Military Review

Sea Wars. Clown attack

176



Big money spoils people, and small ones simply disfigure.

The eternal desire to appear “better than there is”, aggravated by an acute shortage of funds, sometimes produces completely comical results and is fraught with the most terrible consequences for overly enthusiastic arrogant insolent people. The situation is completely out of control, when some small but proud country in a fit of unmotivated bravado and mock patriotism decides to declare itself "a great maritime power." And where there is a sea, there must be a fleet. This is where the madness begins!

I suggest readers make a fascinating excursion into the world of naval phantoms. In a world where, under the sweet dope of Latin American dreams and the spicy aroma of oriental tales, all reasonable canons of naval battles are erased — real power is replaced by empty bluster, combat effectiveness is shined by freshly painted sides, and the scope of application of ships is limited to organizing cruises for high-ranking officials.

Soap opera 100 years long

It's no secret that along with first-class fleets leading powers and strong naval formations of countries of a lower rank, the World Ocean is plowed by many "clowns" who, for the sake of solidity, pretended to be the combat units of their fleets.

Of course, any fighting to clowns is contraindicated - all these ships exist solely for fun and build self-esteem among the inhabitants of the "great maritime powers." It does not matter that the budget of the "great maritime powers" is already bursting at the seams, and their industry and level of technical development are often unable to provide even the simplest routine work on board these super-ships. The ships themselves are usually acquired abroad for the last pennies - large supported ships, excluded because of their age from the naval forces of the advanced naval powers, are in special demand.

The situation is complicated by the well-known Murphy's Law: the more useless the ship, the more monstrous its dimensions must be. Why buy a German diesel-electric submarine or the French frigate Lafayette, if you can buy a whole aircraft carrier! It doesn't matter that, instead of an aircraft carrier, they will sell an unfit pile of metal - no one is going to go into battle anyway. But how menacing and epic the aircraft carrier looks!
But rather long speeches! The public wants to know as much as possible facts and specifics.

Naval clowning has its rich traditions - its true “flourishing” came at the beginning of the twentieth century, when the era of the battleships was deafeningly replaced by the era of dreadnoughts. The brilliance of gun barrels and steel armor could not leave indifferent the inhabitants of sunny Brazil.

In 1908, the shipyard of Armstrong (Great Britain) laid the first of two dreadnoughts of the Minas Gerais type for the Brazilian Navy. Incredibly, the poor collectors of rubber and coffee plantation workers were ahead of the whole world!

At first, no one believed - foreign newspapers vied with one another that the Brazilians had made an ingenious deal and would soon resell the dreadnought to a third party (USA, Germany or Japan). Nothing like this! Brazil fully paid for the purchase of two large toys - the Minas Gerais and Sao Paulo joined the ranks of the Brazilian fleet with triumph.


Argentine dreadnoughts such as "Rivadavia"

Impressed by the success of their neighbor, two other South American freaks, Chile and Argentina, entered the arms race.
Argentina ordered two Rivadavia-type dreadnought in the USA. Chile issued a contract for the construction of dreadnoughts such as "Almirante Lattore" in British shipyards. This phenomenon became known as the “South American Dreadnought Race” - an event that is certainly interesting for historians, but very sad for the involuntary witnesses of all this madness.

The first and main question that arises after becoming acquainted with South American Dreadnoughts: WHY?

The answer in the style of "strengthening the country's defense" does not pass - it is impossible to imagine a situation in which Argentina and Brazil might need a battleship. In a possible war with each other, the fleets of both powers did not solve anything - Argentina and Brazil have a common land border with a length of 1000 km. All conflicts in South America from time immemorial were resolved only on land.

And even more so, a pair of dreadnoughts was completely useless for solving any global problems. What did the Brazilian "Minas Gerais" and "Sao Paulo" mean against the power of the British "Grand Fleet" or the German High Sea Fleet?

Fleet is an interconnected system of components. Dreadnoughts require cover with light forces, and all South American countries, despite efforts to purchase new ships, experienced a shortage of modern cruisers, destroyers, and even the simplest minesweepers. Finally, in the case of any real hostilities, the single battleships of the countries of South America could not go to sea at all, becoming victims of all sorts of sabotage and sabotage. The likelihood of such accidents is extremely high - especially given the attitude of the mulattoes to the navy and measures to ensure the safety of ships.

It was from these positions that Argentines and Brazilians should have developed their armed forces, and not to acquire “super-weapon” for crazy money, which turned out to be a useless toy.


Battleship "Minas Gerais" Volley

Accumulating money for a dreadnought is only half the problem. The subsequent operation of such a powerful and complex ship will require enormous costs. Crank from South America, of course, did not pull such expenses. The result is a report from Armstrong’s technical representative:

Ships are in poor condition, rust covered towers and steam boilers. Estimated cost of repairing 700 000 £


And this is only after a couple of years in the Brazilian Navy! Then it was only worse - the Brazilian dreadnoughts were subjected to rapid moral and physical aging; the capabilities of the ships were limited by outdated fire control systems, and the poor state of the machines and mechanisms did not allow moving 18 nodes faster.

It is easy to imagine what would have happened to South American dreadnoughts in the event of real hostilities - the brave mulatto would have neither the strength, nor the means, nor the experience of repairing combat damage, and all the “spare parts” would have to be delivered from another hemisphere. In the worst case, tow a damaged ship for repair in the US or the UK. This is a colossal problem, especially considering the possible embargoes on the part of European countries.

But all this is utter nonsense against the background of the following problem:
Effective control of a huge ship requires a well-trained crew and competent officers. Regular exercises, firing and maneuvers, working out interactions with diverse forces aviation and fleet. None of this was in South America.

If the issue with the officers was more or less resolved - many naval sailors underwent "training" in the US Navy or attended naval academies in European countries, then the situation with the rank and file was simply disastrous:

Uneducated black sailors in the position of half-slabs, cruel corporal punishment, the absence of any real combat training — the Brazilian fleet of the early twentieth century was a mess of hell. Under such conditions, the appearance of dreadnoughts in the fleet sounds like an absurd anecdote - the training level of the Brazilian Navy’s personnel was hardly enough to control a simple destroyer, not that the most complex capital ship.


Sailors on the deck of the dreadnought Minas Gerais, 1913 year

Barely the Minas Gerais was handed over to the Brazilian Navy, a riot of black sailors broke out on board the dreadnought - fortunately, the conflict was resolved peacefully, but the fleet leadership had to remove the bolts of the ship's guns - away from sin. This fact eloquently testifies to the real state and combat capabilities of the Brazilian battleships.

The situation was not the best for the Argentine Navy — already during its first voyage to the shores of South America, the brand-new Dreadnought Rivadavia flew twice onto stones and collided with a barge. His twin, Moreno, is famous for disgracing at the international naval parade in Spithead (1937 year) - Argentines were unable to anchor properly, and Moreno, like a clown, stood the whole parade in a crooked position.

The South American arms race ended as suddenly as it began - all the competitors ran out of money.

Since the beginning of the arms race in 1910, financial conditions, and then not brilliant, have become even worse; when it was time to pay, it became clear to the residents of the three countries that they needed money more than battleships.

- Henry Fletcher, then US ambassador to Chile

Dreadnoughts never took part in battles, and the uselessness of buying soon became apparent even to the top leaders of South American countries. The situation with the purchase of battleships finally came to a standstill and caused a lot of angry responses from the public:

The first two dreadnought cost the Brazilian treasury 6 110 000 pounds, 605 000 more pounds were spent on ammunition, and 832 000 pounds were invested in the modernization of the docks. In other words, the epic battleship cost a quarter of the annual budget of Brazil, not counting the cost of their subsequent operation.

One of the Brazilian newspapers calculated that 3000 miles of railroad tracks or 30 000 farmsteads could be built with these funds.

Of course, plans for the construction of the third Brazilian battleship died in the bud - laid in the UK dreadnought "Rio de Janeiro", even on the slipway was sold ... Ottoman Empire! (how can a Turkish sultan live without his own dreadnought?)



In the eastern part of Europe, a similar comedy was played out - a not very well-to-do Greece and the Ottoman Empire, breathing its last, decided to repeat the feat of Brazil. Alas, and this time nothing good came of the dreadnoughts' attempt - “Sultan Osman I” (formerly “Rio de Janeiro”) was never handed over to Turkey due to the start of the First World War. Greece did not wait for its dreadnought either - built at the shipyard in Szczecin, Salamis was confiscated by Germany with the start of the war, and stood unfinished for twenty years. After a long legal battle, the ship's wreck was dismantled for metal in 1932.

Similar attempts to build a dreadnought were made in Spain - as a result, a series of Espanha battleships came to light. It is worth noting that Spain built its own battleships in its own shipyards - of course, using ready-made components, materials and mechanisms supplied from the UK.
However, this time, the capital ships did not bring happiness. The Spanish “pelvis” was ashamed to be compared with the British or Japanese super dreadnoughts - Espanha type battleships were in fact low-speed coastal defense battleships with rather weak weapons and armor (even by the standards of the First World War).

Their fate was the most tragic: taking advantage of the fact that the Spanish Navy was in the grip of a revolutionary mess, the battleship Jaime I committed suicide - an accidental fire and detonation of the ammunition did not leave the ship a chance for salvation. No small misfortune befell the headline Espane - in 1923, the battleship sat tight on the stones and fell apart under the blows of the waves.

Historyis known to spiral

The senseless “dreadnought races” of the beginning of the twentieth century are the only possible explanation for the existence of many modern fleets. “The attack of clowns” continues today: instead of dreadnoughts sunk into oblivion, no less epic ships — aircraft carriers — became popular.

The Kingdom of Thailand is setting a proud example to the whole world - Thai sailors are happy owners of an aircraft carrier "Chakri Narubet". It does not matter that the ship spends the bulk of its time at the berth of the naval base Chuck Samet, and rare outings are dedicated to high-profile cruises - the world's largest cabin-suite for the royal family of Thailand is located on board the world's smallest aircraft carrier.


HTMS Chakri Naruebet

It is quite obvious that the Thai Navy's “cabut ship” is not a warship, and the presence on its decks of a pair or three of units of aviation equipment can be viewed as an incidental curiosity.

Hurries to repeat their past exploits of the Brazilian Navy - the Brazilian fleet is the proud owner of a rusty pile of metal called "Sao Paulo". There is nothing surprising here - this is just the former French aircraft carrier Foch (tab - 1957 year, launch - 1960 year). In 2001, the ship was solemnly sold to Brazil and has since been the flagship of the Brazilian fleet.


NAe São Paulo (A12)


Sea Wars. Clown attack

Deck Aviation Brazilian!
Everyone stand! Hands behind head!

No less amusing is the São Paulo air group - a couple of dozens of A-4 Skyhawk attack aircraft (an American subsonic aircraft originally from 1950's). Brazilian carrier-based aircraft uses a modification of the A-4KU Skyhawk - planes with a developed resource that were once in service with the Kuwaiti Air Force.

Despite the venerable age of aircraft, accidents on the Brazilian aircraft carrier are extremely rare - probably, this is somehow due to the fact that the "San Paulo" goes to sea once a year for photo shoots.

Until recently, the whole world laughed at the Argentine aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo ("25 May") - the former Dutch aircraft carrier "Karel Doorman", he is also the British "Venereble", launched in the distant 1943 year.


ARA Veinticinco de Mayo

The real fighting value of this floating circus was shown by the Falklands War - barely confronted with the fleet of Her Majesty, the aircraft carrier 25 May left the combat zone and hid in the base.
Fortunately (or unfortunately), Argentina recently stopped its jokes - 25 May was finally dismantled by the beginning of the XXI century and now only corvettes and patrol boats remain in the Argentine Navy.

They are in a hurry to sign up as gay Indians as pranksters - the epic with the aircraft carrier has been going on for 10 for years. Vikramaditya.

Due to the need to replace the old aircraft carrier Viraat (formerly British HMS Hermes), the Indian Navy faced a difficult choice: the 45 is a classic Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier, decommissioned from the US Navy, or a light aircraft carrier with a nose springboard based on a used one aircraft carrier "Admiral Gorshkov".
The Indians chose the best of two evils - they acquired the Soviet / Russian TAVKR with its subsequent major overhaul and modernization. "Vikramadityu" difficult to call an obsolete aircraft carrier, but this does not prevent the "Vikramaditye" to be a useless ship.

It is useless to look for any intelligible reasons and reasonable explanations for the purchase of an Indian aircraft carrier - THERE ARE NOT EXISTING THEM. And you should not conduct rhetoric in style: India has acquired a modernized aircraft carrier - it means that Russia definitely needs the same ship.

Not needed.

There is no hidden implication in the story of Vikramaditya. The key to understanding the phenomenon of "Vikramadity", the Thai aircraft carrier "Chakri Narubet" or the Brazilian aircraft carrier "Sao Paulo" is a meaningless "dreadnought race" among not-developed countries at the beginning of the twentieth century.





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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. alex86
    alex86 9 July 2013 07: 49
    24
    Well, straight ideosyncrasy from Oleg Kaptsov to aircraft carriers. Now everyone is getting excited again, and once again we will suck on this topic. For the seed I will express my amateurish point of view:
    1. An alternative to an aircraft carrier group as an element of intimidation has not been demonstrated in the near past.
    2. Where to use this deterrence is unclear.
    3.And now about the sad - The Russian Armed Forces are constantly demonstrating a low level of co-ordination of units, which is absolutely suicidal in the presence of an aircraft carrier group. Therefore, our ships are equipped with all possible types of weapons each, since it is still possible to organize combat operations of one ship, but not all of them together. Of the advantages of this approach - everyone can exist for some time independently.
    And now we bet you won’t fight? lol
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 07: 59
      +9
      Quote: alex86
      Now everyone is getting excited again, and once again we will suck on this topic.

      No, we will not :))) Sense? We will not convince Oleg, but we ourselves already know everything :))))
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 9 July 2013 08: 20
        22
        It seems to me that the article is not only about aircraft carriers. wink Well, on the topic of the article: why do I need all this? Status and show-offs, and in everyday life this happens, a person’s ass is naked and lives in a communal apartment, but it goes on a jeep taken on credit.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 08: 30
          +3
          Since the question arose - I will answer below, in a separate comment :))
          1. Vladimirets
            Vladimirets 9 July 2013 08: 32
            +1
            I look forward to it. smile
        2. cdrt
          cdrt 9 July 2013 10: 56
          +3
          why im all this?

          Hmm ... not him, but us wink
          The author think hints at Kuznetsov wink
          And at the same time, once again proves to himself the uselessness of AB wink
          Everyone has long seen that in all articles we are talking about something emotional. wink , analyticity zero, beautiful mass words.
          At the same time, there are quite a few interesting facts. wink
          1. Delta
            Delta 9 July 2013 11: 15
            0
            Talk to Kaptsov. He's bored
        3. Vadivak
          Vadivak 9 July 2013 11: 39
          +5
          Quote: Vladimirets
          It seems to me that the article is not only about aircraft carriers

          I join you in the plus, Kaptsov knows how to write "about weapons and not only"
        4. erg
          erg 9 July 2013 12: 26
          +2
          Today, as in past centuries, the world is commanded by the state that controls maritime transport and ensures their safety. As the cheapest way to deliver goods. At one time, England not only created a powerful navy, but also made it profitable for merchants not to have their own ships, but to charter English. The navy provided security. Today the United States plays this role. Therefore, large formations, including aircraft carrier, are needed. This is dominance on the sea routes. It is clear that certain countries, including Russia, are not averse to knocking out this support from under the United States.
        5. Yarbay
          Yarbay 10 July 2013 23: 26
          0
          Quote: Vladimirets
          It seems to me that the article is not only about aircraft carriers. Well, on the topic of the article: why do I need all this? Status and show-offs, and in everyday life this happens, a person’s ass is naked and lives in a communal apartment, but it goes on a jeep taken on credit.

          Apparently, you and Oleg do not know that Brazil and India have long been not with a bare ass, but are included in 10 successful economies in the world !!
          Best regards
          1. old man54
            old man54 11 July 2013 01: 21
            0
            Quote: Yarbay
            Apparently, it is unknown to you and Oleg that Brazil and India have long been not with a bare ass, but are included in the 10 of successful economies in the world

            You apparently did not understand that the conversation about Brazil is about the last century, about 100 prescription! Yours faithfully!
    2. smart ass
      smart ass 9 July 2013 11: 47
      +2
      For some reason, I didn’t fully understand who the author is .. This time I completely agree with him
    3. Revolver
      Revolver 12 July 2013 01: 36
      0
      To the question of why a small country needs aircraft carriers, especially small aircraft carriers which, in principle, can carry nothing but vertical take-off aircraft, ask Small Britain (Great Britain ended somewhere around the turn of the 1940s - 1950s). What would they do on the Falklands without HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes?
      1. Santa Fe
        13 July 2013 23: 26
        0
        Quote: Nagan
        What would they do on the Falklands without HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes?

        Won

        The British had a squadron of 83 ships and ships
  2. Canep
    Canep 9 July 2013 08: 03
    +2
    Russian admirals of aircraft carriers did not order in the near future. When it comes to them, the line is not known, and whether it will reach at all.
    1. Andy
      Andy 9 July 2013 09: 17
      +3
      for Kuznetsov, 4 planes a year will "replenish" the air wing. this despite the fact that there are now only 8 of them on board !!!! how many decades it will take before the design 33 fighters are filled! there are no escort ships. in this situation, what kind of aircraft carrier is there.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 09: 21
        +4
        As far as I remember, such a delivery schedule was supposed there
        2013- 4 machines
        2014 - 10 machines
        2015 - 10 machines
        Well, what really happens - I do not know.
        1. Andy
          Andy 9 July 2013 09: 33
          -1
          total 24. apparently the remaining 8 are added ... we get nonsense. mottled and small park.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 09: 35
            +4
            Quote: Andy
            total 24. apparently the remaining 8 are plus.

            Not understood. We are talking about the delivery of the Navy 20 fighter Mig-29K and 4 combat training, double. All new.
            1. Andy
              Andy 9 July 2013 09: 41
              +2
              8 remaining su33. or again a ship with an incomplete composition will be? In any case, there is no reserve for replacement
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 10: 09
                +3
                I have no answer to this question. Firstly, I definitely do not understand why the new, in general, dryers would run out of resources in 2015. Secondly, I don’t understand why there are either 8 or 10, in theory, there should be much more. And thirdly - yes, 24 Miga can be considered a sufficient supply only if the air group is mixed.
                1. Bronis
                  Bronis 9 July 2013 13: 52
                  +4
                  It should be, but the commander in chief voiced 10 Su-33 + 2 Su-24UTG. In total, there were about serial 25 units. They were produced before 1996. So, they have a decent age (although young people are against the backdrop of the Air Force). Why ten? The first is losses. 4 or 5 machines.
                  Next question to the specialists. But it is obvious that under such conditions gliders are under heavy load. Su-33 - the first full-fledged deck aircraft, you never know how it is there ... Second - spare parts and timely repairs. Well, the third. They write that the car was too heavy for Kuznetsov’s deck. In this scenario, 10-12 machines are reality and harsh.
                  Whether or not the Su-33 should be retained is up to the question. Obviously, then it will be necessary to capitalize and modernize both the aircraft and strengthen the Kuznetsov's deck. Expensive for 10 cars. They considered 24 MiG-29s the lesser of two evils.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 14: 26
                    +4
                    Built 25 serial, 3 crashed (the eternal memory of Apakidze and Kuzmenko!), One - drowned. In theory, the 21 car should have remained. Less than half left? Somehow we ... should be more careful, or something.
                    Quote: Bronis
                    They write that the car was too heavy for Kuznetsov’s deck.

                    Where do they write?
                    1. Bronis
                      Bronis 9 July 2013 14: 47
                      +1
                      still -2 in 2001 and 2005.
                      They wrote somewhere. I will appear in my native region on a PC I will look at the link. But the rumor was like that.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 14: 54
                        +4
                        It's just that A. Fomin, the author of a very powerful and major work "Su-33 Ship Epic", argued that everything was absolutely normal - and took off in full load and in general there were no such problems with operation.
                      2. Bronis
                        Bronis 9 July 2013 16: 40
                        +2
                        Periodically, a question pops up (along with Granites). One thing is clear. Landing does not cause any serious damage to the bearing elements (otherwise they would not have flown long ago). Small and frequent (deck cover, finishers, etc.) are possible. So how to look. This can be considered a disadvantage, but it can also be just unavoidable costs.
                        More critical is more critical here, as Su-33 is a fighter, and the FABs are somehow not very far flying .... smile Impact capabilities are needed. Could, probably, some "M" (do it. But for 10 cars I'm not sure what is expedient. While the project would be done - time, they will become even older. And the MiGs are already in the series, one way or another. Thanks to the Indians. ..
                      3. seafarer
                        seafarer 10 July 2013 22: 54
                        +1
                        Why are these FABs needed if there are Granites, Basalts, Mosquitoes on AUG / KUG ships? And the air wing is needed to cover the Kug. (in any case, the previous doctrine of the use of aircraft carriers was just that).
  • Per se.
    Per se. 9 July 2013 08: 42
    14
    "It is quite obvious that the Thai naval cabin carrier is not a warship, and the presence of a couple of aircraft on its decks can be regarded as an accidental curiosity." It is clear that the former Spaniard has gotten much cheaper than the Mistral, being a much stronger warship. As for the "clowns" who buy large ships, it is useful to think of Japan. Before the Russo-Japanese War, all squadron battleships and armored cruisers were built at the shipyards of Great Britain, the USA, France and Italy. Why would such a small country go into naval ambitions? So, you read the respected Oleg Kaptsov, and between the lines it seems to be flickering, - why do you, Russia, the Navy, sell your raw materials, the land colony of the West, you have enough boats for the coastal "demonstration" of the flag ...
    1. Santa Fe
      9 July 2013 10: 41
      +2
      Quote: Per se.
      it is useful to recall Japan. Before the Russo-Japanese War, all squadron battleships and armored cruisers were built at the shipyards of Great Britain, the USA, France and Italy. Why would such a small country crawl into naval ambitions?

      And what do you think?))

      Originally a maritime power that has undergone super-modernization since 1853 and claims to be a leader in the Asia-Pacific region. And note - the Japanese didn’t buy a dreadnought, they bought a fleet of dozens of dreadnought and cruisers
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 10: 49
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Originally a sea power,

        Japan?! Primordially marine? !! BU-HA-HA !!! :))) Oleg, you have surpassed yourself.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And note - the Japanese didn’t buy a dreadnought, they bought a fleet of dozens of dreadnought and cruisers

        When you read literature, you would know that the countries of South America ALSO bought more than just dreadnoughts :)))
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 9 July 2013 12: 25
          +5
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Japan?! Primordially marine? !! BU-HA-HA !!! :))) Oleg, you have surpassed yourself.


          And what’s quite, tea is not Mongolia where the desert icebreaker is a camel,

          As for Kaptsov’s articles, I always pay attention to the number of reviews, that is, interest in his creations

          Pictured is the only Japanese armored cruiser built in France. Named after the Azuma volcano on the island of Honshu.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 12: 51
            +6
            Quote: Vadivak
            And what’s quite, tea is not Mongolia where the desert icebreaker is a camel,

            The key word here is not "sea", but "primordially". There is no question that Japan became a maritime power in the 19th century.
            Only this does not negate the FACT that before the acquisition of ships from Western countries, the entire "fleet" that Japan had at its disposal was fishing :))) In fact, the maximum that the "primordially maritime" power was aiming for was walking between Japan and China: ))
            1. Vadivak
              Vadivak 9 July 2013 16: 55
              +3
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The key word here is not "sea", but "primordially".


              Andrey, what do we know about the history of the Japanese fleet? about his battles with admiral Lee Song Jin’s Koreans? About the attacks of the Mongolian fleet? Well this is a different world for us
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 17: 03
                +3
                Quote: Vadivak
                Andrey, what do we know about the history of the Japanese fleet?

                Including what the Japanese themselves narrate, aren't they?
                Quote: Vadivak
                about his battles with admiral Lee Song Jin’s Koreans?

                So where is Japan and where is Korea? :))) They are next door. Japan all the time tried to poke its head in China and Korea, it is a fact. And that their ships went between Japan and the coast of China is also a fact. But this does not make them a sea power - between Fukuoka and Ulsan less than 300 km. Well, it does not pull on the great sea trips :) Compare with the voyages of the Dutch, Spaniards, English ...
                Jonka is beautiful :)
                1. Vadivak
                  Vadivak 9 July 2013 17: 19
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  So where is Japan and where is Korea? :))) They are next door.

                  Nearby, 180 km. but by sea winked
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Compare with the voyages of the Dutch, Spaniards, English ...

                  They had enough local showdowns, they are not Europe, they lived in isolation.
                  Thank you for reacting normally and transparently.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 23: 02
                    +1
                    Quote: Vadivak
                    They had enough local showdowns, they are not Europe, they lived in isolation

                    so this is understandable :))) But that does not make them a sea power :)))
                    Quote: Vadivak
                    Thank you for reacting normally and transparently.

                    Yes .. it would be for that! Why should I somehow impolitely treat a culturally speaking person ?!
                    hi
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 9 July 2013 13: 44
        +7
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And what do you think?))
        I think that in this case, the Philippines is no less "primordially" a maritime power, and then one should not be ironic over Thailand. If you do not deal with your army and navy, then soon those whom you equate to "clowns" can go through this "super-modernization", claiming leadership in the Asia-Pacific region, and swing to arrange for us a new Tsushima and the hills of Manzhuria. Without the nuclear shield left to our thieving capitalism by the Soviet Union, we would have already begun to yield on land and sea to many countries, even tsarist Russia was stronger.
        1. old man54
          old man54 9 July 2013 18: 58
          +2
          Quote: Per se.
          If you do not deal with your army and navy, then soon those whom you equate to "clowns" can go through this "super-modernization", claiming leadership in the Asia-Pacific region, and swing to arrange for us a new Tsushima and the hills of Manzhuria. Without the nuclear shield left to our thieving capitalism by the Soviet Union, we would have already begun to yield to many countries on land and sea, even tsarist Russia was stronger.

          I agree with you more than! "+"!
      3. old man54
        old man54 9 July 2013 19: 24
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Originally a maritime power that has undergone super-modernization since 1853 ...

        Paradoxically, Oleg, but the Japanese, even in the Middle Ages, did not know how to build large ocean ships, especially military ones, as they say now in the far sea zone. Although there is a historical version that these people came to these islands from other places, by sea. And throughout their history, the Japanese live on islands, fish, but never went far out to sea (unlike the same Chinese and Indians). Previously, they were not bad at building parodies of Chinese junks and their own fishing boats, such as our bots or yachts. And only in the 18th century (after 1700), when the Dutch merchant galleons appeared on their shores, they realized that there were other sea ships on which one could successfully go to the ocean. Soon, by hook or by crook, they tried to keep the Europeans who were related to the fleet in their lands, imputing to him the obligation to build ships for them in the style of the European ones and teach them the tricks of navigation and navigation. So, gradually, Japan has become a "primordial sea power", as you deign to say. And she learned it very quickly.
        Super-modernization from 1853 of the year and claiming leadership in the Asia-Pacific region

        depending on what you mean by "super modernization". And its beginning, "super-modernization", when amerovskie sailing frigates still stood on the roadsteads of large Japanese port cities and began shelling them with guns, very much resembles today's democratization of the enlightened west, but only the region is different and the methods are even tougher today! And was it good for Japan ?? WHAT is officially called Japan's discovery of power by the Americans then ?? As a result, Japan, as a unique nation by the end of the 20th century, lost its originality, lost its very strong national spirit and became "like everyone else." Personally, I don't think this modernization was a boon for Japan ...
      4. Revolver
        Revolver 12 July 2013 02: 45
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        they bought a fleet of dozens of dreadnought and cruisers

        In fact, all that the Japanese bought for Tsushima were not dreadnoughts, but the so-called Dreadnought ones. Dreadnoughts are named after the first ship of this type, HMS Dreadnought, built in 1906. And Japan built dreadnoughts and even superdreadnoughts like Yamato at home.
    2. Vadivak
      Vadivak 9 July 2013 11: 59
      +2
      Quote: Per se.
      So, you read the respected Oleg Kaptsov, and between the lines it seems to flicker, - why do you, Russia, the Navy, sell your raw materials, the land colony of the West, you have enough boats for the coastal "demonstration" of the flag ...


      These are purely subjective sensations.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 9 July 2013 13: 54
        +3
        Quote: Vadivak
        These are purely subjective sensations.
        Naturally, this is purely subjective. For which I am always grateful to Oleg Kaptsov, he knows how to ignite people. I don’t remember the author, it seems that Mark Twain, a boring provincial newspaper about vegetables and vegetable gardening, began to use frantic demand when a resourceful journalist began to write crap for laughs, giving obviously ridiculous advice and opinions. The circulation has grown significantly, but the prankster was fired. It is interesting for me to read the passages of our author, I would only like them to be for the benefit of Russia, and not like ideological sabotage.
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 9 July 2013 17: 01
          +2
          Quote: Per se.
          For which I am always grateful to Oleg Kaptsov, he knows how to ignite people.


          It's good that you understand me. I already wrote that Oleg writes about "weapons and not only", there is always a subtext, hence the number of comments in his articles
    3. Rider
      Rider 9 July 2013 15: 43
      +1
      Quote: Per se.
      Before the Russo-Japanese War, all squadron battleships and armored cruisers were built at the shipyards of Great Britain, the USA, France and Italy. Why would such a small country crawl into naval ambitions?


      for expansion, SW Sergey, for expansion.
      At the beginning of the 20th century (as now), Japan was a crowded country, with a lack of resources, an excess of young men, and (most important) with a great desire to grab the missing from its neighbors.
      The result was the Sino-Japanese War, the Russo-Japanese War, the seizure of Manchuria, and, in fact, butting with the states in the Pacific Ocean.

      For all this, a POWERFUL NAVY was needed.

      and now attention is the question; Is Russia going to expand somewhere?
      or to fight for the horizon?

      here, in my opinion, for the only 30 years the fleet has turned out to be useful in the middle-earth, in connection with the events in Syria.

      I in no way advocate for cutting the whole fleet.
      but here are aircraft carriers, I think redundant.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 9 July 2013 19: 51
        +2
        Quote: Rider
        I in no way advocate for cutting the whole fleet.
        but here are aircraft carriers, I think redundant.
        From expansion, dear Alexander, you need to have your own fleet and army in response. I hope you are not against aviation as a type of weapon? When mines and torpedoes appeared, new types of ships appeared under them. This is the evolution of armaments; according to it, the need arose to have aviation on the high seas. Understand that an aircraft carrier is not an end in itself, it is only an AVIATION CARRIER that the fleet needs, and no airfields on the coast can replace an aircraft carrier on the high seas. It is interesting that it would hardly occur to you to say that you consider the chess queen unnecessary and can play only with pawns, why are you so biased towards aircraft carriers? There is no need to build as much as the Yankees, but the fleet must be full-fledged, it is a single organism and there is nothing to make a disabled person out of it with one kidney or one arm, each class of ships solves its own problems. Of course, you have the right to your opinion, I expressed mine.
        1. Rider
          Rider 9 July 2013 21: 12
          0
          Quote: Per se.
          Are you not against aviation as a type of weapon? Understand that an aircraft carrier is not an end in itself, it is only an AVIATION CARRIER that the fleet needs, and no airfields on the shore will not replace an aircraft carrier on the high seas.


          I specifically highlighted these words in your quote.

          i.e. in the high seas.

          attention issue; What tasks of today's Russia are required to be solved by the ACG in the oceans?

          I will express my opinion: first you need to get hold of these tasks and interests, and then already prepare funds for them.
          and to have a couple of AUG (albeit in a reduced composition) just for the sake of "what would be" is not too wasteful.

          Well, and more.

          let's say they (aircraft carriers) we have.
          TOTALLY they can be used only from the Northern Fleet and the Pacific.
          Baltic and Black Sea are rejected due to geography.
          but also in the north and in the quiet, our fleets are vulnerable in the bases.
          and in the case of kipish, they will be attacked FIRST.
          alas - GEOGRAPHY.
          further access to the ocean expanses at all seems unlikely.
          (with all due respect to the courage and skill of our maremans)
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 9 July 2013 21: 22
            +3
            Quote: Rider
            What tasks of today's Russia are required to be solved by the ACG in the oceans?

            Have you ever heard of Cuba? And what about Syria? Does Russia have no interests there and is not foreseen even in the long term? And with what forces and means to cover the northern sea border, if the ice fields move even further from the coastline? There are not a lot of ground airfields ... About the distance of the Tomahawk salvo from the NK and NATO submarines, apparently, you can not ask ... From the coast to intercept it will be far, and for a long time. With the help of the nuclear submarine? Can you imagine how many of them will be needed to solve this problem only? Despite the fact that no one liberated them from covering their attack nuclear submarines and patrolling areas either ...
            1. Santa Fe
              9 July 2013 21: 30
              0
              Quote: Misantrop
              And by what forces and means to cover the northern sea border, if the ice fields move further away from the coastline?

              AUG in the Arctic ?!
              Quote: Misantrop
              About the distance of the volley "Tomahawks" from NK and NATO submarines

              Have we disbanded the strategic nuclear forces?

              No matter how the Yankees spin around with their Ajis and Nimits, all their efforts are blocked by the presence of nuclear weapons in Russia and the means of its guaranteed delivery. This is the meaning of nuclear parity. And in tactical weapons, we gave in to the amers, we give in and obviously will concede - we do not have a public debt of $ 17 trillion.
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 9 July 2013 22: 03
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                AUG in the Arctic ?!

                Exactly. And what, are there other aviation-based options out there, cheaper and more mobile? Not now, of course, but if the melting of the northern cap continues at the same pace ... what
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Have we disbanded the strategic nuclear forces?

                No matter how the Yankees spin around with their Ajis and Nimits, all their efforts are blocked by the presence of nuclear weapons in Russia and its means guaranteed delivery.
                That's about the warranty, the Americans do not sit on the priest exactly. What is enough today (covering patrol areas, the difficulty of detecting and covering mobile complexes in the taiga, etc.) tomorrow may turn out to be frankly weak. And then they did not hesitate for a moment, guard for half a century, they seize the chances ... And about the strategic nuclear forces, I’m a little aware, I myself served there until retirement lol
                1. old man54
                  old man54 11 July 2013 01: 38
                  0
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  And what, are there other aviation-based options out there, cheaper and more mobile? Not now, of course, but if the melting of the northern cap continues at the same pace ...

                  Nonsense, sorry, I wrote to you above! Now, if you are about AUG in the Antarctic wrote, I would have understood, especially for us, because far away, and so negative
            2. Rider
              Rider 9 July 2013 21: 58
              -2
              Quote: Misantrop
              Misantrop


              vaabschetto, SWEET_SIXTEEN already answered you.

              but I will add.
              Do you really think that our AUG will go to Cuba at the time of the crisis?
              no, do you seriously think so?
              and think about how our Kuzya will look in Middle-earth,
              only as a target.

              no, I have no doubt in the professionalism of our sailors, and I’m sure that they will prove themselves courageously, and with honor, but the chances of survival of our ships ...

              alas alas
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 9 July 2013 22: 19
                +2
                Quote: Rider
                and think about how our Kuzya will look in Middle-earth,
                only as a target.

                Yeah, that's exactly what the Americans thought recently. For this reason, just in case, they screwed from the Mediterranean, so that the temptation to aim was not lol And the grouping WITH "Kuznetsov" is noticeably more stable than WITHOUT it.
                Quote: Rider
                Do you really think that our AUG will go to Cuba at the time of the crisis?
                At the time of the crisis it will be a little late to go there, don't you think? Still, this is a little further than "two bast shoes on the globe." But their presence in the problem region is quite capable of cooling some hotheads. Moreover, everyone will understand correctly that these ships were there for a reason. And not alone ... winked
                1. Rider
                  Rider 9 July 2013 22: 39
                  -1
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  just in case, screwed from the Mediterranean,


                  here among the comments, there is a map of US bases.
                  it can be seen from them that they are concentrated around BV and Middle-earth.
                  so get ours, they can and from the ground, and from air bases.
                  and this is without NATO.

                  Quote: Misantrop
                  But their presence in the troubled region is quite capable of cooling some hotheads.


                  about hotheads, this is certainly true, only the presence of our AUG directly depends on the supply.
                  but without naval bases, or countries that provide this supply, this is problematic.

                  Well, and most importantly, NOW SUCH TASKS for the sake of which it is worth risking a full-fledged AUG.
                  1. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 9 July 2013 23: 15
                    +2
                    Quote: Rider
                    THERE ARE NO SUCH TASKS for which it is worth risking a full-fledged AUG
                    That is what the world today is no different from, so it is stability. Yes, and in the near future, this does not shine through closely. Now, not yet. And that, mainly, because the government is busy with the Durban in the country, and they put a paw on everything around the USA. And in a year or even 5 years, such a structure cannot be created. Begin, for example, in a few years, the redivision of the northern shelf, only a fist from the shore will remain threatened ...
                    1. Rider
                      Rider 9 July 2013 23: 59
                      0
                      Quote: Misantrop
                      Begin, for example, in a few years, the redivision of the northern shelf,


                      aircraft carrier icebreaking fleet.
                      do you mean that?

                      laughing
                      1. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 10 July 2013 09: 11
                        +2
                        Quote: Rider
                        aircraft carrier icebreaking fleet.

                        And what is it so funny? By the way, THIS function is really demanded ALREADY now. And the use of military aircraft to destroy ice jams on the northern rivers is no longer exotic. But what about atomic icebreakers and their combat use, what is so funny about this? Here, for example, a photo. This is NOT a photoshop. Real shot from sea trials
                      2. Rider
                        Rider 10 July 2013 10: 38
                        0
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        And what is it so funny?


                        so that it is nonsense 1
                        more than one fleet has not thrust the AUG into the polar ice.

                        just imagine how many icebreakers would be required.
                        and how a travel order will feel in the crush of crushed ice.
                        neither speed nor maneuver.
                        laughing

                        let's finish on this.
                        I think we will not convince each other.
                        everyone will remain with his own.

                        with uv.
                      3. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 10 July 2013 14: 41
                        +2
                        Quote: Rider
                        so that it is nonsense 1
                        more than one fleet has not thrust the AUG into the polar ice.
                        So far, NOBODY on the planet shoots rockets from the point of the geographic pole, except for the products of the former USSR. Just physically can not. This causes envy, but laughter is not very. wink Making ship hulls with ice reinforcements for the northern countries (including the Russian Federation) is also nothing unique. And speed and maneuver are not particularly needed if there is carrier-based aviation at hand. Moreover, in a crumbling of ice on a surface target, torpedoes also will not really accelerate to shoot, the effectiveness is lower than the baseboard ... request
                        The nuclear icebreaker fleet of the Russian Federation is also unique on the planet (which again causes no laughter for anyone) ...
                        So the fact that no one has polar AUGs so far will only allow them to be first again. And do not drag in the tail, swallowing other people's dust and listening to other people's ridicule ...
                        Quote: Rider
                        how a travel order will feel in the crush of crushed ice.

                        It will feel normal, familiar. Not the first year and not the first time ... wink
        2. old man54
          old man54 11 July 2013 01: 35
          0
          Quote: Misantrop
          And by what forces and means to cover the northern sea border, if the ice fields move further away from the coastline? There are not a lot of ground airfields ...

          You apparently wrote this post hotly, without thinking, I'm sorry! Otherwise, I don’t understand Vasm, like a sailor, an officer ... Tell me, what is more preferable, in the military sense, AB or a coastal well-fortified airfield? Which is stronger, almost always - coast or NK? And have you seen how many natural islands in our northern seas ?? Why is there AV ?? There is already an airfield on Novaya Zemlya, at least if the sperdyukov hadn’t closed it of course!
          If the climate in the Arctic has changed so much that pack ice even in the summer goes even further from the coast than usual, which allows enemy ships to scour our seas in the North, this does not mean at all that it is inapplicable to build AV packs to protect the Northern Sea Route! In connection with general warming, it will be necessary to stupidly develop the coastal areas of the Arctic Ocean, to build military bases and AB with a runway there. That's all for a short time!
      2. seafarer
        seafarer 10 July 2013 23: 13
        +1
        Quote: Rider
        TOTALLY they can be used only from the Northern Fleet and the Pacific.
        Baltic and Black Sea are rejected due to geography.

        And there were never any aircraft carriers in the Baltic and the Black Sea Fleet. They were just being built in Nikolaev and, as part of the Black Sea Fleet, the training of course tasks before the inter-fleet transition to the North took place on TAKRs. (Pacific TAKRs "Minsk" and "Novorossiysk" the final working off of tasks and coordination of the crews of the KUG took place in the North).
        And the Black Sea anti-ship missiles "Moscow" and "Leningrad" were anti-submarine cruisers.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 09: 05
    18
    I will not write about aircraft carriers - it has already been written down more than enough. We will analyze the situation with the battleships, about which the author writes down
    The answer in the style of "strengthening the country's defense" does not pass - it is impossible to imagine a situation in which Argentina and Brazil might need a battleship. In a possible war with each other, the fleets of both powers did not solve anything - Argentina and Brazil have a common land border with a length of 1000 km. All conflicts in South America from time immemorial were resolved only on land.

    This paragraph is the best evidence of the fact that, despite the 100500 articles written by the author about the war at sea, the author did not understand why the country needs a navy. Well, really - why? There they have a thousand-kilometer border - I don't want to beat it ... And the author is not aware that back in 1499 Marshal Trivulzio said: "For a war you need three things - money, money and money again."
    Now ask yourself, where did the money from, say, Brazil come from? The answer is very simple - in those years, the main source of income for the country (including financing of the armed forces) was:
    1) Coffee Plantations
    2) Rubber trees
    It is clear that the main consumers of this were by no means Brazilians - coffee and rubber were exported
    In other words, the prosperity of the Brazilian budget is more than completely DEPENDED ON SEA TRANSPORTATION!
    Basically, the same was true for other Argentines and Chile. It is in this that one should look for an explanation for the shipbuilding races of the South American powers (which began, by the way, long before the appearance of the dreadnoughts) In the event of a war, the tasks of the fleets of these powers would be to prevent the blockade of ports and intercept the enemy's shipping ... how important this task is, we can be told the experience of the civil war in the USA - just remember how hard it was for the South when the fleet of the North blocked its ports ... and how the raids of the same "Alabama" hiccuped the North
    The author’s arguments about Greece and Turkey are no less funny ... especially given their mutual territorial claims. That's interesting - did Oleg hear about Crete? About the Greek-Turkish wars? You can laugh at the desire of the Turks to get dreadnoughts until you read about the situation on the Black Sea in the First World War - the Russians shelled Zunguldak, drowned thousands of yachts and small carrier ships ... transporting troops and supplies by sea (which means quickly) covering the flank of the Caucasian army, landing - all this is among the Russians, who had naval dominance and the Turks did not have anything of this.
    In general, the only thing you could wish for the author is to stop already doing what best describes the term he used
    Naval clowning

    and start, finally learn the materiel
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 9 July 2013 09: 37
      10
      Andrey, thanks for the expanded comment, +. The only thing I would like to say is that the fleet must be balanced, the desire to have one child prodigy, well, or a couple, does not lead to anything good, history clearly teaches this. One super-super-ship cannot win the war or secure a blockade of the ports, therefore, in my opinion, there is, in my opinion, a completely fair mockery (regardless of the author’s position on large ships) about the relative weakness of single dreadnoughts (I’m not talking about aircraft carriers).
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 10: 01
        +9
        Quote: Vladimirets
        thanks for the expanded comment

        You're welcome!:)
        Quote: Vladimirets
        The only thing I would like to say is that the fleet must be balanced, the desire to have one child prodigy, well, or a couple, does not lead to anything good, history clearly teaches this

        Of course. But here the fact is that Oleg either does not know, or is disingenuous when he writes
        all South American countries, despite efforts to purchase new ships, experienced a shortage of modern cruisers, destroyers, and even simple minesweepers.

        In the same Brazil, the development program of the Navy consisted not only of dreadnoughts. In accordance with the program, two battleships and two reconnaissance cruisers, 10 destroyers, three submarines, and a submarine floating base were ordered.
        Accordingly, when this program was implemented, the fleet (including previously built ships) contained
        2 Dreadnought
        2 Battleship Coast Defense
        2 modern light cruisers (3100 tons, 26,5 knots and 10-120-mm guns)
        2 fleet armored cruisers
        2 cruisers transferred to the training ships
        10 quite modern (similar to the British "Rivera") destroyers
        1 old destroyer
        3 modern submarines and one floating base for them
        5 seafaring torpedo gunboats (something like old mine cruisers - displacement up to 1000 tons, speed 18-23 knots and weapons 2-4 102-120-mm guns and several torpedo tubes.
        Thus, Brazil, after fulfilling its shipbuilding program, had a very powerful and, most importantly, balanced fleet.
    2. Santa Fe
      9 July 2013 10: 27
      +3
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      In other words, the prosperity of the Brazilian budget a little more than completely DEPENDS ON SEA TRANSPORTATION!

      Better explain how shipping depended on the Minas Gerais dreadnought
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      in the USA - just remember how hard it was for the South when the fleet of the North blocked its ports

      FLEET!
      But not a pair of pelvis with poorly trained black rebels and guns removed
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      the author’s discussions about Greece and Turkey ... especially given their mutual territorial claims. That's interesting - did Oleg hear about Crete? About the Greek-Turkish wars?

      It would be better if the Greeks transferred their few destroyers from coal to oil, equipped ships with radio stations and modern guns.

      Instead of showing off, ordering the only dreadnought "Salamis", costing half of Greece. At the same time, without having either the strength or proper preparation for its maintenance, cover and effective use.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 10: 36
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Better explain how shipping depended on the Minas Gerais dreadnought

        You still don’t understand, Oleg. Well, for other visitors, this is quite obvious.
        But ... okay. Oleg, do a deep analytical work, huh? Here is a large port, and it has a couple of dreadnoughts. You don't have dreadnoughts. And there are no nuclear submarines with almost unlimited autonomy either. Block this port from the sea so that a caravan of rubber cannot leave it.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        FLEET!

        Yeah .. And the Americans in the civilian was ... Fleet !!! laughing laughing laughing Materiel, Oleg, materiel :)
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        It would be better if the Greeks transferred their few destroyers from coal to oil, equipped ships with radio stations and modern guns.

        It would be better for the Turks from this - certainly
        1. Santa Fe
          9 July 2013 11: 01
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          You still don’t understand, Oleg. Well, for other visitors, this is quite obvious.

          Everything is so obvious that there’s nothing to argue about.

          the Brazilian fleet was not ready to use modern ships. The Brazilians made a lot of efforts to buy ships, but did not take care of the proper training of crews (one third of all fleet sailors) and quality maintenance of equipment, which resulted in the inability to fully use the dreadnought soon after putting them into operation
          - historian Joan Roberto Martins Filo

          "... a question about the real purpose of buying the Brazilian ships, because I believed that at the time Brazil's relations with Argentina and Chile were quite good. According to Richard Howe, the only winners in the race were the arms companies involved in building the ships."

          "these ships are absolutely useless for Brazil"
          - British Ambassador to Brazil
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Here is a large port, and it has a couple of dreadnoughts. You don't have dreadnoughts. And there are no nuclear submarines with almost unlimited autonomy either. Block this port from the sea so that a caravan of rubber cannot leave it.

          Who will block whom? Martians?

          If you mean the Argentinean "Rivadavia" - from such a misfortune there are enough minefields and a night attack by torpedo boats (if the "Rivadavia" can reach the enemy coast at all, without flying out on the rocks and not dying from sabotage in its native port)
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          It would be better for the Turks from this - certainly

          Weak attempt to twist
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 11: 09
            +5
            Oleg, you merged :) Firstly - you replace one question - do Brazil need dreadnoughts - completely different - could Brazil efficiently operate its own dreadnought? These questions should be answered as follows: YES, Brazil needed dreadnoughts, NO, it did not operate them correctly (perhaps it was worth ordering dreadnoughts easier and for the money saved, it would be better to train the crews).
            Secondly -
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Who will block whom? Martians?

            No, Oleg. another country in South America, for example.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            If you mean the Argentinean "Rivadavia"

            I knew that analytics were too much for you :)
            1. Santa Fe
              9 July 2013 11: 43
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Do the same Brazil need dreadnoughts -

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              These questions should be answered as follows - YES, Brazil needed dreadnoughts

              "I need your clothes, boots and a motorcycle" (c)

              The uprising and the resulting weakness of the fleet, which was unable to act out of fear of new unrest, prompted many influential Brazilians, including the president, well-known politicians like Barbosa and Baron de Rio Branco and newspaper editors, to raise the question of the usefulness of new ships and the expediency of selling them to another state . The British ambassador Haggard was very surprised by such a decisive change in the views of Baron Rio Blanco: "What a wonderful transformation in a person who sought a purchase and considered it the pinnacle of his policy."

              The president and the cabinet decided that the sale of the constructed ships would negatively affect the state’s domestic policy, although, as everyone recognized, it is desirable to replace expensive large ships with many small ones that can operate on numerous Brazilian rivers

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              another country in South America, for example.

              in this case, the dreadnoughts "Minas Gerais" and "Rivadavia" were useless
            2. Yarbay
              Yarbay 10 July 2013 23: 30
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Firstly - you are replacing one question - do Brazil need dreadnoughts - completely different - could Brazil efficiently operate its own dreadnought? These questions should be answered as follows - YES, Brazil needed dreadnoughts, NO, it exploited them incorrectly (

              I agree!!!
          2. sevtrash
            sevtrash 9 July 2013 12: 38
            0
            An article on the topic - an aircraft carrier almost needs to be built, but they don’t want to take into account that its contents and support will cost more than itself. Moreover, they don’t want to. Why, it’s not entirely clear. That is, permanent patriotism is understandable. And then what? Here you are, examples where the desired and the possible do not match.
        2. Vadivak
          Vadivak 9 July 2013 12: 40
          +4
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Here is a large port, and it has a couple of dreadnoughts. You don't have dreadnoughts. And there are no nuclear submarines with almost unlimited autonomy either. Block this port from the sea so that a caravan of rubber cannot leave it.


          As for me, I would quietly mine an underwater minelayer of the "Crab" type, or better with several and generously, from the heart
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 13: 03
            +4
            Transport would leave the port - and explode. Horror. After that, transports would only go out accompanied by minesweepers. AND?
            1. Vadivak
              Vadivak 9 July 2013 17: 54
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Transport would leave the port - and explode. Horror.

              For Britain it’s not a jerk or for the states, but for Chile there’s another jerk,

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              with almost unlimited autonomy

              Do you remember how "cash cows" supplied "wolf packs"?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 22: 48
                +1
                Quote: Vadivak
                This is not a bogus for Britain or for the states

                Just for the United States or Britain, this will be a scam, because unlimited underwater warfare has not yet been invented, and if their ship was blown up in a mine near a port where the blockade was NOT ANNOUNCED (and there were rules for declaring it and submarines in international maritime law in no way fit in) this is generally speaking an unprovoked attack on a ship of a sovereign power :))) With all that it implies - that is, the United States and England will come to the snake first, and then they will start to snatch this snake at your power, and then there are crabs .... hardly will help :))) drinks
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 9 July 2013 11: 15
      +8
      I completely agree with this comment.
      The author really did not understand the significance of either the sea, as the communication line, or the purpose of the fleet.
      You can recommend - to throw prejudice out of your head and once again read Colomb, Mahen. Yes, the same Engels at last.
      And at the same time, analyze the strategies of Japan in WWII, WW in WWII, WWII, USA (as the current world leader) in WWII, during the Cold War.

      And by the way, about the Argentine and Brazilian battleships:
      1. Battles in South America could be won on land, but the presence of a fleet guaranteed the safety of maritime trade (for all countries with fleets).
      And there is a good conclusion - the presence in the fleet of a ship of the strongest class (at the appropriate time) guarantees the inability to withstand it in a naval battle (until the enemy has an analogue). Well ... the conclusion, in my opinion, Colomb - the success of cruising operations is determined by the ratio of the main linear forces of the warring parties. The rule is empirical.
      Well, by the way - about the aircraft carriers of Argentina and Brazil - not current, but while Minas Gerais was in Brazil - at the time they appeared in these fleets, their planes (F4U) were a very formidable car for ships. Yes, jet aircraft would have defeated them offshore, but at sea, in a conflict with any country except the USA, the World Bank, and the USSR, these aircraft, when used correctly, guaranteed the destruction of any ship at a range of 200-300 miles.
      Well ... and Skyhawks are now old planes. But we may recall that after the appearance of Skyhawk, the U.S. Navy was the standard for a carrier-based attack aircraft. Recall that the Israeli Air Force probably used it until the end of 199X. The plane is famous, and very adequate to the tasks performed. Well ... do not forget that Argentina at the beginning of the 20th century. was either 5 or 6 country in terms of GDP per capita in the world ... Just for the 20th century. through essentially socialist experiments, she drove herself to 50th place wink wink wink
      2. None of them has ever clashed with the WB (for the mistress of the seas), and the possibility of the High Seas Fleet causing any trouble is a purely speculative threat
      3. Yes, their ships were rotting. Most likely, it is connected not with the inability of countries to have a fleet, but with traditional indifference. By the way, our fleet can also be cited as an example - as we have, up to last year, warships sank at the quays. Those. it does not mean anything except the absence of a stable culture of navigation in the respective fleets and the maintenance of the mate unit in the required state.
    4. common man
      common man 9 July 2013 12: 47
      -1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      In the event of war, the tasks of the fleets of these powers would be to prevent the blockade of ports and suppress the navigation of the enemy.

      I would like to see Argentina, which deprived the English gentlemen of a cup of Brazilian coffee. And vice versa. That is, in view of the fact that these blockades would not be beneficial to importers in the first place, the WB, the USA, and France would take up the issue of shipping protection.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 13: 02
        +4
        Learn the history of the US Civil War. A lot there who took over the export of the South? :)))
        1. Rider
          Rider 9 July 2013 16: 04
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Learn the history of the US Civil War. A lot there who took over the export of the South? :)))


          in the light of intra-American Turks, it is precisely the blockade that has a special context.
          since for the army of the south only IMPORT was important (ammunition supplies, etc.) EXPORT did not play a special role, they could lend even at monstrous interest.

          but in the context of your
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          A lot there who took over the export of the South?

          need to look wider.
          in the first, US ports covered from the impact of the Britons, Russian squadrons
          and secondly (and in my opinion the most important thing) England began cotton production in Egypt and other colonial countries.
          and their money bags, (rightly) decided NOT to pay full pounds for southern cotton, but to pay pennies to wage workers on plantations in their colonies.

          more about this is said by Bushkov in "The Unknown War"
          highly recommend.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 16: 56
            +2
            Dear Rider, I will not argue with you, I will focus on the main thing
            Quote: Rider
            and secondly (and in my opinion the most important thing) England began cotton production in Egypt and other colonial countries.

            Well and wonderful - I'm glad for these countries :))) But then you should consider that coffee - it is actually not only in Brazil, in those years it was grown in Guatemala, Ecuador, Colombia and even the Philippines :))) So the English gentlemen certainly will not stay without coffee :)))
    5. old man54
      old man54 9 July 2013 20: 02
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      This paragraph best indicates that, despite 100500 articles written by the author about the war at sea, the author did not understand why the country needed a fleet.

      But I’ll probably intercede for Kaptsov !!! I see that the need for the fleet for the state (any) he understands no worse than you, and many of us, members of the forum. This is not the first time in his articles that he subtly, and often not in plain text, but in half hints, pursues the idea, sometimes provocatively, yes !, that the navy of any country must comply with its geopolitical plans and strategies, its financial capabilities, its present and potential military threats and, preferably, the level of its technological progress. Otherwise, if for one or more of the above several reasons there is a strong dissonance, then clowneryabout which Oleg Kaptsov told us in the article. About indirect analogies with our Russian reality, think for yourself, they directly climb into your eyes!
      And the author did not realize that back in 1499, Marshal Trivulzio said: "For a war you need three things - money, money and more money"

      and so I just see that the author is very "home" !! He just writes about this, but not quite directly, somewhat viteevato, giving us, his readers, the opportunity to brainwash and independently realize this, including through his articles!
      The author’s arguments about Greece and Turkey are no less funny ... especially given their mutual territorial claims. That's interesting - did Oleg hear about Crete? About the Greek-Turkish wars? You can laugh at the desire of the Turks to get dreadnoughts until you read about the situation on the Black Sea in the First World War - the Russians fire at Zunguldak, drown thousands of yachts and small carrier ships.

      I have not read anywhere that Oleg Kaptsov would argue about the futility of the military fleet as such and for Russia in particular! He always speaks of the expediency, proportionality of the Navy, the economic and political power of the country. And I agree with his concept, personally and share it! "A hat for a senka," should be. His example is about Turkey and Greece.
      and start, finally learn the materiel

      It would be nice for you, my dear namesake, to learn to listen (read) to the interlocutor, and not to give out your interpretation of his thoughts, for him! Sorry.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 22: 24
        +5
        And here I’d probably intercede for Kaptsov !!

        Yes please:)
        Otherwise, if for one or all of the above several reasons there is a strong dissonance, then there will be clowning, which Oleg Kaptsov told us about in the article

        Tell something, but only WHAT did he tell you? Here, for example, is a soul-tearing quote.
        Accumulating money for a dreadnought is only half the problem. The subsequent operation of such a powerful and complex ship will require enormous costs. Crank from South America, of course, did not pull such expenses. The result is a report from Armstrong’s technical representative:
        Ships are in poor condition, rust covered towers and steam boilers. Estimated cost of repairing 700 000 £
        And this is just after a couple of years of being in the Brazilian Navy!

        Here I have tears right from my eyes - well, what kind of bastards are these Brazilians, such good ships, and they are in such rubbish ... It's sad, right?
        And now - a little nuance. Why would a representative of Armstrong make checks on Brazilian ships? But with what. We open Kaptsov’s favorite source - Wikipedia, and read
        After the end of the power rebellion disarmed ships, removing the bolts from the guns. The uprising and the resulting weakness of the fleet, which was unable to act out of fear of new unrest, prompted many influential Brazilians, including the president, well-known politicians like Barbosa and Baron de Rio Branco and newspaper editors, to raise the question of the usefulness of new ships and the expediency of selling them to another state .. ... The ships remained in the Brazilian fleet, however, the uprising revealed its true combat readiness. So, an agent of Armstrong reported that the ships are in poor condition, rust covered the towers and steam boilers
        So I have a question - this same rust covered the towers and boilers for the few months when the Brazilian sailors exploited these ships, or for the couple of years that the dreadnoughts stood on a joke with the shutters pulled out? :))
        And another question - why does Kaptsov not mention that after that the ships returned to service, that the Brazilians had funds and that both battleships were excellently capitalized in the United States? That the battleships served normally, and that in 1934-1938, already at the Rio de Janeiro shipyard, Minas Gerais underwent a major overhaul and underwent a complete modernization. The appearance of the ship has changed: one large pipe has been mounted. The armament has changed, which included 14 - 120-mm guns (with a barrel length of 50 calibers), 4 - 102-mm anti-aircraft guns and 4 - 40-mm anti-aircraft machine guns. The Babcock boilers were replaced by 6 Tornikfort oil boilers, resulting in an increase in power to 30000 hp and a speed of 22 knots. The fuel supply after the modernization was 2200 tons, and the number of the crew increased to 1131 people. And that this battleship lasted until 1952, when almost his peers had long since died in Bose?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 22: 29
          +5
          Look, what a breakthrough - the country itself could not build a destroyer in 1910, but the road will be mastered by the one going - in 1934 it was up to the very difficult shipbuilding work to change the LINKOR chassis. But Kaptsov "modestly" kept silent about all this.
          In 1935, the 25th anniversary of "Sao Paulo" was celebrated, the results of his service were summed up. For a quarter of a century, 25 commanders have changed (this, by the way, is about the "normal" state of affairs with officers!), Covered 81000 miles. Is it a lot or a little? In the period from entry into service until 1941, 9 in 27 years) the battleship Petropavlovsk (Marat) covered 75 thousand miles. But, unlike Sao Paulo, he was constantly modernizing, and he did not go on capricious steam boilers ...
          Chilean Almirante Latorre returned after WWII to Chile in 1920, the first and last capital in England (1929-1931). During the Second World War, he patrolled his own tervodes, i.e. was on the move, regularly served after the war, after which he served with honor until 1958. And the Argentines were written off only in 1957.
          And after all of the above, I have a question for you - are you still sure that the South American countries still could not exploit these nasty dreadnought?
          Have you appreciated the benefit for the country from the operation of such complex technical facilities? How many people have served over the half-century lives of these ships? How much did the level of own shipyards increase for at least minor repairs of these dreadnought? How many people mastered complex mechanisms, how many professions had to be taught, etc. etc.? Do you want to or not, and the operation of such complex equipment greatly shoves the development of the operator. Did Kaptsov take these benefits into account? And you?
          the navy of any country must comply with its geopolitical plans and strategies, its financial capabilities

          This is what I see as a huge harm to Kaptsov’s articles. His position, which he drives into the heads of readers
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 22: 29
            +6
            This is what I see as a huge harm to Kaptsov’s articles. His position, which he drives into the heads of readers
            Quote: old man54
            subtly, and often not in plain text, but half-hints

            What if you do not have the opportunity - sit and do not shine. You see, the easiest way is to say - "wow, this is soooo hard, and we can't afford it!" But this is a defeat strategy. Anyone should, when solving the tasks before him, think about "how to do it", and not about "why it will not work out" You see, this is very similar to Kudrin's policy - as soon as the budget of the Russian Federation was drawn up and saw a deficit, he thought WHAT TO REDUCE AND SEQUEST, instead of thinking about HOW TO INCREASE YOUR INCOME TO BE ENOUGH FOR EVERYTHING. Do you understand the difference?
            Right now there was an article - the creation of a modern AV requires R&D of about 320 billion rubles. Expensive? Yes. And what will be the benefit to the country if this money is invested in OUR R&D and design bureaus? How many new jobs will there be? How much will the salaries of development engineers rise, how many people will go to study not to become a "hamburger wrapping manager" but to an "iron" specialty? How will the training of workers' specialties in industry be revived, who will have to bungle the 80 thousand-ton bulk? How many new aircraft facilities will have to be commissioned? And so on and so forth ...
            Refusing to develop the same carrier-based aircraft, we throw out a whole layer of knowledge and skills. The Americans are already ahead of us in the EXPERIENCE of using deck aircraft for years on 60 at least. And you don’t have to think that in years through 50, if we have the means then .... If we believe that Russia will NEVER play any role in the vast oceans - you can give up on the fleet and rely on nuclear weapons. But only we don’t think so :))) And you always need to remember what Kaptsov didn’t understand - not only we are moving Big Projects - Big Projects are also moving us :))
            Quote: old man54
            and so I just see that the author is very "home" !!

            Sorry, but you see poorly, do not be offended. The author does not understand where to save - this is just the case when he saved a penny, but he lost the ruble.
            You make the same mistake when you write:
            Quote: old man54
            And I agree with his concept, personally and share it! "A hat for a senka," should be.

            No need for hats for Senka. The winners in the world are those who set AMBITIOUS goals for themselves. And those who "wear a hat" ... their lot is bitter
            1. Santa Fe
              9 July 2013 23: 09
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Right now there was an article - about 320 billion rubles are needed to create a modern AV. Expensive? Yes. And what will be the use of the country if this money is invested in OUR NIIR and KB

              Russia has a place to invest these funds, except in the design of AV

              Restore your own aircraft industry or create a normal passenger car, for example. A network of highways (how can a country develop without normal roads?), Developing a chemical industry is more profitable than simply driving raw materials (gas) abroad, an eternal problem with domestic microelectronics, etc. etc.

              (of course, all this is a dream, like fairy tales about the AB - the frigate cannot build for 8 years)
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              If we believe that Russia will NEVER play any role in the vast expanses of the oceans, we can give up on the fleet and rely on nuclear weapons.

              And the tanks. Around us is the Eurasian continent!
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Those who set AMBITIOUS goals in the world win

              and goals must be adequate
            2. Yarbay
              Yarbay 10 July 2013 23: 35
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              You see, this is very similar to Kudrin’s policy - as soon as the RF budget was made up and saw a deficit, he thought WHAT TO REDUCE AND SEQUEST instead of HOW TO INCREASE THE PROFITABILITY TO ENOUGH EVERYTHING. Do you understand the difference?

              I support !!!!!!!
              + + + + +
          2. Santa Fe
            9 July 2013 23: 01
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            How much did the level of own shipyards increase for at least minor repairs of these dreadnought?

            100 years passed - Brazil is still an outsider in shipbuilding
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            How many people mastered complex mechanisms, how many professions had to be taught, etc. etc.? You want it or not, and the operation of such complex equipment greatly shoves the development of the operator

            It would be better if they mastered an automobile plant with an assembly line - there would be more benefit for the country
            1. seafarer
              seafarer 10 July 2013 23: 41
              +1
              The Brazilians have just mastered the car plant: the legendary VW "Beetle" is just produced by Brazilian car plants.
          3. old man54
            old man54 10 July 2013 21: 37
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            You look at what a breakthrough - the country in 1910 couldn’t build the destroyer itself, but the road will overpower it - in 1934 it was very difficult for her to carry out shipbuilding work on changing the LINCOR chassis.

            This "leap", as you put it, is called STP (Scientific and Technological Progress), and of course it did not bypass Brazil. No matter how 24 years have passed, life does not stand still. And the fact that the industrial and technical level has grown is not a merit of 2 ships of the Navy, but a common process. But to give real data, how many material, financial and human efforts did Brazil cost to maintain these 2 dreadnoughts in good condition ?? And most importantly why ?? But if instead of two of them there were 4/5 cruisers, as modern as they are, and 5 current destroyers, then what would the Brazilian fleet look like in a possible real war with its neighbors, eh? I am sure that it is much more efficient, and most importantly, the maintenance of cruisers is cheaper than 1 battleship.
            In 1935, the 25th anniversary of "Sao Paulo" was celebrated, the results of his service were summed up. For a quarter of a century, 25 commanders have changed (this, by the way, is about the "normal" state of affairs with officers!), 81000 miles traveled.

            it's all fine and necessary, nagging sailors and officers, increasing their professional training and experience, training command personnel, but ... all this could also be done on ships of lesser displacement and rank! No one claims that Brazil does not need a fleet at all? what And I didn’t read this with Kaptsov, but you, my dear, do not want to understand that the conversation is just about the expediency, the need for the smallest basic warships for the time for the Brazilian Navy! Countries with a commodity economy, extremely backward at that time (which does not remind you of anything laughing) but with as many as 2 dreadnoughts! :))) For what? "And what would be no worse than people", right ??? laughing laughing
            And after all of the above, I have a question for you - are you still sure that the South American countries still could not exploit these nasty dreadnought?

            Well, apparently they learned, not by washing, so by skating! :)) But at what cost, both moral and material? And most importantly, why ?? It may very well be that tomorrow some UAE, with nothing to do with money, will wander into the head of its own UAV! Tell that well done they too ?? Let, or else, suddenly Qatar wants to attack them, there are very aggressive adolescents living there today! laughing
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2013 23: 24
              +4
              Sorry, but this your comment has led me to some surprise. If anything, we were talking about Kaptsov’s article. In which he claimed that
              1) The dreadnoughts of the South American countries had no tasks
              2) you need to stretch your legs for clothes and as an example confirming this idea, brought all the same South American countries that supposedly could not normally operate dreadnoughts, from which the process of their use turned into a clownery.
              I undertook to refute both of these theses, and not so badly - Argentina. Brazil and so on had sea trade, which should have been defended, and they still mastered the dreadnoughts. Now you tell me - yes, you’ve mastered it, but you could use the money invested in dreadnought more effectively!
              This question certainly has the right to life and the right to discuss - but here's the thing - this is ANOTHER question, and for the time being I simply state that the author whom you undertook to defend is trying to justify his point of view with a deliberately false argument. Why is it knowingly false? Yes, because Oleg is fairly well acquainted with the history of the fleets, and I just cannot believe that he knew nothing about the battleships of the secondary powers.
              And I will not argue with you about economic issues - their discussion is initially pointless for one simple reason - in economics, kind old man54, NEVER a single project is evaluated on the basis of only one expensive criterion. The result is evaluated - and the best project is the one that with a high degree of probability will give the maximum result at the lowest cost. Therefore, before raising economic issues, one should determine the goals that could be achieved by acquiring battleships or abandoning battleships in favor of other ships, such as cruisers.
              So can you tell me what goals I would have to give up, what goals could be achieved by putting several cruisers in place of the Brazilian Navy instead of battleships? Say, in case of war against Argentina? I'm afraid that is unlikely. Then I have a question - WHY are you sure that several cruisers are able to replace dreadnought? WHY do you think that they and their operation are cheaper?
              Even more surprising is the reference to Qatar. Well, yes, from the height of today's after-war - and we know that large-scale conflicts in South America did not happen - the navy of these countries was not very much in demand. But it’s interesting - how THEN could the people responsible for the country's security know about this in advance?
              In general, I propose to do the following. There is a very real fleet of Argentina 1914-18 with very real dreadnoughts and you, as a man who is not indifferent to the fleet, will obviously have no trouble finding the composition of this fleet :) Explain to me what goals do you think Brazil should achieve in the naval war against Argentina dreadnought and how many cruisers (and what tactical and technical data) for this you need to buy on the side.
          4. old man54
            old man54 10 July 2013 21: 42
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Have you appreciated the benefit for the country from the operation of such complex technical facilities? How many people have served over the half-century lives of these ships? How much did the level of own shipyards increase for at least minor repairs of these dreadnought? How many people mastered complex mechanisms, how many professions had to be taught, etc. etc.?
            Did Kaptsov take these benefits into account? And you?

            sophisticated equipment is far from necessary to master on large and expensive ships, which would then constantly order spare parts from England! There are fewer ships, but more appropriate for the tasks and threats of the country, this can also be done perfectly, rather even better! Do not find? It’s not so painful and painful as the Brazilians did all this!
            This is what I see as a huge harm to Kaptsov’s articles. His position, which he drives into the heads of readers

            laughing Well what are you, Andrei! I think and hope that I am a fully adequate and independently thinking person, I will not speak for others on the forum, this is a private matter! hi For a long time I myself got used to understanding many things, analyzing and looking for the Truth. Especially in the strategy and armament of the Navy, which he dreamed of from the age of 12 somewhere. So in vain you, Andrei, slander Kaptsov that they say he influences badly, like don't be friends with him, I'm like "myself with a mustache"! wink Moreover, I have a feeling that we are the same age as you. fellow
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2013 23: 27
              +2
              Quote: old man54
              You, Andrey, slander Kaptsov that they say he influences badly, like don't be friends with him, I'm like "myself with a mustache"

              You are considering this question in vain in relation to yourself - I am discussing an article, and how you feel about Kaptsov, how you perceive his articles, I'm sorry - this is absolutely not my business. I write about my perception - I naturally do not impose it on you.
        2. Santa Fe
          9 July 2013 22: 58
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          14 - 120 mm guns (with a barrel length of 50 calibers), 4 - 102 mm anti-aircraft guns and 4 - 40 mm anti-aircraft guns. Babcock boilers replaced by 6 oil boilers

          Andrei, you, as always, for pettiness (trunks / mm of armor) do not see the main thing: these were extra useless efforts and expenses

          It would be better if the Brazilians paved the railway with these funds.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And what did this battleship last until 1952, when almost his peers had long since rested in the Bose?

          Brazilian Navy has always been a bunch of old trash
        3. old man54
          old man54 10 July 2013 01: 35
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Tell something, but only WHAT did he tell you?

          UUUh, how much you wrote to me, thanks, flattered! hi I think I'm sorry, but I’ll answer tomorrow after 12 Moscow time, otherwise I already have 4 in the morning, and I haven’t slept yet. Have a nice day!
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2013 08: 41
            +2
            Yes, no question :))) Of course, I'll wait :)))
        4. Yarbay
          Yarbay 10 July 2013 23: 34
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          So I have a question - this same rust covered the towers and boilers for the few months when the Brazilian sailors exploited these ships, or for the couple of years that the dreadnoughts stood on a joke with the shutters pulled out? :))

          The relevant question))))
      2. Yarbay
        Yarbay 10 July 2013 23: 32
        0
        Quote: old man54
        About Turkey and Greece is just about this his example.

        I agree with Greece!
        And that Turkey has no money ???
        1. old man54
          old man54 11 July 2013 02: 02
          0
          Quote: Yarbay
          I agree with Greece!
          And that Turkey has no money ???

          c'mon you with your Turkey, Yurbay! lol The conversation is not about now, but about those times that are described in the article! Before and after the 2th MV, Turkey was poor, an old church rat! If it weren’t for NATO and personally striped, they would probably fly to the Air Force before the 70’s on biplanes!

          More or less money in Turkey like 40 for years, well, 45 maximum appeared back, especially after the CIS pilgrimage to its resorts and its bazaars, for sheepskin coats!
  • Andy
    Andy 9 July 2013 09: 10
    +2
    this is not even a theater of one actor, but already a circus of one clown! Oleg manages to copy and paste other people's materials with photos well, but God forbid, he will start working on the "author's" text.
  • Andy
    Andy 9 July 2013 09: 13
    +2
    in pursuit of the author, it would be better than raving, I would prepare an article about the cruiser "Krasny Kavkaz", the history of its creation and service, since you like to write about the sea so much. The ship is worthy, readers will be interested (just do not insert your "analyzes")
    1. RoTTor
      RoTTor 9 July 2013 15: 47
      0
      Much has been written about this ship - in memoirs and articles.
  • Orty
    Orty 9 July 2013 09: 22
    +6
    On the one hand, the style of the article is annoying, well, the aircraft carriers are infuriating the author, he’s reducing cheekbones! On the other hand, there is a grain of truth in it, in fact, if the aircraft group of aircraft carriers is either junk, or 5-6 aircraft, then its content is meaningless, well, which projection of force is it really? On the other hand, if an air group of 4-5 dozen aircraft is already serious, it is possible to cover the fleet and even fight against the shore, well, if you have not 1 such ships, but say 3-6, then this is a serious power that everyone will have to reckon with. In other words, one tank will not change the course of the war, but a hundred can already. So aircraft carriers, if you build, then with an air group at least 50 sides, better than 70, and not one, but three at least, then no one will say that this is a useless purchase.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 09: 33
      +8
      Quote: Orty
      On the other hand, there is a grain of truth in it, in fact, if the aircraft group of aircraft carriers is either old-fashioned or 5-6 aircraft, then its content is meaningless, well, which projection of force is it really?

      Well ... I don’t want to seem to be nit-picking, just what the British would do in the conflict with the Argentines if they didn’t have a pair of aircraft carriers with funny, in general, in terms of numbers and quality of air groups? :)))
      1. Santa Fe
        9 July 2013 10: 12
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        what would the British do in the conflict with the Argentines if they hadn’t had a pair of aircraft carriers with funny, in general, in terms of numbers and quality airgroups?

        "Hermes" and "Invincible" were not clowns - each had a squadron of "SeaHarriers" on board: a modern VTOL aircraft at that time, trained pilots, the latest weaponry - the all-round air-to-air missile AIM-7L.

        Another thing is that the British squadron consisted of 83 ships and support vessels - and the ABs in it were far from the most important units. Most of the aircraft was delivered by conventional container ships, the main losses of the Argentine Air Force suffered from the British air defense systems, and the SeaHarrier VTOL aircraft preferred to be based on land - the ersatz airfield Harrier Forward Operating Base. Sami "Hermes" and "Invincible" staged to approach close to the islands and stayed 100-150 miles to the northeast, out of the range of Argentine aviation from the Rio Grande


        "Harriers" at the ersatz airbase in the Bay of San Carlos




        "Hermes" and "Invincible" did not play a special role in that war, and the British squadron would only be stronger if instead of aircraft carriers received a couple of additional destroyers (the Argentines suffered the main losses from the air defense system, and the Britons all the same suffered huge losses from the Argentine Air Force - instead to cover the squadron, the British "Sea Harriers" were busy filling personal accounts)

        The Daggers and Mirages, which had no refueling systems in the air, attacked targets on the coast and in the coastal waters of the island — after a long flight over the sea, Argentine pilots sought to reach the northern or southern tip of the Falklands to correct onboard navigation systems. Here they were awaited by the Sea Harrier air combat patrols from the ersatz airbase

        At the same time, the specialized airborne attack aircraft of the Argentinean Air Force Skyhawk, equipped with air-to-air refueling systems, operated in the open ocean, where, without encountering any opposition from the British aviation, methodically turned Her Majesty’s ships into a sieve.

        Argentine Air Force Loss Distribution
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 10: 24
          +8
          Oleg, well, would you leave the aircraft carriers alone :))) well, it's not yours :)))
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The CHarriers did not play a special role in that war, and the British squadron would only have won if they had received a couple of additional destroyers instead of aircraft carriers (as I said, the Argentines suffered the main losses from the air defense system

          Almost all experts agreed that the Falklands would not have been returned without the Harriers, the Defense White Paper as an example. And as for the air defense system - generally amused, shipborne air defense systems shot down 21 aircraft (and 2 probably), harriers - according to various sources - from 26 to 31 aircraft.
          And that's not to mention the fact that the harrier is something else. Truly "a camel is a horse made in England" - one could hardly imagine a more inappropriate aircraft for air superiority
          1. Santa Fe
            9 July 2013 10: 35
            +3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            about the air defense system - generally laughed at it, the ship air defense systems shot down 21 aircraft (and 2 probably),

            You forgot MANPADS and anti-aircraft artillery (4,5 'naval guns, erlikons - the main problem of the Britons was that there were no Phalanxes).
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Harrier - according to various sources - from 26 to 31 aircraft.

            including turntables and corn stands on the ground - of course, this helped the squadron a lot, otherwise they would have failed))
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 10: 46
              +7
              I'm tired of writing, a little bit of copy :)
              The foreign press noted that the formation of combat and marching formations, the organization of all types of defense and the formation of British ships corresponded to the norms adopted in the United States and NATO and were supposed to provide protection against attacks by Argentine aviation, as well as cover for the landing operation. However, the lack of early warning aircraft (AWACS) and fighters with the required range did not allow timely search, detection and interception of low-flying enemy aircraft. That is why the British were forced to use the Sheffield-class destroyers of the URO type as AWACS weapons, placing them at a considerable distance from the main forces. Before the landing, these ships alternately patrolled 220 km from the center of the order and, using their radars, could detect high-flying aircraft at a distance of more than 300 km from the compound. Air targets were intercepted by "Harrier" aircraft from the position of duty in the zone and on the deck (in a three-minute readiness for takeoff).
              The limitation of the detection range of low-flying targets and a significant distance from the main forces of the compound made the AWACS ships vulnerable to air attacks. Argentine pilots took advantage of this circumstance, sinking the destroyer Sheffield with an Exocet missile. Http://warsonline.info/voyni-xx-veka/analiz-deystviy-boevoy-
              aviatsii-v-folklendskim-konflikte.html

              In other words, the absence of normal aircraft and AWACS made it necessary to substitute ships for air strikes. As a result, 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, a container ship and a recreation center paid for three dozen downed planes. Of course, Oleg, instead of aircraft carriers, it was necessary to drive another three destroyers there. And exchange them there for a dozen skyhawks
              1. Santa Fe
                9 July 2013 11: 18
                +5
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                However, the absence of early warning radars (FARs) and fighters with the required range did not allow timely search, detection and interception of low-flying enemy aircraft.

                ))))))))))

                It would also not be bad to include in the British forces SSGN based on "Ohio" with 154 Tomahawks and place on about. Ascension by a squadron of Tu-160 bombers. Then you would definitely have won in a couple of days without losses!

                Another thing is that poor Britain could not afford even a full-fledged destroyer, let alone the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier, which cost more than the British and Argentine navies combined)))

                As for the Argentine muchachos - these freaks had only 5 super-etandars and 6 Exocet anti-ship missiles. The rest are obsolete Daggers without refueling systems and subsonic Skyhawks 30 years ago.

                To counteract these suckers, ordinary "Phalanxes" installed on the decks of the ships of Her Majesty's squadron would be enough. It is no coincidence that a batch of these cars was urgently ordered in the United States a month after the end of hostilities.

                Here "Falanx" is needed, not a mythical aircraft carrier with AWACS planes and F-14 fighters))))
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 11: 58
                  +3
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Another thing is that poor Britain could not afford even a full-fledged destroyer, let alone the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier, which cost more than the British and Argentine navies combined)))

                  Oleg, well, don't get away from the topic! The fact that England could not afford an aircraft carrier DOES NOT MEAN that she did not need one. England could keep in the fleet and modernize aircraft carriers of the Eagle type, in 46 thousand tons, which were put into operation in the early 50s (then it would not be necessary to build Invincibles). England could build a new CVA-01 according to the project of the 60s, in 55 thousand full displacement and with an air group of 36 Phantom and Buccaneer aircraft (at least 12 of each type), a link of 4 AWACS aircraft (originally Gannet AEW .3), a squadron of anti-submarine helicopters from 4 Sea King HAS.1, a Gannet COD.4 transport aircraft and several Wessex HAS.1 search and rescue helicopters. which would be cheaper than "Kitty"
                  And if there were one such aircraft carrier at the Falklands - for the Argentines it would be much worse ... But no, the British did not have it - which cost them about 1,3-1,5 billion dollars (the cost of the dead ships) - i.e. about half the cost of an atomic superAB.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Here "Falanx" is needed, not a mythical aircraft carrier with AWACS planes and F-14 fighters))))

                  lol
                  Oleg, today you’re on the hit :))) Think of building an air defense system on 20-mm autocannons - you alone are capable of this! Bravo!!!
                  If anyone does not know - the reach of "Phalanx" is less than one and a half km, both in height and in range :)))
                  1. Santa Fe
                    9 July 2013 12: 10
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    England could not afford the aircraft carrier DOES NOT DISPLAY that she did not need it

                    could not allow
                    and there was no real need for this
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    England could build a new CVA-01 according to the project of the 60s, with 55 thousand full displacement and with an air group of 36 Phantom and Bukanir aircraft

                    could not
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    36 Phantom and Bukanir aircraft (at least 12 of each type), a link from 4 AWACS aircraft (originally Gannet AEW.3), a squadron of anti-submarine helicopters from 4 Sea King HAS.1, a transport aircraft Gannet

                    They would all be washed away from the deck in the South Atlantic)))
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    which cost them about 1,3-1,5 billion dollars

                    a problem with the near air defense
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Think of building an air defense system on 20-mm autocannons

                    just one of the elements of ship self-defense. As practice has shown, the near air defense was of the greatest importance in the Falkland War (the number shot down by SiCat, airlikons, MANPADS Blowpipe)
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    By the way, yes, there is practically no chance of damage to the durable body of the bomb from the 20-mm rattle.

                    Bombs have nothing to do with it - just keep the carrier out
                    The main problem of the Britons was that they were bombed by subsonic attack aircraft from shaving flight. And often there was nothing to fight back - had to shoot at them from rifles
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 12: 44
                      +1
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      They would all be washed away from the deck in the South Atlantic)))

                      Aha
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Bombs have nothing to do with it - just keep the carrier out

                      Oh-her :)))) laughing
                      No, Oleg, you're wrong. For this, the Phalanx is excessively powerful - almost one and a half kilometers - well, where does it fit? It would be enough to equip the crew with ordinary wind tubes - they would spit with chewing paper and the pilots of the attacking planes would die with laughter like flies ...
                    2. Avenger711
                      Avenger711 9 July 2013 13: 13
                      +3
                      And if the supersonic Tu-22M were bombed from a distance of 300 km, it would be something to fight back, yeah. Grand Fleet after WWII is no longer grand.
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 9 July 2013 11: 17
        +2
        What would they do - they would lose the war completely. And the islands would now be Malvinas wink
  • AK-47
    AK-47 9 July 2013 09: 58
    0
    Chakri Narubet was built by the Spanish shipyard Bazan and entered service with the Thai Navy in March 1997. The ship has a displacement of 11,4 thousand tons and a length of 182,6 meters. The aircraft carrier is capable of speeds up to 25,5 knots (47,2 kilometers per hour) and is capable of covering up to 19 thousand kilometers.
    The ship is designed for 455 crew members, including 62 officers. The Chakri Narubet air group consists of 146 people. The deck of the ship can accommodate up to 14 aircraft and helicopters (Harrier attack aircraft and Sikorsky Sea Hawk S-70 helicopters). The aircraft carrier is armed with, among other things, two Mistral anti-aircraft missile launchers for six missiles each.
    The aircraft carrier is designed to cover the Thai fleet and coastal communications in case of war and patrols, provide assistance in the event of natural disasters, search and rescue ships, planes and people in distress at sea in peacetime. If necessary, the vessel can be converted into a maritime camp hospital.
    Modern, equipped with the latest electronic systems, the aircraft carrier will help to solve the strategic tasks of defense of the Thai coast of the South China Sea, as well as islands belonging to Thailand.
    The aircraft carrier has a support fleet consisting of ships "Kraburi" and "Naresuan".
    The aircraft carrier is open to visitors daily from 8.00 to 16.00, on Wednesdays from 12.00 to 16.00. Free admission. Visitors from abroad will have to write a letter addressed to the Royal Navy Commander of Thailand. For more information, please call. 0 3843 8547-62.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 9 July 2013 11: 27
    +5
    But in this case, I completely agree with Oleg. If you have sea ambitions? Then please spend money on the production base, on moorings, learn to build ships of all classes from minesweepers to an aircraft carrier, create weapons for them, prepare personnel, and only by doing all this you can sweep the ocean fleet. And the purchase of finished ships, and besides b / y, is exactly what Oleg wrote. For example, China builds its fleet itself, (exclusion of EM Project 956), 17 frigates of Project 054, of which 15 about Project 054A, three more are under construction, 18 corvettes of Project 056 are laid, 6 are already transferred, 12 are under construction, 20 are planned 6 destroyers of Project 052C were built, 8 destroyers of Project 052D were built, 3 were launched. They build submarines themselves including nuclear. SAMI completed the Varangian as a training aircraft carrier and are working hard to create their own aircraft carrier, and not one ... Against this background, India is an obvious outsider, without any growth prospects ...
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 9 July 2013 13: 10
      0
      The Chinese are building themselves, but not everything, but what is really themselves, it turns out badly, but the road will overpower the one going. We in the 30s also did poorly.
  • Alexey
    Alexey 9 July 2013 11: 27
    +2
    The author's underestimation of one of the main classes of ships is very regrettable. Especially considering the number of his articles on the site devoted to this topic. But he is not alone in this. History knows many examples (especially in our country) of a similar "one-sided" view of the development of the Navy.
    Meanwhile, there is some basis for such a view. Let me briefly give an analogy from more than half a century of the US Navy. After WW2, many analysts believed that aircraft carriers, with the advent of jet aircraft, were out of date. Reciprocating aircraft cannot compete on equal terms with jet aircraft. The basing of the latter on aircraft carriers is problematic (at that time). in fact, the American aircraft carriers were “saved” at that moment by the idea of ​​the possibility of delivering a nuclear bomb. (of course, everything was a little more complicated, but simplified ... something like this).
    The power and value of an aircraft carrier entirely depends on the available deck aircraft. Do not forget that an aircraft carrier is just a carrier. At the same time, carrier-based aviation is developing with some lag behind traditional aviation. And during a period of noticeable qualitative change in the capabilities of the aviation component of the armament, the impression may be that the aircraft carrier is obsolete. But do not rush. An aircraft carrier, as a class, is too early to bury. In my opinion, this class of ships is very flexible and well adapted to modernization. It will retain its significance even when combat drones form the basis of aviation.
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 9 July 2013 11: 38
      +1
      Quote: Alex
      It will retain its significance even when combat drones form the basis of aviation.

      Apparently, in this case, aircraft carriers will be even more important than now, as mobile control centers.
  • common man
    common man 9 July 2013 11: 33
    +2
    After reading a bunch of comments on articles about aircraft carriers, it was felt that the main advantage of an aircraft carrier with a catapult was the presence of AWACS aircraft. Now the question. Could it be easier to develop an alternative to these aircraft than to build such giants? For example, locators on MI-26 and place on the ship. Or UAV helicopter-locator, And all the service staff on the ship.
    And further. I'm not against aircraft carriers. But what will Russia achieve by building one, even a super-duper aircraft carrier? With one "George W. Bush" he can and will cope. And if there are 4-6 of them.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 9 July 2013 11: 47
      +3
      Advantages of an AWACS aircraft: long range and duration of patrol, a helicopter (especially Mi-26) is much inferior to a turboprop in such characteristics. The Ka-31 concept is defective initially, the high windage of the antenna does not allow it to work at speed (it rotates around its axis), and the radius of action is modest, it is an ersatz, it’s just a remote antenna, not an air control station ...
      1. Santa Fe
        9 July 2013 11: 55
        +2
        Quote: man in the street
        which is the main advantage of an aircraft carrier with a catapult, the presence of AWACS aircraft

        Quote: Nayhas
        The advantages of the aircraft AWACS long range and duration of patrol

        Regular passenger flight London - New York lasts 7..8 hours

        Modern jet aviation costs nothing to "hang" an AWACS aircraft over any point of the Atlantic.

        For example, the S-3 E-707 based on the passenger Boeing-135 (the tanker is KS-707 based on the same Boeing-XNUMX). The idea of ​​carrier-based aviation died with the development of jet aircraft and air refueling systems
        1. Rider
          Rider 9 July 2013 16: 25
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The idea of ​​carrier-based aviation died with the development of jet aircraft and air refueling systems


          uv Oleg, basically i agree with swami.
          but it’s not that highlighted in the header.

          To capture and control the trapezundia located on the islands at the other end of the ball, funds have not yet been invented except for AUG (nuclear weapons are excluded)

          but it is effective ONLY AS AN AGGRESSION.
          to defend their economic interests (as many advocate here) in the form of a pair of container carriers, a full-fledged AUG, will it not be expensive
        2. Nayhas
          Nayhas 9 July 2013 20: 43
          +1
          It is not possible to have the E-3 constantly wherever it is needed. An airfield with E-3 can be located at a distance that excludes the necessary time of arrival, it is still not SR-71, it cannot fly at 3M in order to cover 2000 km. he needs more than two hours, why wait so long if you can raise your E-2D in a few minutes? Yes, and the number of E-3s will not provide continuous duty in the interests of the AUG, and the crews there are not iron hang in the air for days ...
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 9 July 2013 13: 08
        0
        Is the Mi-26 "all the more inferior"? Well, put on extra tanks, a galley, a toilet and hang around for days. Ka-31 will be enough to racket for 300 kilometers.
      3. sumcream56
        sumcream56 9 July 2013 18: 45
        +1
        Now airships are being revived in the USA and Russia. By the way, they were used in the United States until 1960 as radar carriers. From an ekranoplan Lun or Orlyonok, it is quite possible to make a carrier of the overheated S-300 / S-400 air defense system with a range of up to 400 km. We will install passive radar - Kolchuga complex with a range of up to 700 km. Plus the usual missile carriers - ekranoplanes with PRK Granite / Basalt with a range of up to 800 km. Here is your "answer to Chamberlain": anti-radar missiles shoot down AWACS planes with complete radio silence. And on target designation, anti-ship missiles are launched from the airship. Then at a speed of 300-500 km / h, ekranoplanes made using STEALTH technology cannot be counted before launch. The current models of Ivolga / Orion EP-12 ekranoplanes (or even the old ESKA-1) have aerodynamic quality -dabout 25, you can use vortex tubes to bring it to 30. And this is 1,5 times better than the old Lunya and Orlenka. That is, mass returns will increase and fuel consumption will decrease, and the cruising range will increase. And why do you need aircraft carriers?
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 13: 23
      +4
      Quote: man in the street
      Could it be easier to develop an alternative to these aircraft than to build such giants? For example, locators on MI-26 and place on the ship

      Everyman, look at the characteristics of the devices :))) An excellent AWACS E-2C "Hawkeye" aircraft has a normal take-off weight of 23,5 tons. The Mi-26 recommended by you weighs 28,2 tons EMPTY, normal takeoff - 49,6 tons i.e. MORE THAN TWO Hokai :))) But at the same time - the E-2C can patrol for 3-4 hours at a distance of 300 km from the aircraft carrier, but the Mi-26 could do this in less than an hour (it has a practical range of 800 km at a speed of under 300 km - an hour there, an hour back and forty minutes on patrol) Do we need it?
  • Iraclius
    Iraclius 9 July 2013 11: 44
    0
    Oleg began "for health", "finished for the repose."
    Thank you for the article anyway, smiled pictures of ragged, that is, sailors on the deck of the Brazilian dreadnought.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 9 July 2013 13: 06
      0
      He just wants to show that India is a kind of dumb country like Brazil or Thailand. Stubbornly silent at the same time, that China very much wants to get hold of its air carriers.
    2. Santa Fe
      9 July 2013 18: 27
      +2
      Quote: Iraclius
      smiled pictures of ragged, that is, sailors on the deck of the Brazilian dreadnought.

      They are not ragged - they are all right with the form
      And the fact that the persons are not Aryan ... yes, the personnel were not too educated and not very qualified
  • Alexey
    Alexey 9 July 2013 12: 27
    +6
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    The idea of ​​carrier-based aviation died with the development of jet aircraft and air refueling systems

    About naivety. In reality, it is unrealistic even for the United States to organize long-term "hovering" in areas of any significant air force grouping far from the base area. Refueling in the air is a very expensive business. And the resource consumption of aircraft will in this case be far from weak.
    If, for example, the time of approach to the target is equal to the time spent on the target, then the flight time will increase by 3 times. And that means the required number of aircraft. This is if you do not take into account refueling aircraft. Add pilot fatigue ...
    In reality, better than an aircraft carrier, there can only be an equipped ground airfield, and even then not always. In some cases, for example, in the case of a conflict such as "fleet against fleet" mobile airfield (aircraft carrier) may be irreplaceable.
    PS An interesting fact. At the time of the end of serial construction, the B-2 bomber cost $ 10 billion, about the same cost at that time for the new Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.
    1. Santa Fe
      9 July 2013 12: 49
      0
      Quote: Alex
      About naivety. In reality, it is unrealistic even for the United States to organize long-term "hovering" in areas of any significant air force grouping far from the base area

      Oh naivety. Map of US military bases

      ps / excluding airbases of the militants and the standard NATO chip: the deployment of military equipment in civilian airports
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 13: 06
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Oh naivety. Map of US military bases

        Oh naivety! The composition of the US Navy - 10 atomic carriers + 1 in completion.
        Would you, Oleg, go to American sites and persuade them to abandon aircraft carriers unnecessary to them.
        1. old man54
          old man54 9 July 2013 20: 33
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Oh naivety! The composition of the US Navy - 10 atomic carriers + 1 in completion.
          Would you, Oleg, go to American sites and persuade them to abandon aircraft carriers unnecessary to them.

          Here I read your comments and see that you are a very adequate person, competent, especially in shipbuilding it is so very, very interesting to read you. But you don’t see obvious things! You’ll bring all the amers as a model of the Navy’s structure, they admire the presence of UAW, but don’t really understand that they have a different doctrine, other goals and tasks, strategic ones! I won’t even talk about the economy! wink And why should we copy them, look at their SAW?
          1. Rider
            Rider 9 July 2013 21: 50
            0
            Quote: old man54
            But you don’t see obvious things!


            Well, you want a person to see in the ocean an AUG travel order under the Andreev flag.
            for sure it will look beautiful on the screen.

            Alas, the prose of life is that there IS NOTHING TO DO IT THERE!

            that is, absolutely nothing.
            Well, except how heroically they die in the fight against 3/4/5 of the same enemy.

            Well, Russia does not have interests requiring protection by floating airfields.

            alas, or fortunately.

            I shake your hand.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 22: 42
            +5
            Quote: old man54
            But you don’t see obvious things! You’ll bring all the amers as a model of the Navy’s structure, they admire the presence of UAW, but don’t really understand that they have a different doctrine, other goals and tasks, strategic ones! I won’t even talk about the economy!

            (heavy sigh) let's better talk about battleships :))) I wrote about them :)))
            And as for the doctrines, economies, and copying — something that I set out above, but more ... One of two things — either we need an ocean fleet, or not. Our government, if anything, considers what is needed - this is all the documents laid down in the tasks of the fleet too. The ocean fleet is impossible without aircraft carriers. That's all, in short :)
            1. Rider
              Rider 9 July 2013 22: 47
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              That's all, in short :)


              let me short too.

              THE WHOLE Navy, it is a tool for projecting power, in parts of the world where American interests are present.

              if Russia has these interests, then you can talk about forces.

              with uv.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 22: 51
                +3
                Quote: Rider
                if Russia has these interests, then you can talk about forces.

                In order for us to be able to have strength by the time interests emerge - the ocean fleet needs to be built now. The States have been operating deck aircraft for nearly 100 years. Do you seriously think that you can, without any experience, create something similar to them, after spending exactly 50 years? :)
                1. Rider
                  Rider 9 July 2013 23: 02
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  ocean fleet needs to be built now


                  even in the long run, these interests are not visible. we need all the cheat, we have or within the reach of the ground forces.
                  and have AUG just for the sake of it. isn't it too wasteful.
                  Russia does not print dollars.

                  but about. sit upright, so I don’t mind that Kuzya was in the Navy, or another one to replace him.
                  here on it claws and hone.

                  but to turn aircraft carriers into the idea of ​​a fixed ...
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 23: 28
                    +3
                    Generally speaking, I wrote about battleships :))) And about the usefulness of aircraft carriers in the Falklands :))) And you somehow wrote me down to the adherents of aircraft carriers of the Russian Federation (and quite rightly) drinks ) and now also ascribes to me an idefix :)))
                    If we lay the carrier in commercials in 2020, it will be VERY cool if he enters the fleet in years through 10, but rather it will happen even later. At this point, Kuze will hit 39 years from the date of entry into operation and 45 years from the day of launching. Those. if we don’t want to be left without aircraft carriers at all, then we have to scratch it yesterday. And one AB is still not enough, you need at least two, but even better - 3 (one in the Pacific Fleet, one in the Northern Fleet and one in the current capital) If we do this now - the second aircraft carrier will appear only closer to 2040- 2045 year.
                    1. old man54
                      old man54 10 July 2013 20: 48
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      And about the usefulness of aircraft carriers in the Falklands :))) And you somehow swooped down on me as adherents of aircraft carriers of the Russian Federation (and quite rightly)

                      The war for these islands is a military operation involving large landings, a war far from our bases! Those. one way or another, the seizure of the coast (islands) already controlled by another army (we will not figure out who had more rights to these islands, the Britons or the Argentines). And this is exactly the situation in which the army and the fleet of amers constantly find themselves. Zamette, Argentina, having its own aircraft carrier, did without him in this conflict, perfectly aware that he would not have passed at sea for a long time during this war. Here is the answer to your own statements once again - doctrine, once again doctrine and possibly expected scenarios for using the fleet! That is why, having miscalculated the possible scenarios, the Brits put their Ark Royle-type UAVs on their hairpins.
                2. Yarbay
                  Yarbay 10 July 2013 23: 40
                  +3
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  So that we can have the strength at the time of the emergence of interests - the ocean fleet needs to be built now

                  That's right !!
            2. old man54
              old man54 10 July 2013 01: 28
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              One of the two - or we need an ocean fleet, or not needed. Our government, if anything, considers what is needed - this is all the documents laid down in the tasks of the fleet too.

              Now, this is the husband's voice ... about "not needed"! wink Aya, I don’t see a clear doctrine and its validity in the government. And if judged by real actions, even more so. Over the past six months, some kind of running around and panic has begun, including on the fleet, and earlier ... And what is written in the docs, you, Andrei, still believe this? lol If we read our constitution, then there in general everything should not be so! But in fact? And how many real discrepancies of the adopted laws and by-laws and the same constitution, whose guarantor is sitting in the Kremlin. So let's not talk about btsmazhki, Andrei, tea is not from the USSR already, it’s his deal with papers that rarely sank very much!
              Ocean fleet is impossible without aircraft carriers

              Here I agree with you! good But even that is not yet possible, just a little more and they will not be needed, like the dreadnought! When it was the same, before the 2-th MV even they said that a fleet without battleships is not a fleet, and where are they now?
              But we do not have an ocean fleet, and there are no tasks for it either! soldier
      2. Alexey
        Alexey 9 July 2013 13: 08
        +6
        Dear, do you always answer about rails when they point you to sleepers? If you weren't going to troll, try rereading the post you are replying to. your answer is "not about that".
        And finally understand that contradict yourself.
        Americans will not:
        1) abandon aircraft carriers;
        2) abandon air refueling systems;
        3) abandon the network of military bases.
        Because they understand that it is impossible to pose the question "which is better", "which is more effective." There are many possible scenarios. We need different possibilities that COMPLETE each other. To indicate that "a bus is cooler than an excavator" is YOUR chosen path, alas.
        1. Santa Fe
          9 July 2013 13: 20
          +1
          Dear Alexei, aircraft carriers are not able to ADD anyone
          They are useless in any scenario - all conflicts over the past 50 years have clearly shown this.

          The existence of American aircraft carriers is explained by only $ 17 trillion. US national debt - the Yankees built their fleet on an unpaid loan and did not bother (for the time being) about their cost
          + industrial lobby
          + Admiral's lobby - Nimits inflate the fleet and, as a result, the number of top command posts
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 13: 24
            +4
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The existence of American aircraft carriers is due only to $ 17 trillion. US public debt

            Look what the US fleet was like at the moment when this debt was not there :))))) And stop hanging people’s ears on the ears
            1. Santa Fe
              9 July 2013 18: 23
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Look at how the US fleet was at a time when this debt was not yet

              The fleet, like the army, was a dull sight
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 20: 12
                +4
                In-in. In 1927, the US fleet was the second in the world. And the national debt? And there is no national debt. By 1946, national debt was maximized (war-s), however, the US Navy meets the multipower standard. But after the war, the fleet is essentially recreated anew - in place of the abandoned military-built aircraft carriers, giant Midway aircraft enter service, the supercarriers Forrestal, Kitty Hawk rush behind them ... diesels change to nuclear-powered ships, nuclear-powered cruisers are built, the oceans ply "city killers" with intercontinental ballistic missiles, the atomic monster "Forrestal" comes into operation ... And the national debt? And the national debt practically does not grow, and relative to GDP it is completely falling :))) After the end of WWII, in the period from 1946 to 1975, the fleet almost completely renewed its combat strength, the US fleet is the first in the world and climbs into any conflict, a plug in every barrel - and the national debt is absolutely insignificant. How is it, Oleg? Didn't you say that the aircraft carrier is super expensive to operate? On seas-oceans running under twenty "Essex", 4 Midway, 9 supers, of which one is atomic ... And the debt in terms of value does not grow, but as a percentage of GDP - falls! How is it, Oleg?
                But then the 70 years come, the fleet is being deserted by the honored old men - two dozen aircraft carriers of the Essex type ... and suddenly the public debt begins to grow :)))
                In 1981, Reagan comes with his Reaganomics. From 1981 to 1986, the atomic Vinson, laid down in 1975, is being completed, ONE ONE Roosevelt was laid down and built, and 2 more aircraft carriers were laid but not completed, the last one in 1986, i.e. e. in the last year of Reagan's presidency.
                Tell me, Oleg, how it is - even if we assume that ALL the money for the construction of these ABs was spent under Reagan (that is nonsense), then the cost of all four ABs (in those years they cost how much? 3 billion? 4 billion dollars?) - 12-16 billion dollars. But the US state debt for the same time increased from 997 billion to 2,85 trillion $ i.e. ALMOST AT 2 TRILL.DOLL!:)))
                Some very expensive things for you, Oleg, you get the aircraft carriers :)))))) Maybe it’s not the matter with them, but of the GLOBAL transformations that Reagan did with the economy, huh :))))))))
                1. Kars
                  Kars 9 July 2013 20: 30
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  oh atomic monster Forrestal ... And the national debt?

                  Someone forgets the pumping of money from Europe according to the Marshall plan, the interception of cash flows to New York from London and the formation of the dolar as a world reserve currency.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 22: 36
                    +2
                    Apparently, after the 1975, the USA returned all the money to Europe ... (although Kars, as usual, in their repertoire - according to the Marshall plan, PUMPED Europe with American money), the cash flows were intercepted by Honduras, and the Tugrik became the world currency.
                    1. Rider
                      Rider 9 July 2013 22: 43
                      -1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Honduras intercepted cash flows


                      Do you see Andrey, in this case, Kars is right.
                      the fact is that the entire current monetary system is built based on pumping money from the periphery (the whole world) to the metropolis (USA)

                      but this topic is a separate discussion.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 22: 56
                        +2
                        Quote: Rider
                        Do you see Andrey, in this case, Kars is right.
                        the fact is that the entire current monetary system is built based on pumping money from the periphery (the whole world) to the metropolis (USA)

                        It has been in effect since 1946, and when did the national debt grow?
                        There is a relationship, of course, but only to aircraft carriers, as Kaptsov does, you don’t need to get attached ... The US killed its money (and created all the prerequisites for an economic crisis) not with military spending. Overconsumption, provided, among other things, by an unthinkable social system and all sorts of subsidies, the withdrawal of complex industries to Asian countries, the exploitation of brandism, the peculiarities of the banking sector, the use of the dollar "for other purposes" and so on and so forth ...
                        in fact - military spending HELPS to keep the United States, and not undermine them :))) But it’s too complicated, here, without higher economic and long thought, it’s impossible to figure out and explain
                      2. Rider
                        Rider 9 July 2013 23: 08
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        in fact - military spending HELP is held by the United States,


                        indeed, their war machine is a GUARANTEE of maintaining the current financial structure.
                        without it, no one will agree to give a REAL product for FANTASIES.

                        but why do we need Aug?
                        are we going to rob colonies?
                      3. old man54
                        old man54 10 July 2013 01: 07
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        It has been in effect since 1946, and when did the national debt grow?
                        The United States killed its money (and created all the prerequisites for an economic crisis) not with military spending. Overconsumption, provided, among other things, by an unthinkable social system and all sorts of subsidies, the withdrawal of complex industries to Asian countries, the exploitation of brandism, the peculiarities of the banking sector, the use of the dollar "for other purposes" and so on and so on.

                        the USA did not "kill" their money ($), as you put it, they do not need it at all, they did not calculate the process. and now he, the process, is trying to continue to break free, and they, with all their strength, are trying to at least control it, including emission! But the emission lever is reaching its limit, and new, much more radical and "interesting" measures are already in sight. Wait, it will be fun soon! Cyprus in spring is just the beginning. This question is really complicated and voluminous, because of it I don't want to sit at the computer for half a day and torment Klava, sorry. Their military spending does not support their economy, you are greatly mistaken here, namely, they support their social system (workplaces of workers) and their military-industrial complex (receiving profits from the owners of the country's shareholders). Military spending has never saved any economy in peacetime, this is something new!
                        But it’s too complicated; here, without higher economic and long thought, it’s impossible to understand and explain

                        Yes, it’s certainly difficult, but it’s just there. wink
                  2. Kars
                    Kars 9 July 2013 22: 56
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    although Kars, as usual, in his repertoire - according to Marshall’s plan, Europe was pumped with American money

                    Just like that? For free?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Apparently after 1975, the United States returned to Europe all the money.

                    ))))))
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Honduras intercepted cash flows

                    is this subconscious breaking out in you?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 22: 59
                      +1
                      Quote: Kars
                      is this subconscious breaking out in you?

                      Kars, EVERYTHING that you listed is valid from 1946 of the year to today. But the landslide growth of public debt began with reaganomics. Debt growth in value does not bother you - inflation takes its toll there, but debt relative to GDP shows everything very well.
                      In general, advice - read about Reaganomics, a lot will be clear
                    2. old man54
                      old man54 10 July 2013 01: 15
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Kars, EVERYTHING that you listed is valid from 1946 of the year to today. But the landslide growth of public debt began with reaganomics.

                      This landslide growth of public debt during the Reagan era has completely different reasons, and very generally - the pre-crisis state of the US economy in the mid-80's, the lack of economic potential for further growth and development, and as a result ... certain radical and extravagant measures taken at the time of Reagan. But I will not write about them, read Khazin. laughing
                    3. Kars
                      Kars 10 July 2013 10: 45
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Kars, EVERYTHING that you listed is valid from 1946 of the year to today. But the landslide growth of public debt began with reaganomics.

                      Teach you not to retrain economics.
                      But still, a colorful subconscious escaped. And of course it’s cool that Europe still hasn’t calculated according to the Marshal’s plan, and probably the appearance of the new Euro currency on the world financial markets did not affect either.

                      But one can say that the immeasurable expenditures of the United States on armaments have made a huge contribution to the growth of government debt, and this is to be taken away. The weapon itself does not bring any profit, and bayonets only help to avoid unnecessary questions.
                    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2013 11: 45
                      +2
                      Quote: Kars
                      Teach you not to retrain economics.

                      Are you talking to ME? :))))))))))))))
                      Quote: Kars
                      And of course it’s cool that Europe still hasn’t calculated according to the Marshal’s plan,

                      Kars moved convolutions at least once in a life - if, as you managed to blurt out
                      Quote: Kars
                      Someone forgets pumping money out of Europe according to Marshall’s plan

                      What to talk about with you at all? Marshall’s plan was WHAT? :))) That the USA provided a SEA of DOLLAR allocations and loans to Europe - for which Europe bought the war-torn Europe, all the time American goods, stimulating the US economy :)))) As a result, the USA simply pumped Europe with their money. And when the Europeans tried to exchange their dollar bills for US gold, they suddenly lost - and the gold standard was canceled :))) And the dollar fell sharply.
                      I will not offer you to describe where you saw the money pumping out of Europe - it makes no sense. You will start hysterics again, with missed fingers on the keyboard, writing "nagging saabcheniyev", going personal and everything else that happens every time you have nothing to say, but really want to.
                    5. Kars
                      Kars 10 July 2013 11: 50
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Are you talking to ME? :))))))))))))))

                      YOU, YOU
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      What to talk about with you at all? Marshall's plan was WHAT? :))) That the USA provided the SEA DOLLAR appropriations and credits Europe

                      )))))))))))))))
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      I will not offer you to describe where you saw the pumping of money from Europe - it makes no sense.

                      Naturally, you basically do not accept when you are wrong.
        2. alex86
          alex86 9 July 2013 20: 43
          -1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          still not the point

          Sorry, I’m attracting your attention to my question below. If possible, pay attention. Thank.
        3. Santa Fe
          9 July 2013 20: 59
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In 1927, the US Navy - the second in the world. What about public debt? And there is no public debt.

          The only island of stability in the whole world, an industrial giant with the first economy in the world untouched by wars and revolutions
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          But after the war, the fleet is essentially being recreated anew

          nothing like this
          in reality there is a 15 year failure. There were practically no new ships - the Yankees "hauled" the old wartime. The spending was very reasonable and efficient - United States were sent straight to the oven, along with Montana and other freaks. Half of the WWII fleet was decommissioned, half was modernized - it was no coincidence that the FRAM and GUPPY programs appeared.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          <sixties> supercarriers "Forrestal", "Kitty Hawk" rush after them ... diesel men change to nuclear-powered ships, nuclear-powered cruisers are being built, "city killers" with ICBMs cruise the oceans

          Yes, from this moment begins a slow but steady growth of DEBT
          The US is still saved by a powerful industry and the dollar, which is firmly attached to the gold exchange rate.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          But then the 70 years come, the fleet is being deserted by the honored old men - two dozen aircraft carriers of the Essex type ... and suddenly the public debt begins to grow :)))

          In the 1970s, arbitrariness began, the Yankees began to hammer in serial atomic cruisers and Av, hundreds of destroyers and frigates, simultaneously dragging a good half of the world into their round dance
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In 1981, Reagan came with his Reaganomics.

          Everything amers finally blew the roof
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Some very expensive for you, Oleg, the aircraft carriers are obtained

          Aircraft carriers are just a part of this hellish cocktail (large, weighty PART) along with the Wasps, Tarawas, B-2 for 10 billion and other slaughterhouses. US military spending exceeds that of all countries in the world combined. + welfare, medical care, the fight against global warming, etc. x ~ that, exacerbated by the "post-industrial" economy

          The Yankees live beyond their means and this is obvious, as well as the fact that the sun rises in the east
        4. old man54
          old man54 10 July 2013 00: 54
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          What about public debt? And there is no public debt. By 1946, the national debt was maximized (war-s), however, the US Navy meets the multi-state standard.

          about the economy, national debts, the world reserve currency, the theory of the development of industrial zones on earth and as a consequence of the US military doctrine and other things - this is all terribly interesting to me, but here's the time ... You will have to write a very long time and a lot to answer you all your questions and statements in the post above. I dare to recommend you to read ("The decline of the dollar empire or the end of pax America", Av. Khazin, Kobyakov), well, or watch a video with M. Khazin, an economist, I really respect his approach, analysis and his lack of involvement with the authorities. You are not a very stupid person, you will understand everything yourself, he will explain very popularly. Here's an example video:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2vNY5TFeA4
    2. alex86
      alex86 9 July 2013 19: 31
      0
      Well, but they said "we will not" ...
      And now again in amateurish way: there are two understandable positions - an aircraft carrier is needed and an aircraft carrier is not needed under any circumstances. And now the question is - the probable enemy already has aircraft carriers, and with a solid cover - what can they oppose (it’s clear that the nuclear submarine, but what can be more surface?)? At the same time, today we have no aircraft carriers and are not expected. I ask you to answer, Andrey, from Chelyabinsk, Kaptsov has an answer, of course, and this is not an aircraft carrier. But you, probably (maybe I'm wrong), the answer is another aircraft carrier, but it just doesn’t exist !! And what do we do? lol
      1. Santa Fe
        9 July 2013 19: 55
        0
        Quote: alex86
        And now the question is - the probable enemy already has aircraft carriers, and with a solid cover - what can be opposed to them

        What are you going to fight with the US tactical weapons?
        Quote: alex86
        And what do we do?

        In what year was the agreement concluded with the United States on the mutual renunciation of the use of strategic nuclear forces?
        1. alex86
          alex86 9 July 2013 20: 31
          -1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          gathered to fight the USA with tactical weapons

          I don’t even know what to say - it turns out that no one but us (since we only have nuclear weapons - conditionally) has no chance against AUG?
          I understand your position - if we are against the United States - this is only a global clash in which the presence of aircraft carriers will lose value in 30 minutes. But my question was to Andrei from Chelyabinsk. Let's try to wait for it, okay?
          1. Santa Fe
            9 July 2013 21: 18
            0
            Quote: alex86
            I don’t even know what to say - it turns out that no one but us (since we only have nuclear weapons - conditionally) has no chance against AUG?

            Yes, without the strategic nuclear forces (nuclear weapons + means of its guaranteed delivery - ICBMs), our country could disappear 50 years ago

            The only hope is the general illogicality of such a war and the absence of clear goals. Bomb Moscow, St. Petersburg and all cities with a population of over 100 thousand people ... AND WHAT NEXT ?? Who will control the territory of giant Russia? What benefits will the Yankees have from this?
            Quote: alex86
            this is only a global collision

            and local too. AUGs are useless in any scenario
            1. alex86
              alex86 9 July 2013 22: 03
              -1
              Do not consider it boring - "no chance against the AUG" - this is not a question of a nuclear conflict. Let not Russia - let a non-nuclear state - your point of view - what is effective against AUG in a non-nuclear conflict?
              1. Santa Fe
                9 July 2013 22: 45
                +1
                If you do not take into account the complete suckers, such as Mali, where there are enough punitive from the French foreign legion, the situation is approximately the following:

                any of the more or less prepared countries (examples? yes, at least the same Syria or Vietnam) can withstand the American ACG. Even a few AUGs are not capable of causing significant damage - in real operations, NATO aircraft account for thousands - what can 50-60 aircraft carrier aircraft do? Wash your blood heroically.

                I am generally shocked by how the myth is fanned around 10 Amer Nimitz. But no one notices real power - 800 US Air Force air bases on all continents of the Earth (I attached the photo somewhere in this thread)

                At one time, dozens of aircraft carriers hollowed out little Vietnam - 500 sorties (000% of all sorties in the Vietnam War, the remaining 30% completed short-range planes) ... so what?

                Yankees celebrate victory in Vietnam laughing
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 23: 31
        +2
        I did not immediately realize what issue you were talking about above ...
        I will answer tomorrow, with your permission - spoenki hotstsa already :)))
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2013 10: 28
        +1
        Quote: alex86
        And now the question is - the probable enemy already has aircraft carriers, and with a solid cover - what can be opposed to them

        In essence, the answer to this question is very simple and very complex at the same time. AUG can be destroyed or brought into a state that is obviously incompatible with military activity. This requires a massive missile strike, perhaps no less than in 80-100 modern anti-ship missiles in one salvo, preferably from different angles. Maybe the RCC needs a little more or a little less - but the order of numbers is approximately the same.
        Therefore, the answer to your question comes down to determining such an outfit of forces that will be able to strike at the AUG the force described above.
        In order to inflict such a blow, it is necessary:
        1) Detect the enemy. But this is very, very difficult in the vast ocean. Information from classic spy satellites is processed for about a day - during this time, the AUG can move 700 miles from the place of detection) Information from satellites like our "legend" is much faster, but a system of satellites with an active radar (and a nuclear reactor for its power supply) and satellites forced to hang out in low orbits and as a result - after a few years of exploitation to burn in the atmosphere - is extremely expensive, even the USSR could not pull it, alas. What's left? Acoustics? But you can't fix the entire ocean floor with hydrophones. Over-the-horizon radars? They do not know how to identify targets by the criterion "friend or foe" and have limited usefulness, plus they are very vulnerable (due to their huge size) to enemy strikes. Passive radar? It is power, but still its range is limited. Remains active radar, and first of all - aircraft, because the higher the radar - the further its radio horizon.
        So, dear alex86, perhaps the main advantage of an aircraft carrier is not even that it can contain several tens of combat aircraft, but that its presence guarantees AUG excellent search capabilities - its AWACS and EW aircraft can operate as radar and radio intelligence.
        If the AUG is located in the ocean, then you can detect (specify the location) using reconnaissance aircraft - but the trouble is that carrier aircraft have a much greater chance of detecting a large plane (in the USSR, the giants Tu-95RC were used for long-range reconnaissance) than the plane could detect AUG. our planes were often found in 800 and more than kilometers from the aircraft carrier. And to bring it down is a technical matter, because fighters cannot accompany long-range aviation because of the short range.
        Therefore, in theory, a coordinated attack of at least 8 Tu-160 could destroy the AOG in the ocean (if they were equipped with a dozen long-range anti-ship missiles at 1000 + km of range each, and provided that they could shoot before they were discovered - which is extremely unrealistic) or not less 4 universal nuclear submarines (which typically have 24 missile silos) - but the problem is that
        a) AUG is much easier to detect and destroy enemy aircraft than enemy aircraft in the ocean - to detect AUG.
        b) The coordination of the strike of a nuclear submarine also has additional difficulties - in the underwater position of communication with the nuclear submarine, one can say that it doesn’t.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2013 10: 28
          +2
          Is it a lot or a little? For example, the cost of building a serial nuclear-powered submarine of the type Severodvinsk costs more than 30 billion rubles (without weapons), the cost of a serial aircraft carrier is determined in 80 billion rubles (without air wing and weapons) as I understand it.
          In the coastal areas of the ACG can be destroyed by tactical aircraft, but ... Quantity! In the USSR, it was assumed that for an effective attack it was necessary to strike at one AUG with two Tu-22М3 regiments under the cover of two fighter aviation regiments plus reconnaissance aircraft, electronic warfare and radio-frequency reconnaissance aircraft. - the order of 120 machines, as I understand it. And a huge part of these aircraft will die in the course of the strike (according to the USSR estimates - EMNIP up to 50-80%)
          A strike by surface ships is extremely complex - surface ships are very vulnerable to carrier-based attacks, and if they are not covered by their own aircraft from such attacks, then throwing them against the AUG is suicide.
          1. Santa Fe
            13 July 2013 19: 31
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            , the cost of a serial aircraft carrier is estimated at 80 billion rubles (without air wing and weapons)

            The price was probably determined by E.V. Petrosyan

            The official cost of the corvette 20385 is from 14 to 18 billion rubles.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            about 120 cars, as I understand it. And a huge part of these aircraft will die during the strike (according to the USSR estimates - EMNIP up to 50-80%)

            120 x 0,8 = 96 cars

            Destruction of Nimitz, 4 Tiko and Berks, a pair of frigates and 50-60 units. enemy aircraft at the cost of losing 96 "dryers" and "carcasses" ...
            profitable exchange!
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Strike by surface ships is extremely difficult - surface ships are very vulnerable to carrier-based attacks

            Or maybe you should stop thinking in categories
            Yamato vs OS58 or
            Sahand vs Enterprise

            What would the battle of the OBK consisting of 1144 and the four of 1155 with the American AUG model of 1990 look like? Amer pilots wash their blood

            or a purely hypothetical version: the four "Daring" against the modern US Navy AUG? Would you dare to sit at the helm of the Super Hornet?))
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 July 2013 22: 38
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The price was probably determined by E.V. Petrosyan

              http://topwar.ru/30472-rossiyskiy-avianosec-ocenili-v-400-milliardov-rubley.html

              Oleg, I understand that the Chukchi is not a reader, the Chukchi is a writer, but you can at least read your native site :)
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Destruction of Nimitz, 4 Tiko and Berks, a pair of frigates and 50-60 units. enemy aircraft at the cost of losing 96 "dryers" and "carcasses" ...

              Your sweet dream :) This is not about constructive total loss, but only about incapacitation or destruction of an aircraft carrier. Escort for the most part will survive
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              or a purely hypothetical version: the four "Daring" against the modern US Navy AUG? Would you dare to sit at the helm of the Super Hornet?))

              Naturally - Daringi and "kva" will not have time to say
              1. Santa Fe
                13 July 2013 23: 20
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                http://topwar.ru/30472-rossiyskiy-avianosec-ocenili-v-400-milliardov-rubley.html

                a rollback of 320 billion)))
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                This is not about constructive total loss, but only about incapacitation

                Yankees flood radioactive ruins with Kingston open
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Escort for the most part will survive

                After a massive launch of anti-ship missiles? there they will all be shocked. What happens from a single missile is well demonstrated by "Stark"

                in the end, the navy of the USSR still had 20 strike machines - the wounded animals would be finished by the second approach
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Naturally - Daringi and "kva" will not have time to say

                Those. the Britons built them in vain
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 July 2013 13: 09
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Those. the Britons built them in vain

                Are Britons going to fight with the USA?
              3. Santa Fe
                14 July 2013 15: 44
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Are Britons going to fight with the USA?

                in your opinion, they are not able to repel the attack of the Hornet squadron with subsonic anti-ship missiles

                why are these super-air defense ships built? catch crayfish?
    3. Alexey
      Alexey 10 July 2013 11: 34
      +2
      In general, I agree. Although the required amount of RCC depends on which RCC is))) Granites need not 100, but much less. I remember reading a book (I forgot the name). Authors: employees of the 1st Central Research Institute of Defense of the Ministry of Public Relations Kuzin, Nikolsky. One conclusion was remembered as the result of multiple simulations of military operations against American AUGs. In general, the task of abolishing an aircraft carrier is too costly and complicated. It is much more profitable to direct efforts towards the destruction of aircraft, with losses of the order of 30 ... 40%, the effectiveness of the ACG actions is greatly reduced, in fact, the ACG in this case ceases active operations. AND! The most effective means of destroying carrier-based aviation is carrier-based aviation.
      One more fact. The costs of the USSR for the creation of a complex of systems to combat aircraft carriers are comparable to the costs of the creation of all US ABs. The "anti-aircraft" nuclear submarine of pr. 1 ("Kursk" and others) is close to 949% of the cost of "Kuznetsov". Moreover, such highly specialized nuclear submarines do not have the versatility of aircraft carriers and become obsolete faster. Let us take into account the far from guaranteed and even very problematic destruction of such a nuclear submarine of an aircraft carrier (the problem with target designation).
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2013 11: 55
        +1
        Quote: Alex
        Although the required amount of RCC depends on which RCC is))) Granites need not 100, but much less.

        Perhaps, but still all this is very speculative. Neither Granite's real combat effectiveness nor Aegis's real combat effectiveness is known. So I start off with 100 rockets. Although I understand that I could be wrong. But, as the unforgettable foreman Petrenko used to say: "It's better to overlook than not to miss" laughing
        Quote: Alex
        In general, the task of abolishing an aircraft carrier is too costly and complicated. It is much more profitable to direct efforts towards the destruction of aircraft, with losses of the order of 30 ... 40%, the effectiveness of the ACG actions is greatly reduced, in fact, the ACG in this case ceases active operations

        There is a problem here - AUG, these are not only her planes, but also Tomahawks on her ships. Or even a landing operation covered by the AUG. Therefore, disabling the AUG by inflicting unacceptable damage to its air group is an interesting matter, but this method cannot be used to combat the AUG.
        Quote: Alex
        AND! The most effective means of destroying carrier-based aviation is carrier-based aviation.

        That's for sure :)))) Golden words drinks
        Quote: Alex
        One more fact. The costs of the USSR for the creation of a complex of systems to combat aircraft carriers are comparable to the costs of the creation of all US ABs. The "anti-aircraft" nuclear submarine of pr.1 ("Kursk" and others) is close to 949% of the cost of "Kuznetsov".

        Here, I can neither object nor confirm, I don’t own the info. But all the estimations that I made at my amateur level confirm the conclusion you have made - at least if it concerns the destruction of AUG in the ocean, and not in the coastal zone
        1. alex86
          alex86 10 July 2013 20: 30
          -1
          So, it all came down, as I said, to the fact that the best remedy against AUG is another AUG. The version with the Tu-22 in your presentation looks somehow unconvincing. The submarine seems to be suitable only with the constant support of the enemy AUG. And from surface ships who has a chance? So far, gaining a grouping with an arsenal of 100 anti-ship missiles for simultaneous launch and providing target designation is not clear from what.
          Unfortunately, SWEET_SIXTEEN in its confidence about the futility of the AUG did not give a recipe for its destruction (I admit in secret that I respect the aircraft carriers, but for what they do not quite understand for us - we have neither money nor tasks for them - only don't tell anyone wink ).
          1. Kars
            Kars 10 July 2013 20: 46
            +1
            Quote: alex86
            AUG did not give a recipe for its destruction

            But why destroy it? What prevents it? Of course, if you don’t plan a transoceanic landing operation. If it comes to shore, then it is quite possible to attack it with ground planes, or deploy coastal missile batteries.
          2. Misantrop
            Misantrop 10 July 2013 21: 05
            0
            Quote: Kars
            it is possible to attack with land planes, or deploy coastal rocket batteries.
            Just something simple. But for this it is necessary to have all this in the threatened direction. And in sufficient quantity, because this group is not at all a floating target with active illumination, it knows how to snap back painfully. How long is the coastal border of the Russian Federation? And, thanks to Serdyukov's "cares", HOW MANY airfields remain alive? For the entire country, let's not count the border ones ... But what about the roads along which coastal missile batteries can be pulled up?
          3. Kars
            Kars 10 July 2013 23: 11
            +1
            Quote: Misantrop
            - It’s not a floating target with active backlighting at all, it can snap off painfully.

            She is a huge target that shines its radio emission over thousands of kilometers.
            Quote: Misantrop
            How long is the coastal border of the Russian Federation?

            And everywhere you can quietly approach it? Or do you need to go through a dozen straits and islands? At the same time, the approach to the wild areas of the coast of the Arctic Ocean is pointless - there are no goals that aircraft carrier can reach.
            Quote: Misantrop
            what about roads where coastal rocket batteries can be pulled up?

            If there are no roads, then what are the goals there for the F-18?
          4. Misantrop
            Misantrop 10 July 2013 23: 37
            +1
            Quote: Kars
            She is a huge target that shines its radio emission over thousands of kilometers.

            And the military around the world over the problem of detecting AUGs are racking their brains ... But everything is so simple, it turns out ... laughing
            Quote: Kars
            there are no targets achievable by aircraft carrier aviation.
            And besides aircraft, does the AUG have no means of attack at all? belay
            Quote: Kars
            If there are no roads, then what are the goals there for the F-18?
            Well, they finally found out who ditched all the roads in Russia. It turns out that the F-18 tried ... laughing
          5. Kars
            Kars 10 July 2013 23: 50
            +1
            Quote: Misantrop
            And the military around the world over the problem of detecting AUGs are racking their brains ... But everything is so simple, it turns out ...

            Just the same AUG is an ocean invisibility))))
            Quote: Misantrop
            And besides aircraft, does the AUG have no means of attack at all?

            Well, you took a smiley))) other means of attack, unlike an aircraft carrier, can themselves attack. Moreover, if you say that the AUG order is so elusive, it’s even a couple of cruisers / destroyers.
            Quote: Misantrop
            Well, they finally found out who ditched all the roads in Russia. It turns out that the F-18 tried.

            I wonder how you came to this thought based on a quote
            Quote: Kars
            If there are no roads, then what are the goals there for the F-18?

            So all the same, what to bomb the F-18 on the Russian coast of the Arctic Ocean? Such close to what there will be no air defense systems and airfields.
          6. Misantrop
            Misantrop 11 July 2013 00: 14
            0
            Quote: Kars
            then a couple of cruisers / destroyers all the more.
            They do not walk alone during the threatened period. It is because of its high specialization. Only as part of orders to ensure combat stability. Submarine - these can singly. So a very likely option for an attack is a massive attack by Tomahawks (which, according to some sources, have a range of up to 2500 km), and the air wing is only for self-defense of the order and coverage of the situation by AWACS forces. Can you figure out the possible targets for this type of strike? And what about the options for parrying SUCH a threat?
          7. Kars
            Kars 11 July 2013 11: 03
            +1
            Quote: Misantrop
            It is due to its high specialization.

            What is such a high specialization among American destroyers? That he is poor without an aircraft carrier anywhere?
            Quote: Misantrop
            What are the possible goals for this type of strike? And the options for parrying such a threat?

            So think about these goals yourself, and think about airdromes, air defense systems, radars next to them, while the axes fly over the territory of the Russian Federation more than one hundred km. Although the Yankees will strike at strategic yurts of reindeer herders)))
          8. Misantrop
            Misantrop 13 July 2013 09: 47
            0
            Quote: Kars
            What is such a high specialization among American destroyers?
            Sometimes it’s really better to chew ... In order not to write like this:
            Quote: Kars
            So think about these goals yourself, and think about airdromes, air defense systems, radars next to them, while the axes fly over the territory of the Russian Federation more than one hundred km. Although the Yankees will strike at strategic yurts of reindeer herders)))

            For reference (who lost the globe). 2500 km is the distance from Murmansk to Simferopol. Those. from the northern coast it is possible to shoot the entire territory. And if you do not beat "from border to border", then routes can be laid bypassing the air defense zones (and there are not too many of them now).
            But this is hell with him, about the fleet it is clear, he is obviously redundant for the Russian Federation (in your opinion). All except Abramovich’s yacht laughing What about tanks in Ukraine? There NATO offers to cut the surplus. And even agree to pay for it ... http: //topwar.ru/30783-nato-prosit-ukrainu-izbavitsya-ot-2000

            -tankov.
            html # comment-id-1327161
            Since they are old, "superfluous" and a lot. To nag? what
          9. Santa Fe
            13 July 2013 12: 21
            0
            Quote: Misantrop
            For reference (who lost the globe). 2500 km - distance from Murmansk to Simferopol

            It is in nuclear equipment. 160 kg warhead, power 200 kt

            with usual 450 kg range 1200 ... 1600 km
          10. Misantrop
            Misantrop 13 July 2013 21: 36
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It is in nuclear equipment. 160 kg warhead, power 200 kt

            with usual 450 kg range 1200 ... 1600 km

            Well, it’s difficult to suspect them of excessive pacifism. So those places where an immediate invasion is not planned, they will just fall asleep. And if they succeed, as they plan, to DOUBLE the maximum salvo range, then the prospects for a successful defense against this are never joyful ... what
          11. Santa Fe
            13 July 2013 23: 06
            +1
            Quote: Misantrop
            So those places where no immediate invasion is planned, they will just fall asleep

            In this case, they will receive RSM-54 in Washington, which will lead to the death of civilization

            Parity achieved. Yankees are not suicides
          12. Misantrop
            Misantrop 13 July 2013 23: 32
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            In this case, they will receive RSM-54 in Washington
            They will receive this response with ANY stuffing of their "axes", no one will wait for the results of the detonation of warheads, and then fumble there with a dosimeter. So the attack will proceed if they convince themselves that the RF strike weapons are blocked by the density of their salvo, sufficient missile defense, the actions of sabotage squads on launchers, etc.
          13. Santa Fe
            14 July 2013 00: 38
            0
            Quote: Misantrop
            They will receive this answer with ANY stuffing of their "axes

            QED

            Yankees are not suicides - jokes with Augs in the White Sea are the key to world war
            Quote: Misantrop
            So the attack will go if they convince themselves that the shock weapons of the Russian Federation are blocked by the density of their salvo

            In the foreseeable future, the Yankees will not have such a guarantee. The risk of retaliation is too great
  • alex86
    alex86 10 July 2013 21: 14
    0
    Quote: Kars
    And why destroy it? What prevents it?

    The idea is interesting, i.e. let yourself hang out quite a decent grouping with KR and Izhdis on escort ships, which are covered by carrier-based aircraft and vice versa. Taking into account refueling, the radius of action of carrier-based aviation will definitely surpass the range of action of coastal missile systems, and given the significant length of our coastline (although it has not warmed up globally, we are talking only about the Far East) and not very much saturation with aviation, and its employment at this moment, then ground aviation will not help much either. Therefore, "it is better to suffer" (Sukhov, "White sun of the desert"), ie still destroy just in case.
    In general, there is nothing to calm the heart ...
  • Kars
    Kars 10 July 2013 23: 13
    +2
    Quote: alex86
    The idea is interesting, i.e. let a pretty decent group hang out with KR and Idzhis n

    and let the chatter - Ohio with tomahawks is much more dangerous. And the answer is higher.
  • old man54
    old man54 10 July 2013 20: 25
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    AUG can be destroyed or brought into a state that is obviously incompatible with military activity. For this we need a massive missile strike, perhaps

    Here, and you turn out to be all the same you know the correct answer about the effectiveness of AUG and the measures of asymmetric struggle with it. Previously, I thought no, but you are fooling around! laughing
    This is the asymmetric answer that was pulled out in the USSR, much more effective and cheap, and most importantly promising than stupid copying of the number of UAVs behind a potential enemy. And most importantly, it is more efficient. The USSR understood this a long time ago and it was for this reason, and not because of ideologies, as many naively believe, did not build the UAV in principle! Technically, he could have done this perfectly much earlier, but did not do it, rightly believing that the UAV is the primary floating targets at the very beginning of the conflict. You vkurse, Andrei, that after the 2nd MV in the United States, the Joint Committee of the US Army Staffs came to the analytical conclusion that it is inexpedient to build and operate aircraft carriers further, they have outlived themselves for a war at sea ?? And only the repeated "revolt of admirals" (who were more worried about admiral posts in the navy and their careers than about real business) somehow postponed the complete rejection of aircraft carriers from the amers. Tell me, but now there are 10 of them intact! ?? :)) Yes, that's right, during the Vietnam War, the psi, we realized that with their aggressive strategy of "spreading democracy around the world" like syphilis, they you can't do without the UAV! Because it is universal, it can effectively fight NK in the sea and also kill third countries who are rebellious, and maintain its MP on a foreign shore. But we didn't need it, and now we don't even need it! Therefore, money should not be invested in UAVs, but in a new control system in the oceans and a new anti-ship missile system that can very effectively overcome the existing system of shipborne air defense.
    This requires a massive missile strike, perhaps no less than in 80-100 modern anti-ship missiles in one salvo, preferably from different angles. Maybe the RCC needs a little more or a little less - but the order of numbers is approximately the same.

    But I know that the calculation was justified, that exactly 24 P-700 "Granite" is enough to attack the speckled AUG, for which the 949 project was actually created, but according to the pre-received control center of course. In any case, if the UAV with a salvo of Antey is sunk and fails, which is not necessary in the first salvo, then even 2-3 P-700s will specifically disable it, and maybe even immobilize it. These are not my "Wishlist" but the calculations of the Navy. In this case, most of the order will either be sunk in general, or disabled. But after that, you can at least send the Tu-95 from the KRS-2, the order without aviation as a target in the shooting range. And you, Andrey, aircraft carriers. bully The opinion of the pilots in the naval aviation (Tu-22M3) - for the sinking of a modern US nuclear aircraft carrier, it is necessary that 8/10 X-22 anti-ship missiles (at least) "arrive" in it! And that's it! Therefore, the USSR did not build aircraft carriers for so long, but then the naval commanders pushed through their construction!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2013 21: 16
      +2
      Quote: old man54
      This is the asymmetric answer that was pulled out during the USSR, which is much more effective than stupid copying of the air force’s clique behind a potential adversary. And most importantly, more effective.

      Yeah, effective :)))) But the trouble is, to build 15 aircraft carriers would be much cheaper.
      Quote: old man54
      The USSR understood this a long time ago and it was precisely because of this, and not because of idealogues, as many people naively believe, that it didn’t fundamentally build a SAW!

      What are you :))) the need for carrier-based aviation was recognized back in 1970 r - EMNIP in the 1972 year it was concluded that neither strategic nor multipurpose submarines can be effectively deployed without the support of carrier-based aviation
      The sailors wanted Project 1160, a huge aircraft carrier with 60-70 aircraft and 4 catapults. But thanks to the Minister of Defense Ustinov (who at sea never slept at all) were forced to confine themselves to our TAVKR type "Kiev". In 1976, the sailors again tried to push through the construction of the ships they desperately needed - Project 1153 was a catapult nuclear aircraft carrier weighing 70 thousand tons - with an air group of 50 aircraft. The decrease in the ship relative to the project 1160 is connected ONLY with the requirement to reduce the cost. The aircraft carriers were propelled by the naval minister Grechko and the shipbuilding minister Butoma. Alas - in 1976 both died suddenly and a good, in general, project Ustinov was hooking up until the atomic handsome man with catapults turned into an ugly duckling with a springboard - "Admiral Kuznetsov"
      And yet the sailors finally got their way - after the "Riga" and "Tbilisi" as they were called then, the firstborn was laid, according to the project of which it was supposed to build a large series of full-fledged ejection nuclear aircraft carriers of 75 thousand tons - "Ulyanovsk" with an air group of 70 aircraft.
      Quote: old man54
      You vkurse, Andrei, that at the 2-th MV post in the USA, the US Army Staff Committee came to the analytical conclusion that it was not practical to build aircraft carriers anymore, they had outlived themselves for war at sea

      In the know, do you know the reasons for this conclusion? :)))
      Quote: old man54
      Therefore, it is not necessary to invest money in SAWs, but in new missile defense systems for the oceans and new anti-ship missiles, which can very effectively overcome the existing shipboard air defense system.

      Here you are and enlighten me what it will be for the Central Administration in which there is no carrier-based aviation
      Quote: old man54
      But I know that 24 P-700 "Granite" was calculated enough to attack the speckled AUG, for which they were actually created, according to the pre-received control center of course

      You just don’t know one thing - that these were the calculations made BEFORE the appearance of the Yankees ships with the Aegis system
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 July 2013 21: 16
        +2
        Quote: old man54
        The opinion of the pilots in the naval aviation (Tu-22M3) is that for the sinking of a modern US nuclear aircraft carrier, it is necessary that at least 8/10 X-22 anti-ship missiles "arrive" in it! And that's it!

        You will talk with Sergey VAF, who flew on the Tu-22, actually - you will learn a lot of new ones :) Including the price at which it was planned to pay for the delivered 8-10 X-22
        But in general - you can just take it and see for yourself. The USSR built the order 500 of the Tu-22M alone. How to correlate it in cost with aircraft carriers? We didn’t have aircraft carriers, but the Americans did - in 1998, the construction of an aircraft carrier like Nimitz cost about 4-6 billion dollars, but we’ll even take 6. At the same time, the USA had a rather large aircraft with variable wing geometry - F-111 - cost 72 million dollars at 1998 prices. True, our Tu-22M is three times the size (empty weight - 68 tons versus 21,3 tons of staff) . Suppose that in American prices the production of such an aircraft as the Tu-22M would cost about twice as much - in 150 million dollars.
        500 aircraft * 150 million = $ 75 billion. This corresponds to the cost of 12 heavy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers of the "Nimitz" class
        True, without carrier-based aircraft. But here's the thing - for the destruction of an aircraft carrier, cover of 2 fighter regiments was required - which roughly corresponds to the number of attack aircraft on AB - and, of course, we had to build them. Instead of the small E-2C "hokai" (takeoff weight 23 tons), we had to use the Tu-95RTs for reconnaissance — an alteration of a strategic bomber with a takeoff weight of 180 tons. And, of course, all of the above forces could not fight submarines, so the need for PLO planes and helicopters remained and we built them too ... But the aircraft carrier is a mobile platform, we were forced to create huge networks of airfields for our air armies ... This is HUGE money. And what about Project 949A SSGNs? And what about space satellites with nuclear reactors?
        You see, if the USSR simply and stupidly built 15 aircraft carriers similar to the USA, it would have cost him MUCH cheaper ...
        1. Santa Fe
          13 July 2013 13: 45
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          You see, if the USSR simply and stupidly built 15 aircraft carriers similar to the USA, it would have cost him MUCH cheaper ...

          Only in your fantasies

          Expenditures on the USSR Navy in 1989 amounted to 12,08 billion rubles, of which 2993 million rubles for the purchase of ships and boats and 6531 million for technical equipment). (Pavlov)

          It is planned to allocate 6 (30,2) billion dollars for the purchase of weapons and military equipment for the naval forces (Table 33,6), of which 8,8 (9,5) billion will go for the purchase of aircraft, 9,6, 11,0 (5,7) billion - warships and auxiliary vessels, 6,0 (4,9) billion - missile weapons, artillery and small arms and torpedoes, 5,7 (1989) billion - other military equipment . (ZVO, 1991, in parentheses data on FYXNUMX)
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          500 aircraft * 150 million = $ 75 billion. This corresponds to the cost of 12 heavy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers of the "Nimitz" class

          And what directly all 500 chased for AB?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          But an aircraft carrier is a mobile platform, but we had to create huge networks of airdromes for our aircraft armies ... This is HUGE money.

          Cheaper and more profitable
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          What about Project 949A SSGNs?

          It would be better to continue to rivet 971
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And space satellites with nuclear reactors?

          Everything is not as bad there as you imagine.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          You will talk with Sergey VAF, who flew on the Tu-22, actually - you will learn a lot of new ones :) Including the price at which it was planned to pay for the delivered 8-10 X-22

          Homeland brutally avenge them))
  • old man54
    old man54 10 July 2013 01: 45
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The existence of American aircraft carriers is due only to $ 17 trillion. public debt

    There are numerous opinions of leading independent economists and analysts who believe that the actual public debt (as a result of the regular budget deficit) is much higher than what is published. Amerovsky Prospect respectfully plays with statistics, obscuring its real indicators. This, by the way, is also part of their global doctrine and strategy. bully
  • Avenger711
    Avenger711 9 July 2013 13: 05
    +3
    Kaptsov, turn on your brain, India has a whole ocean in the south along which the most important trade routes pass. There are no bases there and the notorious flights from the mainland with two refueling during the military operations against a comparable enemy will be impossible.

    Maybe one exGorshkov will not make the weather there, but sooner or later the Indians will form a normal AUG, like the Chinese.
  • common man
    common man 9 July 2013 13: 10
    0
    The main thing is that desires are combined with opportunities. It is good to have a mink coat at home. But if there is no money for mothballs from moths. then why is she? Of course it's great to have your own battleships. now aircraft carriers. And to the whole fleet. And not only Brazil, but also Zanzibar and Ecuador. To everyone. But where to get the money? To live and build a fleet, including it is necessary within our means. Let it be more modest, but balanced.
  • Kars
    Kars 9 July 2013 14: 55
    +5
    it didn’t work out with the Dreadnoughts - Sultan Osman I (formerly Rio de Janeiro) was never transferred to Turkey in connection with the outbreak of the First World War.


    In July 1914, five hundred Turkish sailors arrived in England to take the ship. Departure to Turkey ship, scheduled for August 3. But the day before, the British announced its confiscation. The Admiralty decided to kill two birds with one stone: to deprive a potential enemy of a powerful military unit and to strengthen its own fleet with another dreadnought for free.

    The former Brazilian-Turkish battleship was named Edgincourt, and two and a half weeks after the confiscation became part of the Grand Fpita. The ship was in the 4th battleship squadron and participated in the Battle of Jutland.

  • RoTTor
    RoTTor 9 July 2013 15: 42
    +3
    Ukraine is a champion in marine clowning. Very sad ...
    The failed flagship of the Ukrainian Fleet is a heavy cruiser that was completely unnecessary for such a country, ordered for the USSR Navy, not sold on time to Russia, but renamed to "Ukraine" rotts at the Nikolaev plant. 61 communards. Now they will not even buy it for scrap metal, but huge funds are spent annually on its gradual self-destruction.

    12 years ago, it is not clear why - from a military point of view, the “fleet” acquired at a price more expensive than a new torpedo submarine jet, renamed “Zaporozhye”. The then favorite of prezik No. 2, someone Kirpa turned in his favor (he did everything for that) a financial scam with the purchase (at the expense of the railway !!!) for this submarine of batteries in Greece at such a price as if they were diamond. Its repair lasts 10 years. But the "fleet" has its own "submarine forces", which means the Admiral and Kaprazov positions. Therefore, for Ukrainian “flotovodil” is the most valuable combat unit. The regular category of the commander was raised to the stage and turned the poor submarine, which barely crawled out for testing once, into a conveyor belt for production.

    “Flagman floti” - “frigate” “Getman Sagaidachny” was for many years a cruise ship for the leadership of the Moscow Region and senior officials who sold arms - on it they went to all sorts of international salons and fairs.

    Well and so on ...

    About the fact that from the naval goods and naval pride to the foundation they were destroyed on the territory of Ukraine - shipbuilding, higher educational institutions, educational groups training centers, etc. etc. and it hurts to remember.

    But all sorts of admirals caprels divorced like fleas on a filthy dog.
    Why Ukraine such a "fleet" ??? !!!! And the merchant, and fishing, and scientific, and the river fleet in Ukraine are plundered and destroyed.
    So-so - a country by the sea.
    Now the finale of the final transformation of the country claiming to become a sea power, a country by the water: they finish off the last - two dozen seaports inherited from the Russian Empire and the USSR ...
    1. mithridate
      mithridate 9 July 2013 16: 43
      -1
      your true boyar
    2. sumcream56
      sumcream56 9 July 2013 18: 52
      -1
      I completely agree with you. Given the fact that in Feodosia, Bizon hovercraft was built for China (based on the ZUBR project, the largest hovercraft in the world), and under the Soviet regime there were created facilities for the construction of ekranoplanes 5-10 pieces of these hovercraft and wingcraft would have decided problems of the Ukrainian Navy completely. Where should they go?
    3. Kars
      Kars 10 July 2013 23: 14
      +1
      Quote: RoTTor
      a heavy cruiser completely unnecessary in such a country,



      According to V. Berko, the plant is completing the preparation of working design documentation for the modernization of tankers and dry cargo vessels. Estimated start of work - September 2013. It is also exploring the possibility of obtaining a shipyard license for processing and procuring scrap of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, he said.

      The director of the shipyard is optimistic about Ukroboronprom's plans to sell the Ukraine cruiser, which is on its balance sheet. "The work on the search for potential buyers of the Project 1164 cruiser continues, its implementation will make it possible to replenish the authorized capital of the state concern and distribute funds among the enterprises of the industry, including the shipyard named after 61 Communards," he said
  • nnz226
    nnz226 9 July 2013 15: 44
    0
    By the way, the battleship "Sao Paulo" went missing in the ocean. See the book "SOS. Tales of Shipwrecks"
    1. albert
      albert 9 July 2013 21: 10
      0
      He disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle and was never found. True, he was dragged in a tugboat to be cut into metal, so it is not surprising if he was just drowned from a small storm with a tugboat. There were only a dozen sailors on it.
  • Poppy
    Poppy 9 July 2013 16: 07
    +1
    India is a rich and large country, an aircraft carrier can afford it
  • antonio
    antonio 9 July 2013 17: 26
    -1
    The author's idea is clear and understandable, we need a new "YAMATO" atomic dreadnought, a kind of stream-punk style, with a steam engine, and armed with atomic shells - a direct analogue of the "White Submarine" from the Strugatsky Solaris.
  • old man54
    old man54 9 July 2013 20: 56
    0
    I liked the article very much, thanks to the author, put "+"! I don't remember Kaptsov's articles of such quality! good His views are clear to me, on the concept of the development of the fleet. Personally, I agree with him, but the saddest thing is that in today's Russia there is no developed concept, nor is there a geopolitical doctrine of the state-va! Alas and ah! Hence all the mess and throwing in the field of ship projects, their expediency and the tasks of the Navy. And the author, as it may, is trying to convey these ideas to the public on the forum.
  • bublic82009
    bublic82009 9 July 2013 23: 31
    +1
    stupid article. what clowns? in the hands of the monkey, the gun becomes a simple stick. so here. in the hands of stupid people, formidable ships became rusty vessels. the question arises in another why did these ships build "smart countries" at all? just for these ships there were no tasks for the superpowers
  • Umnichka
    Umnichka 10 July 2013 02: 21
    +1
    Over time, we will need aircraft carriers very much, the world is changing for the worse. And the ice does not melt in the north, and American AUGs will be able to go there (by the way, they do not recognize our northern northern borders). And here the main thing is not money, but experience; by that time you need to have it; it comes only in practice. At first, to put it mildly, it was not easy for us to switch from diesel submarines to nuclear ones. And then nothing, the oceans plied very well. So now, it seems to me, we need to learn how to operate and properly maintain an aircraft carrier, and, of course, primarily in a combat (albeit approximately) situation. For AUS, the future is at sea. Such a quantity as in the USA is definitely not needed, but you can’t protect the northern borders in 30-50 years without aircraft carriers.
  • gallville
    gallville 10 July 2013 19: 09
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    For example, the cost of building a serial nuclear-powered submarine of the Severodvinsk type costs more than 30 billion rubles (without weapons), the cost of a serial aircraft carrier is 80 billion rubles (without air wing and weapons) as I understand it.
    In the coastal areas of the ACG can be destroyed by tactical aircraft, but ... Quantity! In the USSR, it was assumed that for an effective attack it was necessary to strike at one AUG with two Tu-22M3 regiments under the cover of two fighter aviation regiments plus reconnaissance aircraft, electronic warfare and RTR. - about 120 cars, as I understand it. And a huge part of these aircraft will die during the strike (according to the USSR estimates - EMNIP up to 50-80%)
    A strike by surface ships is extremely complex - surface ships are very vulnerable to carrier-based attacks, and if they are not covered by their own aircraft from such attacks, then throwing them against the AUG is suicide.

    And so 120 cars. is it a lot or a little?
    Aircraft carrier of the "Nimitz" class - 64 aircraft and helicopters (max. - 85 ... 90)
    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%86%D1
    %8B_%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B0_%C2%AB%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%86%C2%BB
    Total for the guaranteed destruction of AUG we need only a 2-fold advantage in quantity.
    Why all? yes because the standard formula goes 1 defender to 3 forwards.
    The fact of 2-fold is most likely due to the noticeable weakness of the performance characteristics of aircraft used on the AUG.
    Further, given the geographical position of Russia, the range of even the current aircraft in the above regiments is sufficient to cover all directions except the Pacific region (Baltic, North Sea, the black is in question). Their main task should be enough in quantity.
    BUT does it make sense to fight against AUG with the same AUG if it is easier to leave this task of submarines and nuclear submarines?
  • gameover65
    gameover65 11 July 2013 05: 05
    +1
    I see no reason to talk about the strike capabilities of an aircraft carrier and consider it a strike unit.
    it’s the same as trying to calculate the strike capabilities of the airfield and since it does not represent any strike value in itself, say that it is not needed by the ground forces.
    An aircraft carrier is primarily aircraft drills, reconnaissance, headquarters, anti-submarine aircraft, support for landing operations, and, if necessary, a hospital, etc.
    we need aircraft carriers, but not in the quality in which they are used by sworn friends.
  • Alexey
    Alexey 11 July 2013 08: 45
    +1
    Quote: gallville
    Does it make sense to fight against AUG with the same AUG if it is easier to leave this task to submarines and nuclear submarines?

    It was this point of view that captured the minds of the highest military-political leadership of the USSR after WWII. Alas, it was based on pure "speculation". In reality, the USSR spent huge amounts of money in "shipbuilding" experiments, but for a long time could not create an effective balanced fleet.
    In reality, "leaving this task to submarines and nuclear submarines" may be easier, only the result will most likely be zero. Understand, to overcome the boundaries of PLO AUG for submarines is a daunting task, especially when you consider that in the event of hostilities, the AUG will not humbly expect an attack to be in the same place. The mobility of the AUG is not inferior to the mobility of the nuclear submarine, and taking into account the need for the submarine to be quiet, it noticeably surpasses it. AUG has excellent capabilities for collecting information on a huge area. The PL is very limited in this. The longest-range anti-ship weapon on submarines in our fleet is the P700 (Granite) complex - 550 km. But do not hope that this range will be able to be realized. This is possible only from external target designation. For example, from the Tu95rts aircraft. But the reconnaissance plane near the enemy AUG lives only in peacetime. Immediately, for an attack, information is needed in real time, which means that constant tracking of the target is needed for the missile submarine to launch an attack. In fact, the submarine's own target designation is possible at a range of about 120 km, ideally up to 200.
    When it became clear to the leadership in the Ministry of Defense (70s) that they were unable to operate against submarines without aviation, then they managed to push through the project of an air defense carrier (Kuznetsova).
  • gallville
    gallville 11 July 2013 12: 49
    0
    Quote: Alex
    The mobility of AUGs is not inferior to the mobility of nuclear submarines, and taking into account the need for submarines to be quiet, it significantly exceeds it. AUG has excellent opportunities for collecting information on a huge area. PL in this is very limited. The most long-range anti-ship weapon on a submarine in our fleet is the P700 (Granite) complex - 550 km. But do not hope that this range can be relined. This is possible only from external target designation. For example, from a Tu95rts airplane. But the reconnaissance aircraft near the enemy AUG lives only in peacetime. Immediately for the attack, you need real-time information, which means that you need constant tracking of the target, in order for the missile nuclear submarine to attack. In fact, its own target designation of submarines is possible at a range of about 120 km, ideally up to 200.
    When it became clear to the leadership in the Ministry of Defense (70s) that they were unable to operate against submarines without aviation, then they managed to push through the project of an air defense carrier (Kuznetsova).

    All these words are true at a noticeable distance from the territory of the Russian Federation somewhere around
    Su-27:
    - tactical flight range of 3680 km (Su 27UB-3000 km);

    - practical range of flight near the ground 1370 km;
    http://www.aviaport.ru/directory/aviation/su27/
    Tu-22
    Combat radius with a load of 12000 kg:
    at supersonic speed: 1500-1850 km
    at subsonic speed and extremely low altitude: 1500-1650 km
    on subsonic on a mixed profile: 2410 km
    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%83-22%D0%9C#.D0.A2.D1.83-22.D0.9C3

    In terms of AWACS and satellites, it is clear that they should be.

    In fact, given the range EVEN of these samples.
    The nuclear submarines only have to fight against AUGs which are technically not capable of causing serious damage to the territory of the Russian Federation. Therefore, this is more partisan action in isolation from the main forces.
    The creation of the AUG in the Russian Federation in order to equal in strength to the AUG of NATO is not financially technically feasible.
    And from the point of view of geographical position, they are essentially meaningless.
    Thus, the presence of AUG is possible for the purposes of the "show the flag" policy. With which, in fact, the above-mentioned, preferably modernized Kuznetsov would have coped well.
  • Alexey
    Alexey 11 July 2013 23: 21
    +1
    Quote: gallville

    All these words are true at a noticeable distance from the territory of the Russian Federation somewhere around
    Su-27:
    - tactical flight range of 3680 km (Su 27UB-3000 km);

    Nonsense. The question is whether Russia needs an ocean fleet or not. If yes, and all her history testifies to it. That is not without AUG.
    I will try to dispel your idealized idea of ​​the range of aviation. The plane must not only fly to the target, but also return back with a certain amount of fuel. And the larger the air group, the more fuel is needed for its takeoff and collection in the air. Okay if you need to inflict an air strike, and if you need to provide air defense for a given area or cover the compound. That is, it is necessary to stay in the air for a long time and at the same time it is highly desirable to be able to expand the cover group or replace it unscheduled. Effectively providing air defense with SU-27 aircraft at a distance of more than 1000 km for a long time is problematic. Yes, and to strike at the fleet connection, after all, reconnaissance is needed, it also needs to be provided with cover, and target illumination should be frequent enough to fly strike aircraft "to the village to grandmother" is hardly reasonable. Speak about satellites, their capabilities are very small, and combat resistance in a war with a serious enemy is zero.
    Quote: gallville
    The nuclear submarines only have to fight against AUGs which are technically not capable of causing serious damage to the territory of the Russian Federation. Therefore, this is more partisan action in isolation from the main forces.

    Well, not a single class of ships alone is capable of any effective fight against a balanced fleet formation. You don’t understand why ... just believe.
    Quote: gallville
    The creation of the AUG in the Russian Federation in order to equal in strength to the AUG of NATO is not financially technically feasible.

    Nobody poses such a problem. You don’t need to primitize everything like that.
    Quote: gallville
    The creation of the AUG in the Russian Federation ... from the point of view of geographical position, is essentially meaningless.

    Again to the question "Does Russia need an ocean-going fleet?" How much longer are we going to step on a rake?
    Quote: gallville
    Thus, the presence of AUG is possible for the purposes of the "show the flag" policy. With which, in fact, the above-mentioned, preferably modernized Kuznetsov would have coped well.

    For the "demonstration of the flag" you can do with the barge "Sedov".
  • gallville
    gallville 12 July 2013 00: 45
    0
    Quote: Alex
    I will try to dispel the idea of ​​the range of aviation. The plane must not only fly to the target, but also return back with a certain amount of fuel. And the larger the air group, the more fuel is needed for its takeoff and collection in the air. Okay, if you want to inflict an air strike, and if you need to provide air defense of a given area or cover the compound. That is, it is necessary to stay in the air for a long time and at the same time it is highly desirable to be able to expand the cover group or replace it unscheduled. Effectively providing air defense with SU-27 aircraft at a distance of more than 1000 km for a long time is problematic. Yes, and to strike at the fleet connection, after all, reconnaissance is needed, it also needs to be provided with cover, and target illumination should be frequent enough to fly strike aircraft "to the village to grandma" is hardly reasonable. Speak about satellites, their capabilities are very small, and combat resistance in a war with a serious enemy is zero.

    This is all controversy. You yourself understand very well the same is necessary for the enemy. Moreover, the AUG air groups are technologically weaker.
    Quote: Alex
    Well, not a single class of ships alone is capable of any effective fight against a balanced fleet formation.

    That is precisely why the USSR was developing in the direction of target designation and increasing the effectiveness of nuclear submarines as a whole.
    Quote: Alex
    Again to the question "Does Russia need an ocean-going fleet?"

    The question is: "in which one?" Either it is focused on the AUG, which means wars in distant regions, or it is the protection of their shores and nearby allied countries with the possibility of displaying the flag.
    Quote: Alex
    How much more will we step on the rake?

    Correctly. Another cold war, only at sea?
    Quote: Alex
    For the "demonstration of the flag" you can do with the barge "Sedov".

    For the level of Russia all the same is not enough. But modernized Kuznetsov + modernized Eagles would have looked very much nothing.
    Quote: Alex
    The creation of the AUG in the Russian Federation in order to equal in strength to the AUG of NATO is not financially technically feasible.
    No one sets such a task. You don’t need to primitize everything like that.

    What then is such a task? The Russian Federation got ready to fight the African continent or the countries of Latin America? (the main place of application of AUG recently)
  • Alexey
    Alexey 12 July 2013 09: 52
    0
    Quote: gallville
    This is all controversy. You yourself understand very well the same is necessary for the enemy. Moreover, the AUG air groups are technologically weaker.

    Well, where does the lack of logic come from? You yourself should understand perfectly well that "all this", the AUG has by definition. An aircraft carrier is a mobile airfield. The AUG simply does not have those problems with the provision of air defense and reconnaissance that I mentioned.
    Quote: gallville
    That is precisely why the USSR was developing in the direction of target designation and increasing the effectiveness of nuclear submarines as a whole.

    It’s clear from this phrase that further discussion is pointless. Efforts to improve efficiency are and are being conducted not only with us. Absurd. I have indicated the capabilities of the Premier League above. Stop considering them a panacea.
    Quote: gallville
    Correctly. Another cold war, only at sea?

    Do you even know that we didn't start the Cold War? We are forced to respond to aggression. And it is naive to believe that the tasks of the fleet boil down to "sealing the shores".
    Useless conversation. At least read a little or see something on military history, on geopolitics. Your conclusions are based on elementary ignorance.
  • gallville
    gallville 12 July 2013 15: 53
    0
    Quote: Alex
    Well, where does the lack of logic come from? You yourself should understand perfectly well that "all this", the AUG has by definition. An aircraft carrier is a mobile airfield. The AUG simply does not have those problems with the provision of air defense and reconnaissance that I mentioned

    So the logic strikes me. Why on earth and most importantly we have this definition of no?
    Quote: Alex
    I have indicated the capabilities of the Premier League above. Stop considering them a panacea.

    You attribute to me something that I did not say. And I said that the nuclear submarine is a weapon in the "partisan" style far from our shores and no more. And certainly not where did not claim that 1 boat will cope with the whole AUG.
    Quote: Alex
    And it is naive to believe that the tasks of the fleet boil down to "seizing the shores".

    And to the protection of what they come down to? African countries that still have not paid their debts? Or backward Papuans, somewhere in Latin America? Or do we want a little Caucasus? We want to land somewhere in Egypt?
    Quote: Alex
    Useless conversation. At least read a little or see something on military history, on geopolitics.

    If you observe a different point of view, this does not mean that it is wrong. Russia is a continental country, it has enough land borders and enemies near them. With this "the only one overseas", the war will not take place with the help of AUG.
    Quote: Alex
    Your conclusions are based on basic ignorance.

    In my personal file, another is written ....


    Z. s. And the most important thing. I have never seen from you at least 1 specific task that would be performed by the AUG RF. Since you have "read or watched something about military history, geopolitics," name it.
  • alex86
    alex86 12 July 2013 20: 07
    0
    I don’t think that the discussion has a resource to continue, so I’ll try to summarize what this mess started (sorry): AUG is a very serious force, we have few opportunities to suppress it - this is on the one hand; in the foreseeable future, we don’t need and cannot acquire a self-sustaining AOG - there are no serious tactical tasks for Russian AUGs (and in the event of a global conflict, their importance will tend to zero, since, on the one hand, no AUG of using nuclear weapons can withstand it, on the other on the other hand, its significance in defeating each other with strategic nuclear weapons will turn AUG into something not very significant).
    And God forbid we all check this experimentally ...
  • caretaker
    caretaker 19 July 2013 05: 01
    0
    Thai aircraft carrier - I liked the information)
  • Escobar
    Escobar 29 July 2020 17: 59
    0
    Here you can add the desire of Russia to build a prowler aircraft carrier of 100 thousand tons