          nerd.su 21 June 2013 02: 53
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          in Yugoslavia acted alone, while the remaining 9 stuck out for fun

          Yugoslavia is Europe, there are a lot of air bases. You can save the resource of aircraft carriers.

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          did not participate in Libya

          In Libya, the French were the first violinists and Charles de Gaulle took part.



          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          something fluttered in Iraq, but the result is known - 6 AUGs provided only 17% of combat

          The trend is visible: the Persian Gulf is farther from Europe and already almost every fifth plane took off from an aircraft carrier. That is, if a war breaks out in Southeast Asia, then at least half of all sorties will be from aircraft carriers.


          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The national debt is growing. How much will the amers have the audacity?
          20 trillion? 30 trillion?
          Congress is talking about sequestration.

          As long as the United States has so many aircraft carriers, albeit at a joke, the public debt will continue to grow. Yes, and default can be declared if you agree with NATO allies ...
        3. Santa Fe
          21 June 2013 04: 08
          +1
          Quote: bot.su
          In Libya, the French were the first violinists and Charles de Gaulle took part.

          Lies are arrogant: France accounted for only 15% of flights, of which only a third were de Gaulle (5% of the entire operation)


          The first violin was, of course, the Yankees
          Quote: bot.su
          That is, if a war breaks out in Southeast Asia, then at least half of all sorties will be from aircraft carriers.

          Why did you get that Yankee has fewer bases in the Asia-Pacific region?
        4. nerd.su
          nerd.su 21 June 2013 09: 17
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Lies are arrogant: France accounted for only 15% of flights, of which only a third were de Gaulle (5% of the entire operation)

          Well, that's right, it's almost an intra-European puddle, so only 5% on an aircraft carrier.

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Why did you get that Yankee has fewer bases in the Asia-Pacific region?

          There are more distances. it is not Europe where any country can be used.
        5. Santa Fe
          21 June 2013 11: 50
          0
          Quote: bot.su
          Well, that's right, it's almost an intra-European puddle, so only 5% on an aircraft carrier.

          The role of the aircraft carrier was symbolic
          He was simply NOT NEEDED there - he was driven, because he is there and he needs to be used at least somewhere
          Quote: bot.su
          There are more distances.

          No more than in the Mediterranean
          Quote: bot.su
          it is not Europe where any country can be used.

          You just did not see the list of US air bases in the region
          (they are not only in China, Vietnam and North Korea)
          + the possibility of renting ANY civil airfield on any island
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 21 June 2013 11: 49
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Insolent lies

        Do you deny the participation of "Charles de Gaulle".
        I would like to know your opinion on what percentage of departures from aircraft carriers will be during a conflict in the middle of the Pacific Ocean at the greatest distance from US bases.
      3. Santa Fe
        21 June 2013 13: 06
        0
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        Do you deny the participation of "Charles de Gaulle".

        it was purely symbolic
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        what percentage of departures from aircraft carriers will be during a conflict in the middle of the Pacific Ocean at the greatest distance from US bases.

        first let me know the disposition))) who is fighting with whom
        Usually there are no armies on the atolls and there’s simply no one to fight there - it’s enough to land a group of special forces made up for tourists (athletes, a song and dance ensemble) at the capital's Fiji airport

        ps / the Yankees have many air bases in the Asia-Pacific region + the possibility of using civil airports
      4. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 21 June 2013 14: 30
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        first let me know the disposition))) who is fighting with whom

        Let's say China captured Easter Island, the US really needs this island. Nobody wants a nuclear war.
      5. Santa Fe
        21 June 2013 18: 12
        0
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        China captured Easter Island, the US really needs this island.

        An example, of course, is delusional. Well, at least not the North Pole)))

        fantasy opportunity of battles for about. Easter in a non-nuclear (!) War with China is clearly not worth the cost of maintaining a squadron of Nimitse in REAL CONDITIONS

        even if this happens, SSGNs at the Ohio base will approach and burn the island with Tomahawks
      6. nerd.su
        nerd.su 22 June 2013 15: 21
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        fantasy opportunity of battles for about. Easter in a non-nuclear (!) War with China is clearly not worth the cost of maintaining a squadron of Nimitse in REAL CONDITIONS

        China began the seizure of Taiwan, the western part of the island is captured by the Chinese, there are battles in the eastern mountainous part, the Chinese Navy blocks the east coast. What are your actions for the Americans?
      7. Santa Fe
        22 June 2013 15: 37
        0
        Quote: bot.su
        China began the seizure of Taiwan, the western part of the island is captured by the Chinese, there are battles in the eastern mountainous part

        The example is unsuccessful. The annual turnover between China and Taiwan exceeds 80 billion dollars. There will be no more war there.

        If you imagine a fairy tale about how non-nuclear China attacks Taiwan, which is supported by the United States, the Chinese simply will not be able to land in Taiwan. There are some airbase pieces 50
      8. nerd.su
        nerd.su 22 June 2013 16: 23
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The example is unsuccessful. The annual turnover between China and Taiwan exceeds 80 billion dollars. There will be no more war there.

        A normal example. Yes, the Chinese now prefer the peaceful option of unification. But politics is a fickle thing, even a non-aggression pact is not a guarantee against the outbreak of war, and here the situation is more complicated. You are just trying to get away from an uncomfortable topic. Can you talk about the role of AUG in Taiwan crises?

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        If you imagine a fairy tale about how non-nuclear China attacks Taiwan, which is supported by the United States, the Chinese simply will not be able to land in Taiwan. There are some airbase pieces 50

        No need for a nuclear-free China. China is a nuclear power, and in the event of a hypothetical conflict in Taiwan, nuclear weapons there will not be used by either side.
        50 airbases? It is very interesting to know in more detail where they are. And are there any planes with US pilots on them?
        And the Chinese Air Force? And how long will the navy of Taiwan last against the navy of China? And which ships will the US send to Taiwan in the first place? smile
      9. Santa Fe
        22 June 2013 18: 36
        0
        Quote: bot.su
        Can you talk about the role of AUG in Taiwan crises?

        I did not participate in battles
        Quote: bot.su
        50 airbases? It is very interesting to know in more detail where they are.

        see the composition of the Taiwan Air Force
        + civil airfields
        Quote: bot.su
        Are there any planes with US pilots on them?

        Are you familiar with the word "escalation"?
        Political tensions? Gathering forces in the region?
        Quote: bot.su
        And the Chinese Air Force? And how long will the navy of Taiwan last against the navy of China?

        If China wants to seize the island by force - he will capture him (with huge losses on both sides)

        The United States will not stand to death and throw into the battle all the forces they have. Taiwan, of course, can not resist

        No AUG and boats will save - China has immeasurable strength. However, a major war is not beneficial to anyone - before, they "tested each other for strength" a little bit, provocations, shelling, rare air battles. But the last half century has been quiet - the countries are slowly moving closer to each other (on February 29, 2008, the PRC removed duties on the import of 519 items of goods from Taiwan, Taiwan did the same - $ 80 billion turnover)
      10. nerd.su
        nerd.su 22 June 2013 19: 24
        0
        With the fact that now the situation is moving away from war, I further agree. And that war is not profitable either. But we are considering a hypothetical situation. And by the way, not completely devoid of probability.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        I did not participate in battles

        Correctly, but AUGs were used as a means of pressure on China and, it must be said, not unsuccessfully. In general, in the case of Taiwan, now aircraft carriers are the only means of US pressure on China.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Are you familiar with the word "escalation"?
        Political tensions? Gathering forces in the region?

        Sign. But tell me, what forces will the Americans begin to pull into the region in the first place? repeat

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        see the composition of the Taiwan Air Force
        + civil airfields

        The composition is not impressive. I suppose that with civilian airports, the number of "bases" is hardly more than 30. They will not be able to resist the Chinese fleet and aviation.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        If China wants to seize the island by force, it will seize it (with huge losses on both sides)

        The United States will not stand to death and throw into the battle all the forces they have. Taiwan, of course, can not resist

        Well, yes, because of Taiwan, the Americans will not tear the navel. But something they will have to do to save face? The agreement is all the same, and uncontrollable aggression and expansion of China are dangerous.
        Or do you think that the states of Taiwan will completely abandon in the event of an attack by China?
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 22 June 2013 20: 22
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    suitable SSGN based on "Ohio"

    I wouldn’t have run into the submarines, it’s risky for a nuclear submarine in a radius of 2,5 thousand kilometers, it’s risky, you can stay in the silt with your axes, and while the American Congress decided, the Chinese built a layered defense system.
  • old man54
    old man54 20 June 2013 12: 52
    0
    Quote: Delta
    and here the question arises: why are they and aircraft carriers kept?

    So they have such a doctrine, global domination, don't you vkurse or what? Airfields are not everywhere and not always there, and it is not always possible to rent them, the situations are different. and you ... why do they need these aircraft-carrying barges? And many other countries, who are not very smart, stupidly repeat after them, like "I live in a single room, but I drive a Land Cruiser!" :))
  • nerd.su
    nerd.su 19 June 2013 18: 32
    +5
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    In remote areas of the Earth, the Yankees operate even easier - they rent any civil airport for a while (as it was in the "Desert Storm" - they occupied all the nearby airports of the UAE, Saudis, Jordan)

    So only because the United States has aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers, none of the coastal states can refuse to rent military bases and airports. In the old days, you could declare yourself a socialist country and get a reliable Soviet roof. And now all states that do not want to suddenly find out that they have problems with democracy have to provide bases, airports, and sea ports. And the US will not suddenly have aircraft carriers, so the Saudi monarch Obama will say:
    -What base do you have aircraft carriers? Are there landing ships? Oh no, and who the hell are you, come on, bye!
  • Santa Fe
    21 June 2013 01: 09
    0
    Quote: bot.su
    What base do you have aircraft carriers? Are there landing ships? Oh no, and who the hell are you, come on, bye!

    First-Grader Reasoning
    Quote: bot.su
    And the US will not suddenly have aircraft carriers, so the Saudi monarch Obama will say:

    Obama will say: your accounts in European and American banks are frozen, your daughter was expelled from Harvard and deported to her homeland

    And the Saudi monarch will immediately blur in a courteous smile: Wellcome, Yankees! Prince Sultan Air Force Bays Red For New Gates
  • nerd.su
    nerd.su 21 June 2013 02: 09
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    First-Grader Reasoning

    and here you have to learn!
    Irony, as a literary device, it turns out, not everyone can assimilate. Unfortunately, I can’t focus on the weakest part of the audience in my posts ...

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Obama will say: your accounts in European and American banks are frozen, your daughter was expelled from Harvard and deported to her homeland

    The sheikh will say: then I stop supplying you oil, I have a line from Chinese tankers there, I will ship them. Yes, and call to London yourself and arrange for my daughter to graduate with honors from Harvard. How to negotiate with London without aircraft carriers? But I don’t care, the rise in gas prices is your problem.

    And Obama, with his hand to his empty head, will say: Yes, sir!
  • Santa Fe
    21 June 2013 02: 29
    +1
    Quote: bot.su
    Sheikh will say: then I stop supplying you oil

    Then he will receive "Desert Storm"
    Quote: bot.su
    Yes, and call to London yourself and arrange for my daughter to graduate with honors from Harvard

    Harvard Institute in the United States
  • nerd.su
    nerd.su 21 June 2013 03: 14
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Harvard Institute in the United States

    Ahaha, well, I had to screw it up, sclerosis begins laughing
    Well, with Harvard Rector, if he's American, Obama is easy to negotiate! Not that with honors, they will immediately give doctors of science, for the totality of scientific merit smile


    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Then he will receive "Desert Storm"

    What a desert storm? This is from the time when the states had aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers and they were all afraid / respected. And we are now in the reality of Oleg Kaptsov. The states have only underwater strategic missile carriers and huge transports of the shipping command. Here transport teams only refuse to sail to distant shores. They say the Russians sold a bunch of containers to the Saudis and maybe even a club. And the Chinese with tankers sent their destroyer. One, but Chinese. Here it is, the harsh reality of Oleg Kaptsov ...
  • nerd.su
    nerd.su 19 June 2013 18: 17
    +5
    Quote: MG42
    That's the trouble shuffling from side to side >> in article one >> why does Russia need a fleet?

    Yes, he asks a question, but does not answer. The message is this: as long as Russia has a strategic nuclear forces, no one will touch it; aircraft carriers are ruinous, landing ships ruinous, if you recall earlier, and ekranoplanes are ruinous. And the projection of force using surface ships is fiction. Like, conclude, Russian people, since you have the strategic nuclear forces, nobody will touch you, so reduce the army and navy, leave the internal troops and a couple of planes to guard the territorial waters. At first I thought a lad from the Washington regional committee. But now I think this is a new type of troll after crossing with a graphomaniac - it throws in provocative articles so that there is where to frolic in the comments laughing
    But he writes interestingly, with tragic pathos and rhetorical questions. Do not take these opuses to heart. But it’s also impossible to be completely silent, and then suddenly someone will think that we really have enough police ...
  • Delta
    Delta 19 June 2013 18: 27
    +2
    Quote: bot.su
    But now I think this is a new kind of troll after crossing with a graphomaniac - it throws in provocative articles so that there is where to frolic in the comments


    I said it a long time ago)))) drinks
  • Setrac
    Setrac 19 June 2013 20: 22
    0
    Quote: MG42
    it turns out you lied about 10% in Iraq, by the way there it is also for the first 2 days of the company, and so about 17%

    You just find fault with the words, 17% - on air flights, the tonnage of the dropped ammunition will turn out to be about 10%.
  • Setrac
    Setrac 19 June 2013 04: 39
    0
    Quote: MG42
    I'm talking about the fleet in the complex, no need to troll .. like in the article

    Quote: MG42
    Where is the source about 90% is your speculation, but at least 1% of departures, but that means that the aircraft carrier has remained, and it must be covered

    Well, what does "troll" have to do with it? This is public information, if you use Google you will find it too. The turn of 90% - somewhere during the first Iraqi, then the role of carrier-based aircraft decreased even more.
    1. MG42
      MG42 19 June 2013 12: 36
      +1
      Quote: Setrac
      The limit of 90% - somewhere during the first Iraqi, then the role of carrier-based aircraft decreased yet.

      Source??? The author of the thread said about 10%, you read what you write in your post ..
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 19 June 2013 13: 48
        0
        Quote: MG42
        Source??? The author of the thread said about 10%, you read what you write in your post ..

        I did not write correctly, 90% - from land airports, 10% - carrier-based aircraft.
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 20 June 2013 23: 42
      0
      Quote: Setrac
      The limit of 90% - somewhere during the first Iraqi, then the role of carrier-based aircraft decreased yet.

      Those. with the collapse of the ATS and the availability for NATO aviation of the former airfields of the soc. camps. Not only that, but also aviation social. camps ceased to threaten. Still they would not have taken advantage of this, with the advent of such and such Lafa wink
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 18 June 2013 18: 28
    +3
    For "True". He served almost two decades in the Northern Fleet and for the first time I hear that the Northern Fleet is locked up by ice most of the time (the White Sea Flotilla, if anything is left of it, doesn’t count, but in terms of the composition of forces it was incommensurably small compared to the fact that based from Liinakhamari to Gremikha). Article + for what excites those who are not indifferent to the fleet on the Internet and - - the author, probably, himself did not understand what he wrote about. and also for the fact that he was very dismissive of the current "officers in gold shoulder straps", but they, in the bulk, plowed on ships, not, of course, as in the 70-80s, but still. And the tasks for the fleet were defined in the first operations of the fleet by the course of operational art, everything is written there, but that does not mean. that this should be known to any layman
    1. Constantine
      Constantine 18 June 2013 19: 03
      0
      Well, some think that the fleet was created, just for beauty)
  • East
    East 18 June 2013 21: 27
    -1
    Competent article. The author understands that Russia is primarily a land elephant, and that a sea whale is worth a lot. Of course, it is sad to realize that we are not a maritime trading power, and therefore we are building pipelines, not LNG tankers. Russia has only one chance to really become a sea power - to develop the North Sea Route.
  • postman
    postman 18 June 2013 22: 19
    +2
    "The ship is on the same course, or why does Russia need a fleet?"
    ================= resume =================
    O. Kaptsov will not calm down until the Russian Federation acquires a fleet of ro-ro loans ...
    And since it is not expected to build (or buy) them in the near future, our country will have to requisition all the rollers in the reach zone:
    Finnlins (that is, the Grimaldi family)
    Transfenica
    DFDS
    Nordolink
    well, etc.

    wink

    Well, the nuclear submarines, multi-purpose nuclear submarines of course more
    1. Santa Fe
      19 June 2013 00: 42
      -2
      Quote: Postman
      O. Kaptsov will not calm down until the Russian Federation acquires a fleet of ro-ro loans ...
      Finnlins (that is, the Grimaldi family)
      Transfenica
      DFDS
      Nordolink

      This is your hobby))
      1. postman
        postman 19 June 2013 22: 22
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This is your hobby))

        Hobbies to me.
        Roller-Oleg
        (to whom tops, and to whom roots ...)
  • harrymur
    harrymur 18 June 2013 22: 54
    +1
    the fleet is unambiguously needed, but it must fulfill certain functions, you have to work, and not be a fun army, we don’t have a goal policy and a strategy for achieving the goals stated by politicians in Okeana, there is a tanga and it is directed towards the implementation of the USSR strategy, but there is no empire, and never will be,
    at the moment, it is most correct to create a zone of continuous defeat in the aisles of the 200-mile zone of the Russian Federation, which means that we do not need octopuses and grachenoks, but quite real destroyers of 3-5 thousand, with powerful plas and target designation systems for flyers, sharpened for detecting and destroying floats in the first place , and, accordingly, ensuring the passage of our strategists into the patrol zone under the ice, this is for the sphere, in quiet everything is much more difficult, there is a unique opportunity to swim up to take a direct shot to the coast of "friend-partners" and make the KARA OF THE LORD, that's where devilish ingenuity is needed, and the partners are well aware that the Pacific coast is the tastiest, based on this and it is necessary to build the ideology of the fleet, IMHO
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 21 June 2013 13: 48
      0
      Have you chosen the 200-mile zone? What are the goals of the 200-mile zone dictated by? A 150 or 350?
  • postman
    postman 19 June 2013 01: 14
    +1
    As correctly noted by Blackgrifon
    Quote: Author
    It is worth noting that all Russian 667BDRM, "Sharks" and "Boreis" are structurally designed for the seawater temperature close to 0 ° - in the tropics, boats will leak and serious technical malfunctions will begin. "

    Then the author of course fantasized so fantasized .... I would also add about salinity laughing
    BUT EVEN IF Yes, if only, then however:
    1. water temperature on a surface(Nuclear submarines rarely occur on the surface! The tropical seas are the warmest throughout the year: 24-30 ° C. In the equatorial latitudes, the temperature is 27 ... 28 degrees all year round. And at 100-200m, according to (a teapot), that is in the Barents that the Indian is ALL ONE.
    2. The temperature of the entire mass of the ocean water about 4 degrees Celsius. The oceans are cold. The water in them warms up only at the surfaceand with depth it gets colder. Only 8% of the ocean is warmer than 10 degrees., more than half colder than 2.3 degrees.
    3. The average temperature of the surface waters of the ocean is more than +17 deg., and in the northern hemisphere it is 3 degrees. higher than in the south. !!!!! SPECIAL ATTENTION AUTHOR
    4. How does T water fall with immersion depth? Well, the author probably knows himself. MUCH, MUCH faster than T okr. air when you traveled from your place of residence to my glorious town ...

    It’s interesting, if I (designed for northern latitudes -60 parallel) and my clothes, I’ll come to you ... there will be no leaks or will it still flow?

    Threat is not the topic: Internet h / w megaphones, skylinks- I hate, especially today, this phrase:

    “Not that I didn’t hit at all,” said Pooh, “but just didn’t hit the ball!”

    Today I probably learned by heart. Who invented such a mockery when the server dumps the connection
  • Mikola
    Mikola 20 June 2013 12: 49
    +1
    The apologist of the land-based aircraft carrier, the coastal underwater one again confidently smashes the Saxon aircraft carrier formations with the "wunderwaffe" of the Soviet-made 80s, and now it is already 2013. Kaptsov's favorite joy, the so-called missile submarine cruisers (the name is also from the field of humor) are considered sufficient for solving the tasks of the fleet, well, like the general staff will form the tasks of the fleet))) but the fact that these miracle boats are deaf and dumb compared to surface submarines and submarines fleet (below there is an article on the real position of the deo in the sub-fleet of the Russian Federation), for example, the same Saxons, and therefore the author even thinks about sitting on their shores. For comparison, the nuclear submarines of the USA, France, Great Britain are patrolling in the ocean. It is necessary to tell Kaptsov, since these submarine ships are constantly on coastal patrols, it is not cheaper to bury them on the shore, cover up the S-300 and no "useless" avion carrier will pick them up. That is to say, bring Kaptsov's idea to "idealism" (as for me, to idiocy))))))))))))))))))))
    1. postman
      postman 20 June 2013 16: 15
      +1
      Quote: Mikola
      the canopy of the land carrier, coastal underwater again confidently trashes the Saxon aircraft carrier

      Well, so far no one has proven the opposite and .. and not justified.
      And he writes ... well, let him write. Agree: text, information, statements ... far from the worst.
      / This is me in defense of Kaptsov. And you can argue with him and persuade. But the facts
  • sumcream56
    sumcream56 20 June 2013 14: 46
    -1
    China completed tests of its own ekranoplan
    The flight tests of the Chinese-designed CYG-11 ekranoplane have been recognized as successful, according to the Hong Kong edition of Zhongpingghe.
    The ship was created by Inge and became the first model of ekranoplanes of its own Chinese design. It is capable of transporting up to 12 people, speeds up to 210 km / h at an altitude of one to four meters. Fuel consumption per 100 kilometers is 28 liters, ITAR-TASS reports the Chinese media.
    According to Liu Guoguang, one of the leaders of Inge, ekranoplanes in China have a great future. Such vehicles, officially classified as marine vessels, have universal driving characteristics. “For them, there is no need to build special runways and other airfield infrastructure. A vessel can take off and land from a water surface, hard ground, ice cover, sand and wetlands, ”he said. High operational characteristics of this type of vessel are supported by indicators of carrying capacity at the level of up to 50 percent. from the mass of the ekranoplan, as well as the low cost of production.
    According to Liu Guoguang, CYG-11 will be especially in demand by the law enforcement agencies of the PRC, since it is practically not noticeable for radars and sonars. Currently, Inge has also completed the development of the ekranoplan CYG-40, with a capacity of up to 40 people. The other three modifications, CYG-100, CYG-150, CYG-200, are under construction. http://mil.eastday.com/m/20130424/u1a7348178.html
    http://bigtu.eastday.com/img/201304/24/30/3603108542225978306.jpg
    http://bigtu.eastday.com/img/201304/24/30/3603108542225978306.jpg
    All this is very interesting, but this Chinese ekranoplan is a copy of the Russian Oriole Ek-12. Its designer V. Kolganov has been working in China for 5 years. In the photo from the Chinese edition, it is clearly visible that there is one Chinese sitting in the cockpit (and there are a maximum of three Chinese in the photo of 9 people), next to a gray-haired man similar to V. Kolganov.
    http://bigtu.eastday.com/img/201304/24/30/3603108542225978306.jpg
    A very strange project is being implemented in the USA, where Atlantic WIGCRAFT, Inc. offers a WIGCRAFT DESIGN BLUE DOPHIN BD-12 ekranoplan model, which is almost a copy of the Russian Oriolec-12 / Orion-12P ekranolet.
    1. nerd.su
      nerd.su 20 June 2013 18: 11
      0
      Quote: sumcream56
      . Her designer V. Kolganov has been working in China for 5 years.

      In China, not only Kolganov works. Plus, one of ours, I don’t remember my last name, works (at least worked) on ekranoplans in Taiwan.
  • sumcream56
    sumcream56 20 June 2013 14: 47
    -1
    In Russia, OOO EO Orion has received three government contracts for R&D on ekranoplanes for a total of 450 million rubles. In 2012, one ekranoplan crashed in Petrozavodsk. An eyewitness says: "Regarding Petrozavodsk. ... So they rested on EK-12 and that's it. But the car has undergone changes since the moment when Ivolga was and, judging by the tests, it became worse than it was. And the tests were not carried out as it should. , without programs and methods. The last accident in Petrozavodsk showed the absence of any kind of flight organization. No one checked anything, the pilot just got into the car and flew. Nobody paid attention to the fact that the aft compartments of the balonets are filled with water. the car just broke away from the water and made a candle, and then fell. And then transnational supervision, technical supervision, register and other controlling organizations are powerless, since the car is being tested by the company LLC. And the border guards do not manage this at all. They have withdrawn themselves. And by law they must were to create methods, require programs, coordinate them with the Navy, draw up test programs, appoint testers from the State Commission of the Navy !!!!!! ect Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 456 and Order of the Civil Code of the Navy No. 400. This became possible thanks to the connivance and negligence of the border forces. Obviously, the creation or reanimation of the Avangard plant pursues a completely different goal. Which one, I think sooner or later, we will find out. "As you can see, ekranoplanes in Russia are just HUMOR!
    Abroad, the most fruitful studies are developing the pattern of the tent-shaped wing of A. Lippisch conducted in Germany under the leadership of Hanno Fischer. As a result, a 50-seater WSH-500 ekranoplane, suitable for commercial operation, was built in the Republic of (South) Korea by Wingship Technology Corp. led by Hanno Fischer under license from German firms Fischer Flugmechanik and AFD Airfoil Development GmbH. The mass of the device is 17 tons, the flight altitude on the screen (this is an A type WIG) is up to 4,9 meters, cruising speed is -175 km / h, maximum speed is more than 200 km / h, specific fuel consumption is 29 grams / passenger-km ) Passenger capacity -47 seats + 3 crew members. Range-400 km. Diesel fuel consumption 250 kg / h. In 2013, the start of its commercial operation on the coastal line Gunsan - Jeju is scheduled.
  • sumcream56
    sumcream56 20 June 2013 14: 58
    0
    At present, the Lun ekranoplan-rocket carrier is being mothballed with the prospect of turning into a monument at best, at worst it will simply be cut into scrap metal. At the same time, ships in the air cavity of the Sivuch type (Bora and Samum) are in service. In connection with the systematic discrediting of the ekranoplan idea, we compare the fighting qualities of these two products.
    1. The main caliber: it is the same for both ships — it is the ZM-80 Mosquito anti-ship missiles. “Bora” carries 8 (eight missiles), “Lun” -6 (six). The Bora seems to have an advantage, but the maximum speed of the Bora is 55 knots (102 km / h), while the Lun has 450 to 500 km / h (according to various sources), let’s take a lower value. That is, having a high speed of 4,4 times, Lun is 1,5 times better than Bora in combat effectiveness.
    2. Additional armament: "Lunya" has 2 double-barreled cannons of 23 mm caliber, "Bora" has 1 × 2 launchers of the Osa-M air defense system (20 missiles), one - 76-mm gun mount AK-1х76 mm, 2 × 6 30-mm gun mount AK-630. It seems that Bora is more effective here. However, nothing prevented the Lunya's armament with the Osoa anti-aircraft missile system. The combat weight of the complex without missiles is 6850 kg, with missiles (20 pieces) is about 10 tons, that is, with the Lunya's carrying capacity of 138 tons, its placement was not a big problem.
    3. Labor: crew "Lunya" -11 people, "Burs" - 68 people.
    4. Range: Lun has -2000 km, Bora has 45 knots -800 miles (1482 km), 12 knots -2500 miles (4650 km). But how rocket-carrier ships are considered, one must first of all keep in mind the speed limit, especially since there is nowhere to go for 4,5 km on the Black Sea or the Baltic Sea. And with the high-speed mode “Lun wins” at “Bora” 1,4 times.
    5. Energy (fuel) efficiency. Consider the energy costs in kW / h for the delivery of 1 ton of full displacement or one Mosquito missile to a distance of 1000 km. At "Bora" engine power -2 GTU M10−1 36000 hp (for tandem screws, in lowering columns) 2 diesel engines of economical travel M-511A 20000 hp (for 2 screws); 2 diesel engines M-504 at 6600 hp (for discharge fans), that is, for the delivery of 1 rocket at a speed of 55 knots per 1000 km, energy costs of 69,5 thousand kW-hours will be required.
    Lun has an engine power of -8 turbojet engines of 13000 kg of thrust; this is equivalent (According to the methodology of the Central Institute of Aviation Motors named after Baranov P.I. In this regard, for the purposes of taxing the transport tax, the following relationship between the numerical values ​​of the power (in hp) of turboprop engines and thrust (in kgf) of turbojet engines is recommended: N = 0,75 x P, where N is the power (in hp) and P is the thrust (in kgf) Thus, the power of the Lunya engines is equivalent to 57,6 thousand kW, that is, for the delivery of 1 rocket at speeds of 450 km / h per 1000 km require energy costs of 21,25 thousand kW-hours, that is, 3,27 times less than that of Bora.
    6. “Lun” seaworthiness on the screen is 5-6 points, with a flight height on the screen of up to 5 meters. Bora has a formal seaworthiness of -8 points, but the speed of up to 55 knots is achieved at a wave height of not more than 2 m, and with a wave of 5 points (wave 3,5 m) - no more than 40 knots. However, the "Lun" in experimental flights switched to the "jump" (free flight) mode, rising to a height of 100 meters. On this basis, the "Lun" had no restrictions on seaworthiness.
    HERE AND UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF THE RUSSIAN ADMIRALS!
  • sumcream56
    sumcream56 20 June 2013 15: 19
    -1
    In connection with the foregoing, the enthusiasm for the Dagestan missile ship located in the Caspian Sea is hardly understandable. Maybe it was better to reanimate and modernize Lun, including putting on it 6 missiles deployed on "Dagestan"? By the way, Iran already has three squadrons of 2-seater ekranoplanes armed with machine guns in the Navy. Of course this is humor, but the main thing may be, as MS Gorbachev used to say, "start!"
    1. postman
      postman 20 June 2013 16: 16
      +1
      Quote: sumcream56
      It might be better to reanimate and modernize Lun,

      What can the moon do in the Caspian?
      operating cost?

      Quote: sumcream56
      By the way, Iran already has three squadrons of 2-seater ekranoplanes as part of the Navy

      this (these ep) Iran, like mopeds as part of the ground forces: a lot of cod, little use
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 21 June 2013 13: 59
      0
      I join the postman. Question price? Includes operating and shore maintenance costs.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 22 June 2013 18: 38
    +1
    The value of the article is close to zero.