Military Review

Some features of the use of carrier-based aircraft carrier type "Nimitz" (part 2)

233
Some features of the use of carrier-based aircraft carrier type "Nimitz" (part 2)



In conclusion of this article, I would like to express my opinion on a number of issues raised in the discussion of deck carrier groups earlier.
In the aircraft carrier hangar, the 36 airplanes and the 10 helicopters are strung out, where to shove all the others?



We look at the diagram below.


And in the photo



We consider cars and we understand that on the flight deck on the pre-launch positions can be accommodated about 40 aircraft with several helicopters. In the traveling version on the flight deck there may be much more



They are on the deck of more than fifty.

Those. In addition to 36 aircraft and 8 helicopters in the hangar on the upper deck you can place at least another 40 aircraft and a couple of helicopters. - do not have to clean up in the hangar for the organization of takeoff and landing operations. At the same time, the hangar will be crammed until it stops, but if it is necessary to organize the rotation of cars - who prevents to lift a dozen aircraft from the hangar (bringing their numbers on the deck to 50) and then remove those that need repair, for example?

No one

Aviation can not be stored on the flight deck, open to all winds - it can be thrown into the ocean, damaged, in addition, sea air is harmful to the internal filling of aircraft.

Let's start with the simplest thing - the height of the board of the Nimitz type aircraft reaches 30 meters and it is extremely difficult to wash anything off its deck. Is that a giant wave-killer or a monstrous typhoon ... Pitching also can not throw the plane - special mounts are designed for it on the flight deck (by the way, planes on the hangar deck are also needed, the presence of the hangar does not save the hangar itself). Of course, planes open to all winds still suffer more damage than those hidden in the hangar, in which even the air is conditioned, but ...

Here is the deal. If the aircraft carrier is going on a peaceful march - it really does not have to carry the entire air group with it, half more than enough to train all the pilots of the full air group, and to participate in most exercises, as well. Therefore, it is likely that we often see pictures of American aircraft carriers with an almost empty flight deck.



But if an aircraft carrier goes to war ... will anyone really be bothered by the increased wear and tear of the aircraft attached to the flight deck? It’s doubtful that the war includes completely different criteria. And in order to keep such delicate things as, say, turbine blades from external influence, is it really impossible to invent any airtight covers on the nozzles and so on?

Airplanes in the hangar are made up like sardines in a bank; as such, they cannot be serviced or moved.

In fact, airplanes are drawn up right from the time of the first aircraft carriers. Here, for example, is the location of the Japanese Akagi air group.



But a small collage - real photos of the planes (he didn’t deny himself the pleasure and put a photo of the flight deck of an aircraft carrier from the Second World War before the start of the planes - if someone thinks that it’s close to Nimitz, look here)



Despite the hustle, it is quite possible to serve the aircraft - the fact is that under the wing of the same “Super Hornet” a person of average height can easily accommodate - there are no problems



So there are no problems with the service. With transportation, there is, but this is the case - with the aircraft carrier 4, and if you try to group, say, “Hornets” from one, “growlers” from another, “Hokai” and the third, etc. then, in principle, it is possible to raise exactly what you need at the moment.

In the photo, are the planes in the pre-launch positions with folded wings, when will they have time to spread their wings and hang up the ammunition before the start? Time is no place!

The "Tomkatov" wings do not fold, so there is no problem with them. But the folding wings of the "Hornet"




As it is easy to see, the main armament is mounted on the “non-folding” part of the Hornet’s wing. The very process of folding the wing happens very quickly and automatically (the very first video in the first part of the article - “Hornet” reveals the wings, having already entered the catapult)

Many thanks to everyone who mastered! :)

The article used materials:
Aircraft Carrier Flight and Hangar Deck Fire Protection: History and Current Status
Aksyonov V. Atomic aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type.
Maritime collection №7 2008 "Nuclear aircraft carrier" Nimitz "
http://www.k2x2.info/transport_i_aviacija/aviacija_i_kosmonavtika_2001_07/p26.php
http://navycollection.narod.ru/library/docenko/11.htm
http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/98
http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/Akagi/index.htm
http://video.yandex.ru/search?where=all&text=Nimitz%20take%20off%20%2F%20landing%20operations&p=1
http://paralay.com/atakr.html
http://forums.airbase.ru/2013/04/t64706--skhemy-razmescheniya-v-angarakh-avianostsev.4349.html#p1728725
http://mexanik.ru/0388/vved.htm
http://ya-pilot.ru/viewtopic.php?id=90
http://pentagonus.ru/publ/avianosnye_udarnye_sily_vms_ssha_perspektivy_razvitija_i_boevogo_primenenija_2010/28-1-0-1577
http://pentagonus.ru/publ/28-1-0-1075
http://pentagonus.ru/publ/tekhnicheskoe_obsluzhivanie_samoljotov_vvs_ssha_1977/13-1-0-2310
http://eurasian-defence.ru/?q=content/%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B8-%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2-%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0
Author:
233 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. AVV
    AVV 1 August 2013 12: 33
    11
    Latvian sprat is more comfortable! At the slightest fire, the end of the aircraft carrier dream !!!
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 2 August 2013 07: 37
      47
      100 years of aircraft carrier dream.! the caravan is still coming .. and the end of this dream is not visible
      ex. article, thanks!
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 2 August 2013 10: 51
        22
        Quote: Tlauicol
        100 years of aircraft carrier dream.! the caravan is still coming .. and the end of this dream is not visible
        ex. article, thanks!

        I support your opinion. In my opinion, no one could quite argue quite well on the analysis directly on the topic of the article. There were attempts to transfer it to another plane (for what aircraft carriers are needed and whether we need them), but this is another topic.
        Although I will express my opinion and that is why we need aircraft carriers or not.
        Whether it is necessary or not, it depends on who we are, if we do not need a raw materials appendage, then if we need a free country with geopolitical ambitions.
        At the expense of the fact that Russia is a poor country, the example of annually stealing and taking away about 50 billion from Russia suggests that the country is not so poor and even half of this money would be enough to support 6 AUGs, two on the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet, and two on the shift change for maintenance and repair.
        1. Shotoff
          Shotoff 2 August 2013 12: 03
          14
          Also absolutely agree with your opinion. For the layman, whom I am also, a very thorough article.

          By the way, not 50 billion were exported. Only last year 94. and this is according to official figures; this did not include all kinds of fraud with foreign intermediaries in the export of products (Gazprom with its daughters, for example, serves many foreign customers through Austrian and Swiss intermediaries, but to whom they belong is another question). So this figure can be safely multiplied by 1.5, not counting the internal losses from corruption .... It's sad that is all.
      2. viruskvartirus
        viruskvartirus 2 August 2013 14: 06
        +5
        But the man is right, the fire for such a thing is what the doctor ordered ... there are examples of the fire on the Forrestol aircraft carrier (1967), 134 was killed and 161 wounded. A 21 plane was deleted from the naval registry (7 F-4 Phantom II, 11 A-4E Skyhawk and 3 RA-5C Vigilante.
        The fire on the aircraft carrier Enterprise (1969) the result of 27 dead, 343 wounded, lost 15 aircraft.
      3. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 2 August 2013 22: 53
        10
        Quote: Tlauicol
        100 years of aircraft carrier dream.! the caravan is still coming .. and the end of this dream is not visible

        I am a staunch supporter of the so-called "balanced fleet", in which aircraft carrier ships occupy a worthy place. That aircraft carriers will be built in our Navy, the facts say: the construction of NITKI, the development of an EM catapult, the design of an atomic AVU according to the TTZ of the Main Command of the Navy, and so on.
        Actually, I'm talking about something else.
        1 MV spawned battleships (LC). They became the main striking force of the fleets. 2 MB buried LK. The grave digger became an aircraft carrier. But! Even then, Germany, with the help of PL submarines, practically brought England to its knees. It is logical to ask a question: who will be the grave digger AVU? Or so: what is replacing the current aircraft carrier? So maybe, having foreseen the tendency of the development of the naval composition of the fleets, to begin to build the grave diggers of the state AVU?
        Why am I talking about this? Yes, simply because the States cannot catch up with us in the usual (direct) way. And their fleet is a real threat to our Navy and the COUNTRY as a whole.
        There is a threat. We need to find a way to neutralize it,
        without drawing humanity into a nuclear apocalypse.
        It seems to me that a special-purpose submarine built with SLBMs equipped with an RGCh with maneuvering hypersonic BB INs can become this tool. Secretly, unexpectedly, quickly!
        1. Barracuda148
          Barracuda148 3 August 2013 11: 09
          0
          So it seems like they are experiencing RGH with maneuvering hypersonic BB IN
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 3 August 2013 12: 15
            +4
            Barracuda148
            This is what was meant. Now the question is about the carrier. Do you think the statements of our top officials that it is time to abandon the restrictions on the BrSRD are random. However, time will tell.
        2. Per se.
          Per se. 3 August 2013 17: 09
          +5
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          It is logical to ask a question: who will be the grave digger AVU? Or so: what is replacing the current aircraft carrier?
          Dear Alexander! It is more correct to ask what is going to replace the current aviation, then you will receive an answer to the question about the aircraft carrier. Many people here perceive an aircraft carrier as a huge and expensive ship, but it is not an end in itself, but only a carrier, if you like, "packing" FOR AIRCRAFT, there will be no need for aviation, and aircraft carriers will not be needed either. As for the submarines, they did not become either gravediggers of battleships or gravediggers of aircraft carriers, moreover, it was aircraft carriers and aviation in general that put an end to the domination of Doenitz submarines in World War II. There is no need to compete with the Yankees in terms of the number of aircraft carriers, but speaking of a balanced fleet, you need to mean all the possibilities for solving combat missions that can be assigned to the fleet, and for this you need aircraft carrying ships.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 3 August 2013 18: 33
            +4
            Quote: Per se.
            It’s more correct to ask what is replacing the current aircraft, then you will receive an answer to the question about the aircraft carrier

            Good evening, Sergey! A correctly posed question is half the answer. In all likelihood, manned drones are being replaced by combat drones. BUT! airdromes (aircraft carriers) they will still need, like today's aircraft.
            Quote: Per se.
            it was aircraft carriers and aviation as a whole that put an end to the dominance of Doenitz submarines in World War II.

            This is so, but if Daddy Doenitz had not "diving" boats, but at least ships with air-independent propulsion systems, and the final result of the struggle for the Atlantic (1942) could be doubted.
            Quote: Per se.
            to solve combat tasks that can be put before the fleet, and for this we need aircraft-carrying ships.

            The tasks of the Navy are clearly spelled out in the "Fundamentals ..." The first is the destruction of important military-administrative centers, launchers, bases of nuclear weapons and so on. But in order for the RPKSN to fulfill it, an AVU (balanced fleet) is needed to ensure the combat stability of the submarine forces of the fleet. Even more important is the role of aircraft carriers in ensuring the deployment of submarines in the Atlantic to disrupt enemy communications. Having solved this problem, we take EuroNATO out of the game. Well, and so on.
            And for understanding the essence of the problem hi .
        3. dustycat
          dustycat 3 August 2013 18: 01
          0
          Quote: BoA KAA

          1 MV spawned battleships (LC). They became the main striking force of the fleets. 2 MB buried LK. The grave digger became an aircraft carrier.

          Battleships were not the result of 1MB. It was their heyday, they were born as a result of the development of wooden sailing battleships, but the main burden of 1MB and the greatest number of victories were brought by cruisers and destroyers. They sentenced LK.
          The aircraft carriers of the LK were simply finished off - the aircraft had a greater "range" than the shells of the most powerful battleship. Therefore, already in WW2 (and in some places in WW1), some of the battleships with might and main were "converted" into aircraft carriers. Especially unfinished ones.


          Quote: BoA KAA

          There is a threat. We need to find a way to neutralize it,
          without drawing humanity into a nuclear apocalypse.
          It seems to me that a special-purpose submarine built with SLBMs equipped with an RGCh with maneuvering hypersonic BB INs can become this tool. Secretly, unexpectedly, quickly!

          We have them.
          Well, maybe a little file and a file to file.
          Actually, the lack of funds here was in the topic.
          Missile cruisers and destroyers.
          Yes. And the same Granite and others.
          Why aren't you fighting UAVs? Well, the kamikaze class. And what ?!
          And if you take the Hawk and attach a compartment for it for a couple of small-sized anti-ship missiles ?! Well, its range will drop, but it is redundant for anti-AUG targets. In addition, landing in the Hawk into the ocean is less traumatic than on the ground where it turns into aluminum trash.
          Well, yes, Granite and others like him need to be updated, modernized, electronics and engines are fresher.
          3M ++ attach.
          Invisibility based on radar absorbing skin.
          Although the hypersonic shock wave itself reflects the radar rays well, the application of plasma technologies (remember the superlaboratory of radiophysical effects of the Sukhoi Design Bureau?) Solves two problems at once - absorption of radio waves and reduction of friction with the conversion of hypersonic flow to supersonic.
          And besides, cruisers and destroyers are the best suited for the AUG of future aircraft carriers and existing helicopter carriers.
        4. old man54
          old man54 3 August 2013 20: 44
          0
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          1 MV spawned battleships (LC).

          No, I do not agree !!! repeat The Russian-Japanese war, more precisely the Tsushima battle gave rise to the idea of ​​battleships, but the 1th MV experienced them with might and main in battle, and more than once! hi
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 4 August 2013 01: 12
            +3
            Quote: old man54
            The Tsushima battle gave rise to the idea of ​​battleships,

            Good evening, Andrey! I am glad to meet you on the forum and the opportunity to exchange views.
            I was referring to the classic Dreadnought-type LC, which appeared in 1906. The Russo-Japanese War became the finest hour of the squadron battleship. Historical fact: Project N, which later became the Dreadnought, was approved on January 13 of 1905 of the year, 3 of the month before the Tsushima battle. The last impetus for its creation was the training of the English fleet, conducted in 1904-05 years. This fact is also interesting: the Dreadnought, which gave the name to an entire class of heavy LCs, became a household name, became the only British LC that did not fire a single shot at the enemy.
            1. old man54
              old man54 4 August 2013 23: 59
              0
              Good evening, Alexander! Also glad, oddly enough! fellow Thanks for clarifying. hi Somehow I got used to the opinion, read more than once by various specialists in their works on the history of the fleet, that it was after Tsisima that the idea of ​​a heavily armored, fast enough and very heavily armed sonic warship was born. After a detailed analysis of this battle by the naval theorists of the "enlightened" west.
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Historical fact: Project N, which later became the Dreadnought, was approved on January 13 of 1905 of the year, 3 of the month before the Tsushima battle.

              I didn’t know this, thank you very much for the info! I’m not many from this forum, I won’t ask for links, I take your word for it! drinks
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 5 August 2013 01: 59
                +2
                Quote: old man54
                I will not ask for links, I take your word for it!

                Thank you, Andrey, for your trust. Source: A. Sick. "Battleships in battle. Great and terrible" - M.Yauza. Eksmo, 2010. p.77-78, 109. and further in the text.
      4. kosmos44
        kosmos44 4 August 2013 13: 01
        0
        Quote: Tlauicol
        100 years of aircraft carrier dream.! the caravan is still coming .. and the end of this dream is not visible
        ex. article, thanks!


        Yes, they just did not participate in any normal conflict. Where they at least theoretically could "answer". And it is possible to bomb the "banana" republics from the "corn workers".
    2. Ejik_026
      Ejik_026 2 August 2013 09: 27
      +9
      And if a nuclear explosion then in general zvizdets. Useless to flutter? :)

      Force majeure, he and in Africa force majeure.
  2. Tersky
    Tersky 2 August 2013 07: 36
    17
    I apologize for the offtopic but for good reason: HAPPY AIRCRAFT, MEN! And with the good news-

    The day before, the chief of staff of the Airborne Forces, Lieutenant General Nikolai Ignatov, at a press conference in Moscow, said that no one would forbid swimming on the paratrooper’s fountains on that day.

    "Bathing in fountains is not a crime. It is not an end in itself - to bathe and beat bottles on your head, this is a purely symbolic event, and, in my opinion, there are no consequences," the general stressed.

    Usually, on their professional holiday, many servicemen and veterans of the Airborne Forces "by tradition" bathe in fountains.
    1. German
      German 2 August 2013 13: 24
      +2
      fully support! Happy Holiday! Striped! (For some reason, the note on the Airborne Forces Holiday doesn’t work for me!) Clear skies and soft landing for you!
  3. PDM80
    PDM80 2 August 2013 07: 39
    +8
    The article is generally interesting. But in my opinion the author is somewhat disingenuous due to the fact that he is an adherent of aircraft carriers. The fact that forty planes can take off in a short period of time can be proven in detail, but the issue of landing forty of these planes is not clear. In ideal conditions, as I understand it, everyone will sit down, but if there is a storm, if the plane returns with damage and crashes during landing, on the take-off deck on which there will be other planes at that moment, what should the rest do? Okay, everyone sat down, how long will it take for them to be able to make a second flight? And if, during the inspection of the aircraft, it is recognized as unfit for further flight? We add to this that in the case of normal hostilities with a normal country with a fleet and aviation, the target of the attack of the aircraft carrier is not achieved, then the escort ships will have to finish the job for it! In my personal opinion, an aircraft carrier is just an expensive, advertised toy of Americans, who do not have a rich experience of wars, but have experience of the Second World War and several wars after, where aircraft carriers have shown effectiveness. Therefore, ships like our "Admiral Kuznetsov" are a further development of the idea of ​​an aircraft carrier, adapted for military operations much better than that of Nimitz. The Papuans in Africa will go to drive the aircraft carrier. military convoy to destroy yes, but no more.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2013 07: 58
      28
      Quote: PDM80
      but the question of landing forty of these aircraft is not clear

      What's so incomprehensible? According to the standard, the landing of 40 aircraft is 40 minutes for good weather or 60 minutes for bad weather. In order to provide the aircraft waiting for their turn with fuel, "Hornets" tankers from the PTB can be raised (in total, they haul 14 tons of aviation fuel)
      Quote: PDM80
      but what if the storm

      Weather forecaster on the AV under control. The storm is not taken from nowhere, and the situation in the air is constantly and carefully studied. This was done on WWII aircraft carriers.
      Quote: PDM80
      if the plane returns with damage and crashes upon landing

      They will remove the debris and continue landing
      Quote: PDM80
      on the take-off deck, which at that moment will be other aircraft

      It is completely excluded, because the landing deck is freed from aircraft. Otherwise, how to sit on it?
      Quote: PDM80
      Okay, everyone sat down, how much time would it take for them to make the second flight?

      Several hours.
      Quote: PDM80
      And if during the inspection of the aircraft they are deemed unsuitable for further flight?

      They’ll take them to the hangar and get a new one from there.
      Quote: PDM80
      We add to this that in the case of normal hostilities with a normal country with a fleet and aviation, the target of an aircraft carrier attack is not achieved, then you will have to finish the work for escort ships for it!

      How do you imagine this? :)))) Excuse me, but - it is completely excluded. Each of them has their own work, and an unsuccessful or not entirely successful attack can be repeated.
      Quote: PDM80
      My personal opinion is that an aircraft carrier is just an expensive, publicized toy for Americans who don’t have a wealth of war experience,

      At sea, their experience of warfare is just richer than ours.
      Quote: PDM80
      Therefore, ships like our "Admiral Kuznetsov" are a further development of the idea of ​​an aircraft carrier, adapted for military operations much better than that Nimitz

      Which is better? A scanty air group, besides with a limited ascent rate? Low speed and extremely unfortunate EA? The inability to base long-range radar weapons?
      1. viruskvartirus
        viruskvartirus 2 August 2013 14: 13
        +5
        “The upcoming large-scale modernization is aimed at eliminating the shortcomings of the ship. Although today it is difficult to determine the directions of modernization, some conclusions can be drawn.
        First of all, an insufficiently reliable boiler turbine power plant will be replaced by a gas turbine power plant or a nuclear power plant. The existing launchers of anti-ship missiles 3М45 П-700 "Granite" will be dismantled. [Source not specified 181 day] Therefore, it will be possible to increase the hangar up to 4500-5000 m² to accommodate an additional number of aircraft. The air defense of the ship will be enhanced by replacing the 3K95 Dagger with a new system with the new generation 80-120 anti-aircraft missiles. In combination with the new system, the 4-6 ZRPK “Shell-S1” will be installed.
        The cruiser will receive new electronic equipment, probably the Sigma combat information and control system, which is designed to be installed on all new Russian warships. This BIUS provides unprecedented effective control of ship systems.
        It would be logical if the cruiser received catapults. Given that the bow ramp will be retained, one or two ejection launchers could be located on the ship's corner deck. "
    2. Papakiko
      Papakiko 2 August 2013 11: 09
      +6
      Quote: PDM80
      My personal opinion is that an aircraft carrier is just an expensive, publicized toy.

      Toyota and VAZ are cars and no one will dispute this, but there is an obvious difference between these two cars. From quality to comfort.
      This we still do not take as an example Maybach, McLaren, Bugatti, Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc.
      The dispute around CVN is completely empty.
      The "waffle" is expensive but absolutely necessary, even taking into account the entire ground infrastructure of NATO and their allies-friends in all parts of the Earth.
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 3 August 2013 18: 13
        0
        Quote: Papakiko
        Toyota and VAZ are cars and no one will dispute this, but there is an obvious difference between these two cars.

        Between which?
        Between Lada 2101 and Toyota Corolla 1972? The difference is not in favor of Toyeta.
        Or between Lada 2105 Toyota Corollaa 2012? Between them 40 years of difference.
        Samplers must be gently selected.
  4. roma-belij
    roma-belij 2 August 2013 07: 43
    -14 qualifying.
    And we also envied this technique, but our Kuznetsov is much more comfortable.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 2 August 2013 07: 50
      22
      with six aircraft on board instead of 60, it’s certainly more comfortable.
      1. zvereok
        zvereok 3 August 2013 07: 35
        +2
        Damage to one aircraft carrier means the exit of the entire air group from the military conflict for an indefinite time, if there are several aircraft carriers, albeit with fewer aircraft, the air carrier group will be able to continue combat operations, albeit with less efficiency. It is also possible to project your military power in a more flexible way. If 1 Kuznetsova - 6 planes is enough to support the allies, then there will be 1 blacksmiths and not 60 planes. The rest of the Kuznetsovs will be involved in other places. In general, it would be nice to have an 1 aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type, for each fleet, and a couple of small aircraft carriers.

        It is interesting to compare the cost of ownership of Nimitz and Kuznetsov.
      2. kirpich
        kirpich 5 August 2013 11: 42
        0
        I do not understand, it seems to be for 2010. on "Kuznetsov" -
        18-SU ​​33
        4-SU 25t
        15-KA 27
        2 KA 31
        WELL???....
      3. roma-belij
        roma-belij 23 August 2013 22: 35
        0
        I meant not only the number of equipment on board, but also the conditions for the crew, the types of catapults and the presence of springboards, etc. And the fact that Kuznetsov has 6 planes today is not the fault of the design, but the collapse of the army and the navy. Technically, you can shove 50 on ours, only there are no planes ...
    2. Zerstorer
      Zerstorer 2 August 2013 08: 30
      +9
      Well, this is the most ... There is something to envy.
      1. little man
        little man 2 August 2013 10: 08
        +6
        He said that many have in mind. wink
      2. sub307
        sub307 2 August 2013 14: 11
        +4
        Probably need to build, nefig envy.
    3. Sirjey
      Sirjey 2 August 2013 10: 53
      +2
      Quote: roma-belij
      And we also envied this technique, but our Kuznetsov is much more comfortable.


      Come on? ;)
    4. The comment was deleted.
  5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    2 August 2013 07: 44
    23
    Dear forum users! When I wrote the article "Some features of the use of carrier-based aircraft of supercarriers of the" Nimitz "class, I did not plan to divide it into two parts. But alas, there are size restrictions for articles on the site, and my article did not want to be included in one publication, so which had to be divided into two parts. What you have just read is just a "tail" that did not fit into the main publication http://topwar.ru/31458-nekotorye-osobennosti-ispolzovaniya-palubnoy-aviacii-supe
    ravianoscev-tipa-nimitz-ch1.html #
    1. zvereok
      zvereok 3 August 2013 07: 45
      +1
      I wonder if the tales are that when the aircraft carrier roll, at a certain number of degrees, planes can not take off from the deck?
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 3 August 2013 18: 18
        0
        Quote: zvereok
        I wonder if the tales are that when the aircraft carrier roll, at a certain number of degrees, planes can not take off from the deck?

        Not just with roll, but with roll above certain limits.
        But when such a ship heels like that, the planes will simply blow from the deck.
        At 10 point storm, the weather is clearly non-flying.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 3 August 2013 19: 47
          +4
          Quote: dustycat
          Not just with roll, but with roll above certain limits.
          But when such a ship heels like that, the planes will simply blow from the deck.

          To straighten the ship (including AVU) there is a general ship "equalizing" system. It allows, by flooding the tanks of the opposite side (Or pumping fuel, water, oils ...) to straighten the roll, to bring the ship to a normal landing.
          It may seem strange to some, but the main weapon of AVU is HIS CATAPULTS! Having lost them, the aircraft carrier turns into a weapon transport for the transport of aircraft. This is our "Kuzya" has a springboard, gas bumpers and the thrust-to-weight ratio of the SU-33 is close to unity.
          About stormy weather. I personally observed flights in fresh weather (4 points). AVU becomes a nose on the wave and at an angle of 30-40 * gives a stroke of 25-30 knots. Raised two pairs. In about 30 minutes he turned to the wind and landed the planes in a "parade" course. The flights were provided by a helicopter.
          At the same time (aircraft lifting and landing), the ship is most vulnerable to submarines and missiles, as forced to go on a constant course.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. The comment was deleted.
  6. omsbon
    omsbon 2 August 2013 08: 06
    +7
    Quote: PDM80
    My personal opinion is that an aircraft carrier is simply an expensive, publicized toy for Americans who do not have rich experience in wars, but have experience of the Second World War and several wars after, where aircraft carriers showed effectiveness.

    Then I did not understand, is an aircraft carrier effective or is it an advertised toy?
    I think that powerful aircraft carriers are needed in the North and Pacific Fleets!

    Nobody except us! Glory to the Airborne Forces!
  7. svp67
    svp67 2 August 2013 08: 14
    +5
    I think that for so many years of operation, the Americans have long worked out everything and designed in the form of instructions. And if our guys from the GRU haven’t done anything to get them, then we probably need to take care ...
    1. Atrix
      Atrix 2 August 2013 10: 34
      12
      Quote: svp67
      I think that for so many years of operation, the Americans have long worked out everything and designed in the form of instructions. And if our guys from the GRU haven’t done anything to get them, then we probably need to take care ...

      Of course, everything has already been worked out for them. And to read comments such as how to plant will be if some are broken on the deck, etc. even funny. For so many years of using the US aircraft carriers, they have already had so many instructions developed for all occasions. And sprinkle with saliva and say that it is expensive and not effective can be any number of times. But the United States, like no other country, knows how to count money, and if they use aircraft carriers, then they bring much more benefits than the cost of maintaining them.
      1. zvereok
        zvereok 3 August 2013 07: 38
        +1
        Quote: Atrix
        But the United States, like no other country, knows how to count money, and if they use aircraft carriers, then they bring much more benefits than the cost of maintaining them.


        I can argue with that! Everyone understands that the US is bankrupt. But the presence of a powerful army does not allow to declare this openly.
    2. German
      German 2 August 2013 13: 35
      +1
      I do not think that the guys from the GRU did not "hurry" - most likely this is the secret of POLISHINEL !!!! I think that in spite of all the "reorganizations" there are still not stupid people left and are working!
    3. dustycat
      dustycat 3 August 2013 18: 20
      +1
      Quote: svp67
      I think that for so many years of operation, the Americans have long worked out everything and designed in the form of instructions. And if our guys from the GRU haven’t done anything to get them, then we probably need to take care ...

      And you carefully consider graphic illustrations.
      Where do you think they come from?
  8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    2 August 2013 08: 25
    +6
    Personally for Oleg Kaptsov
    Oleg! You wrote in a previous thread that the 36 aircraft in the Nimitz hangar on your (more precisely - Cabernik) scheme are just short F-35S (length - 15,7 m) and therefore Tomkats will fit into the hangar much less .. I don’t know if the scheme will cling to the comment (for some reason it hasn’t cling to recently), but this is what I have to tell you
    The Nimitsa hangar has a length of 209 m, a width of 33,6 m. So you can check in any graphic editor - fighters similar to F-35, only 11 is placed in length, the twelfth does not fit. Those. the length of the F-35 according to the scheme is approximately 17,5 meters :) In general, the fighter in the scheme of Cabernik is a bit off scale :)
    On the diagram there are 20 Tomcat in the hangar (I tried very hard to bring it into a uniform scale, though I got excited with the width, it seems that the Tomcat should be somewhat narrower than what I have in the diagram - as you can see, there is still a lot of space :)))
    1. Ejik_026
      Ejik_026 2 August 2013 09: 34
      +2
      I suspect a lot depends on the set of equipment in the hangar :).
      Hornetov will fit into a love more than Tomcat.
    2. helix
      helix 2 August 2013 13: 23
      +4
      I think that with such a placement of aircraft in the hangar, it will be extremely difficult to work with them there. And there will be serious difficulties with lifting them to the flight deck. In fact, the hangar is probably not used this way. To be able to use them, you need to put them a little freer. I know what I'm talking about. I have experience in operating aircraft on ships such as "Kuznetsov", "Gorshkov".
    3. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 2 August 2013 14: 35
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      36 planes in the Nimitz hangar on your (more precisely - Cabernica) scheme

      Cabernet has nothing to do with it
      This is a famous scheme from English-language Google.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Those. the length of the F-35 according to the scheme is approximately 17,5 meters :)

      ?
      then there are the Hornets and the F-35.
      Hornet length is known - emnip 18 meters
      F-35 Length - About 15
      hangar length 206,5

      the circuit is the same circuit. What else do you want to know?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        2 August 2013 18: 06
        +2
        Oleg, especially for you in the diagram below, I stuck 12 F-35С in a row one after another. You see, having the length of the aircraft 15,7 m, putting a dozen of them in a row we get 12 * 15,7 = 188,4 meters. It's clear? In other words, if you put 12 planes from one wall of the hangar to the other, nosing their noses in the nozzles of the neighboring ones, then 206-188,4 = 17,6 m should still remain to the opposite wall of the hangar. Simply put - Ф-12 in your scheme is BIGGER than it should be, be they on a single scale with the hangar of a Nimitz.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 2 August 2013 18: 22
          0
          Andrei, will this somehow help when deploying Stepanov’s 70 aircraft?

          I do not like the "murzilka" - use the schemes from your article, business then
          1. Ruslan67
            Ruslan67 2 August 2013 18: 46
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            it will somehow help when placing 70 aircraft

            Oleg! You can prove something is useless. You can shove as much as you like, but at the same time the aircraft carrier turns into transport for delivering equipment to ground bases. A expensive barge wassat
  9. ramsi
    ramsi 2 August 2013 08: 26
    0
    if the additional aircraft for the fortress stands on deck, then how do they take off and land? The deck is cluttered. It seems that the aircraft carrier can only carry 80 aircraft, but not work with them
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2013 08: 42
      +5
      Quote: ramsi
      if the additional aircraft for the 40th anniversary is on the deck, then how do they take off and land?

      Once again :))) Three hornets surrender a bit back (black arrows) - voila, three catapults are open. What is the problem?:)
      Damn, the photo did not attach, now I will try again
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        2 August 2013 08: 46
        +2
        The third time I'm trying to hook ... what, interestingly, I'm doing wrong ?!
    2. AK-47
      AK-47 2 August 2013 09: 29
      11
      Quote: ramsi
      if the additional aircraft for the fortress stands on deck, then how do they take off and land? Deck cluttered

      In the photo, 35 aircraft are quite free in the "sump", and on the runway there is nothing to prevent takeoff and landing.
      1. Kars
        Kars 2 August 2013 09: 34
        +2
        Here, one at a time, they will take off for half a day, and if someone else decides to saditsa. And imagine an emergency situation - then what kind of fireworks will come out, it will be kindly expensive to see.
        So this placement is not in a combat situation. Maybe they have a general cleaning in the hangar. Yes, I see the Hornets, and in the seed we had larger Tomkets (there was a link to the year)
      2. little man
        little man 2 August 2013 10: 18
        +1
        It seems to me that this cool photo is just not a good example. Only one catapult is available on the landing strip. And rasslivaya two others will have to sweat.
    3. Ejik_026
      Ejik_026 2 August 2013 09: 34
      +1
      Read the article carefully :)
  10. PDM80
    PDM80 2 August 2013 08: 28
    -1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    At sea, their experience of warfare is just richer than ours.
    Well, it’s you in vain, the Russian fleet under Catherine’s ships with slaves that went to America was caught. And Ushakov alone is worth something. Thanks for answers.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Which is better? A scanty air group, besides with a limited ascent rate? Low speed and extremely unfortunate EA? The inability to base long-range radar weapons?
    Well, there is something to work on. good
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2013 08: 57
      21
      Quote: PDM80
      Well, it’s you in vain, the Russian fleet under Catherine’s ships with slaves that went to America was caught. And Ushakov alone is worth

      This is not so much experience as tradition. With all due respect to our admirals and crews of the sailing fleet.
      As for the combat experience - the last positive experience we got in WWII on the Black Sea. There, our fleet did a lot of what was not in any countries of the world. But the revolution in the fleet was reflected VERY hard, we actually lost the naval cadres. Hence the very weak actions of our fleet in World War II.
      The Americans, on the other hand, cherished and nurtured their fleet, while in the heat of revolutionary storms we lost personnel, in the USA they were grown. Well, they raised it ... and then their fleet clashed with the world’s most powerful fleet at that time (not in numbers but in combat potential) and still won ... Including due to the immeasurable increase in the combat training of Americans in the course of the war. If you recall the beginning - how they could not coordinate the actions of not only aviation from two aircraft carriers, but squadrons from one aircraft carrier fighting on their own ... completely unprepared for night battles. Americans could not oppose anything to the heavy cruisers of Japan ... And at the end of the war?
      further - 50 years of undeclared wars. But if our troubles mainly occurred on land (such as the same Afghan), then the Americans constantly fleet participated in the battles - Vietnam, Korea and other Iraqi there. So that...
      I do not deny the high level and power of the USSR Navy. But the Yankees still had much more combat experience
      1. PDM80
        PDM80 2 August 2013 10: 22
        +3
        I hope in practice of a full-scale war, supporters and opponents of aircraft carriers will not find out who was right in the dispute.
  11. Yura
    Yura 2 August 2013 08: 30
    10
    I am not a supporter of aircraft carriers, no, I don’t breathe evenly and calmly, but a good article was very interesting to read. In general, ships, submarines and aircraft carriers, too, but how without them, this is the height of engineering, and where does beauty come from, like purely utilitarian creations of human thought. Since ancient times, starting from sailing ships, ships have been shrouded in a flair of romanticism that raises and purifies the human consciousness. Article plus is good.
  12. shurup
    shurup 2 August 2013 08: 44
    +5
    An excursion to a modern civilian warehouse stuffed with computers, microchips and headphone personnel can help to understand the principles of storing aircraft on an aircraft carrier.
  13. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 2 August 2013 08: 47
    +1
    And yet I noticed that the supporters of aircraft carriers exaggerate their power to a greater extent, simply because they want to think so, but most importantly, for some reason, necessarily implies an underestimation of our armed forces, on the principle of weak resistance to threats from ACG. It turns out that the AUG in the world is the most decisive weapon. Whoever has it and the master on earth. All arguments for AUG vulnerability are not accepted at all.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2013 09: 01
      +9
      Just a closer look
      Quote: vladsolo56
      All arguments for AUG vulnerability

      cease to be so. It’s very difficult to kill AUGs - this is a very invulnerable compound, only the USSR had the potential to destroy AUGs, but its methods, at a cost similar to AUGs, had significant drawbacks and did not give the universality that aircraft carriers assume
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 2 August 2013 09: 15
        +4
        well, I don’t know ... And try tactical nuclear weapons? However, all the same, these are only theories; After all, no one has tried to "peck" AUG with conventional weapons since WWII. And the practical results can be very discouraging.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 August 2013 10: 01
          +2
          Quote: ramsi
          And to try tactical nuclear weapons?

          It has a relatively small radius of damage, i.e. if you hit with a direct hit - it will be a kirdyk, and so ...
          1. ramsi
            ramsi 2 August 2013 10: 10
            +9
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Quote: ramsi
            And to try tactical nuclear weapons?

            It has a relatively small radius of damage, i.e. if you hit with a direct hit - it will be a kirdyk, and so ...

            I think an explosion at a low altitude, even if it doesn’t sink, will sweep the entire deck, along with add-ons and other equipment. Further, you can achieve anything.
            (Underwater, by the way, is also very unpleasant)
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              2 August 2013 10: 22
              +6
              The problem is to deliver this same charge at a distance of several hundred meters from AB. It is not easy. Well - non-conventional weapons, nuclear armageddon.
              1. ramsi
                ramsi 2 August 2013 10: 36
                +2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The problem is to deliver this same charge at a distance of several hundred meters from AB. It is not easy. Well - non-conventional weapons, nuclear armageddon.

                at the expense of delivery - quite real. And the boundaries of application - so for our country it is even more than acceptable - is recommended. For some reason, I have 99.9% confidence that armageddon will not follow in a local conflict, rather, vice versa
      2. Ejik_026
        Ejik_026 2 August 2013 09: 36
        +3
        Just AUGs they could normally destroy, another thing is that they could not engage in bringing peace to the whole world.
        Well, that wasn’t required of them. The main thing was to neutralize the AUG, i.e. fulfill the priority goal.
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 2 August 2013 11: 13
          +4
          You cannot win if you have only a minus goal, that is, with the goal - to destroy the enemy's fleet you cannot win, there must be a "plus" goal - to establish your dominance at sea (for the sake of something). Philosophy, of course, but - actually philosophy is translated as "love of wisdom" wink

          For the USSR Navy, the goal was maximum - to interrupt communications across the Atlantic for 2-4 weeks.
          In other words, a repetition of the same goal-setting that Napoleon, Germany had done before in WWI and WWII.
          Actually, the results of the calculations of our own sailors showed that since the mid-1980s the USSR Navy could not accomplish this task with acceptable probability.

          It was confirmed (for me it was amazing wink ) installation, described even 100 years before: the success of cruising operations (i.e. interrupting enemy communications) is determined by the ratio of the linear forces of the opposing fleets.

          Yes, the fleet’s strategy was determined by the land strategy of the USSR and the ATS, but even with it, they were forced to begin to build the likeness of aircraft carriers, because the stability of our KUG without them was estimated by us as quite low. Hence, all 1143, Kuznetsov, etc.
          1. ramsi
            ramsi 2 August 2013 11: 26
            +5
            [quote = cdrt] You cannot win with only a minus goal, ie with the goal - to destroy the enemy's fleet you cannot win, there must be a "plus" goal - to establish your dominance at sea (for the sake of something). Philosophy, of course, but - actually philosophy is translated as "love of wisdom" wink

            For the USSR Navy, the goal was maximum - to interrupt communications across the Atlantic for 2-4 weeks.
            No, well, take a real look at things - was there even a theoretical possibility to confront the USA and NATO on equal fleets? In my opinion, there is nothing but an asymmetric answer - and there’s nothing to think about
      3. cdrt
        cdrt 2 August 2013 11: 01
        +4
        did not give the universality that the presence of aircraft carriers suggests

        100500
        That's it.
        Here on the site there was a debate - how much is the opposition AUG: PLACR, Legend with a constant updating of the group costs the same, if not more than the AUG.

        But, PLACR with Granites + Legend can only one thing - in the first (i.e. without actually declaring war) blow to destroy the opposing AUG.
        And the AUG can do much more: deliver the first, retaliatory strikes, maintain dominance in any region, fight in local wars, strike on the coast, etc. In other words, for the same money, a much more universal mechanism.
        1. dustycat
          dustycat 3 August 2013 18: 35
          +1
          Quote: cdrt
          In other words, for the same money, a much more universal mechanism.

          Well, not for the same money.
          If it would be the same for money - aircraft carriers in the USSR would appear.
          And so RK like Peter the Great is an asymmetric answer.
      4. helix
        helix 2 August 2013 13: 35
        +2
        In the 70-80s, ours often opposed these same AUG artillery cruisers. Together they "walked" in certain areas in neutral waters, counting on the fact that when the time "H" was announced, the speed of the artillery cruiser was anyway higher than that of any AUG ship. And a couple of hits on the flight deck and on the superstructure will permanently disable the aircraft carrier - the task has been solved. So they walked in the visual visibility of each other. It is clear that our ship is like a kamikaze, but they considered it to be a profitable exchange.
      5. zvereok
        zvereok 3 August 2013 07: 51
        0
        How long will it take to repair a damaged aircraft carrier? How many bases can this repair be done?
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 3 August 2013 08: 34
          +1
          Forrestal - disaster and fire July 67, returned in April 68 - and this is before the application of the irrigated deck. what other ship boasts such survivability?
    2. sq
      sq 2 August 2013 09: 07
      +2
      + That's right. But in reality there is no universal weapon (tool), the question is the competent use of what is.
    3. Far East
      Far East 2 August 2013 09: 40
      +3
      I agree with you! but with the author not always! he probably was not at sea, and did not see the storm.
      Quote: vladsolo56
      Let's start with the simplest thing - the height of the aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type reaches 30 meters and it is extremely difficult to wash anything off its deck. Is it that a giant killer wave or a monstrous typhoon ... The pitching ship also cannot drop a plane - special mounts are designed for it on the flight deck

      and this whole chatter can last not a day, but much longer, and the waves are soooooooo big, what is a 30 meter board? it's nothing! whoever was at sea, and fell into a storm, he will understand me when the ship goes under water. for help. I went to the BATM. who cares.
      1. Evgeny_Lev
        Evgeny_Lev 2 August 2013 13: 45
        +3
        Here vidyuha.
        Comparable tanker.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwKXfc_a4Ag
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Far East
          Far East 2 August 2013 14: 15
          +1
          thanks for the video! by eye, you can say it is 5-6 points, but this is not the limit, you really can! the tankers of the sides are very low. if there is a desire to delve into the internet, there many of our sailors threw off rollers, there is such a storm in the PACIFIC! that's why it is called SILENT! with respect!
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 2 August 2013 15: 03
            +2
            Quote: Far East
            sho such a storm in the Pacific! that's why it is called SILENT! with respect!

            Aircraft carrier in the storm
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 2 August 2013 16: 27
              0
              Sorry, the video with the aircraft carrier in the storm was lost somewhere
              1. Far East
                Far East 3 August 2013 03: 23
                +2
                nothing wrong! who is interested, he will look in the internet of this good full. with respect
    4. Atrix
      Atrix 2 August 2013 10: 49
      +4
      Quote: vladsolo56
      And yet I noticed that the supporters of aircraft carriers exaggerate their power to a greater extent, simply because they want to think so, but most importantly, for some reason, necessarily implies an underestimation of our armed forces, on the principle of weak resistance to threats from ACG. It turns out that the AUG in the world is the most decisive weapon. Whoever has it and the master on earth. All arguments for AUG vulnerability are not accepted at all.

      The most decisive weapons in the world are the atomic bomb and money. winked
      Let's really assess the chances of Russia against AUG. In the USSR, this was considered a difficult task with heavy losses and attracting large formations of ships and aircraft. And now what means does Russia have? How much has the fleet and aviation component of Russia been reduced in comparison with the USSR. Or maybe in Russia they launched fundamentally new ships to combat the AUG or did the new airplanes become part of the Russian Air Force?
      I really don’t see in Russia the means to combat the AUS.
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 3 August 2013 18: 42
        0
        Quote: Atrix
        Or maybe in Russia they launched fundamentally new ships to combat the AUG or did the new airplanes become part of the Russian Air Force?
        I really don’t see in Russia the means to combat the AUS.

        Yes, all the same - communication vessels and hydrographic as AUG and ICBM markers with nuclear warheads as an AUG neutralizer.
    5. cdrt
      cdrt 2 August 2013 10: 54
      +3
      It turns out that the AUG in the world is the most decisive weapon. Whoever has it and the master on earth


      Only not on land, but on the sea.
      And not a prodigy, but a modern "battleship" (in terms of Colombes, Mahen), a ship that is the most powerful weapon for establishing dominance at sea.

      Vulnerability is a concept that applies to everything at sea. All that floats can be sunk.

      Well ... in the form of a joke, on any other ships remained constructive protection (about the Orlans - it seems like the question of its presence is very controversial)? laughing laughing
      + The very serious experience of Americans in the struggle for the survivability of aircraft carriers in WWII makes itself felt.
  14. KazaK Bo
    KazaK Bo 2 August 2013 09: 24
    +9
    Every technique, including combat, has its pros and cons. The same rake ... how good they are to rake the grass ... but at the same time you can get it on the forehead.
    So it is with the AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. The main thing here is to decide ... what their main goal will be ... If they "scare the Papuans," as one of the forum participants writes, the brigantine of Cook's time will be enough. If the goal is to keep a potential enemy in suspense while cutting off our strategic interests and his, then perhaps high-class aircraft carriers are needed. So, if necessary, you need to risk something - both the quantity ... and the technical level of the aircraft. Even if there are 40 combat aircraft on board the AIR CARRIER ... after all, this is a full-blooded air regiment! What can he do and think scary ...
    And if it is in the ocean, far from our shores and airfields ?? So proceed from this in the answer - do we need AUG or not!
    1. zvereok
      zvereok 3 August 2013 08: 01
      0
      Quote: KazaK Bo
      So it is with the AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. The main thing here is to decide ... what their main goal will be ... If they "scare the Papuans," as one of the forum participants writes, the brigantine of Cook's time will be enough. If the goal is to keep a potential enemy in suspense while cutting off our strategic interests and his, then perhaps high-class aircraft carriers are needed. So, if necessary, you need to risk something - both the quantity ... and the technical level of the aircraft. Even if there are 40 combat aircraft on board the AIR CARRIER ... after all, this is a full-blooded air regiment! What can he do and think scary ...
      And if it is in the ocean, far from our shores and airfields ?? So from this and proceed in the answer - we need AUG silt


      The question is, what is more profitable to have in the 4 fleet small carrier ships with missile weapons and 24 aircraft, or 1 large with 40 aircraft, but the risk of losing everything for a long time.

      It is interesting to know the comparable cost of building and servicing a large aircraft carrier and an aircraft carrier cruiser.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 3 August 2013 16: 54
        -1
        Quote: zvereok
        The question is, what is more profitable to have in the fleet 4 small aircraft carriers, with missile weapons and 24 aircraft, or 1 large with 40 aircraft,


        Who ever said that 1 large aircraft carrier costs as much as 4 small? There can be no such ratio, I think somewhere 3 to 5, but certainly not 1 to 4.
  15. antonio
    antonio 2 August 2013 09: 28
    11
    The author is well done! Knowing from personal experience the ability of Americans to organize and train teams, I think that they will load how much in the standard without any problems, and it’s somehow not technologically to divide the length of the hangar by the length of the aircraft.
    You considering how much furniture to put in the room, divide the length of the room by the length of the sofa or cabinet?
    Surely the layout of aircraft in the hangar is thought out more than once or twice, and depends on many factors, everything is calculated there accurate to the centimeter, if not to the millimeter.
    And the vulnerability of aircraft carriers ... The big question is, the same Americans during the Pacific War, managed to repair their aircraft carriers with crazy speed.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2013 10: 08
      +5
      Quote: antonio
      and dividing the length of the hangar by the length of the aircraft is somehow not technologically advanced

      Well, I wrote - PERSONAL for Oleg Kaptsov :))) He knows what it is about :))
      it is not a matter of placement, but of a long-standing dispute with him. Oleg claimed that an air group of 20 Tomcat 20 Hornet and 20 Intruders simply could not physically fit on an aircraft carrier. When I pointed out to him the presence of photos with tomcat on the flight deck (despite the fact that there were 40 airplanes there) I asked if the 36 airplanes presented by him were sitting in the hangar and 40 were easily standing on the deck - what problems ? Oleg replied that on his circuit there are a lot of F-35, but if I try to push the tomkets there, I won’t fit.
      I finally decided to sketch out a possible scheme for placing tokens in the hangar, but suddenly I came across an amazing one - it turns out that the silhouettes of the F-35 on the scheme are much larger than they should be. And how to explain this to Oleg? The easiest way to relate them to the known length of the hangar. Well, I do not propose to push them there in a single gutter :)))
      1. antonio
        antonio 2 August 2013 12: 35
        0
        Arguing with Oleg is difficult, but rather impossible ..
        Then it’s easier to calculate the area of ​​the hangar, the area of ​​the aircraft and correlate these values.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 3 August 2013 16: 55
          0
          Quote: antonio
          Then it’s easier to calculate the area of ​​the hangar, the area of ​​the aircraft and correlate these values.


          Is this a joke?) The plane is not square
          1. dustycat
            dustycat 3 August 2013 18: 48
            0
            Quote: patsantre
            Is this a joke?) The plane is not square

            You just did not have to pack two spectrometric laboratories for fine chemical analysis in one KamAZ.
            This equipment is also not square and you can’t put it together without transport containers.
  16. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 2 August 2013 09: 31
    +4
    You can argue ad infinitum, and when the arguments end, start just waving your fists at playing each other's throats trying to prove the advantages of different fleet models. But there is always a struggle between armor and shell, or, applying to our question, there is nothing ideal. The country's army and navy are built around the global strategy that it sets for itself and what tasks it plans to carry out.
    An important point is how to use the tool (yes, a submarine, an aircraft carrier, a tank, and even a soldier are an instrument in the hands of a commander to accomplish a goal and a task). You can also hammer nails with a microscope, but let me use a microscope for this? In the hands of a skilled commander, a herd of sheep is able to defeat a herd of lions controlled by a sheep.
    1. ramsi
      ramsi 2 August 2013 09: 50
      -1
      I completely agree on the global strategy ... Well, what is the "irreplaceable" role of aircraft carriers in ours?
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 2 August 2013 10: 29
        +3
        I have no idea. In my opinion, basing it is possible only in the Pacific Ocean, i.e. in Vladivostok. In the Northern sense, it will be only during navigation and everything, otherwise it can repeat the fate of Chelyuskin and other ships crushed by ice, or they can be done with the possibility of icebreakers. I do not consider the Baltic and Black at all because there he is a large floating target.
        Although honestly I am a big supporter of cruisers and BDKs - you can bomb the coast with drones / winged ones, and after that you can launch helicopters.
        But I’m not a military man and therefore I don’t speak beyond my assumptions. For me - if you need a tool to complete a task, you need to either get it or make it so that it is possible to perform this task with other tools.
  17. AK-47
    AK-47 2 August 2013 09: 38
    +3
    the height of the aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type reaches 30 meters and it is extremely difficult to wash anything off its deck. Unless a giant killer wave or a monstrous typhoon ... A pitching man cannot also drop a plane - special brackets are designed for him on the flight deck (by the way, bracing is also needed for planes on the hangar deck, the mere presence of a hangar does not save from pitching). Of course, airplanes open to all winds still suffer more damage than those hidden in a hangar, in which even the air is air-conditioned, but ...

    But ...
    1. Atrix
      Atrix 2 August 2013 11: 13
      +6
      What did you want to show with this photo? The sea is calm, it is 100% not sea water. A search in the picture gave the result that it was washing the deck of an aircraft carrier, or as one person below wrote extinguishing work in case of an accident on the deck. Here is a larger image where you can see that this water comes from the hoses.
      1. AK-47
        AK-47 2 August 2013 11: 46
        0
        Quote: Atrix
        it’s a wash of the deck of an aircraft carrier, or ... extinguishing in the event of an accident on the deck.

        Thank you, you are an observant person, but in the rain with a headwind and a speed of 30 knots the picture is about the same.
      2. little man
        little man 2 August 2013 12: 12
        0
        Yes, all warships have such irrigation systems, in case of nuclear or chemical infection. The ship is washed completely
        1. Mhpv
          Mhpv 2 August 2013 12: 22
          +5
          USVZ - universal system of water protection.
          1. Mhpv
            Mhpv 4 August 2013 00: 55
            0
            Quote: mhpv
            USVZ - universal system of water protection.


            Guys just this is my topic, I served as a chemist at PSKR "Impeccable" and served this crap, a cool system was provided with timely and qualified service. If there are members of the forum who served in Kamchatka hello and congratulations on the past holiday.
      3. old man54
        old man54 2 August 2013 19: 42
        +1
        Quote: Atrix
        A search in the picture gave the result that it was washing the deck of an aircraft carrier, or as one person below wrote extinguishing work in case of an accident on the deck.

        this is an unambiguous check or demonstration of the fire extinguishing system of PP in the case of pharmaceuticals. hi
  18. tun1313
    tun1313 2 August 2013 10: 06
    +7
    I read komenty, many criticisms. But in spite of the criticism, the villains fly and quite cheerfully.
    1. little man
      little man 2 August 2013 10: 31
      +5
      They criticize those who did not see the decks above their heads. At one time, they were on duty in the Mediterranean as part of the 5th flotilla. And with envy they watched the flying tomkets, and how wretchedly against our background our yaks stood on the deck of Baku.
  19. NOMADE
    NOMADE 2 August 2013 10: 29
    +1
    Quote: AK-47
    the height of the aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type reaches 30 meters and it is extremely difficult to wash anything off its deck. Unless a giant killer wave or a monstrous typhoon ... A pitching man cannot also drop a plane - special brackets are designed for him on the flight deck (by the way, bracing is also needed for planes on the hangar deck, the mere presence of a hangar does not save from pitching). Of course, airplanes open to all winds still suffer more damage than those hidden in a hangar, in which even the air is air-conditioned, but ...

    But ...


    Judging by the photo, this is an exercise in extinguishing fires (the "hydrants" are turned on), although at first he "pecked" that the deck is flooded laughing

    Airborne! Happy holiday! drinks

    Article bold +
  20. Mhpv
    Mhpv 2 August 2013 10: 50
    +1
    Well, firstly, thanks for the given reviews to both Oleg Kaptsov and Andrei Kolobov, because their articles have aroused interest among many with regard to the ACG. How many people, so many opinions, and each version has the right to exist, because the truth is born in the dispute. So, to find out the correctness of both, they climbed right now as they say google and found, in my opinion, a good article about AOG, which describes the capabilities of AOG and options for fighting against them without exaggerating the capabilities of both parties.
    http://texnomaniya.ru/voennaya-texnika/avianosnie-udarnie-gruppi-vms-ssha.html
    hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2013 11: 46
      +3
      You're welcome!:)
      1. Mhpv
        Mhpv 2 August 2013 12: 26
        +1
        Andrew! And what do you say about this monster:

        Could he have served as a "club" for the AUG in the coastal zone?
        After all, its speed and range allows you to effectively act at a distance
  21. burhan
    burhan 2 August 2013 11: 35
    -9
    ACGs are good for displaying the flag and forcing peace.
    In a global conflict, they will exist until the first attack from orbit, from under water or from any distance by intercontinental missiles.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      2 August 2013 11: 46
      +7
      Quote: burkhan
      In a global conflict, they will exist until the first attack from orbit, from under water or from any distance by intercontinental missiles.

      Would you bother reading at least something on the matter before commenting it :))) From orbit :)))))) And about the ICBMs - in general
      1. burhan
        burhan 2 August 2013 15: 48
        -1
        1.
        Quote:
        Anti-ship missile variant
        received the designation R-27K (index
        GRAU 4K18). Testing complex with
        R-27K rocket began in December
        1970 year. Ground Testing Cycle
        at the landfill Kapustin Yar included in
        20 launches themselves (of which 16 are recognized
        successful). Under the rocket launcher
        pilot project 605 was
        refitted diesel
        electric submarine -
        K-102 project 629, with 4 missile
        mines on board. First start with
        submarine was carried out in december
        1972 year. And in November 1973
        tests completed
        two-rocket salvo. Total was
        11 launches completed, of which 10
        recognized as successful. During
        last launch the target ship was
        hit by a direct hit
        induced block. In 1974, a rocket
        was accepted into an experienced
        operation.
        2. "Liana" will establish the approximate location of the AUG
        "Satellite reconnaissance" Liana "will start working in 2013"
        "Avangard ICBMs - the split warheads have their own rocket engines and guidance systems and can maneuver in all directions like full-fledged missiles."
        Ancient Movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFPzAhKphws
  22. Dalian
    Dalian 2 August 2013 12: 34
    0
    Not being a moroman, I can only assume that the catapult's performance may be the main limiter. To produce 20 aircraft of 15 tons in a limited period of time is expensive even for a nuclear power plant. I don’t know whether the catapult propulsors are steam-generating or EM, but I doubt that at least in the latrines they turn off the light even during the release period, i.e. the system is balanced and does not allow excessive energy consumption, which in turn imposes a restriction on the rate of release of a large number of aircraft. In other words, 20 in 15 minutes - you can, 50 - you can in at least an hour.
  23. barbiturate
    barbiturate 2 August 2013 13: 27
    +3
    Thanks for the excellent article Andrew! I read it with sincere interest! And probably not only I'm waiting for more articles from you.
    Many comment on it without even bothering to read before it) After all, in fact, nobody reads, so you have to argue and prove obvious things.
  24. Krilion
    Krilion 2 August 2013 13: 49
    0
    Quote: AVV
    Latvian sprat is more comfortable! At the slightest fire, the end of the aircraft carrier dream !!!



    grandfather McCain has already demonstrated this once ...
  25. Taoist
    Taoist 2 August 2013 13: 54
    0
    Once again, I emphasize that the author makes a mistake in reducing the aircraft carrier's "aircraft performance" only to the "geometric" possibilities of placing machines ... In reality, full-fledged operation (constant flights with high intensity) can be provided, God forbid, for half of the regular air group. The second half is exclusively "one-time" use. Those. in a real serious battle, the aircraft carrier will provide the first strike "at full strength" and then either sharply reduce its effectiveness or be forced to go to "recharge".
    1. Delta
      Delta 2 August 2013 15: 40
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      Once again, I emphasize that the author makes a mistake in reducing the aircraft carrier's "aircraft performance" only to the "geometric" possibilities of placing machines ... In reality, full-fledged operation (constant flights with high intensity) can be provided, God forbid, for half of the regular air group. The second half is exclusively "one-time" use. Those. in a real serious battle, the aircraft carrier will provide the first strike "at full strength" and then either sharply reduce its effectiveness or be forced to go to "recharge".


      By the end of the battle, the aircraft carriers of the WWII showed an efficiency equal to the beginning of the battle. Unless, of course, their air groups were seriously battered (or even completely destroyed) by anti-aircraft fire or opposition from enemy patrols. And they did not go to any "recharge".
      1. Mhpv
        Mhpv 2 August 2013 16: 01
        +2
        The human factor, in simple words, the “gouging” of the crew, can play a certain role in the destruction of the ACG. In 2000, the Russian press wrote a lot about the incident that took place in the Sea of ​​Japan. During the joint exercises, in which about thirty ships of the Japanese Navy and the 7 fleet of the United States participated, Russian pilots on two Su-24 Mr aircraft managed to unimpededly launch conditional bombing on the Kitty Haw aircraft carrier. The Russians “caught” the aircraft carrier to refuel at sea, when the sleeves of the refueling hoses interfered with the departure of carrier-based aircraft. There was no air cover over the ship at this moment. It took a long time before the Americans were able to fly their carrier-based fighters. In real combat conditions, such a situation could lead to damage or even death of an aircraft carrier.
      2. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 2 August 2013 16: 13
        -1
        Quote: Delta
        WWII aircraft carriers at the end of the battle showed efficiency equal to the beginning of the battle

        Frankly speaking, the efficiency was low

        6 Japanese aircraft carriers were able to lift the entire 183 aircraft in the first shock wave (Pearl Harbor) - an average of 25-35 vehicles from the ship ... provided that the small Zero took off without any catapults, etc. difficulties
        1. Delta
          Delta 2 August 2013 16: 17
          0
          Oleg, can you read? read again
        2. tlauicol
          tlauicol 2 August 2013 16: 43
          +2
          Oleg, do not dissemble: the thrust-weight ratio of Zero (and besides them also torpedo bombers, bombers) is insignificant, but there are no catapults, the volume of the hangar, the area, the length of the deck, the displacement of aircraft carriers do not take into account? and an hour later, the ancient Japanese raised the second wave
          1. alone
            alone 2 August 2013 22: 36
            +3
            and in two waves disabled the entire Pacific fleet. from this blow, the amers came to their senses only in 1943.
  26. Selevc
    Selevc 2 August 2013 13: 56
    -2
    AUG-and not so terrible and impregnable as many write here ... The combat experience of recent decades suggests that surface ships are very vulnerable to missile weapons ... Eilat was sunk - sunk, Sheffield sank - moreover, from the entry of far from the most modern rocket at that time ...
    Quote:
    The active phase was opened by the Argentines, when the San Luis submarine skillfully penetrated the center of the combat order of the enemy aircraft carrier formation. The submarine, remaining unnoticed, chose the “fattest” target according to the acoustic data, and its commander ordered to fire. However, from that moment the time of disappointment began. The boat's ammunition consisted of German wire-guided torpedoes and conventional American ones. The Argentines were the first to test the German design. The torpedo rushed to the target, which was only 2 km from the submarine, but got lost on the way. The control cable was cut, and the torpedo was lost in the ocean depths. A rare chance was missed. The British apparently noticed the torpedo and realized that they had let the enemy submarine into the center of the formation. "San Luis" was discovered, and ships of Her Majesty 20 hours drove a diesel Argentine submarine on the ocean. Surprisingly, the boat managed to break away from dozens of ships and helicopters, which in itself refuted some myths about the power of the Western anti-submarine defense.


    What else to add - now there are maneuvering missiles and rockets flying in hypersound ... The personnel of the AUG-ok ships will not even have time to do it, as they will be perforated like a sieve with a flock of smart missiles ... And maybe the Aircraft Carrier will not sink but will certainly be withdrawn from building for a long time ... And why drown it? It is enough to arrange a huge fire on the deck of the Aircraft Carrier to completely turn the ship into an unnecessary trough and he will have to go far to the base for repair, and this will take weeks and even months !!!

    I think that if it weren’t for nuclear weapons, we would have seen pictures of sinking aircraft carriers more than once ...

    The unyielding San Luis continued to patrol. A week later, the Argentines were lucky again, another British ships wandered into the torpedo strike zone. Taught by bitter experience, the commander fired an American torpedo. According to the recollections of those who were on the boat, after the allotted time the sound of a torpedo hitting the ship's bottom was heard, and everything was quiet. The explosion did not happen, the American fuse was no better than the West German cable. But this time the British did not understand that they were being attacked. Conscious of his impotence, the commander of the "San Luis" took the boat away, the enemy did not pursue the Argentines.

    The third attack took place on 11 May. This time, the submarine was missed by the acoustics of two British frigates, created, by the way, specifically to combat submarines. Carelessness again did not harm the British, torpedoes with the brand "made in Germany and the USA" stubbornly did not want to sink anyone. It is interesting that all the data about the shameful roguishness of the British were classified. Official reports spoke only of the 20-hour pursuit of San Luis, but no further attacks were mentioned. No wonder. At that time, Western taxpayers were assured that NATO anti-submarine defense would easily destroy all Soviet missile submarines. They did not disappoint the voters, although real episodes proved the opposite. Far from being the most advanced in concept and combat capabilities, the submarine three times deceived the powerful forces of the British PLO, which were assessed as the most combat-ready in the world.
    1. Mhpv
      Mhpv 2 August 2013 14: 59
      +1
      17 May 1982 San Luis returned to Mar del Plata and began repairing torpedo tubes. The fighting ended before she was ready for the next exit. The material damage from the boat’s actions was zero. Despite this, it is considered the only Argentine ship that managed to break through the zone of complete blockade (Eng. Total Exclusion Zone, TEZ) declared by the British. But here the classic “submarine paradox” is manifested: if it hit the target, then it lost stealth, and if it remained undetected, was it there at all? On 2009 r operational documents S-32 from that campaign remain unavailable.

      The reliability of open sources is doubtful. So, although Asqueta did not firmly say that he had hit anyone, this did not prevent the Argentinean propaganda from declaring either one or the other ship torpedoed or even sunk. The British press, rather than approaching the reports critically, mostly followed this story. [6] When Invincible returned to base, his sailors were surprised to hear that they were sunk.
    2. Delta
      Delta 2 August 2013 15: 44
      +3
      Quote: Selevc
      AUG-and not so terrible and impregnable as many write here ..


      I have never seen statements like "AUG is an unapproachable thing" here. Such categorical statements are the lot of amateurs and children. And Kaptsova. Another thing is that the AUG is a serious force, for it includes not only aircraft carriers, but also air defense ships, anti-aircraft missiles, and submarines. In peacetime, our people watched them, but who said that there was a war and some ship was allowed to approach the AUG?
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 2 August 2013 16: 00
        0
        I gave an example above as an outdated submarine during the war quite successfully penetrated the AUG location !!!
        Quote: Delta
        AUG is a serious force, because it includes not only aircraft carriers, but also air defense ships, PLO, and submarines.

        Sheffield was successfully sunk despite the fact that he was part of a group where there probably was a serious air defense system !!! Moreover, the enemy sank much weaker than the UK, which has a very, very limited set of anti-ship weapons !!!

        But the real power and effectiveness of AOG against an equal opponent is very doubtful, except as a horror story for Banana countries !!!
        1. Delta
          Delta 2 August 2013 16: 23
          0
          Quote: Selevc
          it was during the war that the obsolete submarine quite successfully penetrated the AUG location


          well, since during the war, what kind of obsolete one is it?))) it was at that time just modern, or then the AOG should also be considered obsolete, and accordingly its ability to detect enemy forces

          Quote: Selevc
          Sheffield was successfully sunk despite the fact that he was part of a group where there probably was a serious air defense system


          no one says this is impossible.

          And they also cite as an example our nuclear submarine that rammed the bottom of the Kitty Hawk, the nuclear submarine that rammed the frigate Voj and other cases, for some reason giving it out as a miscalculation of the Americans in finding our submarines. At the same time, forgetting that ours themselves turned out to be blind. The aircraft carrier cares - whether they noticed it or not, you can't really hide it, but the submarine needs to be hidden
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 2 August 2013 16: 55
            +1
            Quote: Delta
            And they also cite as an example our nuclear submarine that rammed the bottom of the Kitty Hawk, the nuclear submarine that rammed the frigate Voj and other cases, for some reason giving it out as a miscalculation of the Americans in finding our submarines. At the same time, forgetting that ours themselves turned out to be blind. The aircraft carrier cares - whether they noticed it or not, you can't really hide it, but the submarine needs to be hidden

            With all due respect to you, although you don’t need to hide the aircraft carrier, but letting the submarine pass under the bottom is a miscalculation, and only an unforeseen maneuver led to a collision. It is interesting how the captain of the submarine feels having the opportunity at any time to sink the aircraft carrier.
            1. Delta
              Delta 2 August 2013 17: 26
              +1
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              skip the submarine to yourself underneath is still a miscalculation

              of course. Only I wrote this in order to compare, for whom such (in both cases - mutual) miscalculation is more destructive and unforgivable - for stealth weapons or a floating airfield
        2. Mhpv
          Mhpv 2 August 2013 17: 01
          +1
          And again the human slop factor:
          "Five Argentine aircraft took off from the Rio Grande airbase and headed for the Falklands. Two French-made Super Etandar carrier-based attack aircraft under the right console carried one Exocet anti-ship missile, and under the left - a jettisonable fuel tank with a capacity of 1100 liters. One aircraft with the same armament it was a reserve, and the other two carried only fuel tanks, performing the functions of refuelers.

          Already in the air, the pilots received information that south of the Falkland Islands found two large English ships - allegedly destroyers. This important message was received from the Neptune reconnaissance aircraft, which had flown to the area at 30 min earlier. The British ships of the long-range radar patrol, the destroyer destroyer URO Sheffield and the frigate URO Plymouth, were found.

          Apparently, the British did not expect the appearance of Argentine aviation. The weather in the area was non-flying: the horizontal visibility range was no more than 400 m, and the lower edge of the clouds descended to 100 m. At this time, Sheffield was negotiating with London via the Skynet satellite communications channel. To eliminate interference, the commander ordered to turn off all on-board electronic equipment. At Plymouth, there was only one search radar.

          Turning off the airborne radars, the Argentine pilots dropped to extremely low altitude and increased speed, and then sharply changed course in the calculation of approaching the enemy from the south. The British considered the eastern and western directions to be the most threatened.

          At a distance of 50 km from the British ships, the pilots, having jumped up to 150 m, switched on the radar for a few seconds. The indicators showed both targets. Without wasting a second, the pilots entered target designation data into the onboard computers of cruise missiles and fired an Exocet missile for each target. At the time of launch, the onboard equipment recorded the operation of the Plymouth radar. After the launch of the Super Etandary missiles, having dropped to a height of 30 m, they made a turn to the opposite course and left towards the mainland. "
  27. The comment was deleted.
  28. Evgeny_Lev
    Evgeny_Lev 2 August 2013 14: 06
    0
    Interestingly, in terms of safety in combat, it is permissible to exhibit such a number of aircraft next to each other?
    1. Delta
      Delta 2 August 2013 15: 46
      0
      and is there much greater distance at ground airfields? and how, in fact, will the explosion of an airplane or its missile at an aircraft carrier and the same explosion at a ground airdrome be different? everything nearby will be destroyed
      1. zvereok
        zvereok 3 August 2013 08: 17
        0
        Quote: Delta
        and is there much greater distance at ground airfields? and how, in fact, will the explosion of an airplane or its missile at an aircraft carrier and the same explosion at a ground airdrome be different? everything nearby will be destroyed



        A feature of many military aerodromes is dispersed shelters for aircraft: open type - earth coverings, and closed - arched shelters (RCU - reinforced concrete shelters), as well as taxiways of great length, laid by a broken route, in order to minimize damage to enemy air attacks.
        1. Delta
          Delta 3 August 2013 12: 18
          0
          it goes without saying. No one says that an aircraft carrier can be compared with an aerodrome, its capabilities and the capabilities of basic aviation. Personally, I say that for the mobility of an aircraft carrier something has to be paid. Including taking risks
  29. helix
    helix 2 August 2013 14: 12
    +4
    Good article. And the comments are interesting to read. Having significant experience in operating our aircraft at Kuznetsov and as a helicopter technician and organizing flights of the entire air group, there is nothing to add significantly. I agree with most of the conclusions.
    At the present time, we have no opportunity to oppose something seriously, on equal terms, to the American AUG. Here we have to look for asymmetrical answers. For example, in Soviet times, in the Mediterranean Sea, our sometimes kept an artillery cruiser next to their AUG. Walked in visual proximity for weeks. Its performance will be any higher than that of any AUG ship. And if suddenly the time is "H", then before his death he would have managed to plant several shells in the flight deck and in the superstructure of the aircraft carrier. The problem has been solved. The exchange was apparently considered acceptable.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 2 August 2013 21: 30
      +3
      Quote: helix
      Here you need to look for asymmetric answers.

      Absolutely wise! The AUS of the states has always, even in the heyday of the Soviet fleet, been a headache for the leadership of our Navy. Only PLA and MRA could really fight them. Therefore, organizationally, anti-aircraft divisions of the plARK pr.949A were created, the MRA divisions with the APCR. R&D was carried out under the program of creating an ICBM with a maneuvering warhead. I remember the Strategic Missile Forces promised to "boil" the entire ocean, but to roll the AVU on a blumeng. Now they are seriously talking about EMP (energy impulse), which will detonate the nuclear reactor of an aircraft carrier. But there is no concrete solution to the problem. It all depends on luck, skill, commander's luck, availability of forces, maintenance and development of MBT. One of the promising areas is the adaptation for this case of an ISBM with a hypersonic maneuvering warhead in the final section.
  30. forma2
    forma2 2 August 2013 14: 45
    -2
    for me so all these UAG nonsense. "For what, they are only suitable for underscoring the presence in the region, nakshtalt diplomatic immunity in another state. There is only one guarantee and acts like a childish egoism: Yes, you took my boat / broke, I tell you ..."
    So in reality it all depends on the degree of statehood and the will of power
  31. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 2 August 2013 14: 56
    -2
    Andrey, you could end the argument by drawing only one diagram - "Aircraft carrier Roosevelt" in Yugoslavia according to Stepanov's version.

    There are emnip of 70 aircraft of which there are 28 Tomcat. You can neglect the turntables - all the same, these little cars do not affect anything
  32. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 2 August 2013 15: 11
    -1
    Quote: PDM80
    The fact that forty planes can take off in a short period of time can be proved in detail, but the question of landing forty of these planes is not clear. In ideal conditions, as I understand it, everyone will land, but if there is a storm, if the plane returns with damage and crashes during landing, on the take-off deck on which other planes will be at that moment, what should the rest do?


    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    According to the regulations, landing of 40 aircraft is 40 minutes for good weather or 60 minutes for bad.


    But - not according to the standards ("J. Washington", 2003 - during landing, the cable burst, the plane went into the trash, scraps of the cable of seven sailors from the deck crew in a stew)


    And this is generally zvizdets


    Here's another question that interests me - quite often (so much that this cannot be neglected) that the planes flying out on a mission are forced to return for some reason (1-2 from the group). the question is where to urgently plant them, because the runway is clogged
  33. barbiturate
    barbiturate 2 August 2013 15: 40
    +2
    Oleg decided to show that there are accidents on aircraft carriers? If only no one had thought of comparing the emergency statistics on the sub and aircraft carriers, from where more corpses were shipped and how many ships were lost, otherwise the guy will have enough blow (this is so, for reflection)

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Here's another question that interests me - quite often (so much that this cannot be neglected) that the planes flying out on a mission are forced to return for some reason (1-2 from the group). the question is where to urgently plant them, because the runway is clogged

    Oleg, where did you get this return frequency? Although anything can happen, and if you read about the action of the command in emergency situations, then 1. If the plane can stay in the air, then it will simply very quickly free the landing strip and land normally (it has a lot of fuel from takeoff, time suffers) 2. Stretched " the last chance "between 3 and 4 with the aerofiner cable and will be caught in the net (the plane receives minimal damage) 3. they will simply be ordered to do some adaptation and will be picked up in a rescue helicopter (it rises into the air when performing ANY flights), what to do, but the pilot is above all and goodbye 1 airplane ) Emergency missiles and torpedoes are also fired from the ammunition of non-aircraft carrier ships)
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 2 August 2013 16: 09
      +1
      Quote: barbiturate
      If only no one had thought of comparing the emergency statistics on the sub and aircraft carriers, from where more corpses were shipped and how many ships were lost, otherwise the guy will have a punch (this is so, for reflection)

      Largest US Navy casualty accident in post-war history - Forrestal fire, 134 dead, 161 injured

      And leave your rudeness to yourself. It will come in handy when buying barbiturates.
      Quote: barbiturate
      just really fast will free the landing strip and land normally (he has a lot of fuel from takeoff, time suffers) 2. Stretch the "last chance" between 3 and 4 with the aerofiner cable and get caught in the net (the plane receives minimal damage)

      First you need to free the strip.

      Expressions "just very quickly" will always come across when it comes to something bulky and complex
      1. Delta
        Delta 2 August 2013 16: 25
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And leave your rudeness to yourself

        and not to forget at the same time rudeness performed by Kaptsov not only aimed at a specific person, but even at a whole city.
      2. barbiturate
        barbiturate 18 November 2013 18: 20
        0
        you too leave your noodles sweet sixteen
    2. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 2 August 2013 17: 47
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      Yeshil show that there are accidents on aircraft carriers?

      It's not about accidents

      The chip in their consequences is when to remove debris, if there is a string of 30 aircraft landing
  34. helix
    helix 2 August 2013 15: 42
    +1
    In the entire history of Kuznetsov's operation in the Northern Fleet (since 1992), the air arrestor cable broke only 3 times. Of these, 2 times in one flight shift! We lost only 1 aircraft (Su-33). And (for this reason) not a single person!
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 2 August 2013 16: 03
      +2
      Well, "Kuznetsov" went out to sea only 3 times

      I exaggerate of course, but you probably caught the thought — Kuznetsov’s carrier-based wing wing was practically not used - the EMNIP has been there for the entire history of everything. 700 take-offs / landings
    2. tlauicol
      tlauicol 2 August 2013 16: 15
      +3
      statistics? how many sorties from Kuznetsov made? how much with eisenhower? these statistics are simply disastrous for us. how many deck pilots do we have? and the enemy?
  35. barbiturate
    barbiturate 2 August 2013 15: 53
    +2
    ok, god bless them, with aircraft carriers, I’d better go drink some beer)
  36. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 2 August 2013 15: 53
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    if the plane returns with damage and crashes upon landing
    They will remove the debris and continue landing

    Andrey touches with his childish simplicity and optimistic outlook
    A plane crash is like a broken cup - it just fell and fell apart, easily and simply. No smoke, no fire. All large debris, without hitting anyone, immediately fall into the sea. It remains to take a broom and sweep the deck for a couple of seconds.

    Just a little bit was not enough space and when landing one struck another. Flame ten meters. Enterprise, 1998 year



    It’s a pity ... a couple of meters to the side and it could turn out a cool fire show



    Well, the fireworks are not strong



    The damaged Hornet sits down - watch from the moment of 03: 00. What do you think, Andrey, how many minutes (tens of minutes) will unravel (cut) the network and pull the damaged 15-ton machine to the side? (at the same time, do not forget about fire safety - it can ignite at any second)
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 2 August 2013 16: 55
      +4
      Beautiful videos :)) Navy crashes happen of course, alas .. and aircraft carriers are no exception - but look how damn enduring this thing is! not one died, everyone returned to duty!
      The brave, Bur.Komsomolets, Monsoon burned to the ground, you can count the NATO losses! and submarines from K19 to Kursk, Scorpio plus diesel engines after the war, hundreds and a half were drowned and decommissioned after accidents.
      And then, the dispute began with the amount of aircraft on board, and then the weather and accidents and nuclear weapons went into action .. well, admit that Nimitz takes 80 vehicles on board and is functioning
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 2 August 2013 17: 40
        -2
        Quote: Tlauicol
        The brave, Bur.Komsomolets, Monsoon burned to the ground, you can count the NATO losses! and submarines from K19 to Kursk, Scorpio

        And what about the high accident rate of the Soviet submarine fleet? We had our problems - first of all, low training

        We are talking about the US Navy and if you want to compare the accident rate of AB to cruisers and submarines - compare with the US. Where professionals serve everywhere and training is the same everywhere.

        In the shuttle of all 2 major accidents with the death of the crew ... and this despite the fact that the Yankees had 200 atomic boats
        Quote: Tlauicol
        And then, the dispute began with the amount of aircraft on board, and then the weather and accidents and nuclear weapons went

        Weather is an extremely important argument.
        I didn’t mention anything about nuclear weapons
        Quote: Tlauicol
        recognize already that Nimitz takes on board 80 devices and is functioning

        the story of this double article began with the fact that Andrey of Chelyabinsk gave the data of a certain Ph.D. Stepanov, who claimed that during the bombing of Yugoslavia there were 79 aircraft on board the Roosevelt, including 28 bulky Tomkats

        I suggested that Andrei draw a diagram of the deck and hangar with the 79 LA, he burst into an angry article, considered the possibility of flushing planes from the deck, remembered the Second World War, but did not draw the most sought-after diagram - the one with which the dispute began

        there are only 45 airplanes here, and the crush is such that you can neither fly up, nor land, nor lower the lift, nor refuel ... but you can’t lower them into the hangar - because there 20 F-14 took the whole place
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          2 August 2013 19: 14
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          I suggested that Andrei draw a diagram of the deck and hangar with the 79 LA, he burst into an angry article, considered the possibility of flushing planes from the deck, remembered the Second World War, but did not draw the most sought-after diagram - the one with which the dispute began

          Well, you're a liar, Oleg :))))
          First, I suggested drawing a Roosevelt diagram. But I asked - what would happen if I draw it? Do you admit you're wrong? I asked you this question three times, but I never got an answer. Yes, we already all know that you will run to invent something else.
          But still - here's the diagram for you.
          Stepanov wrote
          On April 6, 1999 ("D-13"), the US Navy Roosevelt aircraft arrived in the Balkan armed conflict zone with the 8th air wing on board (a total of 79 combat aircraft and helicopters, including: 24 F / A fighter-attack aircraft -18 Hornet, 28 fighters
          F-14 "Tomket", four aircraft electronic warfare EA-6B "Prowler", five aircraft AWACS E-2C "Hawkeye", eight aircraft control of the sea situation S-3B "Viking", two aircraft RER ES-3A "Shadow" and eight helicopters "Sea Hawk" SH-60)

          On deck are 9 Tomcatov, 20 Hornets, 14 Viking, promlers and Shadow, 3 Hokai 5 helicopters. In the hangar - 19 Tomcatov, 3 Hornet 2 Hawkeye and 3 helicopter
          Admire :))))
          If the circuit doesn’t catch on now, I’ll fill it with a radical, it may take some time
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 2 August 2013 19: 45
            -1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            First, I suggested drawing a Roosevelt diagram


            Do what you want! That was my idea
            Ph.D. Stepanov rewrote this from the Pentagon site, not at all trying to figure it out. Half of the air wing attributed to Roosevelt was deployed at air bases in Europe

            Now let Ph.D. Stepanov will cut out the mock-ups of the flight and hangar decks from cardboard, glue the planes on the same scale and try to push units of aircraft into Nimitz 79 (so that it can work normally). I think you can help him in this hopeless affair.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But he asked - what will happen if I draw it? Do you admit your wrong?

            Why should I make excuses when the outcome of the dispute is not yet clear? Here's how you do it - it will be seen there. You may have to make excuses

            In any case, I appreciate your attention and efforts to resolve a difficult issue.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But still - here's the diagram for you.

            Well, well, well, interesting
          3. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 2 August 2013 20: 13
            -2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            On deck are 9 Tomcatov, 20 Hornets, 14 Viking, promlers and Shadow, 3 Hokai 5 helicopters. In the hangar - 19 Tomcatov, 3 Hornet 2 Hawkeye and 3 helicopter

            Ok, loaded with a crane

            How the holy of holies will work - US Navy combat air patrol. E-2 and a couple of tomcat will fly from the deck. how and where are they going to sit?

            How soon will the opportunity to use aircraft from the hangar?

            By the way, where are the fueling stations and ammunition elevators on the flight deck?
            1. The comment was deleted.
  37. Mhpv
    Mhpv 2 August 2013 17: 19
    +3
    Aircraft carrier strike group (AUG) - the operational connection of warships, the strike core of which is an aircraft carrier (AB). Modern US aircraft carriers have fairly weak defensive weapons, and are not suitable for independent operations.

    Each AUG, as a rule, includes one aircraft carrier, from one to four guided missile cruisers (URO), two to three destroyers or frigates of the URO, 1-2 multipurpose nuclear submarines (nuclear submarines), carrier-based carrier aircraft. Thus, the AUG includes 6-10 warships. If necessary, the number of cover ships may be more. On the basis of atomic aircraft carriers, high-speed atomic missile launchers are also being created, consisting of an aircraft carrier, two atomic cruisers and one atomic multi-purpose submarine. The total number of AUG personnel reaches 9000 people, of which 6000 - on an aircraft carrier.
    Many people forget that before destroying an Aircraft Carrier, it is necessary to suppress its protection, and these are not radio-controlled ships and are in no way inferior to the ships of other countries in terms of performance characteristics, and the Aircraft Carrier itself is a queen in a bee swarm.
    And one more thing:
    "To solve the problems, the AUG are united in aircraft carrier strike forces (AUS). The AUS includes 2-3 aircraft carriers, up to 25-30 guard ships, which carry out their anti-submarine, anti-aircraft, anti-missile, as well as anti-ship and anti-boat defense."
  38. piton
    piton 2 August 2013 18: 51
    +4
    Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,

    from time to time, if I have free time, I go to the site and read interesting articles with pleasure, especially Andrei from Chelyabinsk. I am not a military specialist at all, (I have my own business), I'm just interested in military affairs. I am convinced that I am a nationalist, I consider Russia a potential adversary, respectively, the United States and NATO are allies. Well, nothing, it will be more interesting to communicate. According to the article - all forum users reasonably defend their point of view, BUT! It is impossible to consider Americans as stupid, respectively, if they invest such crazy money in aircraft carriers, then everything is calculated, possible situations are modeled hundred times and with various opponents. My conclusion is that aircraft carriers are a powerful offensive weapon, especially if it is not an AUG, but an AUS, as Mr. MCHPV correctly noted ...
    1. ramsi
      ramsi 2 August 2013 20: 50
      0
      but, perhaps, I agree that the amers have calculated everything well. In addition to the listed possibilities, the fleet, along with foreign military bases, is a very convenient "figure of exchange", like a lizard's tail, which can be discarded in political games, and the matter is not brought up to Armageddon. As they say, this is their strength, but this is also their weakness. In the end, it is not the one who is better prepared and equipped that always wins, but the one who is not afraid to die.
  39. The comment was deleted.
  40. Sfera
    Sfera 2 August 2013 18: 58
    +3
    Quote: mhpv
    Aircraft carrier strike group (AUG) - the operational connection of warships, the strike core of which is an aircraft carrier (AB). Modern US aircraft carriers have fairly weak defensive weapons, and are not suitable for independent operations.

    Each AUG, as a rule, includes one aircraft carrier, from one to four guided missile cruisers (URO), two to three destroyers or frigates of the URO, 1-2 multipurpose nuclear submarines (nuclear submarines), carrier-based carrier aircraft. Thus, the AUG includes 6-10 warships. If necessary, the number of cover ships may be more. On the basis of atomic aircraft carriers, high-speed atomic missile launchers are also being created, consisting of an aircraft carrier, two atomic cruisers and one atomic multi-purpose submarine. The total number of AUG personnel reaches 9000 people, of which 6000 - on an aircraft carrier.
    Many people forget that before destroying an Aircraft Carrier, it is necessary to suppress its protection, and these are not radio-controlled ships and are in no way inferior to the ships of other countries in terms of performance characteristics, and the Aircraft Carrier itself is a queen in a bee swarm.
    And one more thing:
    "To solve the problems, the AUG are united in aircraft carrier strike forces (AUS). The AUS includes 2-3 aircraft carriers, up to 25-30 guard ships, which carry out their anti-submarine, anti-aircraft, anti-missile, as well as anti-ship and anti-boat defense."

    for me, it’s precisely in this case that nuclear tactical weapons were developed
    1. Mhpv
      Mhpv 2 August 2013 22: 13
      0
      Quote: SFera
      for me, it’s precisely in this case that nuclear tactical weapons were developed

      Read the links no one wants to have to lay out excerpts:
      Tactics of struggle with AUG

      American strategists consider modern AUGs practically invulnerable to the enemy. And this opinion is really justified, given the effectiveness of AUG protective equipment. At a distance of up to 1000 km, AOG tracking equipment is already capable of detecting the enemy’s target and preparing to repel attacks. You can hit an aircraft carrier only by approaching it at a distance of rocket launch. However, the AUG is capable of counterattacking the enemy with the help of carrier-based aviation even before it approaches the line of a missile attack. To this should be added the high structural strength and unsinkability of modern aircraft carriers. Even the detonation of a nuclear charge with a capacity of up to 50 kilotons near an aircraft carrier, if this is not a direct hit, does not guarantee its sinking. Being damaged, he will still be able to perform a number of functions, remaining the center of the ACG.

      During the Cold War, the problem of countering the ACG of a potential enemy was very acute for the leadership of the USSR Armed Forces. As you know, the Soviet Union never had a powerful aircraft carrier fleet. For him, this toy was too expensive. Therefore, the Soviet methods of combating AUGs were much less expensive than the use of aircraft carriers, but at the same time quite effective. Of course, they can only be talked about their effectiveness, based on the calculations of Soviet military theorists, because today there is no proven methodology for the destruction of modern AUG. The weapon developed in the Soviet Union for these purposes in the 70 - 80-s, is in the service of the Armed Forces of Russia to this day. The methods of its application have not changed.

      In the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, the fight against the AUG (AUS) is assigned to attack groups of submarines and surface cruisers with anti-ship missiles, naval missile-carrying aircraft and long-range air forces. For fire destruction AUG specified forces are used in conjunction.

      To date, anti-ship missile systems P-700 Granite and P-1000 Volcano can be considered effective enough to combat AUG weapons.

      The missile cruisers of the 1164 Atlant project - Moscow, Varyag, and Marshal Ustinov, after modernizing their armaments, carry the Vulcan complexes on the 16 (previously they carried the same anti-ship missile system Basalt, which are now outdated).

      10 Project 949A Antey nuclear-powered submarine cruisers each carry 24 Granit anti-ship missiles. Two Project 1144 heavy nuclear missile cruisers - "Peter the Great" and "Admiral Nakhimov" each carry 20 missiles of the same class, and the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" - 12 anti-ship missiles.
      1. Mhpv
        Mhpv 2 August 2013 22: 14
        0
        Long-range aircraft, capable of solving the tasks of defeating the AUG, are the Tu-22m long-range bombers. These aircraft can carry from 1 to 3 X-22MA air-to-surface missiles with a range of destruction of naval targets up to 400-550 km.

        The most advanced Russian anti-ship missiles today is Vulkan. Currently, there are no analogues to this rocket in the world. Its flight range is 700 km. This is a hundred kilometers greater than the range of anti-ship modifications “Tomahawk”, almost three times the flight range of the main American RCC “Harpoon”, and approximately corresponds to the range of deck fighter F / A-18. The marching speed of the Volcano is 660 meters per second, in the last section of the trajectory it is a kilometer per second, which is three times higher than the speed of Harpoon and Tomahawka and twice as fast as the maximum speed of the F / A-18 fighter. “Volcanoes” carry a warhead (warhead) containing 500 kilograms of powerful explosives, the TNT equivalent of which, according to various sources, is from 1000 to 1500 kilograms. The power of the Vulcan warhead significantly exceeds the 454 kilogram TNT warhead of Tomahawka and the 227 kilogram of harpoon. The power of the "Volcano" allows you to destroy any destroyer or cruiser with one hit. In addition, missiles of this type can be equipped with nuclear warheads, which do not require a direct hit to destroy a ship. The enemy’s air defense breakthrough for Vulkan facilitates the reservation of the warhead and important components, which reduces the likelihood of the destruction of anti-ship missiles by close detonation of an anti-aircraft missile and low altitude. RCC "Volcano" - a highly intelligent weapon that can carry out "collective" actions, counteract enemy air defense and independently choose the most important target. In the computer memory of the missiles there are so-called “portraits” of radar for all ships, and information about all possible versions of orders is also included. Missiles attack along the most rational trajectory, having built themselves as a warrant and exchanging information with each other. As already mentioned, in a salvo of one submarine of the 949A 24 project, missiles, each of which also has its own false targets for breaking through the missile defense. 23 missiles go low above the water, one rises higher, periodically turning on the radar to aim at the target. It determines the number of targets and distributes them between other missiles. In the case of the destruction of the "leader", his place is taken by the next rocket. The largest target, that is, an aircraft carrier, in the warrant of ships is automatically determined by missiles. After a breakthrough, missiles distribute targets according to their importance in order to ultimately ensure the defeat of an aircraft carrier. First, cover ships standing in the way of the missiles are destroyed, and then a strike is struck on the aircraft carrier.

        One rocket, when detonated in the vicinity of the side of the ship, makes a hole with an area of ​​about 30-45 sq.m and a depth of 25 m. To disable an aircraft carrier, it is necessary to hit the 8-10 anti-ship missile system "Granite" with conventional equipment. When breaking through missiles to an aircraft carrier, up to half of the security ships must also be destroyed. Taking into account the anti-aircraft defense, for guaranteed destruction of the AOG, it is necessary to use 70-100 anti-ship missiles from all types of carriers in one stroke.
        1. Mhpv
          Mhpv 2 August 2013 22: 14
          0
          Striking such a power requires a well-coordinated operation of grouping ships in combination with the actions of the Air Force.

          The main problems in operations of this kind are:

          - timely deployment of the required number of nuclear submarines into the ocean to create a strike group until the AUG approaches the strike line, or mass lift of carrier-based aircraft, building them into battle formation;

          - the organization of interaction of strike groups of submarines with aviation;

          - reconnaissance and target designation at all command posts and strike forces.

          If the Russian armed forces still have sufficiently reliable means to fire at the AUG, then the situation with reconnaissance and target designation is much more complicated. To attack the AUG, the submarines move out underwater. The sonar system (GAC) of the nuclear submarine "Antey" is capable of detecting targets at a distance of only 100 km, but at such a distance the Russian submarine itself will be detected by the enemy's PLO. Thus, Russian submarines, in the presence of a powerful anti-ship weapon - anti-ship missile "Granit" with a firing range of 550 km, are practically "blind", and need target designation from surface, air and space reconnaissance means.

          Operations for the destruction of the AUG were practiced by the Soviet Navy. In the 1985 year, the 7-I anti-aircraft submarine division was formed, consisting of two tactical groups. In each group there were 2 nuclear submarines of the 949A project and 1 nuclear submarines of the 671 RTM Pike project. The latter was designed to perform the functions of AUG detection. In order to develop a methodology for combating AUG in the Barents Sea, exercises were conducted with missile firing at a target field. The battle formation of the tactical group was as follows. The "Pike" was advanced into the forward guard at 20-40 km with the task of detecting the enemy of the Skat SJSC. Behind her, the front ranks of the 2 Antey submarines. According to the results of the exercises, the composition of the tactical group was adjusted. To ensure the actions of the group, a reconnaissance-air curtain was formed as part of three nuclear submarines of the 705 or 671 RTM projects.

          In June 1986, a division exercise was held in the Norwegian Sea. The “goal” was the real US AUG, which conducted exercises in the same area. Forces of the TFR of the 1135 project, Tu-95РЦ and Tu-16Р planes organized tracking of the aircraft carrier. This allowed the Anteys to secretly advance to the distance of an effective missile salvo, without entering the AUG anti-submarine defense zone. However, it should be noted that in real combat operations, Soviet (Russian) reconnaissance aircraft would be very quickly destroyed by AUG carrier-based aircraft, which would actually lead to the "blinding" of submarines. In addition to aviation, satellites can be used for target designation, but even in the event of a real war they would not exist long.
          1. Mhpv
            Mhpv 2 August 2013 22: 16
            0
            The capabilities of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation to combat ACG are increasing in its coastal zone due to long-range aviation based on the coast. A powerful weapon for defeating aircraft carriers is the Tu-22M missile-bombers, which in modern Russian aircraft have more than 170 units. The range of these aircraft is about 1500 km (depending on load, speed and altitude). The maximum speed is 2300 km / h, and at the ground - 1050 km / h. The normal combat load for them are 2 X-22MA Storm missiles. To disable AUG, at least 40 Storm missiles must be launched. Thus, to successfully attack an AUG, you need at least a Tu-22M regiment consisting of 20 vehicles with 2 X-22 missiles on each, plus 10 EW aircraft, several Tu-95 or Tu-22 MR reconnaissance aircraft. However, AWACS aircraft, carrying round-the-clock combat watch over the AUG, make a sudden airstrike almost impossible. The opposition of carrier-based fighter aircraft is likely to frustrate the attack as it approaches the aircraft carrier. And besides, the attacking forces need to overcome the air defense and missile defense of the ships. Therefore, bombers will need a cover in the form of a regiment of SU-27 fighters.

            It is worth noting that the preparation of this operation will require the concentration of a large number of aircraft at coastal airfields, at risk of falling under the preventive strike of the AUG.

            In addition to the air defense and missile defense forces themselves, the AUG has such a powerful combat tool as electronic warfare systems. During the development of methods for the destruction of AUGs by Soviet pilots, it was noticed that when approaching U.S. aircraft carrier formations due to the influence of interference caused by electronic warfare equipment, it is practically impossible to direct missiles at targets. Therefore, an attack plan was developed, in which 8 X-22 missiles with nuclear warheads were first launched over areas. It was assumed that after this the power of the electronic warfare will significantly decrease, and it will be possible to launch a second wave of missiles for specific purposes.

            In Russian aviation, the exercises also work out methods of hitting an aircraft carrier with bombing from Su-24 bombers, however, in a combat situation, counteraction against AUG anti-aircraft defense means will most likely turn Russian pilots into kamikazes.
            1. Mhpv
              Mhpv 2 August 2013 22: 17
              +1
              As for the chances of defeating the AUG with URA cruisers of the Glory type (proudly referred to as “killer aircraft carriers”), even with the Vulkan anti-ship missile, they are small. Undoubtedly, the firepower of the Slava-type cruisers is extremely high, but when approaching the line of missile launch, this ship will inevitably be detected by means of AWG and attacked by carrier-based aircraft. Despite the rather serious air defense system of these cruisers, he could not resist the AUG air wing. Seriously talking about the AUG attack by surface URO ships is possible only if they are covered by a powerful aviation group. In the open sea, such a cover can be provided only by one ship in the Russian fleet - Admiral Kuznetsov TAVKR. In principle, a squadron consisting of a TAVKR and a cruiser of the Glory type, better than two (plus several destroyers of the URA), can pose a rather serious threat to the AUG. However, all three Slava cruisers are dispersed across different fleets of the Russian Navy, and in the event of hostilities, only one of them, Marshal Ustinov, can be covered by aviation.

              Speaking about the capabilities of the modern Russian armed forces to combat AUG, it should be recognized that they are not too high, and, of course, lower than those that the USSR had. This is largely due to the weakness of the Russian means of electronic warfare and early warning systems. It is also naive to believe that the strike forces for combating AUG listed above are in exemplary condition. In the case of a hypothetical aggression against Russia, the anti-avian forces will have to face not even the AUG, but the AUS, which is even more difficult to deal with. However, a certain probability of the defeat of American aircraft carriers, apparently, exists - primarily in the coastal zone. In practice, everything can depend on many circumstances, and it is hardly possible to predict the course of hostilities in advance.
              1. Mhpv
                Mhpv 2 August 2013 22: 21
                +1
                No one says that the AUG and AUS are not conquered, it’s just that the price will be too high, and while Russia is only raising its fleet and army, but the Americans are not fools to climb on the rozhen, even against the current Russian Armed Forces, otherwise they would have tried for a long time. hi
              2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Rus2012
          Rus2012 2 August 2013 22: 59
          +1
          Quote: mhpv
          Long-range aircraft, capable of solving the tasks of defeating the AUG, are the Tu-22m long-range bombers. These aircraft can carry from 1 to 3 X-22MA air-to-surface missiles with a range of destruction of naval targets up to 400-550 km.


          Here is the tactics of missile-carrier actions in the event of such a statement of the problem - http://topwar.ru/24349-tu-95-cel-amerika-chast-2.html

          For the destruction of the AUG, the ocean convoys of the United States and its allies, the Tu-95K-22, armed with effective, but not very reliable X-22 missiles, became the most suitable aircraft. After 2-3 preliminary rounds of the landfill with the X-22 suspended but not refueled, it often failed. For this reason, in critical launches (such as showing to the Minister of Defense), two Tu-95 were always involved: if one missile did not go off, the second shot. The cumulative warhead of this missile could hit an 12 meter hole when hit in a ship, and the flight speed (3670 km / h) made it almost invulnerable. The only problem was to be able to launch it: after all, the practical launch range was 350 km, and the intercept line was at a distance of 1100 km. At this distance, the main danger was F-14 fighters capable of attacking 6 targets simultaneously. As they approached the AUG order, more and more troubles began to deliver its electronic warfare equipment. According to the navigators, the effectiveness of these tools was tremendous: target marks on the screens literally drowned in a cloud of interference, it became impossible to aim.
          Therefore, the general scenario of the attack provided, first of all, for launching eight X-22s with nuclear warheads not for specific purposes, but in the area where the AUG is likely to be located at that moment. It was believed that after this interference situation would allow to single out individual ships and deliver an accurate strike. In the event that the second wave of the X-22 loses its targets due to interference, the missiles will immediately redirect to their sources, the destruction of which will make it possible to hit for sure from the third time.
          1. Mhpv
            Mhpv 2 August 2013 23: 13
            +2
            Here on the forum one forum member posted Karev V.A. Unknown Soviet "Pearl Harbor" so bother to read what human factor and sloppiness is present with us: http: //www.38brrzk.ru/public/russia-parl-harbor/
        3. Selevc
          Selevc 2 August 2013 23: 00
          -3
          Even if we assume the most pessimistic scenario of a missile strike on AUG-ke, then the conclusion suggests itself - AUG-ka is unlikely to continue to function normally ...

          I’ll explain - let 12 missiles be fired on the AUG-ke - let the guard ships shoot down two-thirds - that is, 8 missiles ... 4 missiles get into the Aircraft Carrier - therefore we get 4 huge holes - even if at least two of them get sea water - it gets very quickly through an opening of 30-45 sq.m. Consequently, the aircraft carrier very quickly receives a serious roll on one side - what is happening at this time on the deck full of aircraft and in hangars too - I think that a complete scribe !!! Plus, on a ship, if not a complete, then almost a complete failure of the power supply and the functioning of complex computer equipment ... Therefore, the ACG loses its combat effectiveness for at least a month or maybe more depending on the distance from the repair bases ...

          That's all - one successful salvo on AUG-ke and the enemy has a complete disruption of all the goals of warfare at sea ...
      2. Selevc
        Selevc 2 August 2013 22: 33
        -3
        Quote: mhpv
        You can hit an aircraft carrier only by approaching it at a distance of rocket launch. However, the AUG is capable of counterattacking the enemy with the help of carrier-based aviation even before it approaches the line of a missile attack. To this should be added the high structural strength and unsinkability of modern aircraft carriers. Even the detonation of a nuclear charge with a capacity of up to 50 kilotons near an aircraft carrier, if this is not a direct hit, does not guarantee its sinking. Being damaged, he will still be able to perform a number of functions, remaining the center of the ACG.

        This is all unfounded and not verified by real military clashes ... Each major country leader in rocketry has its own "trump card" in the sleeve to combat AUG-mi ... The frontier of a missile attack expands significantly if the enemy has missiles flying on hypersound !!!
        I repeat the aircraft carrier does not need to be drowned - it needs to be set on fire properly !!! A good fire on the deck is guaranteed to disable the entire ship, stuffed with modern navigation and take-off and landing control equipment ... Even from the fire, planes standing on the deck may catch fire, and if most of the planes in the sky at the time of the aircraft carrier’s defeat by rocket, it’s not known whether they can land on a damaged one deck or maybe just from lack of fuel fall into the ocean !!!
        In addition, during a fire on an aircraft carrier, chaos is likely to occur in the entire AUG-ke and as a result they become easy targets for the next strike !!!

        And you can offer an original way of incapacitating an aircraft carrier altogether - you just need to fill the deck with some hard-to-clean, sticky and hardening muck ... They are there to get clean it! And it will fall into all the cracks and freeze there - following a heap of equipment down the drain, and disruption of the entire ship ...
        1. Mhpv
          Mhpv 2 August 2013 23: 04
          0
          Molotov cocktail in your hands and good luck in setting fire to an aircraft carrier.
          How about volumetric perception? Do you understand what AUG and Aircraft Carrier are?
          Climb higher and look in my comments the composition of the AUG and even better AUS.
          1. Selevc
            Selevc 2 August 2013 23: 21
            -3
            I’m not afraid of these your horror stories about the invincible AUG-ki ... The main thing - Verified by real military clashes VULNERABILITY AUG-k and moreover, it was checked a very long time !!! But are they supposedly INVALUABILITY - sorry, no one has verified it yet - or will you say that during the last wars the AUGs were seriously attacked?

            As an example, I took the most pessimistic assumption ... And the consequences of a missile strike are also the most modest based on YOU same characteristics of anti-ship missiles ...

            Quote: mhpv
            Do you understand what AUG and Aircraft Carrier are?
            I'm not sure that you understand this clearly !!!
            1. Mhpv
              Mhpv 3 August 2013 00: 39
              +3
              read comments carefully and do not distort in your own way.
              Quote: Selevc
              I'm not sure that you understand this clearly !!!

              By your comments you prove more than not understanding everything, you about Thomas and you about Yerema, you about AUG, and you about the Aircraft Carrier.
              At least I understand what a ship is and I have an idea of ​​serving on it, unlike you.
              Quote: Selevc
              or will you say that during the last wars, the AUGs were seriously attacked?

              Give an example, just don’t take the converted British in the Falkle War from it and the planes once or twice and miscalculated.
              And the last, I already wrote that no one denies the possibility of defeating the AUG, but how it will be achieved by forces and costs (in my example it is clearly stated to you how many missiles are needed, and this is not fumbling with wallets on the bus, but if by ships, then take pity on the guys, though, what to argue with you, you do not care there.)
        2. Delta
          Delta 2 August 2013 23: 07
          +3
          Quote: Selevc
          This is all unfounded and not verified by real military clashes ...


          and this

          Quote: Selevc
          let 12 missiles be fired according to the AUG-ke - let the guard ships shoot down two-thirds - that is, 8 missiles ... 4 missiles get into the aircraft carrier - therefore we get 4 huge holes - let at least two of them get sea water - it gets through very quickly opening 30-45 sq.m. Consequently, the aircraft carrier very quickly receives a serious roll on one side - what is happening at this time on the deck full of aircraft and in hangars too - I think that a complete scribe !!! Consequently, the AUG-ka loses its fighting efficiency for at least a month or maybe more, depending on the distance from the repair bases ...


          checked by real clashes?
          1. Selevc
            Selevc 2 August 2013 23: 44
            -3
            "It remains a mystery why the Argentine command missed the opportunity to strike at the Hermes. If they succeeded, the British would collapse. Knowing this, we fought a war on the edge of a knife. I understood that there was only one accident - a mine, explosion or fire on any of our two aircraft carriers will almost certainly become fatal to the entire operation. " (Sir Admiral John Woodward, in 1982 commanded TS-317).

            But Argentina and Britain were clearly not equal rivals in that war - and if we assume that in the place of Argentina there would be a more impudent and serious opponent?
            Another quote in the topic:
            Argentinean aviation managed to sink 6 British ships, as well as seriously damage more than 10 ships (including both aircraft carriers, according to Argentinean data). And only by pure chance the number of sunken British ships did not increase. If the Argentine bombs were properly prepared for bombing from very low altitudes, then the British would have lost their Antrim, Plymouth, Argonaut, Broadsword and Glasgow and other ships.

            I want to note that we are talking about bombing and not a missile strike - it’s even hard to imagine what the outcome of the Falkland War would be if Argentina had plenty of modern air-to-surface anti-ship missiles at that time ...
            1. Mhpv
              Mhpv 3 August 2013 00: 59
              +2
              Quote: Selevc
              But Argentina and Britain were clearly not equal rivals in that war

              Oh whether:
              By the beginning of the Falkland War, Argentina was superior to the enemy in aircraft (7: 1) and in the number of ground forces (1,5: 1).
              recourse
              Quote: Selevc
              I want to note that we are talking about bombing and not a missile strike

              Again not got there:
              On May 4, 1982, two Argentine Super-Etandaras attacked British destroyers Plymouth and Sheffield with Exoset AM38 anti-ship cruise missiles from a distance of 37 km. Having approached the ships, the missiles captured targets and continued their flight in homing mode at a height of 2-3 m above the water. On "Plymouth" missiles were found 40 seconds before approach and managed to put a curtain of dipole reflectors, protecting the ship from defeat. The missiles were found at Sheffield only 4-6 seconds before they hit. One of the missiles pierced the starboard side at a height of 2,4 m from the waterline. Argentine attack aircraft used anti-ship subsonic missiles "Exoset AM38" weighing 735 kg with a warhead weighing 165 kg, which could hit targets at a distance of 70 km.

              And again I repeat for YOU
              However, if they were in the place of the British AUG squadron, the Argentines would hardly have any light at all. In terms of combat properties, the British aircraft carriers of the Invincible class are significantly inferior to the ships of the Nimitz class. In particular, the Invincible carrier-based aviation consists of only 6 aircraft and 12 helicopters; it does not have the Aegis system.

              To summarize the conversation about the means of defeating AUG, I want to say the following. An adversary with such a powerful means of aggression as aircraft carriers is always stronger. In order to stop him, you will need such things as EXPLOSION and SELF-DONATION. The breakthrough of the AUG defense (AUS) is likely to be fraught with heavy losses, if not with the complete extermination of the attackers. To incapacitate, let alone destroy such a military machine, it will require supercompetent strategists, and also a team of sailors and pilots of the highest courage and professionalism. A country that does not have such human potential is unlikely to be helped by any weapon.
              hi
              1. Selevc
                Selevc 3 August 2013 08: 39
                -5
                Quote: mhpv
                And again I repeat for YOU

                And again I repeat for YOU !!! If in place of Argentina there was a country at least the level of France, I am already silent about the USSR !!! We would look at what Nimitz class aircraft carriers are capable of REALLY !!!

                You leave your stupid bravado for people far from the topic !!! You succumb so easily to Western propaganda - the United States also at one time praised its Patriot air defense system very much and then in REAL business it turned out that it is far from what it is presented !!! Then they praised their Humvee - and in REAL BATTLES it turned out that the highest percentage of losses was in these "coffins" with bulletproof armor ... And the effectiveness and survivability of their AUG after Japan has never been seriously tested ...

                Based on the logic of the AUG-to-England fans, it was just necessary to put their two aircraft carriers near the Falklands and then no Argentine aircraft could break through the powerful AUG air defense ...

                What do we actually see - British aircraft carriers were somewhere far away from the islands - because they were simply afraid to be dishonored by the whole world showing their leaky missile defense system !!! And the Argentines did what they wanted - they flew all kinds of antediluvian planes and bombed anyone they wanted !!!
                1. Mhpv
                  Mhpv 3 August 2013 09: 42
                  +3
                  [quote = Selevc] If there was a country at least at the level of France in place of Argentina, I’m already silent about the USSR !!! We would look at what Nimitz class aircraft carriers are capable of REALLY !!! [/ quote]
                  If only yes, mushrooms have grown in your mouth!
                  [quote = Selevc] You leave your stupid bravado for people far from the topic !!! [/ quote]
                  This is ridiculous from you and it does not look like you are close to the topic with just words and no plain facts.

                  [quote = Selevc] You succumb to Western propaganda so easily [/ quote
                  All quotes from articles of Russian reviews and experts, but your bravado by the Argentines from your stupid conclusions.]
                  [quote = Selevc] And the Argentines did what they wanted - they flew all kinds of antediluvian planes and bombed anyone they wanted !!! [/ quote]
                  Read more articles than Wiki.
                  More with you on this topic there is no point in conducting a dialogue all the time you are trying to get out without giving facts and examples assuring that you are in the topic and know the maritime service well, I repeated to you three times that no one says that the AUGs are not so vulnerable but you apparently you can’t read SPECIALLY FOR YOU ONCE AGAIN:
                  To summarize the conversation about the means of defeating AUG, I want to say the following. An adversary with such a powerful means of aggression as aircraft carriers is always stronger. In order to stop him, you will need such things as EXPLOSION and SELF-DONATION. The breakthrough of the AUG defense (AUS) is likely to be fraught with heavy losses, if not with the complete extermination of the attackers. To incapacitate, let alone destroy such a military machine, it will require supercompetent strategists, and also a team of sailors and pilots of the highest courage and professionalism. A country that does not have such human potential is unlikely to be helped by any weapon.
  41. Sfera
    Sfera 2 August 2013 19: 05
    0
    Quote: piton
    Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,

    from time to time, if I have free time, I go to the site and read interesting articles with pleasure, especially Andrei from Chelyabinsk. I am not a military specialist at all, (I have my own business), I'm just interested in military affairs. I am convinced that I am a nationalist, I consider Russia a potential adversary, respectively, the United States and NATO are allies. Well, nothing, it will be more interesting to communicate. According to the article - all forum users reasonably defend their point of view, BUT! It is impossible to consider Americans as stupid, respectively, if they invest such crazy money in aircraft carriers, then everything is calculated, possible situations are modeled hundred times and with various opponents. My conclusion is that aircraft carriers are a powerful offensive weapon, especially if it is not an AUG, but an AUS, as Mr. MCHPV correctly noted ...

    I thought that all the nations of the nationalist were "nothing", except for his most "correct" nation, and you are more likely a Russophobe and that is more likely not out of conviction, but out of delusion
    1. piton
      piton 2 August 2013 19: 17
      +1
      You misunderstand the concept of nationalism a little. Not as it was in the USSR - all nations are equal, but Russians areавher ... Russia for Russians, Ukraine for Ukrainians, Germany for Germans, etc. - so I understand that. Regarding my so-called Russophobia - nonsense, I have a lot of friends in Russia, the USA, Australia, Poland ... I am fluent in four languages, and my Russian grammar is not an example better than some members of the forum (no offense - this is true). So we’ll still talk, and now I'm leaving for a meeting of our culinary club, if interested, see: www.facebook / ZISclub.

      Until tomorrow, we continue communication.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 2 August 2013 22: 14
        +5
        Quote: piton
        my Russian grammar is not an example better than some members of the forum (no offense - it's true).

        Lord Where do you climb onto the forum with such conceit?
        I somehow had to set my brains on a representative of God’s chosen people, apparently now it’s your turn. If you boast so, please: follow the PUNCTUATION OF THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE. After that, brag about your knowledge.
        PS I apologize to the members of the forum: since childhood I did not like "too smart" and "infallible".
        1. piton
          piton 3 August 2013 02: 23
          +1
          Dear Mr. Boa KAA, for God's sake, forgive me, I didn’t want to offend anyone, just the grammatical mistakes are a little teasing (of course, not yours), if necessary, digging around, I will find and introduce. Yes, and you see them wonderfully. I would not like to reduce communication to mutual claims, my self-conceit is caused by the accusation of my Russophobia. I’m just interested to know the opinion of experts and, if possible, express my meager opinion. And the fact that my beliefs contradict yours, I do not consider as an excuse for mutual claims. This is not a war (God forbid), but just a forum.

          PS "Too smart" and "infallible" you called me, not me ...
          And in general, let's try to communicate not as enemies, but as partners in the forum.
          PPS Where did I go wrong in punctuation? (show, after that my knowledge of Russian punctuation will improve).
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 3 August 2013 18: 04
            +2
            Quote: piton
            PPS Where did I go wrong in punctuation? (show, after that my knowledge of Russian punctuation will improve).

            We have different people on the forum. An unspoken rule was established: evaluate the thoughts, opinions, judgments of colleagues, and not the spelling. Indicating illiteracy when writing posts is seen as a last resort to prove one's case in a dispute. I also see a lot of flaws in grammar, but I do not allow myself the luxury of blaming anyone for his grammatical errors, respecting the visitor's right to "copyright". This is by the way.
            Now about your request. Your post from 2.08; 18.51.
            Quote: piton
            I am convinced that I am a nationalist, I consider Russia a potential adversary, respectively, the United States and NATO are allies.

            Errors made according to the rules of Russian punctuation and grammar 2:
            - skipped dash (I --- nationalist), replacing the predicate;
            - there is no management of the members of the proposal "I consider the United States and NATO as a potential enemy, respectively - allies". That's right -" allies. "(I think ... allies).
            I would never have taught such an educated forum member if he had not wanted to emphasize his education. I sincerely believe that this is a disease of growth and getting used to the spirit of our forum, which will pass over time. And your, undoubtedly, valuable opinion, as an opponent, will remain and will serve the cause of intellectualization of discussions.
            PS Occasionally read what your computer prints in its final form, so that there is no (... "knowledge of Russian punctation will improve).
            Sincerely, KAA.
        2. old man54
          old man54 5 August 2013 00: 12
          +1
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          I somehow had to set my brains on a representative of God’s chosen people

          This is sacred, Alexander, I support it 100%! Hopefully by the method of fiza "brains" to him? good
  42. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 2 August 2013 19: 12
    +4
    Let's start with the simplest thing - the height of the aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type reaches 30 meters and it is extremely difficult to wash anything off its deck. Is that a giant killer wave

    himself



    And in order to save such delicate things as, say, turbine blades from external influences, is it really impossible to come up with any airtight covers for nozzles and so on?

    laughing
    holy simplicity and innocence

    Andrei, and in the Norwegian and North Seas Nimitz there is still such a topic waiting for:
    1. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 2 August 2013 19: 22
      +3
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      holy simplicity and innocence

      Well no what just aircraft carriers love a victim of advertising request laughing
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 2 August 2013 20: 46
        +1
        From amers forum:

        In Ranger (first-generation supercarrier) there were usually ~ 1 / 3 of the aircraft in the hangar bay, most for various maintenance matters ... but when we went up north to the Aleutian islands in early October 1986 we moved as many other aircraft down to the hangar as possible, I think we got nearly 2 / 3 the total inside.

        This was because we were in rainy weather (we were running up the Soviet coast in the cloud cover of a typhoon), and it was cold enough ice was forming on some of the aircraft & flight deck.




        Reason for asking - with all the hype (and I guess a wee bit of criticism) does anyone think that the F35 might suffer spending a lot of time on deck during a long deployment? David. (What a good question!)
    2. patrianostra
      patrianostra 3 August 2013 16: 57
      0
      For this reason, Augs above or below certain latitudes will not climb
    3. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 4 August 2013 22: 23
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Andrei, and in the Norwegian and North Seas Nimitz there is still such a topic waiting

      Actually, this photo is not from the North Sea, if in England the ships freeze like that, then some kind of anomaly has come, in the Barents Sea the current is warm North Atlantic.
    4. kirpich
      kirpich 5 August 2013 18: 01
      +1
      Now explain why I was minus in a post about aircraft carriers?
  43. The comment was deleted.
  44. Genady1976
    Genady1976 2 August 2013 22: 27
    0
    each aircraft carrier on a submarine
  45. barbiturate
    barbiturate 2 August 2013 22: 35
    +3
    Well, that’s what I achieved, thank God) Oleg began to equate an aircraft carrier with a simple ship, and not with a child prodigy) Everything that you wrote Oleg relates to any ships in the sea, do you think cruisers are wrong? when you start when they hang up on the weather?) Here is the answer to you that the aircraft carrier is a strong ship, which, like all ships, is afraid of nature)
    And if you give me the facts that the missile cruiser in a compartment with equals ahead of the detection of augs and delivered a preemptive strike, and even in a storm (what kind of aircraft), then I will publicly apologize to you for doubts (although I’m drumming this for you )))
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 2 August 2013 23: 26
      +2
      Quote: barbiturate
      And if you give me the facts that the missile cruiser in a compartment with equals ahead of the detection of aug and struck with a lead, and even in a storm (what kind of planes are there)

      I can not vouch for surface ships, but for underwater babies it’s easy

      K-10 went 10 hours under the bottom of the Enterprise during Typhoon Diana, 1968
      http://ussr-kruto.ru/2012/09/23/legendarnaya-ataka-sovetskoj-podlodki/


      the cruiser was ahead in detecting the AUG? ... and why not - the real battle of October 25 1944, about. Samar
  46. barbiturate
    barbiturate 2 August 2013 22: 39
    +2
    Oleg, and in the Norwegian and North Seas Nimitz there is still such a topic waiting: and a picture of icing
    but is one aircraft carrier waiting for this?) other ships will suffer no less, no?
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 2 August 2013 23: 28
      +1
      Quote: barbiturate
      other ships will suffer no less, no?

      the subfloor does not suffer at all. Boats are ideal for northern latitudes.
      1. Delta
        Delta 3 August 2013 12: 23
        -2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        the subfloor does not suffer at all. Boats are ideal for northern latitudes.

        Yeah, some submarines to rivet all countries, surface ships do not build at all. Against whom then will we do submarines?)))))
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 3 August 2013 12: 38
          +2
          Quote: Delta
          Yeah, some submarines to rivet all countries, surface ships do not build at all. Against whom then will we do submarines?

          If we have nowhere to go and no one to escort, then submarines are perhaps the best choice for protecting the northern latitudes. Low temperatures, constant excitement and icing make any surface ship less effective.
          1. Delta
            Delta 3 August 2013 13: 22
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            U-boats - perhaps the best choice for protecting the northern latitudes

            from whom to protect, if NATO will have only submarines?)) from submarines?
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 3 August 2013 13: 57
              +2
              Quote: Delta
              from whom to protect, if NATO will have only submarines?

              And who told you that NATO has only submarines?
              1. Delta
                Delta 3 August 2013 14: 49
                -1
                why do they need surface ships?

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                the subfloor does not suffer at all


                Well, why should they soar with aircraft carriers and other useless equipment? all in submarines
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 3 August 2013 15: 11
                  0
                  Quote: Delta
                  why do they need surface ships?

                  Cover transports

                  Any porridge is always brewed in the Old World and America is forced to carry an army on foreign shores.
                  We, as you know, have no such problems
                  1. Delta
                    Delta 3 August 2013 15: 26
                    0
                    therefore (well, according to your logic) Russia needs to have exclusively defensive weapons. Cut surface ships, have exclusively submarines, sharpening them only for defense. So?

                    Question two: if aircraft carriers are so bad and useless, can Americans still instruct their submarines to escort transports? And then God forbid, the breeze will blow on planes
                    1. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 3 August 2013 15: 44
                      +2
                      Quote: Delta
                      therefore (well, according to your logic) Russia needs to have exclusively defensive weapons.

                      But who told you that submarines are only defensive weapons?
                      Quote: Delta
                      it can still Americans charge their submarines to accompany transports

                      will not work
                      the main weapon of the boat is secrecy. Distribute it to slow barges will not work

                      Usually destroyers and frigates cover
                      1. Delta
                        Delta 3 August 2013 22: 31
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        But who told you that submarines are only defensive weapons?

                        I definitely didn’t say that. But here you are

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Any porridge is always brewed in the Old World and America is forced to carry an army on foreign shores.
                        We, as you know, have no such problems

                        it follows that aggression and conquest are the exclusive domain of the United States and NATO. Russia is hanging out on the side in this matter. So? therefore, offensive weapons are not needed, surface ships are not needed, and the existing submarines are needed exclusively for defense. Isn't that your thought?

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Usually destroyers and frigates cover

                        and frigates, destroyers and other ships in the AUG will do the job of guarding the convoy worse than NOT in the AUG?
                      2. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 3 August 2013 23: 53
                        0
                        Quote: Delta
                        it follows that aggression and conquest are the exclusive domain of the United States and NATO. Russia is hanging out on the side in this matter. So? therefore, offensive weapons are not needed

                        but what, in your understanding, does an offensive naval weapon look like? and how defensive?

                        Here is Ash, for example - an offensive or defensive weapon?

                        the capabilities of the submarine fleet (the same Ash) with the dashing enough to cover the northern borders of the Russian Federation from any encroachment. and will do it better than any AUG - boats are ideal for the northern latitudes, while they are very economical
                        Quote: Delta
                        and frigates, destroyers and other ships in the AUG will do the job of guarding the convoy worse than NOT in the AUG?

                        No problem. Will you pay?

                        ps / there are 115 transports in the Military Sealift Command. you can’t put to each aircraft carrier
                      3. Delta
                        Delta 4 August 2013 15: 22
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        but what, in your understanding, does an offensive naval weapon look like? and how defensive?

                        Well, for example, an anti-aircraft missile is a defensive one. The cruise missile is offensive. Or do you not know the difference? Or are you leaving the answer again?

                        Well, I ask you a question, what if everyone cuts surface ships and there are only submarines? you consider aircraft carriers useless, and in the northern latitudes not only aircraft carriers, but any other surface ship suffers (your words).

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The Military Sealift Command has 115 transports. you can’t put to each aircraft carrier

                        why to everyone? Are such transports really one by one?
                      4. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 4 August 2013 16: 04
                        +1
                        Quote: Delta
                        for example, an anti-aircraft missile - defensive. Cruise missile - offensive

                        And if they are launched from one launcher - is this a ship: defensive or offensive?))
                        Quote: Delta
                        I’m asking you a question, what if everyone cuts surface ships

                        Why cut them? Let them run to the development of the resource.

                        Several frigates / destroyers will nevertheless have to have - flag demonstration, Prestige, parades, international operations, safety of navigation in dangerous marine areas, etc.
                        Quote: Delta
                        you consider aircraft carriers useless, and in the northern latitudes not only aircraft carriers, but any other surface ship suffers (your words).

                        yes, boats are best suited for the northern latitudes
                        at the same time, they are also cheaper than everyone else
                        Quote: Delta
                        why to everyone?

                        and why at all?
                      5. Delta
                        Delta 4 August 2013 21: 07
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And if they are launched from one launcher, is this a ship: defensive or offensive?

                        and I wrote the term "offensive ship" somewhere? or defensive. There are offensive or defensive weapons. Well, it’s you for scrapping surface ships and transferring everyone to submarines. They seem to be able to solve all problems.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Several frigates / destroyers will nevertheless have to have - flag demonstration, Prestige, parades, international operations, safety of navigation in dangerous marine areas, etc.


                        why wouldn’t the flag show submarines? Well they are not always in military service. Shipping safety again. Not enough for the submarine weapons for this? easily

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        yes, boats are best suited for the northern latitudes

                        I asked - and if the United States and NATO in the northern latitudes will use exclusively submarines, then what about Russia then?

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        and why at all?

                        do not?
                      6. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 5 August 2013 02: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Delta
                        Well are you for surface ships let it go for scrap and transfer everything to the submarine. You have them, it seems, they can solve all problems

                        I didn’t say this, you yourself invented it
                        Quote: Delta
                        why wouldn’t the flag show submarines?

                        And why not AUG go to the North Pole. And from there attack Taimyr
                        Quote: Delta
                        I asked - and if the USA, NATO in the northern latitudes will use exclusively submarines

                        Then the transports of the Shipping Command will go to the bottom
                        Quote: Delta
                        do not?

                        Not. This monstrously expensive excess

                        Destroyers and minesweepers do a great job. Nimitz there like a fifth wheel cart
  • Siberian
    Siberian 3 August 2013 01: 45
    +2
    Sorry, maybe off topic. But such a bunch, but one racket to cover.
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 3 August 2013 02: 45
      +1
      Nimitz US Navy
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 3 August 2013 03: 06
        +1
        Carrier Killers - Granite, Onyx, Caliber, Club-K
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 3 August 2013 03: 51
          +1
          Seconds before the crash - An explosion on an aircraft carrier: In 1967, an explosion occurred on the American aircraft carrier Forrestal. The plane flashed after the plane, and soon the whole deck was on fire
          1. Ruslan67
            Ruslan67 3 August 2013 04: 07
            +1
            Quote: Alex 241
            Seconds Before the Catastrophe

            Hi hi Another attempt to conduct educational program? laughing
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 3 August 2013 04: 15
              +3
              Hi Ruslan, no, it’s just that spears are being broken here, not understanding that it’s not necessary to unleash the 3rd world war and to drown the entire AUG, it is enough to disable the flight deck. funds needed to destroy an aircraft carrier.
              1. Ruslan67
                Ruslan67 3 August 2013 04: 25
                +2
                Quote: Alex 241
                It invested in our cadet minds

                It would still invest in the minds of fans of air waffles fool and life would be easier laughing And lately, all discussions have come down to quotes from the wiki and instructions that are written so that everyone knows what exactly they are violating wassat
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Ruslan67
                    Ruslan67 3 August 2013 04: 35
                    +2
                    Quote: Alex 241
                    strike aircraft carrier formations destiny of crazy loners.

                    And then after a couple of weeks they crawl to the point from which they can get someone fool They would go out of the base to start wassat
                2. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 3 August 2013 04: 34
                  +3
                  ...............
                  1. Ruslan67
                    Ruslan67 3 August 2013 04: 37
                    +1
                    I saw him good But thanks anyway hi Reminded
                    1. Ruslan67
                      Ruslan67 3 August 2013 04: 38
                      +1
                      And what are these two comments deleted?
                3. The comment was deleted.
    2. kirpich
      kirpich 5 August 2013 15: 34
      0
      First, let them try to start from such a bunch.
  • Savl
    Savl 3 August 2013 04: 20
    -1
    If a strike group of aircraft is detected on an aircraft carrier in the zone of reaching our borders (I’m sure that sworn friends are deployed here), they have one way to the bottom.
  • Ged
    Ged 3 August 2013 06: 44
    +1
    All decent powers have at least one aircraft carrier. Or about to get them. The question is whether Russia alone, albeit modernized, is enough?
    For me, to start a line of several TAKR class "Charles de Gaulle", for a start, and then we'll see.
    1. kirpich
      kirpich 5 August 2013 16: 53
      0
      I don’t even want to argue.
      References -
      "Wrong" Soviet fleet


      Why the USSR did not build a single battleship
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 3 August 2013 08: 05
    +4
    A country needs aircraft carriers if only it feels that it is ready to rely not only on a piece of paper on the protection of world trade, if it is economically strong enough to place 2 aviation regiments on a ship and train them, if there are bases and a repair base, if the country is ready to carry an increased the risk of losing planes and pilots, if "probable friends" have many similar ships and have an idea of ​​what these ships can do (not attack the country, but only completely isolate from foreign trade), there is a desire to influence other countries (2 / 3 Earth is water) and a clear understanding of their interests, there is a worthy accompaniment to two trained aviation regiments on a ship and an understanding of what a connection can and what cannot, such as "attack India") There is still a lot, but the main understanding is what and why ... For example, Russia needs to think clearly about who it is and by whom; it should not thoughtlessly build aircraft carriers if it is possible to do with land bases.
    An aircraft carrier is a ship with the main weapon by plane, and not super-mega-fortitude, it is unnecessary to invent nonsense, and then to refute this nonsense (it's so easy to giggle))