Military Review

Convoy to Alaska. Chronicles of sea battle

107
Convoy to Alaska. Chronicles of sea battle



Dear connoisseurs of naval subjects, those who care about the fresh breeze and smoke of sea battles; those who managed to stand on the deck of the Ship leaving from under the feet or hear amazing stories about the service on Navy - for all of you, on the eve of the upcoming Navy Day, I hasten to present a short essay study on the confrontation of the two largest fleets of the Cold War.

An action thriller based on the American writer Tom Clancy, known for his works in the alternative genre stories - I wonder how the conflict between the Soviet Union and the USA with the use of tactical weapons would develop. Only Tanks, guns, ships and planes - the nuclear arsenals remained untouched: none of the leaders of both countries ventured to issue a suicidal order.

A further storyline is taken from the pages of the Military Review web portal - it was there that a few days ago there was a discussion about the possibility of the US Navy’s squad of surface combat ships of the Soviet Navy confronting as of the middle of the 1970s. Usually such discussions are connected with the question of the possibility of detecting and destroying the all-powerful American AUG, but this time everything is different - no one is going to look for the "Elusive Joe."

Let the "Elusive Joe" come by himself and try to stop the Russian convoy.

So, imagine a completely unusual situation: Year 1975. The Soviet troops somehow captured the bridgehead on the coast of Alaska. They landed, entrenched ... Now they need help - it is necessary to transfer a division of marines / airborne troops / motorized infantry with standard equipment, fuel, provisions and equipment to the sea. Of course, tanks, heavy armored vehicles, artillery and military air defense systems are very much awaiting on the “that bank” ...

Personnel weapon and supplies are loaded on container ships and turbo ships of the Soviet merchant fleet (“Alexander Fadeev”, “Saryan”, “Leninsky Komsomol”). Armored vehicles rise under their own power aboard large landing ships of the 1171 "Tapir" project. The loading in the port of Okha (Sakhalin) was successful, and now, a convoy of 10 transports and BDK, under the guise of combat ships of the USSR Navy, goes to sea. Course Nord, 15 nodes.


BDK Ave. 1171 "Tapir"



Large anti-submarine ship (according to NATO standards - missile cruiser) of the project 1134B ("Bercut-B")
Hypertrophied antisubmarine weapons complex and 4 short and medium range SAM systems in the hull with a displacement of 8500 tons. In total, the Navy of the USSR had 7 ships of this project.

From this moment begins the real action. In the Bering Sea, a Soviet convoy awaits the carrier-based strike force of the United States Navy, led by invincible Enterprise, which will do everything to disrupt the delivery of military cargo to Alaska.
The salt of history is that at that time the American maritime aviation still didn’t possess any long-range anti-ship weapons - the Yankees will only adopt the aviation version of the Harpoon anti-ship missile system in 1979.

And in the 1975, the US Navy had nothing but subsonic attack aircraft and a set of very primitive air attack weapons - free-fall bombs, NURS, Shrayka anti-radar and short-range air-to-surface missiles ... That's the whole arsenal of cowboys .

It seems that American pilots expect unforgettable adventures - they will have to "jump onto the forks" of modern naval anti-aircraft missile systems and shuffle "bare breasts" on automatic radar-guided anti-aircraft guns. Do the Yankees refuse to perform a dangerous task?

But on the ships of the USSR Navy also reigns painful silence - everyone knows that there are two full-fledged air regiments on the Enterprise deck, and the Soviet air defense systems are still too weak and imperfect to effectively repel such massive attacks. Will our sailors be able to hold out against the animal power of the American aircraft carrier?

The first warning sign appeared in the sky - the EW systems intercepted the work of the enemy radar ... and here it is, in person: the Hokai E-2 long-range radar detection aircraft. The combat air patrol "opened" the position of the convoy ... now wait for an ambush attack. The Hokai all the time looms somewhere on the horizon, intently studying the situation - it hangs, a reptile, a hundred miles from Soviet ships, fully confident in its own impunity. Ehh ... and there is really nothing to get it - the most powerful of the local air defense system beats only 30 miles.

... On the aircraft carrier, preparations for Operation Interception are in full swing: the first shock group has been formed on the flight deck: the most experienced pilots will lead the 10 A-7 Korsar and A-6 Intruder attack aircraft. Cover group - EA-2B Prowler electronic suppression aircraft 6.
12 aircraft - this is the maximum number of cars in the Nimitz launch cycle, in which one pair is in 5-minute readiness, and the rest are in readiness from 15 minutes to one hour. It is not possible to increase the number of the strike group, otherwise it will be necessary to clutter the landing zone with equipment. And it is strictly forbidden - after all, the Hokai has been patrolling the air for several hours - the same one that was discovered by the Soviet convoy, its fighter cover (a pair of Tomcat F-14), as well as the anti-submarine S-3A "Viking" - in their The tanks are rapidly melting fuel, and they should soon return to the ship.



In total, on board a super-aircraft carrier more than 45 units * aircraft: two squadrons of shock A-6 and A-7, squadron of fighters "Tomkat", three DRLO aircraft, four "Prowlers", four anti-submarine machines "Viking" and several Sea King helicopters ".

* The formal number of aircraft assigned to the Enterprise can reach 80-90 units. In reality, ship loading rarely exceeded 45 aircraft; the composition of the wing is determined by the tasks facing the AUG (impact operations, cover, evacuation, etc.). The rest of the aircraft was waiting at coastal air bases, ready at any moment to change the aircraft on board the aircraft carrier

Next to the aircraft carrier Enterprise, a system of gray ships is moving — the nuclear cruiser California, three URO-type cruisers of the Belknap type, four anti-submarine frigates Knox, a tanker and a universal supply transport. Below, deep under the arches of cold water, another shadow moves - a multi-purpose atomic boat of the type "Sturgeon". A typical AUG is ready for battle.

What can the Navy of the USSR oppose to this colossal power?

It is logical to assume that the most advanced of the serial Soviet ships will be used to cover the convoy. Three large anti-submarine ships of the project 1134B (cipher "Berkut-B") - "Nikolaev", "Ochakov" and "Kerch". And three patrol ships (BOD of the II rank) of the 1135 project (“Petrel” code). Modest, but with taste.


Patrol ship (missile frigate) project 1135 "Petrel". Despite its 3200 tons of total displacement, it was a formidable force: a set of anti-submarine missiles, 2 SAMs, 2 universal gun mounts and various "tricks" in the form of RBU and conventional torpedoes. In total, the Navy of the USSR were 32 such horny

Of course, the author reports that in reality in the 1975, the Berkutov-B as a part of the Pacific Fleet was not - all three ships served in the Mediterranean. Nevertheless, the concept of an “alternative history” suggests that it is possible to make a minimal assumption - some military tensions arose in the Far East, and the USSR Navy promptly increased the Pacific Fleet with ships from the Baltic and Black Sea (as they tried in 1905), but at a higher organizational level).

So, only six battle surface ships. Will they be able to organize a reliable "barrier" in the path of enemy aircraft? How long will the convoy last? What are his chances of success?

In 200 miles east, attack aircraft begin to rise — in an hour the first wave of several Intruders will hit the target. Soviet sailors are still ignorant of the exact time of the attack, but the radio intercept systems installed on board the Berkuts have already detected the work of enemy transmitters: the Hokai is actively communicating with someone invisible beyond the horizon, it seems that the AEW plane directs them a shock group

... The convoy is rebuilt into an air defense order and increases the speed, the outer contour forms a "triangle" of the radar patrol ships - the modest "Petrels" are ready to meet the enemy first, and, if necessary, play with him in the "radio game." Behind them cover "Golden Eagles" with long-range SAMs.

The rockets are sent to the guides of anti-aircraft complexes - they are aimed at the sky:

- 6 LAW medium range M-11 "Storm-M".
Total salvo - up to 12 missiles. Recharge time - 50 seconds. Two-channel radio command guidance, the maximum firing range - 55 km. The range of working heights is from 100 to 25 000 meters. Ammunition - on 80 missiles on each of the "Golden Eagles".

- 12 air defense missile system short-range "Osa-M".
Total salvo - up to 24 missiles. Recharge time - 20 seconds. The maximum range of shooting on the air target - 15 km. The minimum height of the air target is 5 meters. Ammunition - on 40 missiles on each of the "Golden Eagles" and "Petrel".


Anti-aircraft missile B-611 complex M-11 "Storm".
"Baby" has a length of 6 meters and a mass of 1800 kg. Equipped with a rod warhead weight 120 kg. In the cellars of each BOD 80 stored such fireworks

In addition to the sea-based air defense system, the appearance of enemy aircraft technicians are looking forward to:

- 12 AK-726 Universal Artillery Mounts.
76 caliber mm. Firing Rate - 90 shots / min. Automated guidance according to radar. The ZS-62 anti-aircraft missiles with the AR-67 type radar fuse are used (no precise hit is required; in order for the fuse to be initiated, the projectile is enough to fly ten meters from the target). The maximum range of shooting - 11 000 meters.

- 12 robotic anti-aircraft guns AK-630 with rate of fire 5000 rds / min. On board each of the "Golden Eagles" are two batteries, consisting of two gun installations and a Vympel fire control radar. Effective firing range - 4000 meters.
The AK-630 analog drives are not very accurate, but this is enough to get into the huge, slower Intruder A-6 — just one hit of 30 mm of ammunition, and the American car will be buried in the water in the midst of the boiling ocean.

The convoy’s near-air defense system complements a number of firing points on the BDK and transports (ZIF-31B, 2М-3М, ZU-23-2). There are many Strela-2 MANPADS among the landing units, there will be a squall of fire.

... So, a dozen "suckers" on subsonic attack aircraft "Corsair" and "Intruder" are trying to break through the echeloned air defense system of the Soviet convoy with a string, well, let's see what happens.

As of 1975, the US carrier-based naval aviation had only four ways to “get” Russian ships - one worse than the other.

1. AGM-45 Intelligent Shrikeinduced by radio sources. The plan is simple: to break all the radars of the "Golden Eagles" with them, after which to throw the helpless ships with ordinary bombs. However, there are a number of questions:

Primitive "Shrike" could not boast of efficiency: in Vietnam, the average consumption of missiles per radar reached 10 pieces - the inevitable errors in the operation of the homing head, insufficient speed of the microcircuits and the rocket drives.
In the case of the Russian convoy, the task becomes more complicated - you need to hit a moving maneuvering target! How many Shriks will it take to disable at least one Berkut-B?



A lot of problems will be delivered by the “smart rocket” GOS itself - after all, it is designed only for a narrow frequency range, while on ships and ships of the convoy there are dozens of radar stations of various purposes. It is also unclear how the Shrike will behave in the conditions of operation of many radar stations - I remember a joke about a blonde who “got entangled in a crossword puzzle and fell to the floor”.

In the characteristics of the Shrike in bold it is indicated: the launch range of 52 km is outside the zone of the enemy's air defense. The real situation turned out to be much less rosy: the homing head of the “smart” Shrike missile has a too narrow viewing sector - the rocket should have been launched with utmost precision in the direction of the radar source, otherwise its homing force simply will not capture the target. In Vietnam, US Air Force pilots usually launched Shriks from a distance of about 15 km, while being at an altitude of 2-3 km.

Deck attack aircraft, who risked attacking the Russian convoy in the same mode, will turn into an ideal target for the “Storm” air defense system - he will hardly be able to lie down on a combat course, as he receives kg of explosives and steel striking elements of the B-120 rocket into the 611 wing.

2. Tactical missile AGM-12C "Bullpup".



The pitifully similar to the RCC "Harpoon", with a range of 19 km. The radio command guidance system is especially impressive - the plane will have to prank around for a couple of minutes near the convoy, serving as a target for zeroing in all types of air defense systems and anti-aircraft artillery of Soviet ships. To effectively use the AGM-12C against the Soviet Navy, the Pentagon will have to open kamikaze pilots courses.

3. Tactical high-precision missile AGM-65B "Maverick"

When dropped from a high altitude, the Maverick is able to independently overcome 25-30 kilometers to the target, but in reality, its launch range was limited by the sensitivity of the television guidance system - 4 ... 6 km for small-sized targets under ideal weather conditions. The large anti-submarine ship "Berkut" is not a small-sized target, however, the weather conditions in the Bering Sea are also far from ideal: condensing twilight, low clouds, fog, rain or snow charges, limited visibility, excitement.

Do not forget that on the ships of the USSR Navy, systems for shooting passive radar and optical false targets were installed on a regular basis: using the 2 PC-2 installations on each Berkut and Burevestnik with 15 salvos / min. In addition, there is always an old "grandfather" method in stock - a smoke screen. Limited visibility does not affect the effectiveness of the air defense system and anti-aircraft artillery - after all, our BOD does not use optical guidance systems, at the same time, all these measures will inevitably hinder or make impossible the work of the Maverick's guidance systems (closer, than 10 km).

In this case, American aviation falls under such fire, in which the chances of surviving a single "Intruder" fall to zero.

4. Strafing attack

The only way to avoid “communication” with the Soviet air defense missile system is a high-speed breakthrough at extremely low altitude with the subsequent attack of NURS ships, aircraft guns and free-fall bombs of the Mk.80 family.
But neither the height in 30 meters, nor the desperate maneuvers will save “Corsairs” and “Intruders” from the fire of anti-aircraft guns - AK-630 and AK-726 “metal cutting” will shred them into pieces.

As for the terrible aircraft electronic suppression EA-6B "Prowler", which the Yankees threaten to "stun" all Russian radar, the situation is as follows:
In conditions when the time difference between the take-off of the first and the last pair of machines of the shock group is more than an hour, two Prowlers will not be able to provide cover throughout the attack - the machines overloaded with electronic units simply do not have enough fuel to overcome hundreds of miles to the target, and then circling in the air for an hour, covering the attack group attack aircraft with noises. On the way back, the Prowlers will fall into the ocean with empty * tanks.

And will the two "Prowler" of the 1975 model of the year be able to provide serious radio-electronic counter to the squadron?

* An attentive reader will probably notice that the US Navy used X-6D air tankers on aircraft carriers of the US Navy. But two tough conditions should be remembered:
- the maximum number of cars in one takeoff cycle does not exceed 12 units;
- max. The number of aircraft onboard ships rarely exceeds 45 units.
Firstly, most likely there are no tankers aboard the Enterprise - preference is given to more important vehicles (fighters, attack aircraft, EW aircraft), and secondly, an attempt to include KA-6D tankers in a take-off cycle will automatically reduce the number of impact vehicles.


As a result, we come to a rather strange conclusion: a super-ship with a displacement of 85 thousand tons, whose price today exceeds 6 billion dollars, is unable to deal with the six “pelvis” of the Soviet Navy! However, such a situation is easily explained - the attack of well-defended targets “to the frontal” with small forces always leads to heavy losses among the attackers. And the combat capabilities of an aircraft carrier group is hardly enough to protect itself.



Even using suicide attacks "in the forehead" on the air defense system and anti-aircraft artillery, the Yankees will not achieve anything - "Golden Eagles" and "Burevestniki" will allow both squadrons of attack aircraft of the US Navy (only 20-25 "Corsairs" and "Intruders") will continue to lead the convoy to the destination. Even if the Americans are lucky, and before their death, they will manage to sink / damage several Soviet ships - this is clearly not the effect that should have been expected from the “invincible” AUG.

After all, 6 guard and BOD is the minimum that the Yankees can count on. It cost the Russians nothing to reinforce the escort of the convoy by including a couple of Berkuts-A (slightly less sophisticated Berkut with similar weapons; at that time 10 ships of this type were in the USSR Navy) and five 61- singing frigates The project (19 units in the Navy) - such a convoy will not be stopped even by two AUGs with the Enterprise and the Nimitz.

And this is just the beginning! In 1977, the multi-channel anti-aircraft complex “Fort” was installed on the Baz “Azov” instead of the “Storm” aft air defense system - the maritime version of the legendary C-300. And in just a few years, the Orlans and Atlanta, the new BOD project 1155 (cipher Udara) and the destroyers of the 956 Modern project with the multi-channel Dagger and Uragan will appear ...

The moral of this tale is as follows: with proper attention to the Navy and when moving with the pace, the surface ship can turn into an impregnable fortress for enemy aircraft. Of course, there are no invincible warriors, but the enemy will need tremendous efforts to destroy the “difficult target”. And sooner graying pilots of the United States will forever remember what a modern maritime air defense system is.

Epilogue. In a real conflict, neither “Enterprise” nor “Berkut-B” will pass 100 miles - all of them will be flooded with merciless underwater killers - multipurpose PLA of the Tresher / Permit, Sturgeon, Skipjack, 671 Ave. Salmon ", pr. 671" Skat ", etc. etc. But, that's another story.

Characters:


USS California nuclear missile cruiser (aircraft carrier escort)



Knox type frigate (aircraft carrier escort)



BOD "Kerch" and patrol ship "Pytlivy"



It was intended to deliver troops on such turbokhod (without irony - this is standard world practice)





Boucary, he's "Berkut-B"
Author:
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alez
    Alez 25 July 2013 08: 01 New
    +9
    Currently, it will be the other way around. Their Navy, actively developed SM 3 which is only worth it. And in our apartment GAZ.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 25 July 2013 08: 57 New
      +4
      Quote: ,,,,
      Author Oleg Kaptsov



      This is a masterpiece ... But if you threaten William, you understand, our Shakespeare, I would include the anti-submarine cruiser Project 1123 Condor - Moscow (Leningrad) in the convoy and then the big question is where would merciless underwater killers be used - multipurpose nuclear submarines
      1. old man54
        old man54 25 July 2013 21: 15 New
        +3
        Quote: Vadivak
        1123 avenue Condor - Moscow (Leningrad) and then the big question is where would merciless underwater killers be smoked - multipurpose nuclear submarines

        The fact is that the cruisers of the 1123 ave never served in the Pacific Fleet, but the TARK ave. 1143 ... That would be even more interesting! It would be possible even to organize a counter-attack, and it would not be known who would whom! bully
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 26 July 2013 10: 26 New
          +2
          Quote: old man54
          The fact is that the cruisers of pr. 1123 never served on the Pacific Fleet, but


          So there was no convoy to Alaska. TARK pr. 1143 except Kiev came into operation later than the proposed scenario, and 1123 have already been mastered
      2. spravochnik
        spravochnik 26 July 2013 00: 04 New
        -2
        And nothing would have changed. Because, as the American Aviation would calmly fill up helicopters from this ship.
    2. anip
      anip 25 July 2013 09: 22 New
      10
      Quote: Alez
      And in our apartment GAZ.

      And we live in it, wearing a gas mask.
    3. Dnepropetrovsk
      Dnepropetrovsk 5 August 2013 00: 53 New
      0
      When reading such articles, I always remember a connoisseur who argued with me that there was no military doctrine of the Soviet Navy. Read my friend, this is not the first article for such people.
  2. master_rem
    master_rem 25 July 2013 08: 42 New
    +7
    Well, yes, yes, the boats did not fit into the script, it is much more interesting with them
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 25 July 2013 18: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: master_rem
      Well, yes, yes, the boats did not fit into the script, it is much more interesting with them
      Reality is always more interesting than fantasies, a similar operation by the forces of the fleet was carried out by the Japanese in July 1942, to capture the Aleutian Islands, distracting from the main attack on Midway. The Japanese captured two islands, Attu and Kysku, by bombing the airfield at Dutch Harbor base on the island of Unalaska. The Americans then assigned 5 cruisers, 14 destroyers and 6 submarines from the forces of the fleet. Developing his literary talent, it would be useful for Oleg Kaptsov to know that as early as the beginning of the 1946, by the personal order of I.V. Stalin began the formation of the 14th Airborne Army in Chukotka. Lieutenant General N.N. Oleshev. In the event of the beginning of the atomic bombing of the USSR, the 14-I Airborne Army was to land in Alaska and develop an offensive on the American continent. At that time, the presence of our army had a deterrent effect on the Yankees. The width of the Bering Strait is 35-86 kilometers (depths up to 42 meters), from October to August the strait is covered with drifting ice. If there were events in the 1975 year, the Soviet Union would have found the means for landing even without a bulky convoy.
      1. old man54
        old man54 25 July 2013 21: 27 New
        0
        To you "-"! Kaptsov does not describe the landing itself to capture the bridgehead as a scenario, but conducts a convoy with replenishment and supplies for the already warring grouping of the invasion! Do you feel the difference? If you were in Chukotka, especially before the 91 year, you would understand yourself what to supply the army from Providence Bay, for example, and other ports of Chukotka nonsense, everything is imported there, from the "big land"! And there were no railroads then, but no!
        Well, since you mentioned IV Stalin, it was especially for you: he initiated the construction of the Arctic railway after the Second World War, just in order to organize an intervention on our Russian land - Alaska! angry As a threat to the amirs, but his followers, all in practice, have successfully stole this project! At the time of his assassination, work was done somewhere at 30 / 40%, they did not build bridges over the great Siberian rivers and small rivers of Yakutia, and they almost completely filled the embankments and laid the canvas. The highway had to go through the Arctic, completely beyond the Arctic Circle!
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 26 July 2013 15: 14 New
          0
          Quote: old man54
          Do you feel the difference?
          Oleg Kaptsov talked about the seizure of the bridgehead, then its text, “Landed, entrenched ... Now they need help — they need to deploy the Marine Corps / Airborne Division / motorized rifle division along the sea with standard equipment, fuel, provisions and equipment. Of course, on the“ other side "Tanks, heavy armored vehicles, artillery and military air defense systems are very much waiting ..." Feel the difference too. If you remember the film "The Chief of Chukotka", remember the connection between Chukotka and Alaska and the very meaning of creating the 14 Airborne Army in the 1946 year, with the American monopoly on atomic weapons. About the construction of the railway, thank you, I myself know, only it was not built to capture Alaska, but to develop our Arctic, an additional northern branch to Transib. As for the convoy posting, this is a complete utopia, with the organization described by the respected author, and even more so for the 1975 year. It would be much more interesting if Oleg imagined the 1942 situation of the year, where Midway would be a distraction, and the Aleutian Islands and the landing on Alaska the main one. The Japanese army in North America could also change the course of the war in the Pacific.
          1. old man54
            old man54 28 July 2013 14: 29 New
            -1
            Quote: Per se.
            About the construction of the railway, thank you, I myself know, only it was not built to capture Alaska, but to develop our Arctic, an additional northern branch to Transib.

            You are mistaken, dear! The construction of the highway was of purely military significance, then no one was even planning to explore the Arctic coast, then, however, as now, Siberia itself had not yet been mastered, where it was before the Arctic! fellow And they built it precisely for the possible transfer of troops to Chukotka, so that they could be from there in Alaska. Or do you think that Stalin was so stupid that you probably wanted to take a detachment to the states, on merchant ships under the condition of the Navy? bully Would you leave far? From Conducting to Anchorage a little more than a day is a good move, and the amers usually don’t have a fleet there, they always have it all in the south!
            It would be much more interesting if Oleg imagined the 1942 situation of the year, where Midway would be a distraction, and the Aleutian Islands and the landing on Alaska the main one.

            here and write about it. happy to read! smile
  3. Nayhas
    Nayhas 25 July 2013 09: 06 New
    +6
    Good afternoon, Oleg. The topic is hot, born as a result of a “one” discussion that did not end earlier. I will repeat myself then.
    From 17.09.1974/20.05.1975/65 on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX The CVN Enterprise participated in Frequent Wind operations in the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. Moreover, based on it:
    VF-1 "Wolfpack" -12 F-14A
    VF-2 "Bounty Hunters" -12 F-14A
    VA-27 "Royal Maces" -12 A-7E
    VA-97 "Warhawks" -12 A-7E
    VA-196 "Main Battery" -12 A-6A and 4 KA-6D
    VAQ-137 "Rooks" -4-6 EA-6B
    HS-2 "Golden Falcons" -? SH-3D
    VAW-113 "Black Eagles" -4-6 E-2B
    RVAH-12 "Speartips" - 4 RA-5C
    VQ-1 Det 65 "World Watchers" -? EA-3B
    Based on the results of this combat service, the USS Enterprise (CVAN 65) WestPac Cruise Book 1974-75 photo album was released.
    You see for yourself that the number of aircraft is noticeably more than 45. There are 36 attack aircraft, 4 tankers, 4 AWACS, 4 reconnaissance aircraft, and 6 electronic warfare. The armament of attack aircraft is mainly uncontrolled, air bombs of various calibers and NURSs.
    It is not clear where the limitation of 12 aircraft in the air came from, because in addition to the strike group in the air, at least one AWACS, a couple of tankers, one reconnaissance, a couple of PLO helicopters are needed. Enter has 3 catapults, the takeoff interval is 13 seconds, it is not difficult to calculate how long it takes to lift 20 cars into the air. It is not difficult to organize two waves, the first flew off for bombing, the second in high alert, as soon as the first wave went back, the second took off. The first wave has returned, the tankers are refueling the vehicles waiting for the landing line, they have landed, and the formation of the third wave has begun (if necessary).
    Now for the tactics. After the convoy is detected, the enemy determines the number of ships in the convoy, types, speed. Convoy speed not more than 18 knots. for it is limited by the speed of loaded transport. In striking the convoy, not only strike aircraft will participate, but also submarines included in the AUG. Suppose we consider only the aviation component. The aviation work pattern has long been known, the EW group suppresses the radar, the disorientation group distracts the SAM, the strike group strikes, the finishing team accordingly kills the enemy. 1991 showed that domestic radars are successfully suppressed by interference with the same Prolers, and the capabilities of the Storm and Osa air defense systems for low-flying targets were not high, and the established interference significantly reduces the available radar characteristics. So aviation has a lot of chances to bomb successfully. In addition, the pilots with Enter have a rich experience of Vietnam and they bomb quite accurately, I already wrote about the case with the tugboat Cree, three bombs are right on target ...
    Undoubtedly, aviation will suffer losses, it is quite possible that about 40%, but the loss of 10 cars is nothing with the loss of three BOD and a convoy with much-needed cargo.
    1. Santa Fe
      25 July 2013 11: 09 New
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      From 17.09.1974/20.05.1975/65 on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX The CVN Enterprise participated in Frequent Wind operations in the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. Moreover, based on it:
      VF-1 "Wolfpack" -12 F-14A
      VF-2 "Bounty Hunters" -12 F-14A

      This is just the number of groups assigned to the airplane.
      Half of them are waiting at coastal bases
      Quote: Nayhas
      It’s not entirely clear where the limitation of 12 vehicles in the air came from, because in addition to the strike group in the air, you need at least one AWACS, a couple of tankers, one scout

      Oh, dreams ...
      Quote: Nayhas
      Enter has 3 catapults, the takeoff interval is 13 seconds. It is not difficult to calculate how long it takes to lift 20 cars into the air.

      Catapult performance figures have little to do with reality. In reality, you need to haul a 25-ton aircraft with a tow, unhook, fix, align, raise the reflective shield, check it again and only then start it - without violating the safety regulations.

      The catapult, by the way, 4. But it doesn’t help at all - after all, the equipment prepared for take-off needs to be placed somewhere, and the deck size is limited (even if you force the runway and elevators - no more than 20 cars with a take-off cycle TWO HOURS)
      Quote: Nayhas
      the EW group suppresses the radar, the disorientation group distracts the SAMs, the strike group strikes, the finishing team accordingly finishes off the enemy.

      It's all about their numbers. If there are 2 aircraft in each “shock wave”, the pilots will not achieve anything and wash themselves with blood
      Quote: Nayhas
      VF-1 "Wolfpack" -12 F-14A
      VF-2 "Bounty Hunters" -12 F-14A
      VA-27 "Royal Maces" -12 A-7E
      VA-97 "Warhawks" -12 A-7E
      VA-196 "Main Battery" -12 A-6A and 4 KA-6D
      VAQ-137 "Rooks" -4-6 EA-6B
      HS-2 "Golden Falcons" -? SH-3D
      VAW-113 "Black Eagles" -4-6 E-2B
      RVAH-12 "Speartips" - 4 RA-5C
      VQ-1 Det 65 "World Watchers" -? EA-3B

      Even logically, the 80 aircraft you specified on the Enterprise will never fit
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 25 July 2013 14: 30 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This is just the number of groups assigned to the airplane.
        Half of them are waiting at coastal bases

        Oleg, I do not accept unfounded statements even from you.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        In reality, you need to haul a 25-ton aircraft with a tow, unhook, fix, align, raise the reflective shield, check it again and only then start it - without violating the safety regulations.

        13 seconds is the standard for Enterprise, in Nimits it is even less. Airplanes are prepared for departure even in hangars, after climbing to the deck you can only cling to the catapult. There are many videos about "life on the US aircraft carriers", it shows how the launch of several aircraft.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Even logically, the 80 aircraft you specified on the Enterprise will never fit

        Argument. I could just as well say that the Storm air defense system actually had much worse performance and could not hit low-flying targets in general, or that the ammunition of the SAM was small, because the rocket turned out to be very expensive (1,5 kg. of gold alone!) and really the Golden Eagles walked with empty cellars ... You slide into a categorical denial of everything, and whatever arguments you bring, you will all doubt. This is not a good trick.
        1. Santa Fe
          25 July 2013 21: 36 New
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          13 seconds is the standard for the Enterprise; on Nimits it is even less. Airplanes are prepared for departure even in hangars, after climbing to the deck you can only cling to the catapult

          It remains only to raise them to the deck and cling to the catapult ... while typing this phrase - 13 seconds passed

          Sailors of Nimitz during this time need to: roll a 25-ton plane on the deck a couple of tens of meters, put with extreme accuracy on the catapult, unhitch it from the tractor, level it, attach the shuttle to the bow stance, adjust the vapor pressure in the catapult depending on the mass of the aircraft, raise the reflective shield, warm up the turbine and start the engine. Once again, check and ... just fly up)))
          13 seconds is a long time. match in the hands of the foreman burns 5 sec)))
          Quote: Nayhas
          and really the Golden Eagles walked with empty cellars ...

          Like Nimitsa. It's peacetime
          Quote: Nayhas
          Even logically, the 80 aircraft you specified on the Enterprise will never fit
          Argue

          Let's start the proof from the opposite: do you seriously believe that 80 + jet combat aircraft and helicopters could be placed on the decks of the Enterprise?
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 26 July 2013 08: 34 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It remains only to raise them to the deck and cling to the catapult ... while typing this phrase - 13 seconds passed

            You all mixed up. To raise the wing in the air, of course, not minutes are necessary. Refueling machines, weapons suspension, tech. verification takes a fair amount of time. But the finished cars take off at intervals of 13 seconds. The stages of preparation for take-off and take-off itself are various stages in time. If you don’t understand, then I’ll try it on my fingers. AUG moved to the alleged area where the convoy appeared, having received information from aerial reconnaissance, establishing the convoy’s composition, its course, distance to the AUG command, forms an attack wing, its composition and armament, technicians begin training, when the preparation is completed, the air wing starts at an interval of 1 aircraft at 13 seconds. The need for a minimum interval between starts is necessary for fuel economy, so that the first four planes do not waste fuel waiting for the latter to fly into the air.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Let's start the proof from the opposite: do you seriously believe that 80 + jet combat aircraft and helicopters could be placed on the decks of the Enterprise?

            On deck and below deck hangar. The composition of Carrier Air Wing and the number of aircraft in them is known for all periods of the history of aircraft carriers:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_air_wing
            http://www.navybuddies.com/cvn/cvw.htm
            I understand that you believe that the Americans fooled their people and ascribing themselves on paper squadrons to an aircraft carrier without actually placing them there? And all this was stupidly bought, even the magazines of the USSR Ministry of Defense "ZVO" and "Aviation and Cosmonautics"? And in the photo album (which you also quoted) USS Enterprise (CVAN 65) WestPac Cruise Book 1974-75 under the guise of aviators squadrons VF-1, VF-2, VA-27, VA-97 and VA-196 photos of dressed up sailors?
            Perhaps the appeal to the history of the Grumman F-14 Tomcat will convince you that you were mistaken: "On September 12, 1974, 24 Tomcat aircraft of the VF-1 and VF-2 squadrons left Miramar air base and headed for Alameda, where they were to land on the aircraft carrier" Enterprise. "Five days later, the ship set out on a long voyage."
            1. Santa Fe
              26 July 2013 10: 26 New
              0
              Quote: Nayhas
              when the preparation is completed, the air wing starts with an 1 interval in 13 seconds.

              Those. you believe that:
              to roll an 25-ton fully loaded and armed aircraft on the deck for a couple of tens of meters (from parking to the catapult), place the catapult with extreme accuracy, unhitch it from the tractor, level it, attach the shuttle to the nose strut, adjust the vapor pressure in the catapult depending on the weight of the aircraft , raise the baffle plate, warm up the turbines and start the engine. And then take off without violating TB regulations

              takes 13 seconds?
              Quote: Nayhas
              did the Americans fool their people and ascribing themselves on paper squadrons to an aircraft carrier without actually placing them there?

              There is no deception. Carrier air wing really had 80 ... 90 machines

              The meaning is simple: Nimitz + carrier air wing = combat expeditionary group, which has a floating airfield and 80..90 units of aircraft with trained crews. They are all familiar with the aircraft carrier, they all know how to land and take off from the deck, they are all ready to arrive at any time on the ship ...

              the only snag, they cannot all accommodate at the same time - you have to choose: either emphasis on attack aircraft (strike operation), or on fighters and anti-aircraft defense (covering the convoy), etc. The ship accommodates no more than 45 vehicles, the rest at this time are waiting at the coast base in full readiness - as soon as the situation changes, attack aircraft fly away from the aircraft carrier, but fighters arrive and vice versa ... it also allows you to quickly recover losses. That's the whole point of an air wing from 80 ... 90 planes and helicopters.
              Quote: Nayhas
              And in the photo album (which you also quoted) of the USS Enterprise (CVAN 65) WestPac Cruise Book 1974-75 under the guise of air squadron pilots VF-1, VF-2, VA-27, VA-97 and VA-196 photos of dressed sailors?

              They were all on the deck of the ship, but at different times
              Quote: Nayhas
              "12 of September 1974 of the 24 of the Tomcat aircraft of the VF-1 and VF-2 squadrons left Miramar air base and headed for Alameda, where they were to land on the Enterprise aircraft carrier.

              Only after the VA-27, VA-97 and VA-196 flew off the ship

              It is physically impossible to place simultaneously 80 vehicles on an aircraft carrier
      2. old man54
        old man54 25 July 2013 21: 38 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Even logically, the 80 aircraft you specified on the Enterprise will never fit

        I'm sorry to wet, but in all directories the maximum number of aircraft on the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) indicates 90 pieces! request
    2. old man54
      old man54 25 July 2013 21: 45 New
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      After the convoy is detected, the enemy determines the number of ships in the convoy, types, speed. Convoy speed no more than 18 knots for it is limited by the speed of loaded transport.

      There wasn’t in those days, and I doubt that now there is, the USSR has the potential to issue 18 bonds of civilian transport!
      Quote: Nayhas
      Not only strike aircraft, but also submarines belonging to the AUG will participate in striking at the convoy

      and who told you that the Soviet admirals were completely fools and didn’t send the convoy like a wolf pack of their nuclear submarines and submarines ahead of the dangerous, expected directions of the attack of the wrecks ?? It’s clear that this is another scenario, but you don’t play along with it either!
      1. Santa Fe
        25 July 2013 22: 43 New
        +1
        Quote: old man54
        but in all directories the maximum number of aircraft on the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) indicates 90 pieces

        Andrei, these figures relate to the wing assigned to the ship. But the air wing and Nimitz are not the same thing; half of the aircraft are based on the shore, ready to change planes on board the ship. Placing 90 units of aircraft on the decks of Nimitz or Enterprise (and so that they can work normally) is categorically not possible. NOT enough space

        Checking my words is simpler than that: cut out paper models of decks and airplanes on one scale and look at the result
        Quote: old man54
        There wasn’t in those days, and I doubt that now there is, the USSR has the potential to issue 18 bonds of civilian transport!

        1. There were. Rollovers-turbo-walks "Captain Smirnov" to 25 bonds.
        2. This does not mean that the BOD must move at the speed of transports - they can periodically increase their speed to full, break the line, go into circulation - everything is in order (of course, no one is going to break away from the convoy - they only change their position inside the order)
        1. old man54
          old man54 27 July 2013 15: 55 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Placing 90 units of aircraft on the decks of Nimitz or Enterprise (and so that they can work normally) is categorically not possible. NOT enough space

          Well, I can’t agree with you, Oleg! request The fact is that large American attack aircraft carriers have a flight deck height of 18 / 20 meters above sea level, which allows amers to store at least half of the aircraft fleet in specially-marked corners of the BCP, i.e. not letting her into the deck below the hangar. And whatever the different specialists there would write about it down the line, even in a storm aircraft technology doesn’t threaten anything on its deck. wink Not so long ago, one member of the forum posted a video in discussions where some of the UAWs are going during a severe storm, 7 / 8 points, no less! Filming is being conducted directly from his deck, the UAW is certainly against the wave, and a bowed helicopter, such as Sea King, is standing on its nose along the storm, and it is regularly and periodically doused by the wave. I still do not understand why it was not washed away there, the wave hits the deck so hard! This is for you to the question of the possibility of storing aircraft at the UAV software. tongue
          Actually, the UAV hangar is necessary for repair, maintenance of aircraft, and, well, its long-term storage. But you, Oleg, are partly right in asserting that often Amer’s UAVs go to sea and even on duty with half of the aircraft assigned to them. And why should they be tormented with their placement and moving around the deck and hangar, namely, to suffer, if there is no war, and you can practice and show off with 45 LA (i.e. 50%). Because the presence on board of a full set of aircraft (90 pieces) leads to an increased risk of putting it out of service due to possible collisions during its maneuvers and movements on decks (and it’s worth it, hoo) and greatly complicates mass flights. negative But if a serious mess begins, not like Libya or Somalia, but as an adult, then be sure that there will be at least 90 LA (by state) in the UAV, or even more. soldier
          Example from your favorite Maldives (Falklene) conflict:
          the typical (regular in peacetime) composition of the wing of an Avisible type light carrier was 5 VTOL and 9 helicopters, then during the database it carried 10 Harrier and 9 helicopters! hi The same Hermes, 5 VTOL Harrier and 9 helicopters in the non-war, and in the conflict zone were from 18 to 20 VTOL. laughing
          1. doktor_alex
            doktor_alex 27 July 2013 17: 48 New
            +1
            The problem is not “wash off / will not wash off”, the problem is in salt, its deposition on the turbine blades does not lead to anything good, and even a deck height of 18-20 meters is hardly completely saved, there is always a small amount of suspension in the sea air (not confused with water vapor) salty sea water.
            1. old man54
              old man54 28 July 2013 14: 51 New
              0
              Quote: doktor_alex
              The problem is not “wash off / not wash off”, the problem is in salt,

              So you are mistaken, my dear, and fatally! wink It is because of what washed away in violent storms, or at best disabled aircraft (sometimes forever, before decommissioning), in almost all countries, cruiser, destroyer and frigate class ships built full-fledged hangars for helicopters! And in the beginning, we and the Britons and Amers had open deck storage, but ... The same thing with the sky-covered light aircraft carriers. If it didn’t flush, then it was damaged by the wave so that Mom did not cry! Did you yourself go to sea, not along the coast on the Kameta, but for real? If you had fallen in a storm, you wouldn’t write this, sorry!
              the problem is in the salt, its deposition on the turbine blades does not lead to anything good, and even the deck height in 18-20 meters is unlikely to completely save, in the sea air there is always a small amount of suspension (not to be confused with water vapor) of salty sea water

              and where is it? laughing Then, in your opinion, it is generally necessary to refuse deck, any, aviation, because One way or another, sea salt still falls on the glider, engine and aircraft mechanisms, regardless of whether it is stored in the Anger, or on PP! Or do you think that at UAV the hangar is hermetic at 100%? bully And the ventilation is not there, is it? Have you seen the exits to the aircraft lifts from the below-deck hangars on modern Amer’s SAWs? There, the width of the 2 railway car will pass! And they are closed only during a storm from 5 points (not sure), i.e. splashing the "sea" with the wind can be healthy in the hangar! And in even a small storm and gusty wind, the spray pulls into the hangar, so now, aircraft carriers as a class ban? Kapov will be delighted! laughing Yes, this is undoubtedly very harmful for aircraft, but this is the price paid for the opportunity to fly to the sea from a ship, including helicopters! They are being monitored more thoroughly, for aircraft technicians more trouble during maintenance, they are written off earlier, but ... you can’t do anything yet! But the reason you wrote something very far-fetched, most likely you’ve also invented one, forgive me! hi
              1. doktor_alex
                doktor_alex 29 July 2013 11: 40 New
                0
                1) My dear, you are neither an aircraft carrier, nor at least a missile cruiser alive, apparently. But I know you have seen and been. So, if the hangar on Nakhimov is so that the helicopters do not wash away, then with Gorshkov, you are standing on the outfitting embankment which rises by 5 meters above sea level and still look somewhere where the five-story roofs look to see the pot flying over, so that with your "not washed away" you are past. And so, for reference, the equipment on the flight deck when just "stand up" is unfastened with steel cables.
                2) American lift? No, I did not serve in the U.S. Navy, for that I was engaged in the repair of elevators (and not only) on Gorshkov and saw what you did not see for sure. So, I don’t know how they do, but our lifts in the upper position are sealed, there is rubber around the entire perimeter, which, at the signal of the automation, is inflated with air and pressurizes the hangar. And you very correctly remembered ventilation, the ship has a “ventilation and air conditioning” system, this system constantly delivers PURE DRY (especially for you in capital letters) air of a given temperature to all rooms, maintains a slight overpressure inside the hull, which prevents the flow of street air. I’m now anticipating that you’ll start: “what if you open the hangar, the outboard air immediately enters, everything rusts, etc.”, I’m saying right away, don’t pretend to be a fool, it’s not about a day or two that “the plane will go bad”, but that you shouldn’t salt it for months on the flight deck.
                3) No need to mix piston aircraft of the Second World War and modern turbojet. You can’t even imagine what requirements are imposed on a turbine blade rotating at 10-15 thousand revolutions per minute, but at the same time you offer how much it is in vain to cover them with salt after rolling a couple of months on the flight deck idle.
                4) Have you seen the instructions for exploitation or instructions for combat use? No? Only pictures? Then why did you decide that the hangars are constantly open? Oh, you’re not sure, then why write?
                5) I'm sure that I am writing, repairing a steamboat of a similar class for 5 years has been my job. Although I repeat, I am far from an expert in the combat use of this class of ships.
  4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 July 2013 09: 15 New
    +7
    Indeed - in the spirit of Clancy :))) But with a much greater share of imagination. Due to the fact that Oleg’s crusade against aircraft carriers began to fail, a completely “lethal” argument was used. It turns out that Nimitz-type aircraft carriers could not take more than 45 aircraft on board, and more than 12 aircraft could not participate in the departure! :)
    "Where are the woods from?", - we can ask a question, and we will ask this question! :))))
    12 aircraft - this is the maximum number of machines in the launch cycle from Nimitz, in which one pair is in 5 minute readiness, and the rest is ready from 15 minutes to one hour. It is not possible to increase the size of the strike group

    Where did Oleg Kaptsov come from with such amazing revelations? But from where. Earlier in the comments to the article "ocean predator" Oleg quoted an article by a certain Kabernik. V.V. "Evaluation of the combat power of aircraft carriers" http://eurasian-defence.ru/node/3602
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    A Nimitz class aircraft carrier, without interference for all types of flight operations using all launches, can simultaneously hold up to 2 links (8 machines) on deck, one of which can be in 5 minute readiness, and the rest are ready from 15- ty to 45 minutes.

    The truth is that the first fraud has already begun - the author of the article writes about readiness from 15 to 45 minutes, Oleg - from 15 minutes to an hour. But this is only the beginning ... If Oleg claims that more than 12 aircraft cannot participate in one group, then V.V. Kabernik writes
    At the same time, the capacity of regular prelaunch positions is 12 vehicles - this is the squadron of the first echelon that can appear in the air in the first 45 minutes.

    Those. 12 cars - this is not the entire air group being lifted, but only one that is able to take off within 45 minutes. The maximum number of aircraft in one take-off in Cabernik is 20 aircraft (all there http://eurasian-defence.ru/node/3602)
    The maximum volume of the raised air group is no more than 20 cars

    By the way, what are we all - Cabernet and Cabernet? Who is this Cabernet? Pilot of naval aviation? Retired Admiral? Air Force Colonel? Yeah, shchazz :)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 July 2013 09: 16 New
      +8
      Kabernik Vitaliy Vladimirovich - Head of the Department for Advanced Research and Educational Development of the Innovation Development Department of MGIMO (University) of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs since the 2008 year, member of the working groups on cybersecurity and Internet development at the PIR Center.
      Areas of research interests: cybersecurity, cyber weapons, international security, systems modeling, geoinformatics, missile defense, strategic deterrence. He is the author of special courses at the postgraduate and graduate level on problems of ensuring international security and information security, co-author of works on international political topics: monographs and encyclopedias, author of more than 10 articles.
      http://eurasian-defence.ru/?q=content/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8
      %D0%BA-%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9-%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8
      %D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87
      High specialist, high :)))))) It is not surprising that Oleg Kaptsov was too shy to indicate the source of his innermost knowledge. But he did not hesitate to “cut off” even the modest figures that the “source” quoted by him to please his point of view. And, of course, without any embarrassment, Oleg gives them a personally edited opinion of a cybersecurity specialist for the ultimate truth ...
      What's next, Oleg? What else are you ready to go to defend your point of view?
      1. Santa Fe
        25 July 2013 11: 27 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        personally edited opinion of a cybersecurity specialist for the ultimate truth ...

        And you probably say that all the planes from the list of "USS Enterprise (CVAN 65) WestPac Cruise Book 1974-75" fit on the ship?))

        Hangar Nimitsa. With perfect loading, the whole 34 fighter, 2 AWACS and 10 turntables got into. At the same time xs how to move and service them now; and how long will it take to pull the equipment onto the flight deck
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 July 2013 12: 32 New
          +6
          Oleg, frankly, there’s no desire to discuss all this - I can be mistaken, I can forget something or not know, but, unlike you, I will NEVER consciously lie to readers. Therefore, you, as an interlocutor, are completely uninteresting to me, and what I am writing is not writing for you, but for those to whom you are trying to hang noodles on your ears.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Hangar Nimitsa. With perfect loading, the whole 34 fighter, 2 AWACS and 10 turntables got into. At the same time xs how to move and service them now; and how long will it take to pull the equipment onto the flight deck

          Particularly "pleased" the pearl about the service. Oleg apparently believes that the F / A-18 is an adult man’s knee-deep, which’s why and if there are no significant gaps between the planes, that means there’s no way for a man to squeeze, and even about a rocket or an outboard tank — the claw didn’t ring at all.
          At the same time, if Oleg looked at least at this photo (I’ll try to attach it, but recently the photos haven’t clung - because I post the link to the photo http://warships.ru/usa/Aircraft/Fixed_Wing/F -18_% 27Hornet% 27 / F-18_% 28air_show% 29
          .jpg
          So, if Oleg would have looked at this photo, he would have understood that for servicing aircraft and even hanging part of the weapon (it’s clear that you can’t hang a heavy bomb on folded wingtips) MORE THAN SUFFICIENT space under the wings of the plane is under the wing of the same Hornet, if that, in full growth can stand a man of average height. There is a good selection of photos of the Hornets - you can download it here http://armsbook.net/voenaja-tehnika/84530-boeing-fa18-abcd-hornet-uncovering-the
          -2.html
          1. Santa Fe
            25 July 2013 21: 59 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I’m writing not for you, but for those to whom you are trying to hang noodles on your ears.

            Forum visitors themselves will determine who is right.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            it will not begin to squeeze a man there, let alone a rocket or a hanging tank there

            "aircraft maintenance" means not only the suspension of the PTB and weapons; in such a hangar configuration, it will be extremely difficult to disassemble the turbine or replace the faulty assembly in the hydraulics

            However, Andrei, as always, hit into pettiness, but does not want to answer the main question:
            with perfect placement in the hangar, they managed to ram the 36 planes + 10 turntables. where are the rest of the Hornets, Growlers and Hawkai? According to the calculation of an authoritative expert, Ph.D. Stepanova (79-46 = 33) is missing another 33 machine. where are they?)))
            1. doktor_alex
              doktor_alex 26 July 2013 00: 27 New
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              in such a hangar configuration, it will be extremely difficult to disassemble the turbine or replace the faulty assembly in the hydraulics


              Why would it be difficult then? Do you think they are standing right in the butt, the mouse will not slip? There is half a meter between the fuselages and enough to fix anything! Apparently they did not hold a sledgehammer and a wrench. And turbines in general in traveling conditions are not seriously repaired by anyone, much less can be dismantled, for those same tomkets there was always a reserve of 8 turbines, which stupidly changed entirely.
              1. Santa Fe
                26 July 2013 00: 54 New
                +1
                Quote: doktor_alex
                Why would it be difficult then? Do you think they are standing right in the butt, the mouse will not slip? There is half a meter between the fuselages and enough to fix anything!

                Even if it’s worth, it’s only 36 aircraft
                Where are the others?
                1. doktor_alex
                  doktor_alex 26 July 2013 01: 02 New
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Where are the others?


                  It makes no difference to me, I don’t argue about quantity, I refute your statement about service problems.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    26 July 2013 01: 16 New
                    0
                    Quote: doktor_alex
                    for those same tomcat there was always a supply of 8 turbines that stupidly changed entirely.

                    How to change 8 turbines, if Tomkets are close to the end?))
                    Quote: doktor_alex
                    It makes no difference to me, I don’t argue about the quantity

                    This is actually a key point
                    1. doktor_alex
                      doktor_alex 26 July 2013 01: 26 New
                      +7
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      How to change 8 turbines, if Tomkets are close to the end?))


                      And you just didn’t think that for such a major repair there is a special zone with the necessary loading and transport equipment? No? I will tell you more, at wikramadity (potter) there is a special stand for testing turbines. How to deliver a failed plane there? In general, a separate team is responsible for the arrangement and movement of aircraft in the hangar, which, after sending 1-2 aircraft to the flight deck, will be able to move any aircraft to any point in the hangar, have you played tag games?

                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      This is actually a key point


                      This is the key moment with you from Mr. Chelyabinsk, and the key point is that you are an amateur and do not blush blushing.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        26 July 2013 01: 40 New
                        0
                        Quote: doktor_alex
                        sending an aircraft to the flight deck of the 1-2

                        How can she send them there))) On the flight deck of 40 there are planes - there is nowhere for an apple to fall
                        Quote: doktor_alex
                        will be able to move any plane to anywhere in the hangar, have you played tag games?

                        For such an offer, American sailors will beat you - to play tag with 20-ton aircraft))) Rubik's Cube)))
                      2. doktor_alex
                        doktor_alex 26 July 2013 01: 57 New
                        +2
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        On the flight deck 40 planes are standing - there is nowhere to fall an apple

                        This is where I wrote this? On the march - the flight deck is empty. Do not spread your disputes about the number of aircraft to me.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        American sailors will beat you - to play tag with 20-ton aircraft))) Rubik's Cube)))


                        About tag, it was written for you to at least somehow come to the conclusion that in order to roll one plane to a particular point of the hangar, it is not necessary to unload the remaining 40 units on a flight, moreover, the hangar to the eyeballs is jammed only during the transition when the entire materiel is in good working order, and on mission, the rotation of the aircraft inside the hangar is constant, and there are almost always at least 4-5 pieces of equipment missing, in short, tie a fool here, tired of telling obvious things to the child ....

                        Z.Y. and in general, this is the army, it will be necessary, they will play tag in airplanes, but they will order, so the entire aircraft carrier around some important nut that does not loosen.
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 July 2013 10: 15 New
                        +2
                        Quote: doktor_alex
                        This is where I wrote this? On the march - the flight deck is empty. Do not spread your disputes about the number of aircraft to me.

                        Forgive me for not climbing into my discussion, but as far as I know, American aircraft carriers have never carried an entire air group in a hangar since World War II. Part of the air group was always located on the deck. I am wrong?
                      4. doktor_alex
                        doktor_alex 26 July 2013 11: 26 New
                        +2
                        I do not have such information, and it is unlikely that anyone else has it besides people who have access to instructions for combat use. Of course, I’m not an expert either, but I see that in bad weather conditions there is nothing for the aircraft to fly on flight at all, in good weather most likely a certain number of planes are on duty on the flight but not as it is usually seen in the photo when the whole deck is forced, rather like in this picture
                      5. doktor_alex
                        doktor_alex 26 July 2013 12: 16 New
                        +1
                        Perhaps this is a typical LA camping trip
                      6. old man54
                        old man54 27 July 2013 16: 03 New
                        +1
                        Quote: doktor_alex
                        Perhaps this is a typical LA camping trip

                        it’s exactly what’s marching, or rather marching-training, not combat! hi
                      7. doktor_alex
                        doktor_alex 27 July 2013 17: 51 New
                        +1
                        I agree that in combat everything that is possible to be placed on the flight deck for the fastest possible sending into the air, everything will be there, the rest will be prepared in the hangar and rise already armed and refueled as seats become available.
  5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 July 2013 08: 29 New
    +2
    The rest of the 33 cars, Oleg are standing on the deck.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 July 2013 11: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The rest of the 33 cars, Oleg are standing on the deck.

      In this case, the aircraft from the hangar will quietly rust
      There is no way to apply it - until you lift a couple of squadrons with elevators, it’s time to remove them back - there are cars going to the landing, which are “usually based on the flight deck”

      There’s also such a trick: 10 of small MH-60 are hidden in the hangar, which supposedly gives reason for 46 cars in the hangar. But Stepanov instead of a pair of turntables has bulky Vikings (Shadow) and AWACS

      And the parking dimensions of the f-14 and f-18 are very different in size (the "cat" wings could not bend up and even when folded, their span was larger than the spread wings of a hornet). At the same time, the cat is probably longer by a couple of meters.

      But Ph.D. Stepanov knows how to control the space-time continuum! (by the way, diser probably defended in the yurga)
  • Arberes
    Arberes 25 July 2013 10: 05 New
    +8
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Indeed - in the spirit of Clancy :))) But with a much greater share of imagination.

    ANDREW, hello dear hi
    OLEG, I also greet you with respect hi
    Let me speak to an amateur from our glorious Navy?
    I’ve been watching your disputes and discussions for a long time (God knows, I would have known more about the fleet and would have gotten myself involved), but as they say, it’s not fate! The opinion of professionals at least always provokes a keen interest in me, but if he tells another story from his life associated with the service, it’s generally wonderful!
    I have been reading OLEG articles for a long time and with great interest, moreover, they are usually also beautifully designed! I associate the author as an integral part of our favorite site. I am grateful to this person already for his work and work for all of us - dear friends and colleagues.
    Now about fantasy? Many are not happy with his free interpretation of facts and events (if I understand correctly?). Well, maybe there is such a sin, but is it really interesting to write? The lyrics make up for physics! Is it bad that the imagination of a respected author can take us to another time and build a conditional, but rather interesting chain of events before our eyes?
    Maybe he will write our RUSSIAN bestseller called "The Last Way of Enterprise" or "Crimson Sea"!
    At least I see a great potential in him, and ANDREY, in you too! drinks
    The only thing I can’t understand is not Oleg’s love for aircraft carriers, or am I mistaken ???
    GUYS-in no way did not want to offend any of you !!! If something offended, I apologize earlier hi
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 25 July 2013 11: 30 New
      +3
      Oleg has an opinion that if the aircraft carriers did not really show themselves in any way, then they are not needed at all. Indeed, most of the tasks the Americans solved with the help of ground-based aviation, so Oleg believes that if the share of use of carrier-based aviation was 10% for example, then these 10% can be neglected. At the same time, for a share of 10%, it is not visible how many sorties there were, on which side they were carried out, with what intensity and in general during what period. Take Vietnam as an example. Land aviation operated from airfields located in southern Vietnam, so it is not difficult to imagine how to properly position air defense forces to repel their attacks. The presence of aircraft carriers forced the Vietnamese to deploy air defense forces, taking into account the possibility of striking from the sea, thereby reducing the concentration of air defense systems in the main direction.
      In the hypothetical case described by him with the adopted alignment of forces (he initially proposed another option 2 pr.1134B, 2 pr.1135 and 2 pr.61), the convoy attack by the forces of the air wing of the AB Enterprise was really risky and most likely the losses would be significant. By the way, it was the strengthening of the USSR fleet with anti-aircraft missile systems that led the USA to the creation of the Harpoon anti-ship missile ...
      1. Santa Fe
        25 July 2013 11: 46 New
        +4
        Quote: Nayhas
        Land aviation operated from airfields located in southern Vietnam, so it is not difficult to imagine how to properly position air defense forces to repel their attacks. The presence of aircraft carriers forced the Vietnamese to have air defense forces, taking into account the possibility of striking from the sea

        Yankee airbases were located throughout the region - from Thailand to the Japanese islands - the Air Force bombed Vietnam from any direction except the north (where the PRC)

        Of course, the South airfields were especially heavily used. Vietnam - the same PMTO / Camran air base the Yankees built for themselves
        Quote: Nayhas
        The presence of aircraft carriers forced the Vietnamese to have air defense forces, taking into account the possibility of striking from the sea

        The U.S. Navy carrier celebrates victory in Vietnam))

        Quote: Nayhas
        (initially he proposed another version of 2 Ave. 1134Б, 2 Ave. 1135 and 2 Ave. 61)

        Yes, it’s the same, but it would be longer to describe
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 25 July 2013 14: 47 New
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The U.S. Navy carrier celebrates victory in Vietnam))

          Well, I'm happy for them, but what does this photograph have to do with our topic?
          1. avt
            avt 25 July 2013 18: 02 New
            +1
            Quote: Nayhas
            Well, I'm happy for them, but what does this photograph have to do with our topic?

            So the campaign argument ended so he just frolics. laughing A photo seems to be from the time when they draped from the Amer embassy - then they simply threw it into the water in order to free the deck. That's Iroquois and gurgled, then they had nowhere to go except for the fleet’s ships, they surrounded them. laughing
        2. old man54
          old man54 25 July 2013 21: 59 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The U.S. Navy carrier celebrates victory in Vietnam))

          Did they really win there? bully
      2. old man54
        old man54 25 July 2013 21: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        Take Vietnam as an example.

        Actually, the Vietnam War was almost 50 years ago, and bringing it as an argument into the effectiveness of aircraft carriers is somehow frivolous! We actually already live in 2013, now other aircraft, other performance characteristics of these aircraft and other weapons to them!
  • Santa Fe
    25 July 2013 11: 23 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The truth is that the first fraud has already begun - the author of the article writes about readiness from 15 to 45 minutes, Oleg - from 15 minutes to an hour. But this is only the beginning ..

    Naturally, there are more planes here
    The Enterprise was also given a head start - a DRLO plane, a couple of Tomcat escorts and a Viking should be included in the launch cycle, and since it’s unknowingly for an aircraft carrier to go without a PLO)))

    Why is the startup cycle so long? After all, if all the machines assigned to the combat mission are on the flight deck, then any of them is theoretically ready for an hour or so. If the machines would fly into the air faster, this would also increase their number from the maximum 20 to a higher number. In addition, the deck area, it would seem, allow you to prepare cars for take-off and in non-standard positions.

    In fact, the use of contingent prelaunch positions dramatically reduces the speed of preparation of machines for departure. The deck of the aircraft carrier is built in such a way that the ammunition elevators are located near the regular prelaunch positions, and there are all the necessary infrastructure for refueling and prelaunch inspections. The delivery of ammunition to emergency positions takes considerable time, and the number of mobile mechanization is obviously limited. Thus, preparation for the departure of the car at the emergency position takes hardly twice as much time - the same one and a half hours instead of the regular 45 minutes. The maximum number of aircraft in one launch cycle just implies the use of all available resources for training. At the same time, the capacity of regular prelaunch positions is 12 vehicles - this is the squadron of the first echelon that can appear in the air in the first 45 minutes.

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The maximum number of aircraft in one take-off over Cabernik is 20 aircraft (all in the same place http://eurasian-defence.ru/node/3602)

    Yes, but for this you need to block the landing zone
    But this cannot be given - on the approach a combat air patrol with Hawkai and an anti-submarine Viking with half-empty tanks

    I also liked the album "USS Enterprise (CVAN 65) WestPac Cruise Book 1974-75" - direct evidence that half of the aircraft is based on shore
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 July 2013 13: 21 New
      +6
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Yes, but for this you need to block the landing zone
      But this cannot be given - on the approach a combat air patrol with Hawkai and an anti-submarine Viking with half-empty tanks

      Dashtoty? :))))
      Oleg, I don’t even have words for you :))) We recall a desert storm - the average flight time of carrier-based fighters was 3 hours, and the maximum - up to 5 hours. Aircraft DRLO and control E-2С “Hokai” in the air were until 7 hours http://navycollection.narod.ru/library/docenko/11.htm
      And what, doesn’t you pick up “windows” for raising an air group? Must 24 hours a day need to keep the landing strip free? :)))
      But the MOST RISKY, Oleg, is that you are a master at refuting yourself. Look at the FIRST photo of your article. Yes, yes, which is at the very top :))) On the deck there are about 40 (!) Planes, while the 3 (!!) catapults are open and - you will not believe it, Oleg - the landing is open :))))
      Kabernik’s calculations, if anything, you can safely throw in the garbage chute.
      April 6 1999 g. ("D-13") in the zone of the Balkan armed conflict arrived USM Roosevelt of the US Navy with 8 m wing on board (total 79 combat aircraft and helicopters, including: 24 F / A fighter attack aircraft -18 Hornet, 28 Fighter
      F-14 Tomcat, four EA-6B Proler airplanes, five E-2C Hokai airborne aircraft, eight S-3B Viking marine control aircraft, two ES-3 Shadow airplanes and eight Sea Haw helicopters SH-60).
      The first combat mission to strike at targets in the autonomous region of Kosovo was carried out by carrier-based aircraft between 20.30 and 21.30 on 8 in April. The strike group included 14 aircraft: six F / A-18, two F-14, two EA-6B and four S-3B. Intensive use of carrier-based aircraft from the Roosevelt Avm aircraft began on April 10. In just 17 days of hostilities (April 6-23), carrier-based aircraft participated in delivering at least 26 group attacks (more than 500 sorties) at targets in Kosovo. Up to 20-35 vehicles were assigned to the shock groups (of which 15-19 F / A-18 “Hornet”, 7-10 F-14 “Tomcat”, 2-4 ЕА-6В “Prouler”, 2 Е-2С “Hokai”). Attacks on ground targets were carried out by carrier-based aircraft in flight units of three to four aircraft. For each strike link, one primary and two spare targets were assigned.
      http://gazetam.ru/no140701/st02.htm
      If anything, the author of the article, where does this passage come from - is a candidate of military sciences
      Captain 1 rank V. Stepanov.
      1. Santa Fe
        25 July 2013 22: 25 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        We recall the desert storm - the average flight time of carrier-based fighters was 3 hours, and the maximum - up to 5 hours

        Still, in the region there were 160 air tankers of the US Air Force and the countries of the Coalition
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And what, doesn’t you pick up “windows” for raising an air group? Must 24 hours a day need to keep the landing strip free? :)))

        Required. Indeed, in the air there are always two Hawkis, 4 Tomcat and Viking. And the discovery of the convoy (as well as the abnormal situation on board the aircraft) is a purely accidental matter.

        It’s worth remembering that the take-off cycle takes an hour and, if necessary, it will be difficult to remove fully charged “Intruders” from the landing strip and take a lot of time (you won’t fold their wings anymore - gunsmiths hung bombs).
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Look at the FIRST photo of your article. Yes, yes, which is at the very top :))) On the deck there are about 40 (!) Planes, while the 3 (!!) catapults are open and - you will not believe it, Oleg - the landing is open :))))

        Some strange arguments started))

        There are about 30 cars standing there - almost all with folded wings, in a sky-ready state. The deck crew will only spread their wings and hang bombs for an hour. At the same time, they blocked all the elevators.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Up to 20-35 vehicles were assigned to the shock groups

        It’s easy. Just the launch cycle will stretch for 2-3 hours and you can forget about the massive impact.
        Here, in fact, is the answer:
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Attacks on ground targets by deck aircraft inflicted as a part of three to four aircraft

        Here is such a shock density.
        Lambeth writes similarly: according to the plan, at every moment in time, the target must bomb the 2 cars - to form even a massive blow will not work
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        US Navy Roosevelt Avm with 8 m wing on board (total 79 combat aircraft and helicopters, including: 24 F / A-18 Hornet attack fighter, 28 fighter

        Ph.D. Stepanov rewrote this from the Pentagon site, not at all trying to figure it out. Half of the air wing attributed to Roosevelt was deployed at air bases in Europe

        Now let Ph.D. Stepanov will cut out the mock-ups of the flight and hangar decks from cardboard, glue the planes on the same scale and try to push units of aircraft into Nimitz 79 (so that it can work normally).
        I think you can help him in this hopeless affair.
        1. doktor_alex
          doktor_alex 26 July 2013 00: 54 New
          +4
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The deck crew will only spread their wings and hang bombs for an hour.


          What will the deck crew do? To straighten the wings? You are sorry, but after such statements, you just can’t be taken seriously.


          Watch from 3:20, you will have a shock to what the technique has reached.

          Z.Y. I honestly don’t care, we need aircraft carriers, I don’t need them, your purely technical blunders cut my eyes.
          1. Santa Fe
            26 July 2013 00: 59 New
            0
            Quote: doktor_alex
            what will the deck crew do? To straighten the wings?

            And hang bombs))
            Quote: doktor_alex
            Your purely technical blunders cut my eyes.

            I am amused by your attempts to find a black cat where it is not))
            1. doktor_alex
              doktor_alex 26 July 2013 01: 09 New
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              I am amused by your attempts to find a black cat where it is not))


              But it saddens me that people who saw military equipment only in pictures argue about such things (in your case, it catches your eye), because unfortunately it will seem to many (yes, I already see a couple of posts here to whom it really seemed) that you This issue is a specialist, which by itself is far from the truth.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 July 2013 09: 29 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Still, in the region there were 160 air tankers of the US Air Force and the countries of the Coalition

          Considering that the figures I have given correspond to the flight range at my gas station, I don’t think that air tankers have anything to do with it
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Required. Indeed, in the air there are always two Hawkis, 4 Tomcat and Viking. And the discovery of the convoy (as well as the abnormal situation on board the aircraft) is a purely accidental matter.

          Not necessary. Since, after the enemy convoy is detected and taking into account the remaining fuel at the patrol, it is easy to either set the patrol up, sending a new one to the sky, or (if there is enough fuel and there is a possibility not to land) - raise the strike group.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          It is worth remembering that the take-off cycle takes an hour.

          That's it, just an hour
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Intruders from the runway will be difficult and time consuming

          What for? They will probably be raised faster into the air
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Some strange arguments started))

          Look at your
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          There are about 30 cars there,

          I forgot how to count? :))
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The deck crew will only spread their wings for an hour

          Already answered
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          It’s easy. Just the launch cycle will stretch for 2-3 hours and you can forget about the massive impact.

          Oleg, well, complete nonsense. And even you, with your “two or three hours”, would be able to figure it out. Suppose you are even right (although you are wrong) and the rise of an air group in 20 aircraft takes 2 hours. If the first AWACS and fighters (whose combat load — several air-to-air missiles are insignificant and allows you to take the PTB) —they are more than able to hang in the air for an hour and wait for the lift of heavily loaded Intruders.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Ph.D. Stepanov rewrote this from the Pentagon site, not at all trying to figure it out.

          Well, yes - your source is much more solid :)))
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          I think you can help him in this hopeless affair.

          Oleg, from the time of World War II, American aircraft carriers DO NOT take a full air group in the hangar - part of it is always on deck
          1. Santa Fe
            26 July 2013 11: 04 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I don't think air tankers have anything to do with it


            Navy EA-6B electronics countermeasures aircraft refueling from an Air Force KC-135 tanker overt Saudi Arabia. Another EA-6B is taking on fuel from a Navy KA-6 tanker in the background.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            That's it, just an hour

            and all 12 airplanes
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            What for? They will probably be raised faster into the air

            and Hawkai will wait an hour without fuel.
            However, Rambo used to defeat hundreds of enemies without reloading weapons
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I forgot how to count? :))

            How much is the car on the flight deck of the "America" ​​(excluding the Tomkets that blocked the strip)?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The deck crew will only spread their wings for an hour. Already answered

            You see, in Euclidean space, to spread your wings you need to slightly disperse the machines ... move them apart
            Ku
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            An 20 aircraft takes 2 hours. If the first AWACS and fighters (whose combat load — several air-to-air missiles are insignificant and allows you to take the PTB) —they are more than able to hang in the air for an hour and wait for the heavy-loaded Intruders to rise.

            20 airplanes)))

            two raids against heavily defended Iraqi nuclear installations in Al-Tuwait, south of Baghdad. The first raid was carried out on the day of January 18, with 32 F-16C aircraft armed with conventional unguided bombs accompanied by 16 F-15C fighters, four EF-111 jammers, eight anti-radar F-4G and 15 XC-XC tankers.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Oleg, from the time of World War II, American aircraft carriers DO NOT take a full air group in the hangar - part of it is always on deck

            Those. you have 36 aircraft in the hangar tightly packed and 40 blocked the flight deck up and down.

            Indeed, according to Stepanov’s legend, instead of a pair of turntables, they will have to take bulky AWACS and Viking aboard, and the dimensions of the f-14 and the Hornets are slightly different from each other (the tomcat wings did not bend up)

            Aircraft carrier named after Stepanova: neither take off, nor land. And in the hangar there is still as much sticking out, but there is no way to pull out and use these aircraft
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 July 2013 11: 43 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Navy EA-6B electronics countermeasures aircraft refueling from an Air Force KC-135

              In cases where
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              and the maximum - up to 5 hours.

              - it is of course.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              and all 12 airplanes

              20
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              and Hawkai will wait an hour without fuel.

              Is this a hokai? Which is designed for three to four hour patrols at a distance of 300 km from AB? wassat
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              How much is the car on the flight deck of the "America" ​​(excluding the Tomkets that blocked the strip)?

              And why didn’t the Tomkats please you? Now will you "ramify" Saomlets ramming? A plane standing on deck is not considered such if it is Tomcat?
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              You see, in Euclidean space

              In the Euclidean space of the aircraft carrier 46 LA in the hangar, the rest on the flight. (As in your photo).
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              20 airplanes)))

              In the carbon monoxide smoke of your fantasies, do not forget about it :))))
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              .e. you have 36 aircraft in the hangar tightly packed and 40 blocked the flight deck up and down.

              The aircraft carrier does not have 36 aircraft, but 36 aircraft and 10 helicopters in the hangar. This is even F-22, by the way, which will be a bit larger than the Hornets and intruders.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              the tomcat’s wings did not bend up

              only the dimensions of Tomcat with folded wings are not too different (if at all different) from the dimensions of the F-22 with folded wings from your picture :)
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Aircraft carrier named after Stepanova: neither take off, nor land.

              Yes. And also - we built the same Ulyanovsk, you won’t believe it :)))))
              1. Santa Fe
                26 July 2013 12: 15 New
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In cases where

                flew from the Red Sea
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                20

                Then the cycle is longer - up to two hours
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Is this a hokai? Which is designed for three to four hour patrols at a distance of 300 km from AB?

                And also his escort and viking, by the way, you have not forgotten, in the air 2 combat patrol
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                And why didn’t the Tomkats please you?

                Tomkats block the landing zone
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                There are about 40 (!) Planes on the deck, while the 3 (!!) catapults are open and - you will not believe Oleg - the landing is open:))))

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                36 aircraft and 10 helicopters in the hangar.

                Stepanov’s not going to succeed, instead of two turntables there should be a DRLO and a Viking Shadow plane
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                This is even F-22, by the way, which will be a bit larger than the Hornets and intruders.

                I hasten to please - it's F-35С, which are shorter than Tomcat by 4 meter
                Despite the fact that the f-14, as I already said, the wings did not fold up and stick out to the sides by 11 meters - wider than the spread wings of Hornet

                So in the "configuration Stepanova" in the hangar and 30 cars are unlikely to fit
      2. Santa Fe
        25 July 2013 23: 00 New
        0
        This passage was especially touched:

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        If anything, the author of the article, where does this passage come from - is a candidate of military sciences
        Captain 1 rank V. Stepanov.


        Ranks, degrees and regalia - this is not an argument. Truth remains truth, no matter who says it: even if A. Hitler himself says that 2 + 2 = 4 I will be forced to agree with him

        By the way, about Chelyabinsk:
        How do you get degrees in your universities (which with a spire is similar to Moscow State University) - this is generally something. Cunning Chelyabinsk citizens, realizing that their dissertation is suitable for the cat ("turbulent flows in sanitary ware") came up with their own version of protection - assign a work to the signature stamp and defend with a half-empty audience; all Muscovites and other invited opponents go through the woods

        And Chelyabinsk itself is a city with a difficult fate. This is a meteorite, a trifle. A couple of years ago they had a bromine tank spilled right at the railway station in the city center)))
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 July 2013 09: 33 New
          +6
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Ranks, degrees and regalia - this is not an argument. Truth remains truth, no matter who says it:

          Oleg, your sources are divided into 2 categories - those who are scumbag carriers (you write them in the truth in the last resort) and all the rest
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          By the way, about Chelyabinsk:
          How do you get degrees in your universities (which with a spire is similar to Moscow State University) - this is generally something.

          laughing Those. Having purged discussions on aircraft carriers, did you decide to attack my hometown with grief? :)) Nu-nu :)))
          1. Santa Fe
            26 July 2013 11: 19 New
            -1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Oleg, your sources are divided into 2 categories - those who are scumbag carriers (you write them in the truth in the last resort) and all the rest

            And what to do, Ph.D. Stepanov wrote nonsense. You joyfully copied it
            Alas, the focus with the last straw did not fail.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Those. purging discussions on aircraft carriers

            too flat and pathetic

            Finally, find the strength in you to admit your own wrong. More than 40-50 units have never been based on Nimitz. aircraft
            it’s pointless to take on board 80 airplanes - it’s impossible to use equipment from the hangar when the flight deck is busy, it will just rust quietly
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 July 2013 13: 59 New
              +4
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              And what to do, Ph.D. Stepanov wrote nonsense. You joyfully copied it

              Well, yes - Oleg finally found the truth in the last resort - Cabernica :)) Now, of course, ALL sources, no matter how many they will be declared heretical :))) And Oleg will be bustling - the number of air wings is large? So half is based on land (one proof - Cabernick wrote so) Photos of aircraft carriers with 30-40 vehicles placed on them? And this means that the hangar is empty, everyone was pulled out onto the deck :)) (one proof - this is what Cabernik wrote) Does someone there write about air groups in 20-35 airplanes? Nonsense, that means they didn’t work as a group, but separately from each other :))) (Indeed, Cabernik wrote this)
              Oleg, I have only one question. Cabernet did not bring any sources of revelation. He does not rely on sources, but on his logic. So my question is - if I explain where and what Cabernik made a mistake - what will you do then?
              1. Santa Fe
                26 July 2013 14: 23 New
                +2
                stop making faces and mention Cabernet. looks sorry
                Cabernet just said a well-known thing: the number of decked wing rarely exceeds 45 cars
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                And Oleg will bustle - is the number of air wings large? So half is based on land (one proof - as Cabernick wrote)

                One Eye Proof

                Here the 22 F-14 cluttered the entire deck.
                Based on Stepanov’s calculations, 6 Tomkets, 24 F / A-18 Hornet attack aircraft, four EA-6B Proler airplanes, five E-2C Hokai AWACS, eight marine control planes should be added here furnishings of the S-3B Viking, two ESR-3A Shadow planes + turntables. Total here you need to add 49 aircraft.

                Even if 30 of them fit in the hangar - to dump another 19 units of bulky aircraft on the flight deck, it means to completely reorganize the ship - all elevators, catapults and the landing zone will be blocked

                Authors who insist on 80..90 machines just rewrite the same nonsense, not understanding the logic of the US Navy aviation. Although it is worth looking at the picture and everything becomes extremely obvious. Without any Caberniks and Stepanovs
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 July 2013 14: 28 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Cabernet just said a well-known thing: the number of decked wing rarely exceeds 45 cars

                  I repeat to you once more - if I explain on my fingers that Cabernik is wrong - your actions?
                  1. Santa Fe
                    26 July 2013 14: 38 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    if I explain on my fingers that Cabernik is wrong - your actions?

                    I'm not so interested in Cabernet.
                    I'm wondering how to stuff 79 tomcat and hornets onto the Nimitz deck
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 July 2013 14: 54 New
                      +2
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      I'm wondering how to stuff 79 tomcat and hornets onto the Nimitz deck

                      Oleg, do not distort. 79 Tomcat and Hornet on AB spawn did not happen. 20 Tomcat 20 Hornets and 20 Intruders - yes, 48 Hornet - as many as you want, 24 Tomcat and 24 Intruders - again please.
                      For example, I give a layout - with pictures and diagrams about the basing and use of a typical air group, say, with 48 shock Hornets, 6 Growlers, 4 AWACS and other aircraft. What will happen?:)
                    2. Santa Fe
                      26 July 2013 15: 00 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      79 Tomcat and Hornet on AB spawn never happened

                      How so! Stepanov writes specifically about 79 units. aircraft, you actively supported his theory, even highlighted something in bold

                      I’m wondering how 79 cars, including 28 gigantic Tomcat, fit on a ship
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      For example, I give a layout - with pictures and diagrams about the basing and use of a typical air group, say, with 48 shock Hornets, 6 Growlers, 4 AWACS and other aircraft. What will happen?:)

                      these are all 60-65 machines. in need 80-90
                      mess, Andrey

                      40 here with cents, but it looks like a crush in the Tokyo subway
                    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 July 2013 15: 12 New
                      +1
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      How so! Stepanov writes specifically about 79 units. aircraft, you actively supported his theory, even highlighted something in bold

                      Clear. When it comes to specifics, Oleg begins to catch again
                      We read what Stepanov writes ONCE AGAIN
                      April 6 1999 g. ("D-13") in the zone of the Balkan armed conflict arrived USM Roosevelt of the US Navy with 8 m wing on board (total 79 combat aircraft and helicopters, including: 24 F / A fighter attack aircraft -18 Hornet, 28 Fighter
                      F-14 Tomcat, four EA-6B Proler airplanes, five E-2C Hokai airborne aircraft, eight S-3B Viking marine control aircraft, two ES-3 Shadow airplanes and eight Sea Haw helicopters SH-60)

                      Where did you see 79 Tomcat and Hornetov, Oleg?
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      I’m wondering how 79 cars, including 28 gigantic Tomcat, fit on a ship

                      Well, if I describe the deployment of the air group indicated by Stepanov, then what?
                    4. Santa Fe
                      26 July 2013 16: 59 New
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      F-14 Tomcat, four EA-6B Proler airplanes, five E-2C Hokai airborne aircraft, eight S-3B Viking marine control aircraft, two ES-3 Shadow airplanes and eight Sea Haw helicopters SH-60)

                      The US aircraft carrier is no easier on this. The decks turned into an impassable second-hand warehouse.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Well, if I describe the deployment of the air group indicated by Stepanov, then what?

                      Actually, I will keep talking about this all day - I’m interested in looking at the air group of 79 Tomcat, Hornet, Hkaev and other waffles, similar to Roosevelt in Yugoslavia
                    5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 July 2013 19: 36 New
                      +1
                      Oleg, I realized that it’s interesting for you - but I’m wondering what will happen if I sign it all, and then what? Then you will run the next "expert" in the younger group of kindergarten to look for, or what? You know, the work is quite voluminous, it will be necessary to draw a lot ...
                      So I wonder if I prove that this air group could work with AB - what will you do next?
                    6. Santa Fe
                      26 July 2013 21: 31 New
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      You know, the work is quite voluminous, it will be necessary to draw a lot ...

                      Great, make an article
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      if I prove that this air group could work with AB - what will you do next?

                      And if you can’t prove it, what will you do?

                      After all the pictures in the style of "crush in the Tokyo subway", the statement about the location of 79 cars on Roosevelt looks like a curiosity. If only in the form of air transport ... or storage facilities
                    7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 July 2013 13: 58 New
                      +1
                      So, after all, you’ll run another "expert" in kindergarten to look for
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      And if you can’t prove it, what will you do?

                      Yes, you, my friend, a Jew - answer a question with a question? :))) If I can’t, I admit that I was wrong :)))
                  2. old man54
                    old man54 27 July 2013 16: 30 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    but I’m wondering what will happen if I sign it all, and then what? Then you will run another "expert" in the younger group of kindergarten to look for,

                    How much arrogance is in you, it somehow somehow became unpleasant right away, kolega (I don’t want to call you anything namesake), you yourself are probably no less than an academician. laughing I did not expect such pathos from you, sorry! It is clear that in your person we have here the former rather than the real teacher of one of the country's Higher Military School, but anyway, that tone ... negative
                  3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 July 2013 01: 48 New
                    +1
                    Quote: old man54
                    How much arrogance is in you, it has somehow become unpleasant

                    Sorry, but neither desire to blush nor apologize.
                    Quote: old man54
                    I don’t want to call you namesake already

                    I don't know if I can survive this laughing
                    Quote: old man54
                    It is clear that in your face we have here

                    Please do not have anyone here, especially in my face laughing My face strongly disagrees with having it here or anywhere else laughing It, this face, will scream and abut, maybe even waving its fists laughing laughing
                  4. old man54
                    old man54 28 July 2013 15: 05 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Sorry, but neither desire to blush nor apologize.

                    and no one already doubted that. If this happened, then personally, I would be surprised even. fellow
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                    Please do not have anyone here, especially in my face

                    Well, in vain you were so happy, judging by your emotions, no one planned exactly this with yours! I have a normal heterosexual orientation, and I don’t accept fagoting in principle, relax already! lol
                  5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 July 2013 15: 37 New
                    +1
                    Quote: old man54
                    and no one already doubted that.

                    So what was the matter? If you believe that I was rude to Oleg Kaptsov and / or went beyond what is allowed on the forum - there is a button "Report abuse of the site’s rules". If you are not comfortable with my comments, nobody forces you to read them. My dialogue with Kaptsov, excuse me, this is our dialogue with him - and I don’t think that Kaptsov needed defenders. If you want to clarify something on the merits of the comments - you are welcome, but I would ask you to refrain from commenting on the form of this dialogue. My arrogance is not directed at you, and your heat with which you are trying to teach me good manners is completely incomprehensible to me.
                    Quote: old man54
                    Well, in vain you were so happy, judging by your emotions

                    You seem to have decided to suspect me of "blue" inclinations? What a high standard of communication from a person who undertook to teach me good manners .... Or did it seem to me?
  • old man54
    old man54 25 July 2013 21: 48 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    It turns out that Nimitz-type aircraft carriers could not take more 45 aircraft on board

    and where does the "USS Nimitz" (CVN-68) ?? sort of talk about "USS Enterprise". wink
    1. Santa Fe
      25 July 2013 22: 47 New
      +2
      Quote: old man54
      "USS Nimitz" (CVN-68) ?? sort of talk about "USS Enterprise"

      In the matter under consideration, they are almost twins
  • avt
    avt 25 July 2013 09: 17 New
    +8
    laughing Tom Clancy’s laurels keep you awake? It’s clear about the aircraft carrier, hatred for him is a religious feeling laughing, but ------ ,, The primitive Shrike could not boast of efficiency: in Vietnam, the average missile consumption per radar reached 10 pieces - the inevitable errors in the operation of the homing head, the insufficient speed of the chips and missile drives affected. "----- it is certainly beautiful, but at the end of the seventies we weren’t a storyteller, but a very specific lieutenant colonel - a participant in the Vietnam war told me that there was no life from the radar station, after the first losses, the amers quickly rebuilt the tactics of using aviation and there were it’s very difficult, really difficult when the radar is turned on when approaching aircraft, they demolished it at times if you get a little gape. He himself fell under the Shrike, escaped with a slight wound.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 July 2013 09: 43 New
      +8
      as far as I know, the worst thing in Shriki was not even that they “felled” our radars so qualitatively, but that they simply did not allow the radars to work normally - and while the radars either had to turn off or turn on several radars alternately (to make the shrike to rush to one target now to another) attack planes carried out the position of the air defense batteries.
      1. avt
        avt 25 July 2013 10: 14 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        and the fact that they simply did not allow the radar to work normally - and while the radar either had to turn off or turn on several radars alternately (to make the shrike rush towards one target or the other), the attack planes carried out the positions of the air defense missile systems.

        And he told me that he had to work very hard - to vary on and off, kept observers - the airspace monitoring and control posts, as in World War II, he was injured when they were delayed when the radar was on, he told - only the communications observer shouted “Shrike” like that And the amers worked with the involvement of several anti-aircraft defense suppression groups with all means of active and passive interference and, naturally, with Shriiki, in especially solemn cases, they let the distracting groups go. If memory serves, For those events, they singled out specially the group Wild Wild as carriers of means of suppressing and destroying air defense, first on Phantoms and then on F 16.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 July 2013 10: 26 New
          +4
          Quote: avt
          And he told

          Interestingly, they told me exactly the same thing :)))
      2. old man54
        old man54 25 July 2013 22: 07 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        they “felled” our radars so qualitatively, and the fact that they simply did not allow the radar to work normally

        turning off the radar is the most primitive way! Soon, a simple prefix for the radar was created, armored, where the antenna was screwed onto the thread and on the remote protected wire belonged to the safe distance from the radar of the air defense system. When the Shriikov flew up in 30 sec, the air defense antenna ceased to radiate, and its simulator continued, the missile was aimed there, then, if necessary, the soldier fled and changed the antenna itself and everything. Later, a little prefix was created for the complex for the regular change of radiation frequencies.
        attack aircraft carried out the position of the air defense missile systems batteries.

        they still had to be found, they were camouflaged in earnest, mostly by the bunches of rockets and they were only discovered! And so ... whom to bomb then. jungle? laughing
        1. mirror
          mirror 25 July 2013 23: 30 New
          +1
          But in the warrant of our ships, such coordination of the radar’s work is simply impossible - then we need a single command post that controls the radar field of the warrant. At a minimum, direct communication channels are needed between the combat posts of the RTS ships to command who and when to turn on. Who knows the organization of communications in our Navy, understands that this is unrealistic. Vestovoy, carrying telegrams to the commander of the ship in a bag on his side, is still alive as a class :-)
    2. Vadivak
      Vadivak 25 July 2013 10: 00 New
      +7
      Quote: avt
      Tom Clancy’s laurels keep you awake


      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Oleg gives them a personally edited opinion of a cybersecurity specialist for the truth


      Guys do not shoot the pianist.


      Do not shoot the pianist: he plays as best he can - like a fakir, that a snake enchants with a quiet whistle, with a many-headed crowd waiting for a simple mistake ...
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 July 2013 10: 37 New
        +4
        Quote: Vadivak
        Guys do not shoot the pianist.

        So am I shooting? so, a couple of stools in total :))))
  • Alexey
    Alexey 25 July 2013 10: 20 New
    +4
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    What else are you ready to go to defend your point of view?

    I’ll add a moment. USSR (according to the author). Preliminarily “pulled” the BOD into the threatened region. And who is stopping the United States from pulling several AUGs into the threatened region? Due to geography, they are much easier to do.
    1. Santa Fe
      25 July 2013 11: 31 New
      +2
      Quote: Alex
      Preliminarily “pulled” the BOD into the threatened region. And who is stopping the United States from pulling several AUGs into the threatened region?

      )))))))))))))))

      Well, well, the great and terrible Enterprise is too tough for the Soviet guard and BOD!
      you need two or three prodigies for 6 billion each)))
      1. Kars
        Kars 25 July 2013 11: 45 New
        +4
        What can I say I express my opinion - AUGs will be drowned by diesel submarines that will be placed to cover the convoy in advance. And no one will sail to the plane’s raising level.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 26 July 2013 00: 42 New
          +2
          Shown in the photo pl. Pr.651 could launch its missiles only from the surface. What does this mean in real combat conditions, I hope no need to explain.
          1. Kars
            Kars 26 July 2013 14: 33 New
            +1
            Quote: spravochnik
            What does this mean in real combat conditions, I hope no need to explain.

            No one lives forever, especially in a superpower war.
        2. Per se.
          Per se. 26 July 2013 15: 25 New
          +1
          Dear Kars, the Americans would not have to use their AUGs if they completely turned a blind eye to nuclear missiles (let it be like a global "military incident" without nuclear war), this convoy could be destroyed by American submarines and base aircraft.
  • Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 25 July 2013 10: 57 New
    +4
    Here, so that these scenarios with convoy postings do not count ours, and they suggest building a tunnel under the Bering Strait, as well as from Sakhalin to Hokaido. repeat
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 25 July 2013 11: 13 New
      +3
      Quote: Gomunkul
      Here, so that these scenarios with convoy postings do not count ours, and they suggest building a tunnel under the Bering Strait, as well as from Sakhalin to Hokaido.

      Wouldn't it be nice to stretch it before England? Murmansk-London.
      1. Edward
        Edward 25 July 2013 20: 27 New
        +1
        Do you think that Japan is shaking just like that? .. But here, from this direction everything is fine so far, if only the volcanoes of Kamchatka are not let down, while they are still working hard .. unlike the fragile Irish and Icelandic ones. It turned out to be too flimsy - they immediately react.
  • antonio
    antonio 25 July 2013 11: 24 New
    +2
    the author is true to himself! What a pity that the Argentine pilots did not know about this all in the 82nd year. Then maybe the British would not have lost so many ships from a handful of aircraft. Realities brutally justified all the calculations on paper.
    1. Santa Fe
      25 July 2013 11: 58 New
      +3
      Quote: antonio
      What a pity that the Argentine pilots did not know about this in the 82 year. Then maybe the British would not have lost so many ships from a handful of aircraft.

      Wow! "Berkut-B" dared to compare with the British destroyer))

      Bercut-B
      Full v / xnumx tons
      Anti-aircraft weapons:
      2 SAM "Storm" (80 SAM)
      2 SAM "Wasp" (40 SAM)
      2 AK-726
      4 AK-630 with automatic guidance

      Type 42 Batch 1
      Full v / xnumx tons
      1 SAM "Sea Dart" (22 SAM)
      1 4,5 'gun
      2 "Erlikon" times of the Second World War, manual guidance

      As a result, Her Majesty's destroyers smeared subsonic attack aircraft from low-level flight
      1. Santa Fe
        25 July 2013 12: 04 New
        +1
        Quote: antonio
        the British would have lost so many ships from a handful of aircraft.

        It would be untrue to talk about a handful ~ there were hundreds of sorties, victories came to the Argam at a high price.

        Even this squalor:
        Type 42 Batch 1
        Full v / xnumx tons
        1 SAM "Sea Dart" (22 SAM)
        1 4,5 'gun
        2 Erlikon


        enough to fill up three or four dozen aircraft:
        1. antonio
          antonio 25 July 2013 15: 44 New
          +2
          Yes, it’s from a handful, and the pilots of the latter did not possess the proper skills ..
          Pilots did not master refueling in the air, Super Standards and subsonic SkyHawks flew. And they attacked the freely falling bomb due to the lack of anti-ship missiles.
          With perfectly trained US Navy pilots, it’s a sin to compare.
          And in the cellars of Entepraise there is more ammunition than all Argentinean air forces in 2 years.
          And British ships have always been of high quality.
          What is the use of rockets so much if you can’t use them with good excitement?
    2. Vadivak
      Vadivak 25 July 2013 12: 06 New
      +2
      Quote: antonio
      Then maybe the British would not have lost so many ships from a handful of aircraft.




      Can not disagree

      More than 80% of ships and vessels were sunk by aircraft. In the picture, the sinking Destroyer "Coventry" of the Sheffield type (which was also drowned not just by bombs but by Exocet), which during construction cost £ 20 - 25 million ($ 38 - 47 million), in 1982 was estimated at 120 million taking into account inflation pounds sterling ($ 230 million). After the conflict ended, its value for Great Britain was estimated at 1,5 billion pounds.

      Destroyer URO “Sheffield. 4100 10.05.82 RCC “Exoset” AM-39
      Frigate URO “Ardent” 3250 22.05.82 Aerial bombs
      Frigate URO “Antelope” 3250 23.05.82 Aerial bombs
      Destroyer URO “Coventry” 4100 25.05.82 Aerial bombs
      Transport “Atlantic Conveyor” 14 946 25.05.82 RCC “Exoset” AM-39
      Landing Box “Sar Galahad” 5674 08.06.82 Aircraft Bombs




      Argentine casualties 21 aircraft
      1. Santa Fe
        25 July 2013 12: 36 New
        +2
        Quote: Vadivak
        and submarines

        There were no casualties among British boats
        Quote: Vadivak
        Destroyer URO “Sheffield. 4100 10.05.82 RCC “Exoset” AM-39
        Frigate URO “Ardent” 3250 22.05.82 Aerial bombs
        Frigate URO “Antelope” 3250 23.05.82 Aerial bombs
        Destroyer URO “Coventry” 4100 25.05.82 Aerial bombs
        Transport “Atlantic Conveyor” 14 946 25.05.82 RCC “Exoset” AM-39
        Landing Box “Sar Galahad” 5674 08.06.82 Aircraft Bombs

        This is only the 1 / 4 list)))
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 25 July 2013 14: 41 New
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          There were no casualties among British boats


          Yes, this is a line from the quote pad, I’ll delete it, in the list of losses from aviation, and thank you very much, as always beautiful and - debatable (not for one day)
  • washi
    washi 25 July 2013 13: 04 New
    0
    Under EBN, coastal defense and air defense units were reduced in the whole Far East. If under the Soviet Union we could repel the first attack (although the amers do not fight such losses at all), now ..... or solid questions.
  • sergey72
    sergey72 25 July 2013 13: 16 New
    +2
    Uncles Naval commanders, can I bring in my five cents? Just don’t hit .... hard ... There is a good article on this topic on the Alternative History website called: "Soviet Pearl Harbor 1982: Everything is not so smooth." Unlike the story of Oleg Kaptsov, real events are described there ... Regards hi .
  • washi
    washi 25 July 2013 13: 20 New
    +2
    Why do we need landing in Alaska? If planted, then in California. In Alaska, it’s cold and damp, you are tormented by supplies of products alone, and there is only one military base, normal. Toli business in California. Also our former land, half. Independent Texas will help. Mexicans will also want their own. Mostly actresses live, but they do not care who to lie under. Those. resistance minimum. With heavy weapons, including SEP, one must act carefully, because there is a fracture of the earth's crust and increased tectonic activity. As a result of the inadequate impact, not only California, but also many Pacific Rim states will not be greeted (poor Japan).
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 25 July 2013 14: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: Vasya
      Why do we need landing in Alaska?


      Then, what is it, after all, our, Russian land, with the traditional treasure traditional for today's Russia
    2. kirpich
      kirpich 25 July 2013 14: 44 New
      0
      Maybe then that Alaska belongs to us?
      1. old man54
        old man54 25 July 2013 22: 20 New
        +1
        Quote: kirpich
        Maybe then that Alaska belongs to us?

        exactly! The lease was signed for 100 years, the deadline came in 1967 year! Until the year 1959, even Amers, Alaska, was not included in the number of territories that make up the country, only in 1959 did it become a state. Khrushchev and the rest realized that they don’t intend to give Alaska voluntarily, that they really have to arrange the 3 world for it and the question was closed! Something like that!
        1. washi
          washi 30 July 2013 14: 03 New
          0
          A sale was signed, not only in Alaska, but also in northern California + Hawaii.
  • 12061973
    12061973 25 July 2013 13: 46 New
    +6
    Dear connoisseurs of naval subjects, those who care about the fresh breeze and smoke of sea battles; those who managed to stand on the deck of the Ship leaving from under the feet. I’m glad for Kaptsov’s progress in the epistolary genre on his face, the pen is almost like V. Pikul’s, it’s time to take Moonsund-2 as well.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 26 July 2013 00: 34 New
      +4
      Quote: 12061973
      I’m glad for Kaptsov’s progress in the epistolary genre on his face, the pen is almost like V. Pikul’s, it’s time to take Moonsund-2 as well.

      If Oleg wrote and released a novel, I would have bought a book. It is a pity that the submarines were expelled. And add spy satellites and reconnaissance ships.
    2. washi
      washi 30 July 2013 14: 07 New
      0
      Look in the alternative story genre. There are Savin, and Tsaregorodtsev, and Mikhailovsky, also Doinikov, Kalbazov, Kontorovsky, etc.
  • misham
    misham 25 July 2013 14: 27 New
    +1
    With all due respect to the author, all this is a fantasy on the topic ........
    This could not be
    1. Conventional warfare will quickly turn into nuclear
    2. The weather in the Bering Strait is so good that AUG will not launch a single aircraft.
    3. Submarines (main striking force) neither ours nor American
    4. Fleets fight on their own. Where TU-22, TU-16 MRA and Dalniki. Where are the American and Canadian Air Force. Not all of Alaska was captured by paratroopers.
    5. And the main thing is that they (paratroopers) do there. Go to Washington. By what forces. Unless to destroy the radar and air bases in Alaska. For this there is aviation and special forces.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 25 July 2013 14: 48 New
      +4
      Quote: misham
      Fleets fight on their own. Where TU-22, TU-16 MRA and Dalniki. G


      Such a situation could be, after all, anything happens in a war, and Oleg describes such a case.
      1. Edward
        Edward 25 July 2013 19: 45 New
        +2
        Oleg, described the headquarters picture, with specified restrictions. And he did it sensibly. Thanks to him for that.
        Oleg, I completely agree with you!
        There is no grief about the information “13 sec. - start”. Few measured seconds. Remember the famous match in the foreman's fingers? ..
        However, some frisky airplanes of the guys! As soon as Bosko does not tear off the pilots with all such angular maneuvers at the start?! .. well, and heaven to them.
        To argue with you, Oleg is a pleasure! For it seems that to do it is easy and as twice as two.

        But if the question is whether we need aircraft carriers, then of course we need!
  • mountain hiker
    mountain hiker 25 July 2013 14: 33 New
    +6
    In the period described by Oleg, Soviet air defense systems really far exceeded the capabilities of US carrier-based aircraft. Would a raid of 12 or 20 combat aircraft do not matter. Without the suppression of naval radars, they would not have broken through to the convoy and suffered very serious losses. Shriki on a moving maneuvering target with alternately turning off the radar and spaced frequencies would have extremely low chances. Although in my opinion the victory is still determined by the BATTLE experience. And here the difference between our conscripted sailors and the US professional pilots is hardly in our favor. In Vietnam, our best personnel officers fought, and therefore the effectiveness was high. No super-duper weaponry will help in poorly trained hands without PRACTICAL combat experience. I am for a professional fleet! Constant exercises, combat duty, good material motivation of sailors. Then they will also respect and reckon with Soviet weapons!
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 25 July 2013 14: 45 New
    +3
    Dear Oleg, I remained a supporter of a balanced fleet, with the claims of any country (that is, a weak country - such a fleet, etc. in a strong direction), but why are you trying to frankly skip the norm ships ?. Well, here you are a specialist, read a lot, etc. like all of us. Take aircraft carriers and honor in recent wars how and what and what will we get? Are needed! Are we honoring Soviet submariners? Are needed! Continue?

    The fact that planes from decks are not needed (often happens), so what? But there are a lot of conflicts where aircraft carriers showed themselves well, why hate the ship so much? I’ve talked here with the senior officer of one apl in the eighties, so he said bluntly, “Max, we dreamed that the next plane would be ours, but no, the Yankees ones.” Nobody calls for the destruction of 20 aircraft carriers, but if we are talking about the USSR, then the confrontation could do good, if we are talking about Russia, then a couple of aircraft carriers would also be very normal, combat-ready aircraft carriers, and not like Brazilian and Angertin ones, as you like to bring (can I bring you a bunch of unworkable pls - then pl as a kind of weapon?)
  • kirpich
    kirpich 25 July 2013 14: 58 New
    0
    From this moment begins the real action. In the Bering Sea, a Soviet convoy awaits the carrier-based strike force of the United States Navy, led by invincible Enterprise, which will do everything to disrupt the delivery of military cargo to Alaska.


    That gnawing resentment that they forget about our "Mosquito Navy". I mean RTOs. The same RTOs like "Lightning", "Monsoon" or similar razderbanit Enterprise, like an ace warmer. Well, or cause him such damage that he would not be before the war.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 26 July 2013 00: 51 New
      +1
      Do not smack nonsense. They won’t even reach the missile launch range.
  • Takashi
    Takashi 25 July 2013 14: 59 New
    +3
    I have a lot of questions right away ...

    I understand this is a literary epic ... but still

    1. on which figs did we capture the bridgehead in Alaska? what the hell?
    2. Okha port on Sakhalin? Did you even see him? (for reference: the railway Nogliki-Okha was dismantled in 2007, but how long it served ...). The transfer of troops will begin from the mainland - Vanino is suitable for this (there is cover as from air + transib), (Vladivostok with an interference fit), in extreme cases - Petropavlovsk-Kamchatka,
    3. our paratroopers are sitting, which means that in Alaska, attacks are repelled ... They curse everything and everything. And, we decided to help them, send humanitarian aid to the convoy !!!!!!! - before landing - a certain part of the Pacific Ocean will (should) be "cleaned up". On all routes should be submarine, aviation and reconnaissance bajazh (in case of detection of an AUG - it will always take him to defeat a meeting, and the convoy will turn to the side without even joining the connection)
    1. old man54
      old man54 25 July 2013 22: 31 New
      +3
      Quote: Takashi
      before landing - a certain part of the Pacific Ocean will (should) be "cleaned up". All the routes should be occupied by aviation and reconnaissance aircraft (in the case of detection of an AUG, it will always take a connection to defeat it, and the convoy will turn to the side without even entering the connection)

      you wrote everything right, you "+", but ... Oleg suggested such a disposition and such a scenario! He wanted to show that the SUG and the aircraft carrier in particular are not so omnipotent, in particular, in opposition to a serious fleet!
  • Alexey M
    Alexey M 25 July 2013 16: 33 New
    +1
    Well done, the author pleased. And it seems to me that the power of the AUG is greatly exaggerated. For police operations where there is no serious opposition to air defense (shorter than the Papuans to drive) you can’t think better of it. AUG.
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 25 July 2013 16: 46 New
    +2
    Quote: Vadivak
    Quote: ,,,,
    Author Oleg Kaptsov



    This is a masterpiece ... But if you threaten William, you understand, our Shakespeare, I would include the anti-submarine cruiser Project 1123 Condor - Moscow (Leningrad) in the convoy and then the big question is where would merciless underwater killers be used - multipurpose nuclear submarines

    ... It would be worth the Ka-25PL to fly outside the radius of reach of the Storms (40-50 km), and they would be hit, in the above situation, by deck fighters from the Enterprise.
    Here Pr.58 would be more relevant in the convoy.
  • 0255
    0255 25 July 2013 17: 38 New
    +3
    Where are the Tu-142 and Tu-16, Tu-22 bombers? Or one could include the hypersonic T-4 here - the story is still an alternative.
    We should have more such articles. And then the Americans already got their games and films, as they defeat either Russia or the USSR without reloading weapons
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 25 July 2013 18: 12 New
    +1
    The genre is funny, at the junction of military analytics, science fiction. The author is respect.
  • PACIFIST
    PACIFIST 25 July 2013 19: 13 New
    +3
    Just for fun, and the American squadron ships and liner stupid smoke to the side will ??? and why will the airplanes from ground bases not escort the convoy at this time ??? they have only 1 squadron in the area ????
    1. old man54
      old man54 25 July 2013 22: 33 New
      +3
      So write your article about this scenario, and we'll see! hi
  • patsantre
    patsantre 25 July 2013 21: 05 New
    +4
    And the author painted how American missiles would actually be ineffective, but for some reason forgot to talk about the fact that the capabilities of our missiles would turn out to be clearly different from those indicated on a piece of paper. all criticism was directed only towards the aircraft carrier, but he did not touch the Soviet ships with his finger.
  • old man54
    old man54 25 July 2013 23: 03 New
    +2
    I really liked the article, of course "+"! It’s a strange thing, I’m starting to guess Kaptsov’s works by the title of the article, I’m even surprised myself! laughing
    The scenario, in my opinion, is not very plausible, it seems to me that especially in the initial period it would be more convenient to carry reinforcements and ammunition on airplanes of transport aircraft, even if they could even be dropped by parachute method, but there is less risk (if you fly through our Chukotka) than this, a week-long transition by the sea! but that's me, relaxed! But in general ... the article is written in a very easy literary language, with easy humor and at the same time with knowledge of the matter, it is felt! Oleg’s articles are always read with pleasure and ease, and I see that I’m not the only one! Thanks to him for a pleasant and useful time! hi
  • morpogr
    morpogr 25 July 2013 23: 11 New
    +1
    Here’s your ready-made computer strategy. Or an action movie, you just have to make the cameras have the forces of evil on the planet, and we are the last resort wink of humanity, we are going to save the world.
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik 26 July 2013 00: 18 New
    0
    The author continues to make laugh. Oleg, at least you decide on the materiel.
    It was intended to deliver troops on such turbokhod (without irony - this is standard world practice)
    The funny thing is that the "Moscow Festival" shown in the photo is not a turbo ship, but a diesel TANKER with a speed of 16,5 knots. So he can’t give 18 in any way, and indeed only full troops can plan to transport troops on it.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 July 2013 00: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: spravochnik
      The funny thing is that the "Moscow Festival" shown in the photo is not a turbo ship, but a diesel TANKER with a speed of 16,5 knots. So he can’t give 18 in any way, and indeed only full troops can plan to transport troops on it.

      1. Where did the 18 figure come from?
      2. troops do not need fuel? Fuel and lubricants? fresh water?
      Quote: spravochnik
      and indeed only full troops can plan to transport troops on it.

      Tankers participating in the Falkland War:

      From the Royal Navy:

      Tankers
      RFA Olna (A123) 36,000 t
      Ja bailey
      RFA Olmeda (A124) 36,000 t
      GP overbury
      RFA Tidespring (A75) 27,400 t
      S. redmond
      RFA Tidepool (A76) 27,400 t
      Jw gaffrey
      RFA Blue Rover (A270) 11,522 t
      DA Reynolds
      RFA Appleleaf (A79) 40,870 t
      GPA McDougall
      RFA Brambleleaf (A81) 40,000 t
      Msj farley
      RFA Bayleaf (A109) 40,000 t
      Aet hunter
      RFA Plumleaf (A78) 25,790 t
      RWM Wallace
      RFA Pearleaf (A77) 25,790 t
      J. McCulloch

      From merchant fleet:

      Alvega 33,000 t (57,372 DWT) - used as base storage tanker at Ascension from mid-May [25]
      Anco Charger 24,500 DWT - used as auxiliary support tanker from 24 April [26] with capability to transport 42 different liquids at once [5]
      Balder London 19,980 t (33,751 DWT) - used as auxiliary support tanker from 12 May [5] [26]
      British Avon 15,640 t (25,620 DWT) - used as auxiliary support tanker from 25 April [5] [26]
      British Dart 15,650 t (28,488 DWT) - used as auxiliary support tanker from 22 April [5] [27]
      British Esk 15,643 t (25,905 DWT) - fitted with over-the-stern underway refueling equipment for use as the first convoy escort oiler [5] [28]
      British Tamar 15,646 t (25,498 DWT) - fitted with over-the-stern underway refueling equipment for use as convoy escort oiler from 13 April [5] [28]
      British Tay 15,650 t (25,650 DWT) - used as auxiliary support tanker from 12 April [5] [29]
      British Test 16,653 t (25,641 DWT) - used as auxiliary support tanker from 14 April [5] [26]
      British Trent 15,649 t (25,147 DWT) - used as auxiliary support tanker from 18 April [5] [26]
      British Wye 15,649 t (25,197 DWT) - used as auxiliary support tanker from 25 April [5] [26] - hit by bomb from Lockheed C-130 Hercules - Minor Damage
      Eburna 19,763 t (31,374 DWT) - used as auxiliary support tanker from 26 April [5] [26]
      Fort Toronto 25,498 DWT - fresh water tanker from 19 April [5] [27]
      GAWalker 18,744 t (30,607 DWT) - used as auxiliary tanker from 10 June [26]
      Scottish Eagle 33,000 t (54,490 DWT) - used as base storage tanker at South Georgia from 18 June and then moved to Falklands on 14 July [25]
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik 26 July 2013 01: 33 New
    0
    Dear, you actually cut into what they write to you. Re-read carefully YOUR signature under the SPECIFIC photograph of a SPECIFIC ship. And then - carefully my comment. But fuels and lubricants and water - this is not a military, but their supply.
  • basil200
    basil200 29 July 2013 05: 34 New
    0
    I do not understand the Navy, but maybe 13 seconds is the time between the starts of two aircraft on the catapult. And I realized how 80 aircraft fit on board. The first 40 aircraft are those who took off and did not return, combat losses or having worked off fly away to the mainland. If she is close. winked