Military Review

Some features of the actions of carrier-based aircraft of the "Nimitz" type of super sucker aircraft (part 1)

180
Some features of the actions of carrier-based aircraft of the "Nimitz" type of super sucker aircraft (part 1)

In this article, we will try to understand the issues of the size of the air group of a modern nuclear aircraft carrier of the Chester U. Nimitz type, as well as the capabilities of an aircraft carrier to support the operations of deck aircraft on board.


For a long time, the site continues the discussion of supporters and opponents of aircraft carriers. This dispute began long ago, and he has no end in sight, and it is unlikely that we will be able to witness its end. And all because the question: “What is an aircraft carrier — a prima-ballerina or a coffin?” Was discussed for decades both on numerous Internet resources and in general long before the appearance of the Internet — but there is no definitive answer to this very day. The number of supporters of aircraft carriers is very large, but their opponents are a little inferior (if at all inferior) to them in numbers.

I myself am convinced supporters of these giant leviathans of the gray ocean, but today I will not in any way agitate you, dear readers, for aircraft carriers as part of the modern Navy. In the framework of this article, I will consider several quite specific issues related to the size, preparation for take-off, lifting and landing of deck aircraft.

It would seem that there may be unclear? The number of wings, attributed to the aircraft carrier, is well known. By the end of 80, there were 3 types of aviation wings, the typical composition of which is given in the table (the “number of squadrons” - “the number of vehicles in the squadron” is indicated):



There were other options - for example, on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, which participated in the hostilities against Iraq in January 1991, the aircraft wing consisted of 78 aircraft (20 F-14 Tomcat, 19 F / A-18 Hornet, 18 A-6E “Intruder”, five EA-6V “Proler”, four E-2C “Hokai”, eight S-3B “Viking” and four KA-6D), as well as six SH-3H helicopters. But subsequently the number of air groups was reduced. To date, the structure of a typical airborne deck aviation includes:
1) 4 squadron of fighter-attack aircraft (VFA) - 48 machines,
2) EW Squadron (VAQ) - 4 aircraft,
3) squadron AEW (VAW) - 4 machines,
4) Anti-submarine helicopter (HS) squadron - 8 machines,
5) C-2A (VRC) carrier-based transport aircraft squadron - 2 vehicles

And all, respectively, 66 machines - 58 aircraft and 8 helicopters. At the same time, the number of EW and / or DRLO aircraft can be increased from 4 to 6, and if necessary, the assault wing can be assigned to a fighter-assault squadron or a squadron of naval infantry helicopters.

The overwhelming majority of authors writing about aircraft carriers are, a priori, convinced that the aircraft carrier is fully able to fully exploit the air wing based on it. And really - how could it be otherwise? What is the point of basing aircraft on the ship that he cannot use? For a long time, the question of the effectiveness of the use of carrier-based aviation was not even raised. Especially since in print the number-standard in 140 (or 147 or even 149) of the departures per day for the aircraft carriers of the “Nimitz” type repeatedly slipped. In other words, for an aircraft group in 80 aircraft, the combat voltage (the number of departures per day per aircraft) would be 140 / 80 = 1,75 (although according to some data the standard combat voltage for deck aircraft in the US Navy is equal to 2), which corresponds to the same land aviation indicator in a normal combat situation. Of course, there are cases when land-based combat aircraft are forced to make both 3 and 5 sorties per day. But this happens either when flights are carried out at a very short range, i.e. are very short-lived, either due to force majeure circumstances, and then they cannot last for any length of time, if only because of the fatigue of the pilots — or additional replacement crews will be needed. However, 140-149 sorties per day from a nuclear aircraft carrier were also considered to be a standard, which, in extraordinary cases, could be exceeded. It is possible that the technical limit for aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type was considered to be the number of times I found myself in 200 sorties per day. Well, on the newest American aircraft carrier Gerald R.Ford it is planned to achieve even larger quantities - the norm in 160 sorties per day and before 270 sorties in critical situations.

However, behind all these considerations, a very important question has somehow been lost - what is the rate of recovery of aircraft from an aircraft carrier? Why is it important? Supporters of aircraft carriers usually lead to the devastating results of the attacks of almost the full aviation group of an atomic aircraft carrier on the ultimate combat radius (48 of the shock hornets * 4 RCC "Harpoon" on each = 192 RCC suddenly and unexpectedly attacked the enemy's order in 1000 km from the American air forces in the XNUMX, leaving the American air force in the XNUMX, unexpectedly attacking the enemy XNUMX enemy airplanes. This, of course, is beautiful, but ...

The same “Hornet” without refueling is able to be in the air for about 3 hours (although this time can be both increased and decreased - the presence and capacity of the PTB, the weight of the combat load, the flight profile, etc.) are of great importance. But if, for example, it took 2 hours to lift the entire Nimitz air group - this would mean that by the time the last plane leaves the giant ship's deck, the first flight hour will be the first! What departure range can we talk about? The first to fly, the Hornets are unlikely to retire more than 15-20 minutes from the flight of an aircraft carrier ... And what if it takes not an 2 but an 3 hour to lift the air group? Then by the time the last planes take off, the first will have to land already, since they run out of fuel ...

During a very lively discussion in the comments on the article by Oleg Kaptsov “The convoy to Alaska. Chronicles of sea battle " http://topwar.ru/31232-konvoy-na-alyasku-hroniki-morskogo-boya.html author of the article, based on a series of articles by Kabernik.V.V. "Evaluation of the combat power of aircraft carriers" http://eurasian-defence.ru/node/3602 announced significant restrictions on the use of carrier-based aviation, namely:

1) The number of Nimitz aircraft carriers — 75-85 aircraft — indicated in the press is a theoretical indicator that can be achieved only in clear weather and near the native coast. In reality, the Nimitz air group does not exceed 45 machines.

2) The rise rate of the air group is very low - 45 minutes are needed to lift a dozen cars, and a full hour and a half to lift 20 machines. Therefore, the maximum combat group that can be lifted from the deck of an aircraft carrier cannot exceed 20 airplanes, but in this case they will not be able to act on the full radius, since the first vehicles that had flown into the air consumed a significant part of the fuel - or they would be forced to hang PTBs in damage to the combat load.

I will not now enumerate the arguments of Kabernik V.V., I will only note that, in my memory, his work is the first attempt to deal with the peculiarities of the work and the organization of massive strikes by the forces of carrier-based aviation (meaning the first attempt in the open press, not I doubt that “where necessary” this issue has been studied for a long time and thoroughly). And as such, this attempt deserves respect. But are the conclusions of Kabernik VV correct?

What is the cycle of the aircraft lifting into the air? Obviously, the aircraft must be prepared for departure - it must undergo all the maintenance it needs, the aircraft must be raised to the flight deck (if it was in the hangar), it must be filled, the armament must be suspended and put on alert, a preflight check . The aircraft must be delivered to the catapult and hooked onto the hook of the accelerating piston, after which one more check of the aircraft and the catapult is required, and only then - the start!

Again, we’ll start from the end and see how long it takes to deliver an airplane fully ready for takeoff to the catapult, check before the ejection and takeoff.



What conclusions can we draw from this video? Firstly, in order to enter the catapult, the aircraft did not need a conveyor - he did it himself. Secondly - the plane opened the plane only on the catapult (this is important and later we will remember about it) And third - the final check before take-off takes quite a bit of time - the Hornet stopped after entering the catapult, approximately 1 min 15 seconds from the beginning of the video , and after 2 minutes and 41 seconds (in 3 minutes 56 seconds from the start of shooting), the plane pulled away from the deck of the ship. And this is not the limit! Watch the second video



It captured the work of two catapults simultaneously. For 6 min. 26 seconds from the start of shooting from the first catapult (closest to the operator performing the shooting) the 3 of the aircraft started. From a distant catapult - only two, while the second plane took off through 3 mines 35 seconds after the start of shooting, but did not apply for a catapult. In just 6 mines 26 seconds, 5 airplanes took off from two catapults. The time period between takeoffs is approximately 2 min 13 seconds - 2 min 20 seconds. This allows us to assume that if another plane had been sent to the distant catapult, we would have seen not 5 but 6 aircraft taking off during the shooting time.

What does this mean? Yes, only that one catapult is able to send one plane into the air in 2,2-2,5 minutes. Accordingly, two dozen aircraft could be lifted into the air with two catapults in 21-25 minutes. Three catapults would have done it in 15-17 minutes. But! Only if the planes are fully prepared for departure - all checks have been carried out (except for the terminal, on the catapult) weapons - suspended and activated, the pilot - in the cockpit, etc.

And what can prevent airplanes from being fully prepared for departure? Need maintenance? Let's see what it is. In the United States aviation, all the technical preparation of the aircraft is divided into pre-flight, post-flight after each flight, post-flight at the end of the flight day and after a certain number of flight hours.

Pre-flight preparation is carried out before the first flight on the day of flights and includes a pre-flight inspection, as well as some types of work, the main purpose of which is to prepare the aircraft for departure in accordance with the approved flight task. In this case, it is allowed not to carry out work on the preparation of those types of equipment that will not be used in upcoming flights.

After-flight training after each flight is carried out to prepare the aircraft for the next flight and includes refueling with fuel and lubricants, ammunition equipment, etc.

Post-flight training at the end of the flight day provides for refueling the aircraft and performing a special (small) list of preventive maintenance.

Post-flight training after a certain number of flight hours (several flying days) is carried out with the aim of maintaining the aircraft and its equipment in good condition by carrying out preventive and maintenance work with extensive use of special equipment.

This preparation, I must say, takes a lot of time. For example, to ensure one flying hour of the F-14, “Tomcat”, according to the standard, required 20 man-hours of maintenance, but in practice the value of this indicator sometimes reached 49. Hornet requires 25 man-hours of service per flight hour. This is quite a lot - it turns out that for the day in which the aircraft makes 2 departure for 3 hours each, “Tomcat” will need from 120 to 292 maintenance man hours, and “Hornet” - 150. But the air group specialists are quite capable of that - the fact is that for every plane on the aircraft carrier there are already 26 people serving staff (this is why the size of the aircraft group on the aircraft carrier is 2500 people) and the Hornet’s 150 service hours will not be too strong and straining in less than 6 hours of collaboration. But if Tomcat is going to foul up and require 49 man-hours per flight hour, it will be more difficult, because the group serving it will have to switch to a twelve-hour working day. Well, or ask for help from specialists who have freed themselves from the service of the Hornet.

This is a joke, of course, but there is a joke in every joke, and everything else is true, and it lies in the fact that the Nimitz crew is really able to provide maintenance for the aircraft group on 75-85 aircraft, provided they are used extensively. Especially after the decks of American aircraft carriers left the terribly voracious before maintenance, "Tomcats" and they were replaced by the relatively unpretentious "Hornet".

What else? Please note - refueling and loading ammunition are considered part of the maintenance of aircraft and taken into account earlier, but I will still say a few words about them. Unfortunately, I don’t know the time of refueling of combat aircraft, but the refueling of huge passenger Boeing 747 and Airbus (15,5-18,5 tons) takes 15-20 minutes, and the aircraft carrier is clearly far from one column. The existing ammunition supply systems are mechanized - from the cellars located below the waterline, special elevators serve bombs and rockets on the deck under the hangar. From there, two elevators deliver ammunition to the hangar deck, and three elevators deliver them to the flight deck. The system provides loading of 135 aircraft with ammunition per day. Is it a lot or a little? To ensure 140 sorties per day is more than enough, since part of the sorties are carried out by aircraft that do not need to load weapons (for example, airplanes ARLO "Hokai")

What conclusions can be drawn from all this?

Be sure to remember that carrier-based aviation does not engage in battle with spherical horses in a vacuum. Every combat mission is preceded by a certain planning and target designation. For example, an American aircraft carrier is moving forward to a certain area of ​​military operations, or a hot spot, which is about to become such an area. The leadership of the operation will certainly set the aircraft carrier some tasks, for example, the destruction of large forces previously discovered from a satellite fleet the enemy and, after they are neutralized, the destruction of certain stationary targets on the territory of the enemy.

Suppose an aircraft carrier enters the danger zone in the morning. Who prevents his crew from conducting preflight training at night, refuel and arm aircraft to accomplish their priority task and prepare them for departure? Yes, no one. But in the morning, when the aircraft carrier entered the conflict zone, its planes are ready for battle, and now it is only necessary to find the forces of the enemy’s fleet. Duty patrols are rising, EW aircraft detect suspicious activity in the Alpha 12 square. The patrol “Hokai”, who had previously observed radio silence, cut in his “plate” and saw an enemy shipboard strike group covered by several land-based fighters in 800 km from the aircraft carrier. Immediately begins the preparation for the attack. But what is it? The plan of attack is being finalized, the pilots specify the flight mission, and the planes complete the pre-flight preparation. What does it mean? Well, for example, aviation munitions have 2 degrees of protection, let's call them (sorry for not knowing the terminology) fuse and check. After removing the rocket from the fuse, it will be enough to pull the tape tied to the check and the rocket will be ready for use. Incidentally, this was precisely the reason for the tragedy on the “Forrestol” - not wanting to mess with the safety on the upper deck, the crew chose to cock it back in the ammunition store. And the check ... well - what is a check? The wind blew harder, ripped up the ribbon, jumped out the check, the rocket rose on a combat platoon. And then - static discharge and random start. If everything was carried out according to the instructions, the rocket would have been on safety and nothing would have happened, but ... the instructions were not executed.

But feel the difference - the planes do not need to be refilled - they are already filled. On the aircraft do not need to hang weapons - it is already on them. All you need to do is to reset the fuses and pull up the checks ... The preparation time for departure is minimized. I suppose it would not be a mistake to say that the “remnants” of the pre-flight preparation of 30-35 planes I have described will take an hour, at most - one and a half (if you have to change something, add some weapon).

The aircraft carrier comes with a full airflight - part of the aircraft and helicopters in the hangar, and some - on the upper deck. But in the evening a shock group was formed on the flight deck - some extra aircraft were put into the hangar (say, there were too many Tomcats on the deck but not enough Hornets), respectively, some of the Tomcats were removed, replacing them with the Hornets. From traveling



Air Group on the upper deck deployed for lifting



What does this deployment mean?

When an aircraft carrier does not produce intensive flights, the aircraft on its flight deck are located approximately like this.



For the take-off of the patrol more than two catapults of the corner deck are enough, and after the take-off of the patrol the landing (corner) deck is free. After landing the patrol, its planes are being taxied into the nose or to the superstructure in order to refuel, if necessary, re-equip, well, and get other post-flight maintenance. However, due to the large number of airplanes on the flight deck (the Nimitz hangar accommodates approximately 50% of its air group) with such an arrangement, the nose of the aircraft carrier will be fully loaded - there is no possibility of using nasal catapults, as in this photo

[/ Center]

The truth is that in this photo some planes are grouped aft, overlapping the corner deck of an aircraft carrier - probably this small group of aircraft will start from the angular deck catapults.

But this is a marching position. And if we are preparing to send a large air group into battle, then the aircraft on the aircraft carrier should be placed like this



In this case, the planes are grouped to feed them to the catapults, and 3 of four catapults are ready for takeoff. All three catapults already have planes ready for launch (on the 2 scheme, the Hokaya has already started from the corner deck catapults and is about to tear itself away from the deck), behind them the 2 aircraft are already in the pre-launch positions, so that as soon as the first ones start took their place with a minimum delay ... What will be the order of the start? The first planes are highlighted in black. Flight safety is paramount, and if suddenly an emergency landing is suddenly required for some aircraft, it is the black ones that will interfere with it - they block the landing area - the corner deck. After the launch of the “black” aircraft, the time “speckled” comes - especially those that are located in the bow and overlap the fourth catapult. After they are launched, the aircraft carrier is able to use all its 4 catapults. Now you can fly the rest of the aircraft strike group. How long will it take?

Not too much. Assuming that the fourth catapult “goes into action” after launching the 26 aircraft and remembering (remember the movie!) That one catapult can lift one aircraft into 2,1-2,5 minutes (take 2 minutes 30 seconds), then 3 catapults will lift 26 aircraft in about 22 minutes, and the rest of the 9 planes take off for another 7,5 minutes - (three catapults will launch two planes, one - three). Total, the rise of the air group in 35 aircraft from the position indicated in the diagram will take about half an hour!

So where did the Kabernik V.V. took the figure in 20 planes in an hour and a half? The fact is that this distinguished author, in my humble understanding, made one, but a fundamental error, distorting his calculations. He's writing:

The deck of the aircraft carrier is arranged in such a way that the elevators of the ammunition assembly are located near the standard pre-launch positions, and there is also all the necessary infrastructure for refueling and pre-launch checks. Delivery of ammunition to emergency positions takes considerable time, and the number of mobile means of mechanization is obviously limited. Thus, the preparation for the departure of the car at a non-standard position takes hardly twice as long - those same hours and a half instead of the standard 45 minutes. The maximum number of aircraft in one launch cycle implies the use of all available resources for training. At the same time, the capacity of the standard pre-launch positions is 12 machines - this is the squadron of the first echelon, which can be in the air in the first 45 minutes .... ... The maximum volume of the raised air group is no more than 20 machines ... ... But the rise of this compound into the air takes more than one and a half hours, which means the impossibility of using the full combat load. At least the first 6 vehicles in the launch cycle are forced to use outboard tanks in order to operate in conjunction with planes taking off later at the same range. From a tactical point of view, this means that the range of the strike connection can never reach its theoretical maximum, and the combat load will be at best half of the declared in the characteristics of the aircraft.

In other words, Kabernik V.V. this is the case - if 20 airplanes are on the deck, of which 12 are in 45-minute readiness, the remaining 8 machines have an hour and a half readiness because they are too far from the delivery and refueling infrastructure. This can be understood. But then comes the most surprising conclusion: since 12 machines are in 45-minute readiness, this means that all 12 machines can take off within 45 minutes. If the remaining 8 machines are in an hour and a half readiness, then all these 8 machines will be able to take to the air within an hour and a half. By the time the 20 machine rises into the air, the 1 machine is already flying an hour and a half over the deck of the aircraft carrier - accordingly, it is already meaningless to wait for the 21 car to rise, the first one will soon run out of fuel.

Error Cabernik V.V. lies in the fact that he incorrectly interprets the term “readiness for departure”. If 12 machines have an 45 minute readiness for departure, this means that in a dozen minutes 45 will be ready for departure. If the remaining 8 machines have an hour and a half readiness - these 8 machines (plus 12 machines with 45-minute readiness) will be ready for departure one and a half hours after the start of the pre-flight preparation. Thus, it is NOT necessary to lift 12 machines into the air and wait for the remaining 8 to undergo pre-flight preparation and take off in an hour and a half - IT IS NECESSARY TO WAIT THE HOUR HALF AND COMPLETE THE PLAIN PREPARATION ON ALL 20 MACHINES then all the 20 machines will be installed. the air group in the air in 15 minutes.

What is interesting is that in our calculation (the rise of the air group in the 35 aircraft in half an hour), the aircraft that first took off also lose a fair amount of fuel, waiting for the latest aircraft to take off. Is it critical? Totally uncritical. The thing is that planes of different types and with various combat loads will go on the attack on the enemy KUG. If the DRLO planes were lifted first (the Hokai are able to hang in the air for up to 7 hours without refueling against a fighter or attack aircraft’s 2,5-3 hours) and if they are next to lift the planes that will perform the air defense function -4 relatively light air-to-air UR, and 6 AMRAAM and a pair of Sidewiders all together weigh only 4 kg) then, of course, they can “grab” additional PTBs and at least equalize in distance with the later attack aircraft carrying much harder ly cargo.

However, there is another limitation - landing operations. Theoretically, the aircraft can land on the aircraft carrier every minute. In this video, we observe the classic landing of the “Hornet” and see how quickly the plane releases the runway.



But the minute is the ideal. When the weather worsens, the standard increases to one and a half minutes, and it should be remembered that the aircraft does not always manage to get on the first time, and often it has to go to another circle. It turns out that the group in the 20 planes may well sit down for half an hour or even more, and the group in the 35 planes can do 50-60 minutes. If dear Kabernik V.V. I also remembered this, he would probably have come to the conclusion that group flights of deck aviation are impossible in principle - an hour and a half - take-off, half an hour - landing ... The fuel will remain except to launch some target kilometers in 200 from an aircraft carrier.

But in our case (takeoff of the group in 35 airplanes - half an hour), the take-off and landing operations will take a lot of time. Yes, of course, you can always fly several “Hornets” into the air and refuel the aircraft returning from the mission (the SuperHornet can lift up to five tons of fuel in its own tank and 14 tons of fuel and work as a tanker, which caused the specialized tankers to be removed from the wing. ), but this is also a certain time ...

Apparently this is why I have never mentioned in any source mentioning the actions of the air group in more than 35 machines (even theoretically). Most likely, 35 machines are the limit that is capable of acting on a full combat radius and, probably, taking into account refueling landing operations. The size of the air group, perhaps, can be increased over 35 aircraft only if the target is close (say, 350-450 km) target.

And besides this - I believe that the number of airplanes on the Nimitz flight deck directly affects the number of aircraft being raised into the air. Prepared planes on the flight deck can start very quickly - but with the cars in the hangars, things are not so simple. Not only do they need to be raised to the flight deck - although the elevator rises / falls quite quickly (lifting takes 14-15 seconds), but the plane still needs to be dragged onto this lift, and this is not easy - naturally, the aircraft cannot move in the hangar and need a tractor. And the most important thing - as far as I know, a car standing on the hangar deck can not receive pre-flight training in full. In my (it is possible that I am mistaken) refueling can not be made in the hangar.

At the same time, it is obvious that it is impossible to place more 36-40 planes on pre-launch positions - we simply count the planes on the chart



Of course, some time after the beginning of their ascent, the elevators will be freed and it will be possible to raise new aircraft from the hangar, but ... the air group leaving the sky cannot wait until the raised aircraft refuel, receive preflight maintenance, etc. - fuel is expensive! Perhaps, if I am mistaken about refueling in the hangar (or if even a few filled cars are lowered into the hangar at the stage of pre-flight preparation), it is still possible to lift several more cars, in addition to those that were on the flight deck, but they can hardly be lot.

In the modern wing of the 58-60 aircraft. If 35 of them went to attack the enemy KUG, four of them are hanging in the air, four more are preparing to change this watch, and four-six fighters are at the catapults, preparing to rise in the air and strengthen the air patrol - that will we stay? Not so little 9-11 machines. And this is, in my opinion, the main reason for the reduction in the number of promising air groups.

During the Soviet era, in the event of a global war, American planes, carrying out their tasks, would have suffered very large losses, because a fight with the Air Force and Air Defense of the Soviet Union is, you know, not to bomb Libya. In order for at least some time to be able to provide its own air defense and strike at the fleet and infrastructure of the USSR, a considerable amount of aviation was required - that’s why six squadrons of fighter and attack aircraft (up to 60 aircraft, not including DRLO, EW and so on). Now why? To carry out police functions and wars with countries like Iraq - much less is enough. And if you suddenly need it - you can always add a Marine squadron to the 48 regular "Hornet", getting the same 60 strike aircraft on an aircraft carrier ...

In addition, it should be borne in mind that airplanes still occasionally require in-depth post-flight training after a certain number of hours of flying time - and some number of cars may be on tests in the hangar, when an urgent combat mission comes suddenly ...

Conclusion: In my humble opinion, the air group in the 75-90 aircraft is indeed too big for an aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type — it would be extremely difficult for him to use all his airplanes and helicopters at the same time. It is unlikely that a situation could arise in which an aircraft carrier would use 50-60 combat aircraft simultaneously (even taking into account those on duty on the deck). But the fact is that these aircraft carriers are designed for long-term intensive military operations, as a result of which the wing carries certain losses by downed and damaged aircraft - a certain reserve of pilots and airplanes provides compensation for losses and allows you to maintain a high combat capability of the aircraft carrier strike group longer than the limited the number of air group.

(to be continued)
Author:
180 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kars
    Kars 1 August 2013 09: 20 New
    +4
    I understand greetings from Andrei from Chelyabinsk.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 August 2013 09: 24 New
      22
      And there is. Generally speaking, for some reason only the first part got to the main one, there is the second one, but it mysteriously disappeared from those preparing for publication, but did not appear on the main one :)
      1. ben gun
        ben gun 1 August 2013 09: 43 New
        13
        Thanks Andrew! It was extremely interesting to enlighten.
        An interesting simulation of the oncoming naval battle of the Soviet aircraft carrier formation with the American modern aircraft carrier was in the book of F. Berezin's “Red Stars.” (Few fiction laughing )
        And also on the form of a global adventure, a simulation of an attack on the island of Crete by one American AUG. http://www.avanturist.org/forum/topic/800/
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          1 August 2013 09: 53 New
          15
          Thank you for your kind words :))) I myself was very interested in sorting out all this - I must say that in the course of work on the article I myself learned a lot of new things :)))
          1. Col.
            Col. 1 August 2013 11: 52 New
            38
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I myself was very interested in sorting out all this -

            Thank you for your work, for a layman a worthy article. As a specialist (for more than 20 years I have been “supervising” the Navy and the US Air Force and NATO), I will allow myself some comments
            The first one. The size of the strike group may well reach 40 units. For some reason, you forgot that crews that flew earlier than others do not always need even a PTB: planes will be sequentially refueled in a special area according to the appropriate schedule. And, thus, they will leave the zone of building BP (battle formations) with approximately the same fuel supply.
            The second one. One of the main tasks of the AMG of the United States Navy (aircraft carrier multi-purpose groups) during the Soviet era was the buildup (strengthening) of aviation groups on advanced theater of operations. For example, in the operational zone of our Northern Fleet, the combat area of ​​the two AMGs was the West Fjord, where they (AMG) deployed in advance from the Western Atlantic and dispersed their aircraft to the airfields of Northern Norway (Bodø, Banak, Bardufoss, Alta, etc.). And, of course, they brought the maximum possible number of aircraft there (up to 90 units on each aircraft carrier). The AMG ships themselves and their entire air group were under the cover of continental air defense and it was very difficult to “take” them! This is me to the fact that the quantitative composition of the air wing can be very different, it all depends on the specific upcoming "mess."
            The third. It’s a pity that you didn’t get acquainted with the information posted "where necessary." There are a lot of interesting things, you can believe me! But the special sedition, with the exception of the nuances, in particular Admiral Chester Nimitz was called Charles (this and something else I corrected) in the article. Commendable!
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              1 August 2013 12: 16 New
              14
              Dear Colonel, thank you so much! To get such a high rating from a professional - for me it means a lot, a lot.
              Quote: Colonel
              The size of the strike group may well reach 40 units. For some reason, you forgot that crews that flew earlier than others do not always need even a PTB: planes will be sequentially refueled in a special area according to the appropriate schedule.

              I just forgot to mention that I am considering a case where carrier-based aircraft operate without outside help. Or am I wrong even in this case? Is it possible to send several tanker aircraft (the same Khornets with a bunch of PTB) from the aircraft carrier that launched the strike group to refuel the planes upon return, or is it a utopia?
              And I would be extremely grateful to you if you consider it possible to talk about whether it is possible to prepare planes for departure on the hangar deck. Of course, I dare not insist.
              Quote: Colonel
              It’s a pity that you didn’t get acquainted with the information posted "where necessary"

              And I'm so sorry! :) And I would ... certainly I would not have missed such an opportunity :))) But this is certainly a utopia, alas crying
              Once again - thank you so much for the tip.
              Yours faithfully,
              Andrei
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 1 August 2013 16: 45 New
                -7
                Quote: Colonel
                For example, in the operational area of ​​our SF, the combat area of ​​the two AMGs was the West Fjord, where they (AMG) deployed in advance from the Western Atlantic and dispersed their aircraft to the airfields of Northern Norway (Bodø, Banak, Bardufoss, Alta, etc.)

                It is very interesting
                was the Nimitz super wafer (kitty hockey, forest table) used as an air transport?
                Quote: Colonel
                And, of course, they brought the maximum possible number of aircraft there (up to 90 units on each aircraft carrier)

                Sorry, but this is clearly a disinformation. so much will not fit in Nimitz, if only to ram the equipment with a bulldozer (dimensions of the flight deck and hangar)

                Moreover, it was during the time of the bulky Tomcat ...
        2. little man
          little man 1 August 2013 16: 40 New
          +2
          I am joining. Many thanks to Andrei for the article! I look forward to continuing.
        3. VVAU
          VVAU 29 July 2019 06: 54 New
          +1
          The link does not open
      2. Joker
        Joker 1 August 2013 19: 12 New
        +2
        Generally speaking, for some reason, only the first part got to the main one, there is the second one, but it mysteriously disappeared from the forthcoming ones, but did not appear on the main part.

        This means that the article is checked and will be published, and if it is hanging, it means it is only ready to be checked.
        1. VVAU
          VVAU 29 July 2019 06: 55 New
          +1
          Long check something
          1. VVAU
            VVAU 29 July 2019 06: 56 New
            +1
            Check for a long time ....
            1. VVAU
              VVAU 29 July 2019 06: 56 New
              +1
              Check for a long time .....
    2. T-100
      T-100 1 August 2013 12: 01 New
      -2
      Granite (П-700) is in the teeth !!!
      1. Black Colonel
        Black Colonel 2 August 2013 11: 56 New
        +3
        ... and “Flurry” (VA-111) him (“Nimitsu”) in the teeth!
        The article is quite interesting and informative, as well as sensible comments ("Colonel") good
      2. T-100
        T-100 2 August 2013 14: 57 New
        +2
        T-100:
        Granite (П-700) is in the teeth !!!

        I mean the Nimitz class aircraft carrier
      3. VVAU
        VVAU 29 July 2019 06: 57 New
        +1
        And no one has tried yet
        1. VVAU
          VVAU 29 July 2019 06: 58 New
          +1
          And no one has tried it yet
  2. avt
    avt 1 August 2013 10: 06 New
    +8
    good I liked it, quite a meaningful article. Plus, we are waiting for the second part.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 August 2013 10: 31 New
      12
      Thank you, but do not expect much from the second part - there are just a few objections raised during the previous discussion. I would not divide the article into 2 parts, but the site has a size limit, and, alas, it does not fit into one article :)))
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 1 August 2013 16: 49 New
        +6
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I would not divide the article into 2 parts, but the site has a size limit, and, alas, did not fit into one article :)))

        Severe Chelyabinsk article))

        Thanks for the work. Criticism will begin now
        1. VVAU
          VVAU 29 July 2019 06: 59 New
          +1
          Article translated, criticize
  3. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 1 August 2013 10: 06 New
    +1
    Given how many satellites are in orbit, then any AUG is not an ant, it is constantly monitored, its movement is monitored. Therefore, it’s impossible to get close to an enemy with satellite tracking unnoticed. From this and all the consequences. I have argued many times that the AUG is intended only to intimidate and punish third world countries. In real combat operations with an equal enemy, efficiency will approach zero. But the content of such groups is expensive for the country.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 August 2013 10: 29 New
      15
      First, I ask you to pay attention to the fact that here we are not discussing the effectiveness of the AUG - only some of the features and limitations of the use of carrier-based aircraft. And secondly, of course, you will receive information from satellites, but the fact is that the same photography will be processed approximately in a day from the moment of shooting. Those. You will not know where AUG is now, you will know where it was yesterday. Those. You will know that the AOG is located somewhere inside a circle with a radius of 700 nautical miles, the center of which is its yesterday’s location
      Other types of reconnaissance (passive radar, for example) are easy enough to fool, but we no longer have active satellites (like the Soviet "legend") - and shooting them down is easy enough.
      The sad thing is that having satellite intelligence does not guarantee omniscience
      1. Evgeny_Lev
        Evgeny_Lev 1 August 2013 11: 01 New
        0
        And why do we need to closely monitor the AUG in those places, the location of which, to us, absolutely sideways?
        I mean, a long time ago the General Staff determined and monitors those places of the oceans, the presence of which AUG carries a danger to us. With all the ensuing consequences. Why do we need to know in seconds online, the location of the AUG which is in which thread crossing the Atlantic? He will go into the middle-earth, we will recognize without satellites, as well as with other directions.
        1. svp67
          svp67 1 August 2013 11: 04 New
          11
          Quote: Evgeny_Lev
          And why do we need to closely monitor the AUG in those places, the location of which, to us, absolutely sideways?

          In order to track the degree of their readiness, analyze what they are preparing for, and most importantly, notice in time their transition to those places that we are not "on the side ..."
          1. Evgeny_Lev
            Evgeny_Lev 1 August 2013 11: 23 New
            -6
            Why again? And what do you want to see online from a satellite in the middle of the Atlantic?
            How much money are you willing to pour into these essentially empty monitoring? What are we going to stop the amers from using as a means of economic movement against you?

            Thousands of miles and days of transitions are to the nearest goals, how can they threaten you from such a distance *? What did you really need to follow them online?
            1. svp67
              svp67 1 August 2013 22: 38 New
              +6
              Quote: Evgeny_Lev
              Thousands of miles and days of transitions are to the nearest goals, how can they threaten you from such a distance *?
              Monitoring and timely detection of ACG actions will give us the opportunity to take countermeasures during this day, and not work "FACT"
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          1 August 2013 12: 22 New
          10
          Quote: Evgeny_Lev
          He will go into the middle-earth, we will recognize without satellites, as well as with other directions.

          What went in - you find out, and then what? Where will you then look for him in the middle-earth?
          But finding on the Far East is a completely non-trivial task. Despite the fact that, generally speaking, the AUG is not going to fly along our shores ... A throw at the radius of effective use of aviation - raising an air group - strike ... Everything will happen very quickly.
          In order to at least detect AUGs, it is necessary to revive the system of marine reconnaissance and target designation, and it is built not only on satellites. Both carrier-based EW and AWACS aircraft are very important (and perhaps the most important in the ocean) means of detecting the enemy.
          1. Evgeny_Lev
            Evgeny_Lev 1 August 2013 12: 51 New
            -6
            There are much more dangerous and important goals in the Mediterranean. +50 AUG planes will not play a special role in an attack in this direction. They need to be taken into account, but if it comes to that, then our “partners” will certainly not use the main core of the offensive. For this there are a bunch of bases.

            DV, a throw and all that’s next - what is this for? I mean, what to prepare for a landing? So? How many battalions per infantry in the AUG? What can they do? how deeply will they advance?
            Anyway, for what? March to go to Moscow? Or DV chop off?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              1 August 2013 13: 19 New
              12
              Quote: Evgeny_Lev
              DV, a throw and all that’s next - what is this for? I mean, what to prepare for a landing? So?

              In order to deploy NK and submarines with the Tomahawks, or even worse than that and, eliminating the threat to the carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic, it is free to hammer for a couple of thousand kilometers deep into the mainland for strategic goals
              1. Evgeny_Lev
                Evgeny_Lev 1 August 2013 14: 31 New
                -3
                Which side?
            2. VVAU
              VVAU 29 July 2019 08: 02 New
              +1
              Who knows how it will be :-)
          2. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 1 August 2013 16: 52 New
            -1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Where will you then look for him in the middle-earth?

            Communication ships, informants in Naples, Izmir and La Maddalena
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            A throw on the radius of the effective use of aviation - the rise of an air group - a blow ... Everything will happen very quickly.

            are you going to beat?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Both carrier-based EW and AWACS aircraft are very important (and perhaps the most important in the ocean) means of detecting the enemy.

            will find out. so, what is next?
            1. VVAU
              VVAU 29 July 2019 08: 03 New
              +1
              Yuuzhut follow, then destroy
        3. VVAU
          VVAU 29 July 2019 07: 00 New
          +1
          Exercises in 1982 showed that it is not monitoring :-)
      2. yanus
        yanus 1 August 2013 12: 49 New
        -3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And secondly, you will certainly receive information from satellites, but the fact is that the same photographing will be processed approximately in a day from the moment of shooting.

        Do you know which year, century in the yard this year?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          1 August 2013 13: 04 New
          13
          Yes, in the know. Today, for example, 1 August 2013 year. AND?
          1. Atrix
            Atrix 1 August 2013 14: 57 New
            12
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Yes, in the know. Today, for example, 1 August 2013 year. AND?

            The man of movies has seen enough and thinks that satellites broadcast in real time winked
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              1 August 2013 15: 14 New
              +9
              So I have the same suspicion :))
            2. VVAU
              VVAU 29 July 2019 08: 04 New
              +1
              Journalist, that’s it :-)
          2. yanus
            yanus 1 August 2013 16: 17 New
            +4
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Yes, in the know. Today, for example, 1 August 2013 year. AND?

            The man of movies has seen enough and thinks that satellites broadcast in real time

            Even Soviet satellites (5th generation) gave data in a "digital" with a slight delay. Americans use satellites as repeaters, so the delay is even less.
            The main problem is data processing speed. If you write software that will fast “automatically” to allocate armored vehicles, mobile air defense, etc. on the background of the earth and with camouflage is problematic,
            the software that will be fast automatically determine AUG against the seamaybe a third year student.

            PS: if Che, this is data from open sources, oh there is "slightly" outdated data.
            1. VVAU
              VVAU 29 July 2019 08: 04 New
              +1
              Most likely so ...
        2. VVAU
          VVAU 29 July 2019 07: 00 New
          +1
          Not so simple..
      3. dustycat
        dustycat 2 August 2013 21: 26 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And secondly, you will certainly receive information from satellites, but the fact is that the same photographing will be processed approximately in a day from the moment of shooting.

        And here I am minus you.
        Rummage through the internet - it’s full of examples of intercepting satellite imagery (mostly current weather images from geostationary stations with the remoteness of receiving one scan before the current one is received)
        So it is on open channels with fax speed.
        Yes, this is shocking, especially with the speed of receiving information from satellites by our military.
        Despite the fact that the same Ministry of Emergencies has a thermal imaging of forest fires from Resources via Google (and why do they also receive it via yachu, but not via mail or Yandex) with a minimum of 30 minutes (they showed it on TV - it almost fell from the couch) .
        The fact that the satellite’s thermal imager will not see "glowing" with its catapults (at least one) against the background of the Nimitz ocean - there is no chance even with 10 point clouds and through the typhoon ..
        So this is through widely available sources with no permission.
        The whole question of the speed of obtaining the current situation is purely in the ability of generals to read it from pictures from the monitor screen, and not in the form of a diagram painted by pencils on a tablet by simplicity tablet-players.
        1. VVAU
          VVAU 29 July 2019 07: 01 New
          +1
          Not so simple....
    2. Su24
      Su24 8 August 2013 18: 04 New
      0
      Quote: vladsolo56
      Given how many satellites are in orbit, then any AUG is not an ant, it is constantly monitored, its movement is monitored. Therefore, it’s impossible to get close to an enemy with satellite tracking unnoticed. From this and all the consequences. I have argued many times that the AUG is intended only to intimidate and punish third world countries. In real combat operations with an equal enemy, efficiency will approach zero. But the content of such groups is expensive for the country.


      You do not turn, but there are ... Clouds! Cloud cyclone with a diameter of 1000 km, for example.
  4. Evgeny_Lev
    Evgeny_Lev 1 August 2013 10: 33 New
    -1
    The thesis about "AUG never goes to war with a spherical horse in a vacuum" is very controversial.
    Coming from it, it turns out that intelligence has 100% reliable information. And this is far from always the case.
    As a result, a good third of the conclusions and calculations can be entitled, "Those entitled to" be ", but not unambiguous as much as reliable intelligence, minus the error on the human factor."
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 August 2013 10: 56 New
      10
      Quote: Evgeny_Lev
      Coming from it, it turns out that 100 intelligence has reliable information.

      You see, AUG can be set, in fact, 2 tasks requiring massive sorties of aviation.
      1) Destruction of the forces of the enemy fleet
      2) Destruction of stationary targets (such as airfields or infrastructure)
      The forces of the enemy fleet at the theater are known in advance - they are painted in all naval literature. Their location may not be known, yes. But in any case, the AUG will receive certain orientations - say, the enemy has a couple of air bases and some land attack aircraft on them, and also in the area there may be up to 6 destroyer / cruiser ships. A couple of AUG is advanced - one of the bottom is the task of destroying airbases (which it will deal with regardless of the presence of warships) and the second AUG will NOT deal with airbases - it will search for enemy ships and hit them even if instead of the expected 6 will be 4 or 8. All this allows you to prepare air groups in advance for departure.
      If the AUGs were caught “with their pants down” —for some reason, they were preparing to hit the ground — and then the enemy’s strike group with a couple of missile cruisers at the head — no one would bother to turn around and retreat, keeping the distance to the enemy KUG for several hours. AUG is a high-speed connection, it can calmly "keep distance" for several hours - and during this time you can completely re-suspend your weapons and only then strike. If it happened the other way around - they were preparing to fight with the fleet, and the enemy fleet had escaped somewhere, then no one bothers to calmly equip the aircraft to strike along the shore - stationary targets will not run away. No one will send the AUG to catch enemy ships under attack from a ground-based aviation in the area (they simply set aside a second AUG to suppress this aircraft, and that’s all)
      1. Evgeny_Lev
        Evgeny_Lev 1 August 2013 11: 17 New
        0
        It seems to me that you are speculating with a spherical horse.
        I will explain. Before giving an example with "- let's say the enemy has a pair of air bases and some land attack aircraft on them, as well as up to 6 destroyer / cruiser ships in the area." which of the potential opponents of the United States has “a pair of air bases and a certain amount ....” outside its borders, again, with all the ensuing consequences? China? Russia?

        If we talk about these two countries, then AUG, in relation to them, will have a narrow series of tasks, such as shutting down sea lanes, for more, the US command, it will be able to rely on AUG vryatli. Of course, in the initial stage of the conflict, when the coastal ground forces of Russia and China will still be intact.
        AUG is the weapon of the second "wave", for the first country banana.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          1 August 2013 11: 59 New
          12
          Quote: Evgeny_Lev
          It seems to me that you are speculating with a spherical horse.

          But it seems to me that no. I'm sorry, but against the argument “it seems to me” I am powerless - it is impossible to refute it :))) I’m ready to continue when you give some arguments and explain WHY it seems to you so
          Quote: Evgeny_Lev
          China? Russia?
          If we talk about these two countries, then the AUG, in relation to them, will have a narrow series of tasks, such as shutting down sea communications, for the greater part, the US command, it will be able to rely on the AUG for nothing.

          But I’m wondering what a couple of IA regiments can do, which can be deployed at air bases in Knevichi, Kamenny Ruchey and Nikolaevka against at least a couple of AUG maneuvering closer to Vladivostok. Or what can an air base for one regiment in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky do against the same AUG.
          let's be realistic already - the Far East is covered from massive attacks from the air ... very fragmented and frankly so-so.
          1. Evgeny_Lev
            Evgeny_Lev 1 August 2013 12: 28 New
            -5
            The wording “seems to me” I specifically explained.
            It’s not hard for me to repeat:
            “I’ll explain. Before giving an example with” - let's say the enemy has a pair of air bases and some land attack aircraft on them, and there may also be up to 6 destroyer / cruiser class ships in the area. “Which of the potential US adversaries has“ a pair airbases and some .... "outside of their state borders, again, with all the ensuing consequences? China? Russia?"
            In this case, I tried to make it clear to you that pulling out the hypothetical "pair of air bases" and "up to 6 (why not up to 10?) Ships ..." you think up goals that are convenient for your reasoning. Speaking about the Far East, you are a bit more specific, but again convenient. "Streaming consequences" is the application of the COMPLEX of planned measures to repel aggression in the direction that are developed using the methods of continental defense.
            Simply put, the protection of the state is not exactly the protection of individual bases, especially since we do not have such bases.

            I ask you, please name the goals that you personally would set the AUG of Russia, if you had the authority to do so.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              1 August 2013 13: 01 New
              11
              Quote: Evgeny_Lev
              It’s not hard for me to repeat:

              What for? In fact, you call the conditions that I set “comfortable”, but you don’t offer your own. What is the constructiveness of the discussion?
              Quote: Evgeny_Lev
              "Flowing consequences" is the application of the COMPLEX of planned measures to repel aggression in the direction, which are developed using methods of continental defense

              Sorry, but these words seem to me to be much less specific than in mine. But the specifics - she is in the experience of using AUG. What surprises did Iraq prepare for them? Iran? Yugoslavia? Libya?
              All the time you are trying to switch the conversation from the tactics of an aircraft carrier’s air group to a military strategy - why, let me ask? These are slightly different questions. And how
              Quote: Evgeny_Lev
              I ask you, please name the goals that you personally would set the AUG of Russia, if you had the authority to do so.

              related to the topic of the article - the features of the use of atomic groups of atomic US aircraft carriers - it is decidedly impossible to understand.
              Of course, I cannot leave unanswered the question expressed in such a courteous form - to ignore it would be rudeness on my part. So - the goals of the AUG RF
              1) Demonstration of power, "gunboat diplomacy" in the American image and likeness. AMG off the coast of Syria would have looked great.
              2) Covering the SSBN deployment areas from enemy air attack, search for enemy nuclear submarines in the Barents Sea. The situation when the enemy’s multi-purpose submarines and submarines and submarines are "undetected" is unacceptable, we don’t need any enemy PLO and submarines in the Barents.
              3) Destruction of the ACG of a sworn friend in order to counter the threat of a "disarming strike" - the use of a large number of non-nuclear Raman weapons to strike at our strategic nuclear forces from the sea.
              4) Participation in the Air Defense and Airborne Defense of the Kuril Islands
              5) For the aircraft carriers of the SF of the USSR, it would be an interesting task - to ensure a breakthrough of the anti-submarine barrage and withdraw their squadrons of submarines to the Atlantic :) It is difficult to say whether the time will come for the Russian Federation when this task becomes relevant again? But I'm, by nature, an optimist :))
              6) Striking own missiles from coastal flanks in the same China, for example - in this case, the AMG deployed in some South China Sea can break the existing on the guards of the Kyrgyz Republic and cover the submarines with long-range submarines on board :)
              This is offhand, you can still come up :)
              In general, I understand that I’ve already gotten over my nose, but the naval concept of the Russian Federation still requires the Navy to protect and represent the interests of the Russian Federation in the oceans. And without AB it is ... difficult.
              1. Evgeny_Lev
                Evgeny_Lev 1 August 2013 14: 05 New
                0
                About "convenient" conditions:
                Here is a map of the Far East.
                http://pics.livejournal.com/borzenko/pic/000090p2

                Take a closer look at her. Where are the borders of the Russian Federation and what are the distances from the distant outpost about. Sinushir, Kuril ridge, to the continental part of the Russian Federation on which are acceptable targets for AUG.
                Where should your ACG be located or pass unnoticed in order to make a “swift strike”, as you literally put it?
                Where do you think this blow should be directed?
                Vladivostok? More likely no than yes. Hard nut for AUG.
                You called Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky, ok, let's say that the regiment of aviation (according to your data) could not cope with the defense of the entrusted territory, did not bring down a single AUG plane while it lay down together with ground air defense. What's next? Disembark an assault force that will jump over Kamchatka with a blitzkrieg, then plunge, xs what, but plunge and land through the Sea of ​​Okhotsk .... where? on Magadan, Sakhalin?
                This passage is only to ensure that there is an understanding that the USA AUG has no operational accessibility to goals that could be risked and destroyed by unleashing a global piper. They will not beheaded the Far East, so that there would be no opportunity to sink the entire AUG, you know?

                As for the tactics of action.
                I believe that it is an integral part of the strategy, the projection of which on the Russia-USA conflict is what I described above.
                Otherwise, I don’t understand what the message is of all that you wrote in the article. Well done, they fly out, well, maybe something can be there. Clear. AND? At which theater of operations against Russia can the ACS become the core of the operation?

                1. Demonstration of power is primarily a powerful economy, which is easier for Russia to build under a defensive doctrine, and only then all these rattles.
                2. Covering areas is fun of course. But something tells me that the SSBN will hide more reliably when she is alone, and not with a team.
                3. Strike for strategic nuclear forces from the sea? From Black? Baltic?
                4. About the Kuril Islands wrote above.
                5. The USSR and Russia have a defensive doctrine.
                6. And what prevents this from being done with submarines? I don’t understand this "with long-range submarines on board :)"


                I doubt that the amers put in the AUG the meaning that they are currently using.
                It seems that the AUG is the closure of landing ships, transports and other auxiliary vessels, of which the latter have enough.
                All the power of the AUG was designed to protect what should later be landed. And judging by everything (the number of high-speed transports), this “everything” should have been comparable to the number of troops commensurate with the USSR in a certain theater of operations.
                The preparation of such operations at the present time cannot be inconspicuous. The order that is formed as a result will be visible "from the moon."

                What the ACG can now against Russia is not able to provide the necessary result.
                1. ben gun
                  ben gun 1 August 2013 14: 31 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Evgeny_Lev
                  It is believed that the AUG is the closure of landing ships, transports and other auxiliary vessels, which the latter have enough. The entire strength of the AUG was designed to protect what should later be landed.

                  Here, in my opinion, the meaning of the application and use of aircraft carriers. covering oneself from the air. local gain and retention of advantage in the air. AND EVERYTHING! Everything else is superficial. The most important thing is guaranteed to knock down everything in the air that walks, runs, flies over its crab / ships. And trying to crawl lower and deeper down to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, that under our ships / ships is trying to crawl
                  And then anti-ship actions in my opinion.
                  1. VVAU
                    VVAU 29 July 2019 08: 06 New
                    +2
                    Advantage and strike
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  1 August 2013 14: 57 New
                  +7
                  Quote: Evgeny_Lev
                  Where should your ACG be located or pass unnoticed in order to make a “swift strike”, as you literally put it?

                  Variant 1 - AUG come from the coast of Japan.
                  Quote: Evgeny_Lev
                  Vladivostok? More likely no than yes. Hard nut for AUG.

                  Excuse me, but what is the strength of this nut? Is there three airbases on the 4 aviation regiment in that area? This, in principle, is enough to bang one AUG. And if there are two of them? As far as I know, with the airfields we have a complete seam, there is simply nowhere to turn out of the air strike. AUG + cruise missile aircraft can inflict a very dangerous, disarming strike on our air bases, having arranged for them a personal pearl harbor.
                  Option 2 AUG goes to the islands of the Kuril ridge, demolishes outposts on the way and smashes the air base in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, after it enters the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.
                  AUG maneuver far, but at the hour "H" sharply reduce the distance, and demolish the base on Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. I would not want to count on the fact that one aviation regiment could repel a combined attack of dozens of aircraft and the Kyrgyz Republic. How will it look for us? According to yesterday’s satellite intelligence data, the AUGs were maneuvering somewhere in the ocean, 1000 miles from our shores. Suddenly a message - someone's planes and missiles are attacking the Kamchatsky base. Whose are they - and so it is clear, but where the AUG is unclear, but it would be clear - how to beat them? In order to have hope for success in the USSR, the 2 regiment Tu-22М3 was considered necessary with electronic warfare, razveka and RTR, and under the cover of EMNIP 2 regiments IA. Where does all this come from? Where is the network of airfields on which all this can be deployed? Then the AUG passes into the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, and it is safely lost there - you’re not even scouting it there with aviation, you won’t get too many submarines against dozens of helicopter PLOs (and there will be so many on a pair of AUG). Aviation from our bases in Khabarovsk will not get them, but their tomahawks - completely.
                  Quote: Evgeny_Lev
                  What's next? Drop the landing,

                  Sorry, but I haven’t said a word about the landings - you’re writing about them all the time. And I repeat - the main task of the ACG here is to ensure the combat stability of the carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic and these Kyrgyz Republics themselves. the combination of air strikes and KR gives noticeably better results
                  Quote: Evgeny_Lev
                  Otherwise, I don’t understand what the message is of all that you wrote in the article. Well done, they fly out, well, maybe something can be there. Clear. AND?

                  And that’s all. The article was written as an argument in a discussion where the question debated - "Can carrier-based aircraft carry out massive attacks or not?" The article directly says
                  but today I will not in any way agitate you, dear readers, for aircraft carriers in the modern Navy.

                  In general, I understand that you want to argue about the role of aircraft carriers in world history and conflicts of the future - but this was completely not in my plans. Maybe in another article :)))
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    1 August 2013 14: 58 New
                    +8
                    Those. didn't our Kuznetsov go to Syria? Should you wait until the economy intensifies? and what, in your opinion, is strengthening the economy? Generally speaking, the Russian Federation is already, according to some opinions, in the six largest economies in the world.
                    Quote: Evgeny_Lev
                    Covering areas is cool of course. But something tells me that the SSBN will hide more reliably when she is alone, and not with a team.

                    The SSBN does not have to hide under the keel of an aircraft carrier. Here comes our AMG and begins a methodical search for enemy nuclear submarines.
                    Given that one and a half dozen helicopters are capable of scoring several THOUSAND square kilometers per day ... and somewhere out there, in these squares, SSBNs are POSSIBLE (and possibly not) ... this is cool, yes. Of course, it’s much funnier when Amer’s nuclear submarines track our SSBNs and SSBNs almost from the moment they leave the bases. But I’m somehow uncomfortable from such a joke
                    Quote: Evgeny_Lev
                    3. Strike for strategic nuclear forces from the sea? From Black? Baltic?

                    From the Far East and, perhaps, from the north.
                    Quote: Evgeny_Lev
                    4. About the Kuril Islands wrote above.

                    I answered
                    Quote: Evgeny_Lev
                    The USSR and Russia have a defensive doctrine.

                    What did not stop the USSR from having an OPESK in the middle-earth and driving squadrons across all oceans. "Tell the Hindus that the American aircraft carrier is our problem, and let them solve their own" - do not remind whose words it is?
                    Quote: Evgeny_Lev
                    And what prevents this from being done with submarines?

                    Firstly, the relatively small capacitance of the RC on the submarine. And secondly - their combat stability is not so great
                    with long-range submarines on board

                    laughing laughing laughing Well, de, how is it a top-secret weapon, the AUG goes into position and keek will release atomarines into the air! And they will fly to the very Ural Mountains ... Is it in vain that, in your opinion, did Vysotsky come up with a multi-carrier aircraft carrier? :)))
                    Olepyatka of course :) It was right - with long-range missiles on board :)
                  2. Firstvanguard
                    Firstvanguard 2 August 2013 11: 48 New
                    +1
                    Excuse me, but what is the strength of this nut? Is there three airbases on the 4 aviation regiment in that area? This, in principle, is enough to bang one AUG. And if there are two of them? As far as I know, with the airfields we have a complete seam, there is simply nowhere to turn out of the air strike. AUG + cruise missile aircraft can inflict a very dangerous, disarming strike on our air bases, having arranged for them a personal pearl harbor.
                    Option 2 AUG goes to the islands of the Kuril ridge, demolishes outposts on the way and smashes the air base in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, after it enters the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.
                    AUG maneuver far, but at the hour "H" sharply reduce the distance, and demolish the base on Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. I would not want to count on the fact that one aviation regiment could repel a combined attack of dozens of aircraft and the Kyrgyz Republic. How will it look for us? According to yesterday’s satellite intelligence data, the AUGs were maneuvering somewhere in the ocean, 1000 miles from our shores. Suddenly a message - someone's planes and missiles are attacking the Kamchatsky base. Whose are they - and so it is clear, but where the AUG is unclear, but it would be clear - how to beat them? In order to have hope for success in the USSR, the 2 regiment Tu-22М3 was considered necessary with electronic warfare, razveka and RTR, and under the cover of EMNIP 2 regiments IA. Where does all this come from? Where is the network of airfields on which all this can be deployed? Then the AUG passes into the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, and it is safely lost there - you’re not even scouting it there with aviation, you won’t get too many submarines against dozens of helicopter PLOs (and there will be so many on a pair of AUG). Aviation from our bases in Khabarovsk will not get them, but their tomahawks - completely.

                    From which it follows that the Russian Federation does not need to have floating wunderwafes, but a network of airfields and infrastructure for them. hi
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      2 August 2013 11: 58 New
                      +1
                      Well, yes :))) For some reason, it seems to everyone that an aircraft carrier is terribly and genuinely expensive, but to deploy a network of airdromes is to spit, it’s business ...
                      You calculate how much it will cost to build and maintain airfield aerodromes + infrastructure for them + reserves for them + aircraft maintenance on them + air defense. It’s not for nothing that I cited the data - the number of air wing of Nimitz is 2500 people! And even with such a headcount, practitioners write to me that there are still problems with intensive military operations. And remember that having spent funds comparable to the construction of an aircraft carrier, you, perhaps, will cover it, but ... that's all. These aerodromes will not solve any other problems.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 2 August 2013 17: 48 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        deploy a network of airdromes - so it’s time to spit, it’s business ...

                        Cheaper
                    2. VVAU
                      VVAU 29 July 2019 08: 08 New
                      +2
                      And why an airdrome without an infrastr? And vice versa.
                3. cdrt
                  cdrt 1 August 2013 23: 12 New
                  +2
                  About the goals of using the AUS (when the states were seriously preparing to fight with us like that) in Kola and Kamchatka - look for the ZVO of the year 1991. There, I remember in 2 numbers in a row the Marine Strategy, the doctrine of the US Navy, was very detailed. The application of AUS is described in detail, and where and in what quantity of marinas to plant and for what purposes, etc.
                  1. VVAU
                    VVAU 29 July 2019 08: 09 New
                    +1
                    It was ... yes
              2. Col.
                Col. 1 August 2013 16: 05 New
                +5
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                2) Covering the SSBN deployment areas from enemy air attack, search for enemy nuclear submarines in the Barents Sea.

                In a professional language, this is called "Ensuring Combat Stability of the Strategic Rocket Forces". But this, one of the most important tasks of the fleet's forces, is mainly solved by PLA aircraft (Tu-142 and Il-38), to a lesser extent - heterogeneous anti-submarine forces (PL and NK). In addition, the patrol areas of our Northern Fleet SSBNs are located not in the Barents Sea, but in another area. yes
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  1 August 2013 19: 47 New
                  +3
                  Well, then the omega option is no longer repeat
  5. Alexey
    Alexey 1 August 2013 10: 47 New
    +8
    A very balanced and adequate analysis. Thank.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 August 2013 10: 57 New
      +5
      Please! :)) Glad I liked it
  6. Nayhas
    Nayhas 1 August 2013 10: 58 New
    10
    Good afternoon Andrey, a wonderful article, as far as I understand everything, awaiting Oleg’s response. The spears are ground, the bowstring is pulled, the horses impatiently beat their hooves ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 August 2013 12: 29 New
      10
      Good afternoon, Nayhas, glad to welcome!
      Quote: Nayhas
      wonderful article

      Thank you!
      Quote: Nayhas
      but as far as I understand everything, awaiting Oleg’s response

      I'm definitely not. Perhaps they will again reproach me with arrogance, but I do not expect anything from Oleg. Before writing this article, I asked Kaptsov several times - what will happen if I manage to point out the mistakes of Cabernik? What will happen if I can prove that aircraft carriers can carry out massive raids? In response, Oleg asked me what I will do if I DO NOT manage to defend my point of view. I replied that I was ready to publicly admit that I was wrong. Oleg declined to continue the dialogue.
      From which I conclude - even all the arguments of the world will not help me convince Kaptsov of his wrongness. And therefore, I see no reason to discuss. However, the issue of raising an air group is a really interesting question, and I still began to deal with the issue and wrote an article.
    2. Atrix
      Atrix 1 August 2013 12: 46 New
      +9
      Quote: Nayhas
      Good afternoon Andrey, a wonderful article, as far as I understand everything, awaiting Oleg’s response. The spears are ground, the bowstring is pulled, the horses impatiently beat their hooves ...

      Is Oleg Katsapov a recognized authority in this area? Oleg from all his comments shows that he does not like aircraft carriers and there is nothing to convince him of. Although this does not diminish his merits in writing articles, he simply has his own point of view and he, as an ardent patriot, proves it wink
      The author is a huge plus. We look forward to continuing.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 1 August 2013 19: 32 New
        +4
        Quote: Atrix
        Is Oleg Katsapov a recognized authority in this area?

        The matter is not credibility. It’s impossible to convince Oleg, but the argument with him makes you plunge into already forgotten sources, refresh your memory, find something new on the net, delve into old magazines (already pretty covered in dust) ... Yes, he is often overly emotional, but for emotions, love for the sea, for history ... And this is respected. His views, although controversial, are not without rational grains.
  7. korik
    korik 1 August 2013 11: 02 New
    +1
    ... (takeoff of a group of 35 aircraft - half an hour) ...- and is there enough steam to feed the catapults?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 August 2013 12: 05 New
      +7
      Enough of course. Although information slipped that when lifting a large air group, Nimitz was forced to reduce its speed to 20 knots, but he could well steam for catapults in sufficient quantities. The technical "rate of fire" of the catapults is altogether either once in 20 or once in 30 seconds, preventive repair is required after hundreds of starts (I write from memory, I'm sorry if I lie, but I shouldn’t lie too much :))
  8. barbiturate
    barbiturate 1 August 2013 11: 15 New
    +8
    Excellent analysis, thanks Andrei, I read it with great interest. In principle, I personally understood all this before, because a huge amount of indirect factors and evidence (not at all secret and publicly available) pointed to the same conclusions as you did, but everything is generalized and collected in one place, brave! I will wait for the second part!

    Quote: vladsolo56
    Given how many satellites are in orbit, then any AUG is not an ant, it is constantly monitored, its movement is monitored. Therefore, it’s impossible to get close to an enemy with satellite tracking unnoticed. From this and all the consequences. I have argued many times that the AUG is intended only to intimidate and punish third world countries. In real combat operations with an equal enemy, efficiency will approach zero. But the content of such groups is expensive for the country.


    If you take into account how many of them are capable of detecting ships?) Even in Soviet times, aircraft carriers disappeared for weeks in the vast oceans (even from their own, when the task was set), but how many satellites are monitoring the aug from us now? Rhetorical question. And how much does it cost to maintain a satellite constellation with tracking centers? And an aircraft carrier is not needed to intimidate third world countries, it is needed as a strong ship making other ships even stronger) Why repeat idiotic cliches
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 August 2013 13: 22 New
      +6
      Thank you for your kind words :))) But do not expect much from the second part - there are just comments on some of the opinions of my opponents. I didn’t want to divide the article into two parts - but there is a restriction on the size of the article on the site, and I simply did not fit the entire text into one article :)
  9. Hey
    Hey 1 August 2013 11: 35 New
    -10
    A simple car without warming up does not want to drive normally, and the plane is not a car, he also needs to warm up, blow out the engines. And if everything starts to warm up immediately, the aircraft carrier will burn.
    And the aircraft in front cannot be warmed up when another is standing behind it.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 August 2013 13: 20 New
      +8
      Quote: MUD
      And the aircraft in front cannot be warmed up when another is standing behind it.

      Look at the layout of the aircraft before starting. Almost all planes watch their tails at sea. So I don’t see any problems
  10. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 1 August 2013 13: 37 New
    +5
    the fact is that these aircraft carriers are designed for long-term intensive military operations, as a result of which the air wing suffers certain losses from shot down and damaged aircraft - a certain supply of pilots and aircraft ensures the replenishment of losses and allows you to maintain high combat capability of the aircraft carrier strike group longer than would allow for limited air group strength.

    Well, here is the simplest explanation.
    Why the number of aircraft on the Germans began to be linked to their ability to fight at the same time was incomprehensible to the mind ... It was the same as asking why the Ak-47 30 had cartridges in the store, although it was impossible to release them simultaneously. Likewise, aircraft carriers would have taken more planes, if possible.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 1 August 2013 23: 22 New
      +2
      At one time, aircraft carriers in the appendage also carried several partially dismantled aircraft (the beginning of WWII), to make up for losses
  11. doktor_alex
    doktor_alex 1 August 2013 15: 56 New
    10
    “All three catapults already have planes ready to launch (in scheme 2, the Hokai have already started from the catapults on the corner deck and are about to tear themselves away from the deck).”

    The amendment, in the diagram, not two hokeys ready to break away from the deck, but two helicopters (in fact, it is even written in brackets), they will rise first to ensure rescue operations. And just do a good article good
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 August 2013 16: 02 New
      +5
      Thanks for the amendment :))) I didn’t notice (ignorance of the English language fails - here the word “helicopter” would catch my eye, and “helicopter” - alas hi
  12. tlauicol
    tlauicol 1 August 2013 15: 56 New
    +6
    article - - balm on the heart lol
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 August 2013 16: 02 New
      +3
      Thanks for your kind words !
  13. uhu189
    uhu189 1 August 2013 16: 09 New
    +1
    Good and informative article, I learned a lot for myself, thank you. But a small question arose - did you come across information about what are the reserves of aviation fuel on aircraft carriers, how many days will it last for the standard number of sorties for airplanes and helicopters?
    1. doktor_alex
      doktor_alex 1 August 2013 16: 49 New
      +3
      Fuel reserves on the aircraft carrier itself do not have much significance as part of its escort; there is a tanker always ready to replenish aviation fuel reserves on the go.
  14. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 1 August 2013 17: 27 New
    -4
    75-85 aircraft is a theoretical indicator that can only be achieved in clear weather and near the native coast

    the question is not in clear weather and in the most physical opportunity to place on Nimitz 85 LA It is simply not possible - there is not enough space. (as soon as there are those who want to make sure of this - write, schemes, photos of decks and hangar are available)
    140 (or 147 or even 149) sorties per day for Nimitz-type aircraft carriers. In other words, for the air group in 80 aircraft, the combat voltage

    This is the second question. Will they manage to get the last, 80-th aircraft from the crammed hangar before the day is over
    It seems that these 140 sorties perform all the same 40-45 machines

    1 and 2 video - they rule on an almost empty flight deck, which is most freed from aircraft
    Secondly - the plane opened the plane only on the catapult (this is important

    Of course it is important, because they steer in ideal conditions, on an empty deck, without any suspensions. How about a fully refueled and armed plane?
    that if another plane were fed to the distant catapult, then during the shooting time we would see not 5 but 6 take-off planes.

    And that’s all. After all, they parked as close to the catapults as possible, on the elevator platforms - consider, they blocked the rise of aircraft to the deck.
    The aircraft carrier comes with a full wing - part of the planes and helicopters in the hangar, and part - on the upper deck

    The whole question is about the ratio of aircraft on the deck and in the hangar. Can you name a number?
    What is the probability that there are only 2-3 left in the hangar and not 20-30 aircraft?

    Here you can visually see what fit all 50 with pennies of aircraft, while the decks and elevators are jammed tight
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 1 August 2013 17: 57 New
      +2
      Here Nimits. Counted 75 pepelatsev, in the hangar 26. some of them are bulky f4, the Yankees are no longer used
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 August 2013 18: 07 New
      +6
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      the question is not in clear weather, but in the very physical ability to place 85 LA on Nimitz. It is simply not possible

      Oleg, there is official data on the number of aircraft on the Nimitsy in the same Desert Storm in Yugoslavia. There are numerous literature on this subject. From me - an article with calculations and diagrams and photos.
      If all this does not convince you, it is your business. But in my opinion, you were left unconvinced :)
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      It is simply not possible - there is not enough space. (as soon as there are those who want to make sure of this - write, schemes, photos of decks and hangar are available)

      Come on, but if you have more than forty aircraft in the hangar in the first hangar circuit, and in the photo we see 40 aircraft in flight with three open catapults - is this not proof of the physical ability to carry 85 aircraft? And then what is the evidence?
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Of course it is important, because they steer in ideal conditions, on an empty deck, without any suspensions. How about a fully refueled and armed plane?

      Well Oleg :)))) And the hefty hanging tank is not a kit? Then look at the Intruder (Powler?) On the 2 video - the pepelats starts in full body kit
      As for the empty deck - I made fun of it, in the 1 video where Hornet steers (by the way, in the body kit or not - not to disassemble, only a large hanging tank is visible), in fact, the frame shows 11 (ELEVEN) airplanes - and this is only aft, section to catapult. 9 planes are at attention, the tenth is on the adjacent catapult, the eleventh is being removed. And, yes, Oleg, indeed - despite the presence of 11 aircraft, the deck looks EMPTY, i.e. there you can still arrange a bunch of aviation :)))
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      After all, they parked as close to the catapults as possible, on the elevator platforms - consider, they blocked the rise of aircraft to the deck.

      Oleg, they did not block anything. And taking into account the fact that I am writing about the fact that planes ONLY located on the flight deck will start, it is difficult to underestimate the value of the blocked elevator :)))
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      What is the probability that there are only 2-3 left in the hangar and not 20-30 aircraft?

      And what is the probability that there are not 20-30 but 40 aircraft? Will fit into the hangar? will fit. What is the problem?
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 1 August 2013 18: 42 New
        -3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        there is official data on the number of aircraft on the Nimitsy in the same Desert Storm in Yugoslavia.

        I am against it. Draw the layout of the 79 aircraft in Stepanov’s configuration and the question will disappear by itself

        Colonel did a great disservice to you by telling about the methods of basing AMG in the West Fjord
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        From me - an article with calculations and diagrams and photos.

        It was enough to draw only one diagram, but you got scared and wrote a lot of letters about nothing
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        over forty aircraft in the hangar, and in the photo we see 40 aircraft in

        Do not be fooled by yourself, you count small turntables that do not affect anything - the number of planes in the first photo within 25 (hangar) and the same number on the flight deck. And their number will not change, remove, or leave the turntables.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        A hefty hanging tank - is this not a body kit?

        Not. Where are the clusters of bombs and 600-kg RCC Harpoon under the underwing pylons
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        on 1 video where Hornet steers

        There are just a lot of planes. That's why it steers slowly and carefully (even with folded consoles)
        but on the second - the deck is almost empty, the nearest planes, parked on the elevator, will start
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And taking into account the fact that I am writing about the fact that planes ONLY located on the flight deck will start, it is difficult to underestimate the value of the blocked lift :)))

        Then you have only 30 ready to take off cars
        where did you get this joke:

        If 35 of them went to attack the enemy KUG, four hang in the air as a patrol, and four more are preparing to change this patrol, and four or six fighters are at the catapults, getting ready to fly into the air in case of detection of an air enemy

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        What about 40 aircraft? Will fit into the hangar?

        No
    3. tlauicol
      tlauicol 1 August 2013 18: 07 New
      +2
      there are 47 units on the deck — helicopters and Hokai take off — catapults are free. however, I could be wrong - correct if not right
    4. tlauicol
      tlauicol 1 August 2013 18: 10 New
      +1
      and here are 44 more units in the hangar - a bit crowded of course. but in total more than 90 units
  15. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 1 August 2013 17: 49 New
    -7
    The truth is that in this photo some planes are grouped aft, overlapping the corner deck of an aircraft carrier - probably this small group of aircraft will start from the angular deck catapults.

    Of course are grouped. After all, this is a staged photo, all aircraft were pulled onto the deck
    remembering (remember the video!) that one catapult is capable of lifting one plane in 2,1-2,5 minutes ... take-off of a group in 35 aircraft - half an hour

    The first 5-6 nearest cars that park right behind the reflective shield
    and only in perfect weather.

    What about the North Atlantic? Fog, twilight, low clouds, snow charges
    If 35 of them went to attack the enemy KUG, four hang in the air as a patrol, and four more are preparing to change this patrol, and four or six fighters are at the catapults

    They will all interrupt at you like bromine tanks at the railway station in Chelyabinsk
    But this is a marching position. And if we are preparing to send a large air group into battle, then the aircraft on the aircraft carrier should be placed like this

    A combat air patrol and a Viking PLO aircraft will fall into the sea with empty tanks - after all, you tightly blocked the entire landing zone for several hours
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 August 2013 18: 11 New
      +5
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Of course are grouped. After all, this is a staged photo, all aircraft were pulled onto the deck

      Oleeg :))))) I won’t even answer to this :))) And the diagrams are the same as the production ones :) :)))
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The first 5-6 nearest cars that park right behind the reflective shield

      And what prevents others from reaching the catapults? Religion?:)
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      A combat air patrol and a Viking PLO aircraft will fall into the sea with empty tanks - after all, you tightly blocked the entire landing zone for several hours

      for several months :)))) Hour - maximum :)
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 1 August 2013 18: 52 New
        -5
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Religion?:)

        Time
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Hour - maximum

        Больше

        1. You forget that they need to be raised from the hangar and placed on spotings
        2. preflight preparation, engine start
        3. the start procedure itself - they will have to be dragged across the entire deck, and this is a couple of minutes for each
  16. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 1 August 2013 18: 08 New
    -3
    But the most interesting is the title photo for the article
  17. barbiturate
    barbiturate 1 August 2013 18: 12 New
    +9
    I wouldn’t answer in the place of Andrei, it seems that Oleg already just drives a fool or frankly trolls, and so on, to infinity, they proved one fact, prove another, prove that from the proof you have also proved by someone, etc. Typical trolling position. They tell him and carry 90 each, but they will not fit in, and there can only be one proof - to visit the aircraft carrier himself, but will he be able to visit? no, that means there is no proof, the logic is iron. Prove it) Half of the planes flew away? but the hangar is full! logic!) but how do you pull out the 80th plane? prove it? and here it was hatched it was considered? and you have a picture of what code? What about the type of aircraft? here and got !!) Read and prove again! Nah? Andrey, do you need this?)
    It creates a feeling in a person that 40-45 cars fly and how do you deny? Well, it’s a feeling, because the rest are tightly in the hangar) Give a photo of such an aircraft (like looking, although there are a lot of them with rockets on folded wings), well, not trolling?
    So he took the wrong picture, but why? Like not fools, then trolling, why else? There are 43 aircraft and a helicopter in the picture (in the correct picture !! it is shown) of which only 8 are !! on the ski lifts and it’s logical to assume that some will go to the start, while others will be lifted from the hangar as needed, but Oleg’s logic is iron, but where is the proof that the Negroes will come up with this and that the planes will not interfere with each other? Yeah !! no evidence? Well graze guys)
    Can you name the number ??? (not anyhow, you need to be clearly certified by the main black man)) What is the probability ?? And what is the probability that you brought the correct probability ??
    Andrei, it’s a pity of course, but such people are not convinced because they are absolutely sure of their own infallibility and are not able to lose.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      1 August 2013 19: 27 New
      +7
      Yes, I probably will not. How much is it possible? Oleg SAM himself presented a scheme where there are 36 planes in the hangar, on the Internet there are a lot of pictures, where there are only planes, not counting helicopters on the upper deck - under the fortieth or even more (one of these pictures, by the way, in the second part of the article) - but at the same time Well, they just can’t fit on an aircraft carrier. Heavy too, the aircraft carrier will roll over and drown, apparently :)))
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 1 August 2013 19: 40 New
        -2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Oleg SAM brought the scheme where 36 aircraft in the hangar

        Yes little F-35C
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        there are a lot of pictures on the internet where there are only planes, not counting helicopters on the upper deck - under the fortieth or even more

        Yes, they’re not going to take off or land anywhere - they are standing in straight rows, photographed

        How about a cool comment colonel?))
        1. Ruslan67
          Ruslan67 1 August 2013 19: 47 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Yes, they’re not going to take off or land anywhere - they are standing in straight rows, photographed

          Comrades debaters! hi And you can immediately ask a question to all what How often in the Atlantic on the Far East and in the northern seas is the ideal weather like in the video and what does this trough full of aircraft turn into a 6-7 point storm? laughing
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            1 August 2013 20: 30 New
            +5
            Quote: Ruslan67
            and what does this trough full of aircraft turn into a 6-7 storm?

            Yes, not at all - as far as I know, flights to 5 points go without limits, from 5 to 7 - only the most experienced crews, and no one flies from 7 points.
            Only now - why the trough? You do not call our Onyx anti-ship missiles junk? And they, by the way, have the same limitation of 7 points
            1. Ruslan67
              Ruslan67 1 August 2013 20: 34 New
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Only now - why the trough?

              Probably because if the plane cannot take off, then the aircraft carrier turns into a self-propelled barge request
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              starting from 7 points no one flies.

              The first part of the question was how often the weather is perfect in these areas. hi
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. barbiturate
    barbiturate 1 August 2013 20: 50 New
    +6
    Quote: Ruslan67
    Comrade debaters! And you can immediately ask a question to everyone. How often does the Atlantic weather in the Far East and the North Seas come in perfect weather as in the video and what does this trough full of aircraft turn into a 6-7 point storm?

    It’s you who received the marshal for such questions on this forum?)) Not only is the question off-topic, it’s also frankly provocative) Googling is not fate? How and what happens on ships when flying and what is the weather like?

    Quote: Ruslan67
    Probably because if the plane cannot take off, then the aircraft carrier turns into a self-propelled barge

    probably because in the storm any ship has a self-propelled barge? as with a 5 year old child, I love it)

    Quote: Ruslan67
    The first part of the question was how often the weather is perfect in these areas.

    google, the author wrote about the weather about his research about the weather?
    I am surprised Andrew, how you still have enough peace of mind to answer any provocative nonsense at all and then explain something else in response to the frankly lordly mocking type "Can I ask a question?" and drove nonsense "tell me about the weather"))
    1. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 1 August 2013 21: 09 New
      +1
      Quote: barbiturate
      What kind of questions did you get the marshal on this forum?

      I will not put a minus for rudeness
      Quote: barbiturate
      ) Googling is not fate?

      repeatedly
      Quote: barbiturate
      How and what happens on ships when flying and what is the weather like?

      If you don’t understand then I’m talking about the same
      Quote: barbiturate
      Not only is the question off-topic,

      The author wrote about the features. And for you it will probably be a complete surprise that the performance characteristics and results shown in the exercises in ideal conditions and real life are two big differences.
      Quote: barbiturate
      how do you still have enough peace of mind to respond to any provocative nonsense is not at all dark, and something else to explain

      The aug can come to the shores of Russia only from certain directions. The weather conditions are harsh and unpredictable. If they sharply worsen, the possibilities of aug are limited. Continue to continue?
  20. Naval
    Naval 1 August 2013 21: 24 New
    +6
    The article is interesting. and the rest, as in a joke, he would eat, but who would give him. We must be realistic, unfortunately, while we are not able to build such ships. There is no capacity, no technology. The food that was cooked for Mistral does not count. In the meantime, thanks to Sevmash for guaranteeing the transfer of three nuclear submarines in 2013 to the Navy.
  21. barbiturate
    barbiturate 1 August 2013 21: 36 New
    +6
    Quote: Ruslan67
    I will not put a minus for rudeness

    I think that you are rude with such questions
    Quote: Ruslan67
    repeatedly

    so what was the matter this time?
    Quote: Ruslan67
    The author wrote about the features. And for you it will probably be a complete surprise that the performance characteristics and results shown in the exercises in ideal conditions and real life are two big differences.

    Any calculations are based on the so-called normal conditions and who told you that the exercises are carried out in ideal conditions? Amer spent a lot of time on aircraft carriers, including in battle, do you think they made the wrong calculations and adapted everything to the so-called ideal conditions, without worrying about studying the theater? This is bold doubt) And stupid.

    Quote: Ruslan67
    The aug can come to the shores of Russia only from certain directions. The weather conditions are harsh and unpredictable. If they sharply worsen, the possibilities of aug are limited. Continue to continue?

    Dear, here it was and is about an aircraft carrier, its technical capabilities, and not about the capabilities of aug when attacking a country !! And here is a possible conflict between the US and Russia? Why, where does such thinking come from? Why are you considering the capabilities of the ship through the prism of global war? There are a lot of countries and conflicts in the world, there has been and will be, so think about where and when an aircraft carrier can come in handy.
    The weather conditions are unpredictable, after all, for us, for our aviation, for our fleet, too? Well, aug will move to a safe distance, will wait and approach again (moves 700 miles a day) so what? Anyway, the tactics of action in the north were already written by the colonel, if we say that the aug will persistently break into Russia and from the north)
    1. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 1 August 2013 21: 49 New
      +2
      Quote: barbiturate
      I think that you are rude with such questions

      When I am advised to go to google or wiki I can send and away negative Here everyone knows how to google and rewrite what is written there
      Quote: barbiturate
      Any calculations are based on the so-called normal conditions and who told you that the exercises are carried out in ideal conditions?

      Quote: barbiturate
      This is bold doubt) And stupid.

      Have you ever participated in the deployment of something more serious than a tent? Any calculations, standards and plans fly in the first minute
      Quote: barbiturate
      it was and is about an aircraft carrier, its technical capabilities, and not about the capabilities of aug when attacking a country !!

      And on which bolt are they still needed? From this point of view, they should be considered Technical capabilities can be any, especially if they have not been checked for a break
      Quote: barbiturate
      where and when can an aircraft carrier come in handy.

      Amers around the world until they run into it properly
      Quote: barbiturate
      Why are you considering the capabilities of the ship through the prism of global war?

      Papuans drive expensive Against a strong opponent is ineffective
      Quote: barbiturate
      Well, aug will move away to a safe distance, he will wait and come up again

      This option rolls with Libya and nothing more.
      Quote: barbiturate
      Why, where does such thinking come from?

      Probably from the situation in the world
      1. barbiturate
        barbiturate 2 August 2013 09: 53 New
        +1
        Quote: Ruslan67
        The author wrote an article about the features of the application. The question is not about the weather, but about the features of application in extreme climatic conditions.

        Extreme climatic conditions, this is an hour-long case of using an aircraft carrier and because of this I would not want to put the whole concept of an aircraft carrier as a ship with huge combat value. Moreover, there was already a comment from a knowledgeable person, nickel colonel, there are comments in the top.
        Quote: Ruslan67
        Without aviation in the air, this is a trough target

        Aviation is his weapon, any ship without a weapon is a target, do you agree? Although there are radars and anti-aircraft missiles for self-defense in principle and on an aircraft carrier (This is the Chester U Nimitz project), it’s another matter that his weapons (aviation) can detect from great distances and turn enemy ships into targets troughs)
        Quote: Ruslan67
        Poor and flawed Serious countries are building them in the framework of the doctrine of NATO-spreading the virus of democracy around the world

        Well, it’s you who called these countries in vain wretched and flawed, well, there’s a huge separate topic)

        Quote: Ruslan67
        This is where let me know?

        Bah, are you serious?) And for many decades of operation with numerous participation in the hostilities of dozens of aircraft carriers in various climatic zones, is this not a confirmation? Then what confirmation, give the type of ship that was checked then)

        Quote: Ruslan67
        So I analyze and it turns out that everything goes to Rossia-usa Ine, consider me a stubborn club player. Those data of any technique without reference to the realities of life are a set of numbers that any kitchen strategist knows. But any question that you called provocative drives them into a stupor because you answer it intelligently cannot

        Is there a lot of countries in the world and a lot of conflicts and is it right to consider the type of ship only through the prism of its need for nuclear conflict between Russia and the USA (which obviously will not)? Or are there fools at analytics headquarters? And what questions did anyone baffle? The author answered climate questions, answer you too, for example, if you cannot use Onyx (like any other missile system of surface ships) when the sea is at sea at 7 points, is it necessary to liquidate the Northern Fleet?)
    2. old man54
      old man54 2 August 2013 03: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: barbiturate
      Anyway, the tactics of action in the north were already written by the colonel, if we say that the aug will persistently break into Russia and from the north)

      Well then, they have a maximum of 5 months of the year to break, as you dear put it! fellow Since with lowering the temperature to zero, even at night, it actually makes the aircraft carrier the p.in. Dosovsky barge unsuitable! Why? They have a pair of catapults, and at a negative air temperature, the steam will very quickly go into the ice on the PP and ice the catapult carts with ice (look at the video in the article how the steam from these guides drops, when it’s just even a cart back, it returns to the original one). request Of course, you can crush, scrape ice, but in this case even the time frame of Oleg Kuaptsov will seem superfast! laughing That’s all. Perhaps it is precisely for this (I'm not sure) that the USSR so stubbornly did not build self-supporting ships with a steam catapult, but built them with a start from a springboard. hi
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 2 August 2013 04: 06 New
        +1
        Deck aviation of the Russian Navy is quite ripe for the operation in the near future of aircraft catapult takeoff. The advent of fifth-generation aircraft, as well as promising deck-based unmanned strike unmanned aircraft, inevitably raise the question of “which way to go” and “will ejection technologies remain on the aircraft carriers of the future”.
        Despite the abundance on the print pages of polemical materials on the theme "Catapult or Trampoline? Pros and Cons ”, these discussions have not yet become the lot of specialists, but are discussed mainly in amateur circles. In one interpretation or another, such a version of the problem does not leave the pages of various publications and forums sponsored by specialists, experts and not only ... Undoubtedly, the authors of these publications often express subjective opinions, being captive of their own preferences. When the intensity of passions among domestic prophets reaches the level of “Springboard against Catapult”, I want to recall that such a formulation of the question inevitably requires an answer in two aspects: historical and technical. We do not set the task of tipping the scales of opinion in one direction or another - we briefly recall only the history of the issue. We’ll try not to impose one-sided, unconvincing conclusions on our readers — let’s let you depict them yourself, relying on documents and press materials.
        Recall the dramatic development of events around the development in our country of a deck fighter ejection launch. In early 1980, the chief designer of OKB. Yakovleva assured D. Ustinov, the Minister of Defense, that "the creation of a new air defense system, surpassing all existing and promising foreign fighters, is close to completion." This was followed by fateful decisions based on these assurances of A.S. Yakovlev. One of these decisions hit the concept of TAVKR project 1143.5. An ardent opponent of the creation of aircraft carrier ships, deputy. Admiral N. Amelko, Chief of the General Staff, blocked the initiatives of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral S. Gorshkov, to increase the displacement of the future ship and bring the air group to 52 aircraft. Enough about the unseemly activity of Admiral N. Amelko in opposing Admiral S. Gorshkov has been written, for example, in the memoirs of the senior builder of the 705 order (NITKA), subsequently the senior builder of the 106 order (Tavkr "Varyag"), A. Svredin. Spending time on a more detailed generalization of N. Amelko’s activity is an ungrateful work, and there will be defenders of his legacy.
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 2 August 2013 04: 07 New
          +1
          In early 1980, the General Staff issued a directive, signed by D. Ustinov, on reorienting the air group of the designed "five" to
          SQUP and abandonment of the catapult launch. At this time, the staff of the take-off and landing systems (VPS) department of the Central Research Institute of Marine Engineering under the leadership of the Chief Designer A.A.Bulgakov successfully solved the problems of designing and testing individual units of the first domestic steam catapult and hydraulic hoist-finisher. The scientific team had to solve a whole range of scientific, technical and organizational tasks to develop the most energy-intensive catapults and aerofinisher in the world shipbuilding, which have high reliability indicators that provide the required safety of take-off and landing of aircraft. The author of these lines, a senior researcher at the UPU branch, could tell a lot about those dramatic moments in the development of such important systems, the atmosphere in A. Bulgakov’s team in this situation and the full set of “kind words” addressed to the evil genius of Russian aircraft carrier construction - the admiral N. Amelko.
          Next, we give the opinion of one of the "experts" without cuts:
          “The proletarian plant, which was entrusted with the creation of steam catapults, did not cope with the task, to put it mildly, to the end. I had to solve the problem associated with the boring of the cylinders, with their sealing and lubrication systems, heating the catapult in winter, etc. After a long ordeal, only one of its prototypes was assembled at the ground test and training aviation complex. Nevertheless, not a single aircraft from the “booster device”, as the catapult was called in the technical documentation, did not take off ... Instead, all attention was focused on ensuring the take-off of the aircraft from the springboard, which was considered more successful (and most importantly, incomparably simpler and a cheap) alternative to catapult. It was ordered to stop all work on the creation of a steam catapult. ” J. "Arsenal of the XXI century." No. 1, 2009, the "Naval Portal", 30.07.10/XNUMX/XNUMX, D. Erofeev. Opinion a year ago!
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 2 August 2013 04: 08 New
            +3
            There is another point of view (again without cuts and comments):
            “By the way, there are a large number of conjectures around the domestic catapult that justify, to put it mildly, the stupid decisions of the leadership of the Soviet Navy. For example, that the country was simply not able to create a steam catapult. This is actually not true. Already at "Nitka" began the construction of two catapults (recall. Production of the "Proletarian plant"). The first was intended for testing aerofinishers, the second, aimed towards the sea, for training pilots of ship aircraft. So, according to Ustinov’s directive, they covered her. The first catapult was saved by a trick, calling it in documents “an accelerating device for testing aerofinishers”. By 1986, it had earned, and in terms of energy supply, it surpassed the American catapult Nimitsa by 10%. ” Editor w. “Popupyarnaya mehanika” Alexander Grek, citing an interview with the Chief Designer of NPKB Arkady Morin, No. 7,2008
            Due to the lack of arguments, one of the “experts” in the start-up launch fantasized something more “convincing”:
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 2 August 2013 04: 09 New
              +2
              “One of the unavoidable (?) Disadvantages of the catapult, which manifests itself in high latitudes (namely, it was planned to operate the new TAVKR in the Northern Fleet, is in favor of the springboard). Its essence is that due to the inevitable etching of steam from the barrel of an accelerating trackcatapult, ice can form (?), Leading to jamming of the piston and, consequently, to failure of the device itself ... (a decisive conclusion followed) As a result of a long analysis “for” and “against” the catapult and the springboard, the scales leaned toward the latter, and he became an integral part of the ship of project 1143.5. ” The "Arctic" version of the shortcomings of the steam catapult suddenly found support from our eastern neighbors. Recently, the "famous" Chinese naval commander, Rear Admiral Yin Cho gave an interview to the local media, where he made a "deep analysis" of statements about plans to create an atomic aircraft carrier in Russia :. Most importantly, Russia needs to solve some issues on the creation of a catapult, including working out its use in conditions of the appearance of "steam and ice" on the deck. The technology of aerofinners is well developed. Thus, the problems of creating a catapult capable of working in the northern seas should be "gradually resolved." With all due respect to the high naval rank “Rear Admiral”, I can’t read without irony this “deep analysis” regarding advice on a steam catapult.
              No emotions other than a smile are caused by the rumors in the opuses of a number of "memoirists" of ranting about the "problem of ice" on the catapult track in the Arctic. The same “thought” was somehow unsuccessfully picked up by the Chinese rear admiral: comrade Yin Cho, obviously quoted unlucky domestic experts.
              It should be reminded to the said experts that the bed (gutter) of the steam catapult with two trunks of power cylinders placed in it is heated up to 180-200 ° C before the start of flights using a standard heating system. The covers located above the gutter are equipped with reliable thermal insulation, which does not, however, completely save from heat leakage - the temperature on the outer surface of the caps reaches 50 ° C. When approaching the AUG into the combat zone, there is an emergency heating mode by supplying reduced pressure steam to the power cylinders for 8 hours aces. Readiness information on elongation of the catapult
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 2 August 2013 04: 10 New
                +1
                each of the trunks of the power cylinders is 110-115 mm with a track length of 90 m. The regular heating of the gutter is carried out for 24 hours using the steam warmers of the heating system, which, so inappropriately, was mentioned by the expert D. Erofeev, calling its development “ordeal” , simultaneously reproaching the staff of the "Proletarsky Zavod": "I had to solve the problem of ... heating the catapult in the winter." Obviously, a respected expert should know that the warm-up system is standard, it is not a whim of the TsNIISM team in an attempt to expand the functionality of the catapult in winter and, especially, in the Arctic. Regardless of the ambient temperature, such heating is a prerequisite for the normal operation of a steam engine. Without such a warm-up, it is difficult to imagine the thermal cycling of power cylinders during starts - from 20 to 240 ° C with an interval of 8 to 60 seconds.
                A few words about the dynamics of the interaction of the components of the steam engine during start-up. Understanding of these processes to a wide circle of readers could be helped by computer 3D modeling. Each of the trunks of the power cylinders forms in the upper part a continuous slit for the passage of the leash, transmitting force from the corresponding piston to the shuttle (pulling shoe). To seal the volume of the power cylinders behind the piston during steam supply, a sealing tape with a section of 20x40 mm made of special spring steel is used. A special shoe-stacker carries out the withdrawal of the tape from the gap between the protrusion above the cylinder and a special cover on it, and after passing the leash puts the tape into the slot. The walls of the power cylinders are made of variable thickness: thicker in the lower part and thinner in the region of the gap. When pressure is applied to the cylinders (60 kg / cm2), the inner diameter of the cylinder increases due to deformation of its geometry - this ensures self-sealing of the gap. It remains to add that these processes last 2,5-3,0 s at a speed of 70 m / s. After the aircraft leash leaves the shuttle, the shuttle-piston group returns to the launch site. At this point, the start valve is closed, and the exhaust steam through the non-return valve enters the regeneration system and is partially discharged overboard - up to 600 kg. The hover observed above the catapult track during launches is a visualization of the remnants of superheated steam from the depressurized cavity of the cylinders at a temperature of 200-240 ° C. The heating system supports the readiness for the next launch. The problem of "ice" is a clearly contrived homework of some experts.
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 2 August 2013 04: 11 New
                  +2
                  Domestic carrier-based aircraft came to their springboard takeoff on a thorny path. Rejecting the speculations of some domestic “experts” about some kind of deadlock or failure that domestic designers and design bureaus allegedly suffered in creating a steam catapult, we recall that an attempt to use foreign experience in springboard take-off was originally aimed at implementing the air-craft mode of deck-based VTOL aircraft. At this stage, the ski jump was not even considered an alternative to the catapult - the very formulation of the problem in such a version would be incorrect: even the question “catapult or springboard” did not arise - these types of take-offs solved too different problems. The cessation of work on ejection launch planes - Su-27K and Su-25K and the abandonment of the catapult on a promising aircraft carrier could potentially replace the springboard, but this was only a result of cabinet intrigues in the capital, and not a testament to its undoubted advantages or disadvantages of an ejection launch. K1983 to the heads of OKB. Sukhoi and OKB them. It became clear to Mikoyan that the ejection launch planes would not be created by them as soon as possible, and the Su-1143.5K and MiG-27K planes could only get a ticket to deck 29 by starting from the springboard, for which they still had to prove this right to UTK NITKA. This was directly stated by M. Simonov, General Designer of Design Bureau named after Sukhoi - to the Navy Commander S. Gorshkov during his visit to Nitka in 1983 after a spectacular demonstration by V. Pugachev of the capabilities of the Su-27K: “My catapult is not needed.” The conjunctuality of this statement is quite obvious. Such is the brief history of the question "Catapult or springboard?"

                  Nevertheless, the staff of the UPU branch under the leadership of A. Bulgakov continued his historical mission to create the first domestic catapult and polyspastno-hydraulic aerofinisher. For the ejection launch, there was still the prospect of using the first nuclear aircraft carrier “Ulyanovsk” (Project 1143.7), which was yet to be laid at the end of 1988. Given other parameters of the steam for a nuclear power plant, A. Bulgakov's team began developing a catapult for the 1143.7-product S-1M. If the stage of designing these products, carried out by the best specialists of TsNIISM (TsNII “Compass”), was on schedule, then the production capabilities of NPO Proletarsky Zavod did not correspond to new technologies for implementing innovative developments. The Proletarsky Zavod was to produce prototypes of the products of the take-off and landing complex as part of a steam catapult, aerofinishers - standard and emergency braking. After obtaining the test results of large-scale physical models 1:10 in the production and experimental laboratory (PEL) in the territory of the plant named after Zhdanov and mathematical modeling in the newly created computer center, designers TsNIISM developed the drawings, and "Proletarsky Zavod" began to manufacture parts and assemblies of the complex of landing and landing systems. We had to solve unique technological problems that had no analogues in marine engineering. That which the "expert" D. Erofeev ridiculed so skeptically. were the usual stages of work on unique products. Despite the strictest prohibitions on the use of imported components and materials, for the manufacture of split steam catapult cylinders, for example, welding electrodes and fluxes were purchased through third countries in Sweden - such unique alloys of cylinders and welded beams required special welding strength. Steam cylinders operating in intermittent modes experience mechanical and thermal shock and must have a 100% guaranteed life. The accuracy of processing the inner walls of the cylinders was the highest - honing technology was required, for which imported machine tools and diamond hones were purchased.
                  1. Alex 241
                    Alex 241 2 August 2013 04: 11 New
                    +2
                    The second stage of the tests, planned for the BS-1 and BS-2-1 blocks, required the manufacture of full-scale prototypes of the catapult and aerofinisher. In the above example, you can see how complex technological problems faced production. Despite the vigorous organizational and technical measures, the manufacture and delivery of parts and units of the catapult to Nitka lagged significantly behind work on aerofinisher. Optimism appeared at the beginning of 1984 - the arrival of the first split catapult cylinders for mounting on the BS-1 block. The installation of two 90 m long shafts made up of 48 split cylinders was a unique operation of simultaneously lowering the assembled “in the air” cylinders into the catapult gutter. In domestic practice, no one has performed such an installation. Checking and tuning all catapult systems took almost a year. And it was only in the summer of 1986 (August 28) that the first launch of the loading trolley at a reduced speed of 180 km / h took place, which was successful. Having left the track of the catapult, the trolley-loader was immediately in the arms of Svetlana-2, the tackle-hydraulic finisher. The dynamic tests of Svetlana-2 began in the entire range of masses and final speeds.
                    The level of tasks faced by the testers is indicated by numbers - registered processes were characterized by high dynamics and cyclicality: the braking modes by the aerofinisher and catapult acceleration last 2,5-3,0 s, requiring clear synchronization of the systems; the process of damping the moment of contact of the hook with the cable with the help of damping devices of the finisher ends in the first 0.35-0,40 s; the duration of the catapult hydraulic brake is 50-80 milliseconds at a pressure in the cavity of 1800-2000 atm .; the temperature of the working fluid in the steam cylinders reaches ZOO degrees C at a pressure of 60 atm, which imposed stringent requirements on the primary sources of information about the processes in the catapult. During tests at the Svetlana-Mayak research complex, more than 300 sensors on the products were captured by information acquisition, and the total length of the information lines of communication between the central laboratory and peripheral sensors was several km.
                    The condition of the test block and the preliminary results obtained made it possible to raise the question of conducting interdepartmental tests of finishers and catapults in 1987. After completing the interdepartmental testing program in August 1988, the test block was put into trial operation, and the required
                    improvements to the booster device (steam catapult) were carried out in 1989. The steam catapult for its intended purpose, located on the BS-1 unit and confirming full compliance with the requirements of the technical specifications, was given a "green" light. By the way, the laying of the Ulyanovsk aircraft carrier took place a year earlier, and the catapult units for this ship could be delivered according to the construction schedule. At the request of LII, in order to create a reserve for the development of ejection launch aircraft, a research program for ejection launch of a full-scale model in the amount of 50 launches was planned.
                    Unfortunately, promising work was interrupted by the events of August 1991, but the problem of a catapult launch for future aircraft carriers in Russia remains relevant.
                    1. Ruslan67
                      Ruslan67 2 August 2013 04: 31 New
                      +1
                      Sasha! Here explain to me wooden fool The most powerful ship in the order, along with the entire escort canoe, is in adverse conditions what Storm 6 points How many especially experienced crews are in one air wing? How much is the combat radius and bomb load reduced? Add temperature from -20 to - 40 How much does the preparation and take-off time increase? How much decreases the working capacity of the entire crew and deck crew separately in stormy conditions and dog cold? And finally, how many extra approaches will the squadron have to make?
                      1. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 2 August 2013 04: 39 New
                        +2
                        Ruslan, well, let's start with the fact that in a storm 6 points, not even a single aircraft can be lifted to the flight deck, I don’t know the temperature of the decks as in the decks, but in Alaska in Anchorage, the flight limit is -35 degrees.
                      2. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 2 August 2013 04: 47 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        in a storm of 6 points, not even a single aircraft will be raised to the flight deck,

                        That is, the application and use ended tightly? Although I was told here that especially experienced crews 5-7 points .. wassat Limit -35 is it from the ground airfield? And they will hide 90 pieces under the deck? wassat
                      3. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 2 August 2013 04: 53 New
                        +2
                        even with little excitement, the amplitude of the deck in height is, you understand this is not too much fun. You can squeeze it into Bush 90.
                      4. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 2 August 2013 04: 56 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        on Bush 90 can squeeze.

                        It's about the Nimitz request And squeeze the keyword laughing
                      5. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 2 August 2013 04: 58 New
                        +1
                        Nimitz 78 units.
                      6. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 2 August 2013 05: 00 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        Nimitz 78 units.

                        Sasha recourse I know something, but rummage in posts-to speak about the 80th
                      7. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 2 August 2013 05: 11 New
                        +1
                        Someone especially trained want to take off?
                      8. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 2 August 2013 05: 14 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        Someone especially trained want to take off?

                        So says a respected author hi articles If I am not mistaken, the length of the ship is 148-156? meters
                      9. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 2 August 2013 05: 17 New
                        0
                        Nimitz, I don’t remember exactly, is more than 300.
                      10. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 2 August 2013 05: 21 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        Nimitz, I don’t remember exactly, is more than 300.

                        I actually mean that less laughing And Nimitz 275 on the hull and 330 on the flight deck
                      11. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 2 August 2013 05: 23 New
                        -2
                        Ruslan, I’m afraid to make a mistake, but in my opinion this is a “singing frigate” project 61, 130 meters long, but I can be wrong.
                      12. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 2 August 2013 05: 26 New
                        +1
                        I'm not sure either what But throws it like a sliver
                      13. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 2 August 2013 05: 33 New
                        +3
                        I was wrong destroyer Modern 956 project. Length 156 meters.
                      14. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 2 August 2013 05: 36 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        I was wrong

                        It's not scary fellow But 156 meters is not a boat and God forbid it shakes it!
                      15. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 2 August 2013 05: 42 New
                        +2
                        Here is the landing on an aircraft carrier, I have never seen a landing on an aircraft carrier in excitement.
                      16. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 2 August 2013 05: 52 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        , I have never seen a landing on an aircraft carrier in excitement.

                        I also request But read about it ... with Clancy wassat
                      17. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 2 August 2013 05: 54 New
                        0
                        Well, that is a good reading. One hunt for red October is worth fellow
                      18. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 2 August 2013 05: 56 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        one hunt for red October is worth

                        Exactly the paper on which printed But Zadornov and Petrosyan smoke in the hallway wassat
                      19. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 2 August 2013 05: 58 New
                        +1
                        you can’t say better good
                      20. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 2 August 2013 06: 00 New
                        +1
                        All! I disconnect See you hi
                    2. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 2 August 2013 06: 01 New
                      0
                      ................................
                    3. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 2 August 2013 07: 26 New
                      0
                      .................
            2. little man
              little man 2 August 2013 09: 45 New
              -1
              cool video, but in my opinion there is calm.
  22. old man54
    old man54 2 August 2013 17: 45 New
    +1
    Quote: Alex 241
    Nimitz, I don’t remember exactly, is more than 300.

    long on the flight deck he has 333 meters. hi
  23. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 2 August 2013 05: 51 New
    +3
    the destroyer then, "Admiral Ushakov" seems ... this is a real service! involuntarily admire the sailors ... for one such trip you need to reward !!! I respect the devils !!!
  24. Alex 241
    Alex 241 2 August 2013 05: 56 New
    0
    onboard 424 Fenced.
  25. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 2 August 2013 05: 59 New
    +2
    not sure .. it seems to me that this is 434- ears))))
  26. tlauicol
    tlauicol 2 August 2013 06: 26 New
    +2
    it may not take off, but EM cannot do anything. weapons will not apply in such weather and will not even come close to an aircraft carrier - seaworthiness / speed will let you down
  27. tlauicol
    tlauicol 2 August 2013 06: 29 New
    +1
    - here the Danes get up!
  28. old man54
    old man54 2 August 2013 17: 55 New
    0
    I still don’t believe that with such a talk you can land a helicopter !! Some kind of acrobatics! good
  29. Su-9
    Su-9 3 August 2013 08: 41 New
    0
    You can land a helicopter at 8 points on most normal NATO frigates. Canadians have come up with Mishkin’s trap for 50 years already ... But about planes - it’s not clear. But at 8 points, probably half will either go overboard (with the impossibility of saving the pilot) or break into figs on the deck. Or maybe more.
  30. sonik-007
    sonik-007 4 August 2013 16: 52 New
    0
    I also thought - crazy! But take a closer look, he made a landing on a flat deck, without swinging.
  31. barbiturate
    barbiturate 2 August 2013 10: 43 New
    0
    I don’t know what sea waves and wind power are here but "with a wind strength of 8 - 9 points and a sea wave of 7 points, the rise of aircraft practically stops"
    By the way, let the destroyer try to detect and hit the target in such conditions, together with a little hoot and over the destroyer and over the aircraft carrier and the Northern Fleet)
  32. old man54
    old man54 2 August 2013 17: 51 New
    0
    Quote: Alex 241
    Someone especially trained want to take off?

    Something 956 project sausages like a boat directly, although it seems to me that at sea there are no more than 5 points! Not so long ago there was an article about this ship, it was said that he had excellent seaworthiness! request But for some reason this is not visible on the video. He can’t even keep a course normally! negative
    And note, the shootings are from the Admiral Kuznetsov PP, and it just throws him hard, and the same NIMX with a displacement of 30% is bigger than our Kuznetsov!
  33. barbiturate
    barbiturate 2 August 2013 10: 18 New
    0
    Do you guys bastard chtoli there or not sober?) Nimitz is the name of the series and the main one, George W. Bush is the last in the series of the same nimits) And the number of planes is different, depending on the tasks and composition of the air group, as you can categorically say, 90 or 78) )
    Quote: Ruslan67
    Quote: Alex 241
    Nimitz 78 units.

    Sasha recourse I know something, but rummage in posts-to speak about the 80th

    and what, 78 is a huge mistake compared to 80?)))
  34. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 2 August 2013 18: 00 New
    +2
    Quote: Ruslan67
    How much decreases the working capacity of the entire crew and deck crew separately in stormy conditions and dog cold?

    I especially like the statement about the permanent basing of equipment on the upper deck in sowing. latitudes (of the same Norway - although the colonel clearly wrote how the AUG "worked" there)))

    in the northern latitudes of Nimitz awaits such a useful phenomenon as icing
  35. Ruslan67
    Ruslan67 2 August 2013 18: 35 New
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    in the northern latitudes of Nimitz awaits such a useful phenomenon as icing

    Well, according to vocational school students, the deck can be poured with boiling water from the kettle. In general, the northern latitudes are a special case lasting 10 months a year. wassat
  36. old man54
    old man54 2 August 2013 22: 07 New
    +1
    Quote: Ruslan67
    In general, northern latitudes are a special case lasting 10 months a year. wassat

    Well, about the 10 months, you got a little excited, of course, but from the 8 months, that's for sure! wink
  37. old man54
    old man54 3 August 2013 21: 18 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    in the northern latitudes of Nimitz awaits such a useful phenomenon as icing

    Oleg, and if you add here also the active allocation of steam from the catapult, but not as in the video that they shot in the tropics, but with minus 20С. There, with such a temperature difference, the pair will be oh-oh how much! I think in the winter everyone saw how soiled shitty insulated pipes on the streets? laughing How soon will the whole deck turn into a real skating rink, huh? Deck issuing team can safely issue skates! bully
  38. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 4 August 2013 00: 02 New
    +1
    Quote: old man54
    and the active release of steam from the catapult, but not like in the video that was shot in the tropics

    Yes, the sunny Barents Sea is not Hawaii
    Quote: old man54
    Deck issuing team can safely issue skates!

    laughing offset
  • Ruslan67
    Ruslan67 2 August 2013 04: 12 New
    +2
    Sasha! hi Hi fellow I haven’t seen or heard you for a hundred years drinks laughing
  • Ruslan67
    Ruslan67 2 August 2013 04: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: old man54
    Well then, they have a maximum of 5 months of the year to break, as you dear put it!

    And the situation in the world will develop in accordance with weather conditions. wassat They threw cons as if I sold my homeland for cheap request When will the school year begin in vocational schools? laughing hi
    1. old man54
      old man54 2 August 2013 18: 05 New
      +1
      Quote: Ruslan67
      And the situation in the world will develop in accordance with weather conditions.

      Of course not, that's why I wrote it! And this is not my statement, but the answer to it, read carefully! Above, 241 cited a half-book as a quote, which states that the Arctic is not a hindrance to a steam powered module, like. But I'm still not sure! I haven’t been in the Norwegian and Barents Seas, excuse me, but here in our other Arctic seas there have been plenty and not one year! If it is not the gutter and the catapult itself, then the entire UAW software will be covered by people through 2 / 4 launch! Who was there will understand!
      Quote: Ruslan67
      They threw cons as if I sold my homeland for cheap

      I don’t seem to put them to you, I’m not a fan of it! hi
      Quote: Ruslan67
      When will the school year begin in vocational schools?

      Are you talking to me? bully They will not accept me already, the age is not the same. :) I’m not advisable to some. that with epaulettes, to go political old notes, still from the VVU. soldier
      1. Ruslan67
        Ruslan67 2 August 2013 18: 38 New
        +2
        In general, everything was not about you hi And the fact that to you is in support of about 5 months laughing
        1. old man54
          old man54 2 August 2013 22: 13 New
          +1
          Quote: Ruslan67
          In general, everything was not about you

          Well then, I'm sorry, you just brought my statement, as a quote, well, I decided that you answer me! Itself was surprised, it seems always write very adequate comments. Do not take close, colleague! drinks
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 2 August 2013 10: 00 New
    -2
    Well, 5 or not 5, I don’t know and I’m sure that no augs will break from the north to Russia. As for steam, this is your guess, for example, mine, that everything will be fine, with intensive lifting of the air group, the steam will not have time to freeze, and then the deck can be cleaned and heated with special equipment, do you think it is very difficult? I don’t think, considering the number of service personnel, the ability to create any equipment for this (the United States doesn’t like Ethiopia) and the abundance of experience in operating equipment from northern airfields (there are also a lot of any special equipment and icing of the strip and they fly, nothing)
    About the USSR, my opinion, you were also mistaken)
    1. old man54
      old man54 2 August 2013 18: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: barbiturate
      About the USSR, my opinion, you too were mistaken

      Well, judging by the post of a forum member, above, where he had polished a book halfway through, then just not, he was not mistaken!
  • dian
    dian 1 August 2013 21: 39 New
    +4
    Thanks to the author for an interesting article and clear and competent argumentation in it.
  • Per se.
    Per se. 1 August 2013 22: 29 New
    +5
    Thank you, Andrei, for the article, for a long time it "asked for a display." I would like, in addition to assessing the capabilities of full-fledged aircraft carriers, you would pay similar attention to the prospects for using American UDCs with VTOL aircraft (for example, America), which predict the strengthening of the universal capabilities and functions of a light aircraft carrier, due to the adoption of the F-35.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 1 August 2013 22: 47 New
    +2
    Good article, let me make a couple of remarks in terms of carrier-based aircraft technology.
    The calculations given in the article are close to reality, but only taking into account the "one-time attack." Those. in reality, an aircraft carrier will be able to raise 40 strike machines at best for one, at most two attacks. Then we crash into the "rake" of a rather lengthy AT service, which is also slowed by the lack of space and technical personnel on the ship. In principle, AUG is designed for this. Or regular and long flights of "peacetime" (relatively small outfit). Or one - two powerful wartime strikes, the loss of an air group and the departure to the base (if given) to replenish it. By the way, what intrigues me very much is that today (with the removal of the Viking anti-aircraft defense aircraft), the AOG are practically defenseless from being hit from under water in the far zone. (The closest to 100km can be blocked by helicopters - but there are very few of them at AUG). I still don’t understand the logic of this decision (or they have a firm belief that our boats with their anti-ship missiles are definitely not threatening them anymore - because all the rest have no chance of hitting from the far zone)
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 1 August 2013 23: 03 New
      -1
      Quote: Taoist
      Those. in reality, an aircraft carrier will be able to raise 40 strike machines at best for one, at most two attacks.

      Then why carry a lot of planes with you?
      1. old man54
        old man54 2 August 2013 04: 10 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Then why carry a lot of planes with you?

        Oleg, even during the 2-th MV airstrikes from the air barge went in waves! Those. a wave has left for the attack of your “convoy to Alaska” from 35 / 40 LA, and they should already have prepared for it to continue, the 2 wave, of approximately the same composition. Perhaps, most likely, the first one will not complete the task completely, will not hit or will not completely hit (not drown) all the targets, so the 2-I should clean up, finalize. And it’s not a fact that after that raid, 1% LA will return from the 50 wave, and maybe less. It seems like the amers for the battle with Orlan in 90 hoped to lose air groups before 3, they took it very seriously! hi
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 2 August 2013 17: 52 New
          0
          Quote: old man54
          Those. a wave has left for the attack of that “convoy to Alaska” from 35 / 40 LA, and they should already have prepared for it to continue, the 2 wave, of approximately the same composition

          How to be with a landing strip for the first group? And also for patrols and Vikings barrage in the air?
          1. old man54
            old man54 2 August 2013 22: 22 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            How to be with a landing strip for the first group? And also for patrols and Vikings barrage in the air?

            Oleg, I, unlike you with the namesake from the glorious city of Chelyabinsk, did not dive so deeply into the topic of organizing flights to Amer’s UAVs, forgive me, and to be honest, I don’t really want to! bully But for some reason, I think that with all my dislike for p.p.d.s.dos, they have worked on this case for a long time, and the service and preparation cycles for taking off the aircraft are quite acceptable for them to let in and receive the aircraft. Apparently there are nuances that we, here at VO, do not know, alas.
            1. VVAU
              VVAU 29 July 2019 10: 41 New
              +1
              Maybe you are right...
        2. VVAU
          VVAU 29 July 2019 10: 42 New
          +1
          And where is Orlan now? ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 2 August 2013 03: 38 New
    +1
    Quote: Ruslan67
    When I am advised to go to Google or Wik, I can send it to hell. Here everyone knows how to google and rewrite what is written there

    On your question about the weather, is that the only way to go, or do you think the author is also an expert on the weather conditions of the north? or weather forecaster? You’ve been rewriting your whole life from there, you’re only making your conclusions, so you would be asked to make a conclusion, and not to ask about the weather with a bunch of emoticons

    Quote: Ruslan67
    Have you ever participated in the deployment of something more serious than a tent? Any calculations, standards and plans fly in the first minute

    It’s worthless for such calculations, but here you are wrong. They are just being made taking into account reality and are tested in practice. In wartime, standards and times are also striking in speed. Or do you think that poor military take all the numbers from the ceiling? Have you served in the army? The sergeant did not clearly explain to you there that any standards are feasible and tested over the years? Do you think amers differently?
    Quote: Ruslan67
    And on which bolt are they still needed? From this point of view, they should be considered Technical capabilities can be any, especially if they have not been checked for a break

    I disagree absolutely, from this point of view you consider them, I consider the aircraft carrier as the strongest order ship, which is not only strong by itself, but also significantly strengthens neighboring ships. In the struggle for control of the sea, for example, many countries understand this and build aircraft carriers. Russia, too, is clearly not waiting for American aug attacks from the north and is afraid) And technically, the aircraft carrier was checked repeatedly for a kink.

    Quote: Ruslan67
    Papuans drive expensive Against a strong opponent is ineffective

    Your opinion is clear. Apparently kakoinit destroyer will drive the Papuans perfectly) Or smash a strong enemy. And what is effective against a strong enemy?)
    Quote: Ruslan67
    This option rolls with Libya and nothing more.

    yah?))
    Quote: Ruslan67
    Probably from the situation in the world

    duck and try to analyze not the Russia-USA, but the situation in the WORLD) And you might understand that the role of an aircraft carrier does not end with a strike from the north over Russia)
    1. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 2 August 2013 04: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: barbiturate
      On your question about the weather, is that the only way to go, or do you think the author is also an expert on the weather conditions of the north? or weather forecaster?

      The author wrote an article about the features of the application. The question is not about the weather, but about the features of application in extreme climatic conditions.
      Quote: barbiturate
      Worthless such calculations, but here you are wrong

      Quote: barbiturate
      Did you serve in the army?

      Quote: barbiturate
      The sergeant didn’t explain to you clearly

      Of course not right request And he served and explained, and he himself participated and explained. I could tell a lot about this, but it will definitely be off topic
      Quote: barbiturate
      I consider the aircraft carrier as the strongest warrant ship, which is not only strong by itself, but also significantly strengthens neighboring ships

      Without aviation in the air, this is a trough target
      Quote: barbiturate
      In the struggle for control of the sea, for example, many countries understand this and build aircraft carriers.

      Poor and flawed Serious countries are building them in the framework of the doctrine of NATO-spreading the virus of democracy around the world
      Quote: barbiturate
      And technically, the aircraft carrier was checked repeatedly for a kink.

      This is where let me know?
      Quote: barbiturate
      Apparently kakoinit destroyer will drive the Papuans perfectly) Or smash a strong enemy. And what is effective against a strong enemy?)

      We do not need to drive the Papuans, but a strong adversary exclusively nuclear weapons
      Quote: barbiturate
      try to analyze not the Russia-USA, but the situation in the WORLD) And you might understand that the role of an aircraft carrier does not end with a strike from the north of Russia)

      So I analyze and it turns out that everything goes to Russia-USA Ine consider me a stubborn oak tree wassat Those data of any technique without reference to the realities of life is a set of numbers that any kitchen strategist knows, but any question that you called provocative drives them into a stupor because they cannot intelligently answer it
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 2 August 2013 03: 56 New
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    The calculations given in the article are close to reality, but only taking into account the "one-time attack." Those. in reality, an aircraft carrier will be able to raise up to 40 strike machines at best for one, at most two attacks. Then we crash into the "rake" of a rather lengthy AT service, which is also slowed by the lack of space and technical personnel on the ship. In principle, AUG is designed for this.

    The author just says that a couple of strikes, maintenance and the next day we repeat again, the personnel numbers and standards are given, do you think more people are serving one aircraft at the land base? Why do you think that in a couple of flights the plane will lose its combat effectiveness so much that it will need to be fixed somewhere for a long time?)

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Then why carry a lot of planes with you?

    yourself not funny?
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 2 August 2013 12: 34 New
      0
      I don’t really want to “slap on the clave” for a long time describing the whole process ... But believe my practical experience as a “deck technician,” the difference in the maintenance of cars at a regular airfield and on deck is very significant. If on land, an outfit of 12-15 people (take a standard IB) is involved in servicing one aircraft, not counting the full-time technical crew assigned to the aircraft. On deck, this number is halved, apart from the fact that due to the specifics of ship placement, many operations are inconvenient or difficult. Modern aircraft is a complex multi-level combat system and, in full accordance with the laws of technology, the probability of failure increases exponentially. (even without taking into account possible combat damage). + add the inevitable fatigue of staff. (even for servicing a regular flight shift, the working day of an airplane technician is 14-16 hours)
  • old man54
    old man54 2 August 2013 04: 17 New
    0
    I liked the article, of course, “+” to Andrei, I turned the job seriously! On the whole, its evidence base looks quite convincing, but at the same time I do not share its bias as the supremacy of the UAE in the structure of a normal, balanced, modern Navy, especially in the 2013 year, especially with the aim of protecting only its territory and its communications! Their time is already running out, and it seems to me that even the Amers understand this, but based on their doctrine of global dominance on Earth, there’s nothing to replace them with today! request Alas and ah! But they are trying, and quite realistically and effectively, Kaptsov has repeatedly described their attempts in comments on this topic! wink
    I look forward to the 2 part of the article, thanks again for the work! good
    1. VVAU
      VVAU 29 July 2019 10: 41 New
      +1
      Yes, the second part would not hurt
  • Apologet insane
    Apologet insane 2 August 2013 11: 05 New
    +4
    The problem is that all critics of the ACG viewed Russia as a likely adversary, against which the ACG is not very effective. However, one does not have to seriously consider the action of conventional troops in a large-scale conflict between the two superpowers - everyone is well aware that things will begin and end with nuclear weapons. But operations to pacify all sorts of banana republics and Arab dictatorships - this is it. The main strength of the United States is not that they have the opportunity to destroy Russia or China - there is suicidal parity. The main strength of the United States is that they can influence the course of events around the world by promptly intervening in the affairs of any country to defend their interests. Moreover, AUG plays the role of a kind of mobile base. Then, as we or China, in order to somehow influence the situation, say, in Syria, a huge amount of body movements is required, then the United States does not need to do anything. The ubiquitous carrier groups are absolutely nearby.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 3 August 2013 19: 41 New
      0
      Quote: Apologet Insane
      But operations to pacify all sorts of banana republics

      And not expensive? for the Papuans a ship for 6 billion
      Quote: Apologet Insane
      m arab dictatorships

      What can Nimitz do to the Arab dictatorship?
      Quote: Apologet Insane
      Moreover, AUG plays the role of a kind of mobile base

      nothing like this
    2. VVAU
      VVAU 29 July 2019 10: 40 New
      +1
      Well, let them try ...
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 2 August 2013 11: 19 New
    0
    I don’t understand how the forum program throws my comments, then it’ll stick here, then there, you write one, place another, understand the hell)
    1. ICT
      ICT 2 August 2013 15: 59 New
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      I don’t understand how the forum program throws my comments, then it’ll stick here, then there, you write one, place another, understand the hell)


      if I clicked answer, it’s like “to the line to the one I answered”, if I just added it to the end of the list
      1. barbiturate
        barbiturate 3 August 2013 09: 36 New
        0
        I don’t understand, I answered one “answer button” but it’s placed not in the column where the discussion is from below
      2. VVAU
        VVAU 29 July 2019 10: 39 New
        +1
        Sometimes it’s buggy. it happens.
    2. VVAU
      VVAU 29 July 2019 10: 39 New
      +1
      OK, correct
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 2 August 2013 17: 47 New
    0
    Definitely PLUS! The article is interesting and informative !! We look forward to continuing !!!
    1. VVAU
      VVAU 29 July 2019 10: 38 New
      +1
      We look forward to continuing ........
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 5 August 2013 18: 57 New
    +1
    I respect such authors! Review a lot of materials, analyze and give interesting conclusions. 5!
    1. VVAU
      VVAU 29 July 2019 10: 37 New
      +1
      Good author ....
  • подвал
    подвал 15 August 2013 16: 43 New
    0
    And the US Secretary of Defense says that exchanging 1 aircraft carrier - 1 nuclear submarine is quite a real task for our Navy even now
    1. VVAU
      VVAU 29 July 2019 10: 38 New
      +1
      Who! Construction superintendent?
  • v_veter
    v_veter 20 August 2013 01: 14 New
    0
    Dear Andrey! It speaks to you Kabernik VV My friends aimed me at your wonderful article, but it - in the end - doesn’t matter.

    You are absolutely correct in pointing out my “mistake”, which is tied up not by neglecting the logistics of landing. Unfortunately, the third article in the cycle — which was just about landing operations — could not be published. But you understood and explained everything correctly. For myself, I did not see any contradictions, but I am ready to enter into a polemic if you wish.

    For my part, I would like to draw your attention to the comments of "Taoist" to this article. I assure you, he was rather concise in describing the problems of servicing individual aircraft, and did not even touch upon the issues of servicing a squadron-class combat unit (or several) in the conduct of long-term operations.

    Thank you very much for paying attention to my modest publication. However, it did not describe the problem in its entirety, and was urged to pay attention to some - poorly covered - issues of internal and external logistics of carrier-based aviation connections.
  • VVAU
    VVAU 29 July 2019 06: 53 New
    +1
    Thanks, interesting ...