Military Review

Red storm. Can the aircraft carrier Nimitz attack Syria?

127
Red storm. Can the aircraft carrier Nimitz attack Syria?



The situation around Syria is developing in a bad way. First of all - for American “hawks” from yellow White House.

The general illogicality of the coming war, multiplied by the internal economic problems of European countries, yielded a logical result - the faithful allies of the United States, one and all, refused to fight under the banner of their overlord.

The East joined the boycott - not wanting to make new problems for itself, Jordan refused to provide its airspace for US Air Force aircraft.

Israel is silent.

The world trend was supported even by Iraq, defeated and ransacked by Americans. Standing up in a proud pose, the Iraqis forbade US Air Force aircraft to appear in the sky above the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates.

The coalition is falling apart, all plans are flying to hell, the Strike Eagles pilots are sad at Mountain Home base in Idaho - it looks like they will not be able to fly in the Syrian sky now.

Americans fit to abandon their plans - in the absence of the necessary number of air bases nearby, conducting large-scale hostilities is impossible. But no!

The Yankees get their last "trump card" from their sleeves - the Nimitz-class super-ships!

Deck aviation The US Navy does not require anyone’s consent - floating airfields allow you to place aircraft in any part of the Mediterranean Sea and strike Damascus directly from neutral waters!



Okay, let's not mock the unhappy Pentagon strategists who are beating over the solution of an impossible task - even five Nimitz-style “wunderdrafts” cannot compensate for the lack of normal airfields. And deck-mounted nonso-aircraft "Super-Hornet" look ridiculous against the background of the destructive "Strike Needles" and the hordes of small, but nimble and omnipresent F-16.

Obviously, the US Navy carrier strike groups, left alone, will not be “taken out” by the war with Syria - after all, for all 40 years of their careers, the Nimitz never dared to “get up and go into full-blown attack”.



In 1991, these cowards and idlers stood for half a year, waiting for the Air Force of the Multinational Force to fly to their aid - while the Hussein troops unceremoniously occupied Kuwait and shared rich trophies.
It was necessary to launch a counterstrike as soon as possible, delay the offensive and not allow the Iraqis to gain a foothold in Kuwait ... Alas, the American aircraft carrier groups were not in a hurry to "project" their strength.

The Yankees understood very well that by pushing into the airspace of Iraq with the forces of several aircraft carrier wings, they would only wash themselves with blood, lose about fifty cars, but would not stop the advance of Nebuchadnezzar * and Tavalkan for a second.

Because aircraft carriers were waiting.

They waited for the multinational Air Force combat aircraft to arrive in the region.
* elite tank Iraqi Guard divisions

However, the point is not that the aircraft wing of an aircraft carrier looks like a pitiful sting against the background of thousands of Air Force machines. Whenever an aircraft carrier goes on a hike, there is an EXHEN with such special effects that Steven Spielberg himself could not dream of.

Aviation loves space. But instead, it is pushed onto the cramped decks of the ship.

Fiery exhaust of jet engines, helicopters glittering blade, abundant explosive and flammable objects, scurrying everywhere and tractors crawling cable aerobatsplanes sizzling hot steam catapult, elevators, plane elevators, elevators ammunition, lifting reflective shields and heavy blows landing on wheels fighter deck - landing speed modern jet aircraft significantly exceed the milestone in 200 km / h!

All these rides are focused on a moving unstable platform with 18 200 square. meters (2,5 football fields).



The result is logical. Hardly anything goes according to plan - the slightest spark, the spontaneous launch of NURS under the wing of an attack aircraft ready for departure, or the landing of one aircraft on another (a very common plot in the confusion of working days) - a firework that envy another multi-million Hollywood blockbuster envy. A fiery whirlwind rushes across the deck, setting fire to an aircraft that has become confused - often already refueled and ready for a new flight. Torn bombs and tens of tons of burning aviation kerosene - the situation takes a dangerous turn.

And how much "joy" for the Americans is delivered by the seemingly harmless, at the first glance, arresting belt break!


Incident with aerofinisher cliff, aircraft carrier "George Washington", 2003 year

A splash arises under the nose of an aircraft carrier going at full speed - the plane fell into the water, blowing the 67 million dollars from the American budget in one instant (flyaway cost F / A-18E / F Super Hornet on 2012 a year).
At this time, a real hardcore is taking place on the flight deck - scraps of a broken steel cable crippling sailors from the deck crew, incidentally chopping the protruding tails of airplanes and helicopters parked in the stern of the ship.

In cramped and offended

Every takeoff and landing threatens to turn into a catastrophe - in such conditions, it is better for Nimits to stay at the pier in Norfolk and not to try to “project power” around the world.
It is contraindicated for them to appear off the coast of Syria - the deck air wing may die long before the ship reaches the combat zone - as happened with Oriskani, Forrestal and Enterprise.

The fire on the Forrestal strike aircraft carrier (the Gulf of Tonkin, 1967 year) was particularly costly for American sailors - the largest tragedy in modern stories US Navy. In a raging fire, then the 134 man died, another 161 sailor was injured and burned.



Cause? The spontaneous launch of the 127 mm unguided Zuni rocket - having broken loose from the Skyhawk attack pylon, the rocket crashed into the front-facing, fully-fueled and equipped aircraft. Result: 17-hour fire that engulfed six decks of the ship, the detonation of nine bombs on the flight deck, hundreds of dead and wounded among the crew. The ship and its wing were completely out of combat capability, the 21 burned aircraft was thrown overboard (not counting aircraft damaged by fire).


Consequences of a fire at "Forrestol"

No less fierce was the fire on the atomic Enterprise Enterprise off the coast of Hawaii (1969 year) - the newest super-aircraft carrier almost died in training exercises before being sent to the shores of Vietnam. Cause? Jet stream, randomly aimed at a rack with Zuni missiles (after all, tightness is a terrible force). Ignition, spontaneous launching of NURS - and further along the following pattern: many hours of fire, fuel spill from wrecked aircraft, explosions on the flight deck, 27 dead and 120 burnt seamen. The wing of the Enterprise lost 15 aircraft.

But the most delusional story occurred on board the aircraft carrier Oriskany (1966 year) - the sailor bore a bunch of signal rockets, throwing exhaust cords over his shoulder. One of the missiles caught something and accidentally launched from the jerk of the cord. The sailor did not lose his head and threw her aside, getting in trouble in a box with the same missiles. “Salutes” flying around the hangar set fire to the stored aircraft - 44 people were killed in the fight against fire, 156 was seriously injured. Almost all the aircraft on the hangar deck burned down.



A lot of misfortunes have done the fighter "Phantom", unsuccessfully landed on the deck of the aircraft carrier "Midway" (1972 year) - "Phantom" crashed into the thick of parked aircraft on the fly all the way. The result is the early write-off of eight aircraft units; casualties among the personnel - 5 dead, 23 injured.

However, why do we discuss the events 40-year-old, when there are more recent examples.

For example, the pogrom on the deck of the aircraft carrier Nimitz, 1981 year:
The landing plane of EW EA-6B "Prouler" crashed into the unsuccessfully parked Sea King helicopter. The fire started was extinguished quickly, barely the sailors attempted to remove the debris, the explosion of the Sparrow roared, followed by four more explosions. Result: 14 killed, 39 injured. All nearby aircraft were burnt down: nine “Corsair” attack aircraft, three heavy Tomkat interceptors, three S-3 “Viking” PLO, A-6 “Intrudur” aircraft, as well as the immediate perpetrators of the tragedy: EA-6B “Praler” and helicopter "Sea King".


Accident on the deck "Nimitz", 1981 year

Another curious story took place in 1988 year. During a cruise in the Arabian Sea, aboard the Nimitz, an emergency occurred from the Rise of the Machines cycle - the A-7E attack plane had a six-barreled Vulcan cannon wedged in. 4000 shots per minute!

The gun literally riddled the KA-6D tanker in front of it. This circumstance only added drama - from the tanks KA-6D splashed out and instantly ignited tons of jet fuel, turning the aircraft into a raging fire torch.
The flaming tanker was barely managed to be pushed overboard, but before that he managed to set fire to the 5 of the Corsair aircraft, as well as the Viking and Intruder stationed at the nearest spotting site.

1991 year, again the aircraft carrier Nimitz (CVN-68) distinguished itself - on the night from 12 to 13 July F / A-18C Hornet crashed on its deck ... life, as they say, everyday, if it were not for one nuance – congered burning the car, abandoned by the crew, caught on to the aero-finisher and froze in the middle of the deck, but its engines still roared in the “afterburner” mode. The Yankees were really lucky that there were no other aircraft or a rack of Zuni rockets in that coin nearby.
The situation was saved by a brave technician who managed to get into the cockpit of an emergency aircraft and turn off the engines.

1998 year, another accident on the aircraft carrier "Enterprise" - aircraft EA-6B "Prauler" ignored bans dispatcher and landed right on the head of another plane - just landed S-3 "WFP" had not had time to leave the runway and received a deafening shock in the tail. Details on the video:


Here it exploded!

But fresh news for 2011 year: a multipurpose fighter-bomber F / A-18C Hornet exploded and burned on a catapult while attempting to take off from the atomic carrier John S. Stennis. Reported 10 affected.

Yes ... as they say, having such friends, enemies are not necessary.

The damage from the actions of deck aviation is enormous - of course, we politically correct to keep silent about ordinary aviation accidents that occurred after taking off from a catapult or during landing on a moving aircraft carrier - such as, for example, the death of Kara Khaltgreen - the first female pilot of deck aircraft whose F-14 "Tomkat" fell into the water when approaching the aircraft carrier "Abraham Lincoln" (1994 year).

All these cases have one simple explanation: landing on a moving steel strip of limited length is not an easy task; Pilots are required to have the highest qualifications and skill of filigree control of aircraft equipment. The slightest mistake or sharp gust of wind - and the plane is hidden in the waves behind the stern of the ship.


Fierce crash on the deck "John F. Kennedy"
Just a little bit - and he would have hooked other cars

In fact, the number of such cases exceeds 100. Thematic sites and YouTube video hosting are full of accidents and emergency situations that occurred with the deck aircraft of the US Navy.

Of course, supporters of the US Navy will immediately find an excuse - as of 2011, the aircraft carrier Nimitz marked the 300 000's landing on its deck. What does a hundred accidents mean amid hundreds of thousands of successful landings?

The answer is simple - Moscow Domodedovo Airport DAILY provides for 300-350 landings of passenger airliners. The norm, for which “Nimitz” took 40 years to complete, a regular airport performs for 2-3 of the year! At the same time, cases of major accidents at the airport are calculated in a few units - literally every 10 years.
In principle, instead of Domodedovo Airport you can consider any US Air Force airbase.
Here is the statistics


Spectator wreck attack aircraft LTV A-7 Corsair II, Midway, 1984 year

As for the usual wrecks in the air and combat losses that occurred at a distance of tens and hundreds of miles from the aircraft carrier - these cases are excluded from consideration, because This is possible with any aircraft of the Air Force and Navy, regardless of how it is based.

Also, marine navigational accidents are excluded from the review, such as for example the collision of the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy with the cruiser Belknap (1975 year, the cruiser was almost completely destroyed by fire) or the landing of the atomic carrier Stennis (1999) - similar cases are valid for ships of all classes.

Of interest are only accidents in the immediate vicinity of the carrier ship, on its flight or hangar decks, directly related to the specifics of carrier-based aircraft. And such cases, as we see it was not enough.

And if you thought that was not enough - here is another interesting episode:
25 January 1987 of the Year, Ionian Sea. The electronic reconnaissance aircraft EA-3B Skywatch, reported to the aircraft carrier about a critical fault that makes it impossible to land using an aero-finisher.
Sailors began to bustle on the Nimitz, urgently tidying up the excess aircraft and pulling the so-called across the deck. "Barricade" (elastic network) for braking an emergency aircraft. Alas, it was all over for the Yankees in a bad way - a huge Skywatch broke the barricade, crashed down from all over the deck and, raising fountains of sparks, fell overboard. The crew of the 7 people died.

Well, it happens.

Epilogue

To cross the plane with the ship - the idea, in principle, is not a bad one. But everything has its time and place: what was great during the Second World War has now turned into an absurdity. The weight and dimensions and landing speeds of modern jet machines are so high that a ship of gigantic size is needed to land even the smallest combat aircraft (“Hornet”). This “floating island”, whose life cycle is estimated at 30-40 billion dollars (excluding the cost of operating the wing).
But, alas, as practice shows, even this is not enough for the safe and efficient operation of aviation - deck vehicles fight like empty bottles.

The strike power of floating airfields turned out to be negligible in any of the modern local wars (their capabilities in a global war should not even be mentioned) - a few dozen vehicles with limited performance characteristics — an empty space amid thousands of Air Force planes. As for their notorious "mobility" - in the era of jet engines, supersonic speeds and the possibility of refueling in the air - the need for "floating airfields" completely disappears.

It is time to honestly admit that the aircraft carrier is outdated, as the sailing brigantines, rowing galleys and battleships of the Russo-Japanese War once outdated.

Syrians can sleep peacefully - until the US Air Force aircraft arrived at the airbases in the Middle East - there will be no war. Atomic super-aircraft carrier "Nimitz" can arbitrarily enter and exit the Red Sea, but its ridiculous gestures do not mean anything in modern conditions.

And if the Yankees still dare to send "help" to the Mediterranean Sea - a couple more "floating airfields" of the "Nimitz" class, in this case the Internet will overflow with video clips about new crashes on board aircraft carriers. Deck aircraft of the US Navy will kill in accidents, but will not perform the task.


Powerful F-14 crash. Wall of fire!
"Abraham Lincoln", 1993 Year



The position of the Nimitsev and the US Navy amphibious assault carriers on 5 September 2013.
Recently, the number of accidents on aircraft carriers of the US Navy has decreased markedly. After all, 8 from 10 atomic giants hardly go to sea and rust at anchor for years.


Based on:
http://www.uscarriers.net/
http://www.history.navy.mil/
http://www.airwarriors.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
Author:
127 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. mark1
    mark1 9 September 2013 08: 32 New
    21
    A strange article with strange findings. I would say stupid.
    1. Orel
      Orel 9 September 2013 09: 26 New
      18
      Pilots of the Strike Eagles are sad at Mountain Home Airbase in Idaho - it seems that now they will not be able to fly in the Syrian sky.


      They are not sad, but hope that they will not have to parachute in the Syrian sky and watch their birds make a “hard landing” in the absence of a pilot ...
    2. avt
      avt 9 September 2013 09: 48 New
      27
      Quote: mark1
      A strange article with strange findings. I would say stupid.

      Well no laughing look who the author is, his vendetta with aircraft carriers continues.
      1. Arberes
        Arberes 9 September 2013 10: 43 New
        +8
        Quote: avt
        Oh no, look who the author is, his vendetta with aircraft carriers continues.

        Yes, from the first lines it’s clear that this is Oleg!
        Oleg, with your writing talent (this is not flattery) you will ruin all the beginnings of the structure of the aircraft carrier fleet in our country! Unlike states, we also did not have naval bases on the territory of other states (the Syrian does not count), so how do you think we should protect our interests and our friends in the far corners of the globe?
        And from the article I conclude that each state aircraft carrier must have its own Mccain!!! And then they won’t succeed! (well, just like a slogan to the masses!)
        And even though I am a zealous supporter that our fleet should be aircraft carrier, my hand itself puts you +
        Probably for your writing talent! hi
        1. Nick888
          Nick888 9 September 2013 13: 32 New
          +3
          Yeah, it would be nice to have 1 aircraft carrier on the TF, 1 on the SF, and send Kuznetsov on the BF or Black Sea Fleet.
          1. vyatom
            vyatom 9 September 2013 14: 18 New
            +3
            Quote: Nick888
            Yeah, it would be nice to have 1 aircraft carrier on the TF, 1 on the SF, and send Kuznetsov on the BF or Black Sea Fleet.

            What idiocy is that?
            The catavasia begins again, what if my grandmother would have, etc. Well, a thousand times already talked about this.
      2. StolzSS
        StolzSS 9 September 2013 20: 39 New
        +4
        Vendetta is not a vendetta, but as long as there is no large US Air Force group, they can only recline in Syria with axes and this is ineffective ....
    3. Sirocco
      Sirocco 9 September 2013 11: 30 New
      16
      And what is strange and stupid even in this quote?
      The Yankees understood very well that by pushing into the airspace of Iraq with the forces of several aircraft carrier wings, they would only wash themselves with blood, lose about fifty cars, but would not stop the advance of Nebuchadnezzar * and Tavalkan for a second.

      Because aircraft carriers were waiting.

      They waited for the multinational Air Force combat aircraft to arrive in the region.
      It is not a secret that in all conflicts, all the USA AUGs stood quietly on the sidelines, "smoked" As always, they waited for the beginning of the "play". So to speak, they act as a scarecrow. For example, I would have thought, in place of the Syrian leadership, how to deprive the soaring "pigeons" of the Dovecote. That's where the shame for the USA will be.
    4. the polar
      the polar 9 September 2013 11: 35 New
      16
      Quote: mark1
      A strange article with strange findings. I would say stupid.

      A normal article, with statistics, and the conclusions are correct; an aircraft carrier is an extremely inefficient tool, both militarily and economically.
      1. vyatom
        vyatom 9 September 2013 14: 19 New
        +3
        Quote: Polar
        Quote: mark1
        A strange article with strange findings. I would say stupid.

        A normal article, with statistics, and the conclusions are correct; an aircraft carrier is an extremely inefficient tool, both militarily and economically.

        In the economic especially. And it is for Russia.
      2. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 9 September 2013 15: 09 New
        +7
        In addition to emotional attacks, the defenders of aircraft carriers can not show anything. If you really calculate how much it costs to build and how much it costs to maintain an AOG (one aircraft carrier does not go), then it turns out that the country can be ruined
        1. Delta
          Delta 9 September 2013 16: 40 New
          +3
          Quote: vladsolo56
          If you really calculate how much it costs to build and how much it costs to maintain an AOG (one aircraft carrier does not go), then it turns out that the country can be ruined

          Well, let the States go broke. What about their problems?
    5. tank 34
      tank 34 9 September 2013 15: 26 New
      +3
      I completely agree. The article is, to put it mildly, strange.
    6. Hug
      Hug 9 September 2013 15: 29 New
      +1
      It seems that the author of "Cossack mishandled" - so skillfully and persistently makes anti-advertising to aircraft carriers so that the Russian Navy even in its infancy rejects the idea of ​​building aircraft carriers.
      It is strange that all over the world these carrier-based floating platforms are recognized as an argument of conviction in politics, but the author (apparently a specialist in this matter) believes the opposite.
      1. Delta
        Delta 9 September 2013 16: 50 New
        +3
        Quote: Kram
        It is strange that all over the world these carrier-based floating platforms are recognized as an argument of conviction in politics, but the author (apparently a specialist in this matter) believes the opposite.

        the author is just here and there))) he is for aircraft carriers, then against them. If it were special, I would long ago have developed a single course for myself. And so ... what I read, from there the opinion
        1. Santa Fe
          9 September 2013 17: 32 New
          +3
          Quote: Delta
          the author is right here and there

          Not surprising. The states have a powerful propaganda machine - all open sources are clogged with information about the deeds of the Nimitz. Even some of the Soviet General Staff were led to this, having decided to set up several TAVKRs

          About a year ago, I came across the numbers of statistics (sorties), it turned out that, contrary to established myths, the nimits did not solve anything in local operations.

          Maybe the nimitz is indispensable in modern naval combat? Of course, I understand that boats decide everything at sea, but nonetheless ... air cover in the same local operations.

          The issue was resolved quickly - there was a map of US military bases - more than 800 objects on all continents of the Earth. Having such a network of bases and jet aircraft - you can easily provide air cover anywhere in the world. Nimits left without work again



          Then there was an acquaintance with the report of the captain of the US Navy Hendricksen (I can send it to everyone interested by e-mail) - the sailor honestly admitted that it was easier and cheaper to hammer Tomahawks. And air cover is generally the task of the air force

          Certain hints give an incredible public debt and sounding threats to the sequestration of the US budget

          In general, the picture is pretty obvious - the Yankees contain the nimits to maintain an extra amount of admiral posts + industrial lobbying - the business magnates and admirals from the Pentagon will gnaw any throat for their heated places

          Nimits (more precisely, 1-2 nimits from 10) are sent to conflict zones only because they were built and now they need to be used somewhere, imitating their violent activity and the need for the fleet. In fact, these ships are useless, and their tasks are easily solved by simpler and more efficient methods.
    7. MG42
      MG42 9 September 2013 15: 34 New
      +7
      Quote: mark1
      A strange article with strange findings. I would say stupid.

      It’s hard not to agree .. laughing
      In fact, the author of sweet_sexteen loves aircraft carriers, but also takes care of the Pentagon’s budget, which is very costly .. wassat But Americans occupy themselves by stuffing their "greens" into central banks around the world, so whoever pays for this must figure it out again ..
  2. NOMADE
    NOMADE 9 September 2013 08: 39 New
    31
    )) The author’s emphasis is familiar. smile The article is interesting, although controversial. But the fact that the US aircraft carriers alone will not "take it out" is a fact. So, the author’s phrase - “Syrians can sleep peacefully - as long as the US Air Force doesn’t arrive at air bases in the Middle East, there will be no war” is 100% true. Maximum, massive rocket fire from ships and submarines.
    1. Hemi cuda
      Hemi cuda 9 September 2013 13: 03 New
      +6
      The author of the article anneals (Don Quixote and aircraft carriers in place of the mills). After reading the article, he presented a picture of the arrival of granite into an aircraft carrier at the height of flights, and all these incidents seemed trifling.
      1. Santa Fe
        9 September 2013 14: 19 New
        +3
        Quote: Hemi Cuda
        (Don Quixote and aircraft carriers in place of the mills

        Hatred of the Nimitz is explained simply: Aircraft carriers are the title symbol of the US Navy. The lack of such in the Soviet Navy at one time gives rise to the townsfolk to believe that the Soviet fleet was worse than the Amers. Well - they have 10, we have 1 (approximate ratio)

        The Soviet fleet was undoubtedly weaker (funding for the USSR Navy was less than that of the US Navy at least 3 times; a maximum of 16 (60s) was no joke). But the weakness of the domestic fleet was not in the absence of aircraft carriers, but in other, much more complex and serious things:
        - less destroyers and frigates
        - high noise submarine
        - weaker than the performance characteristics of ballistic missiles (with the "John Washington" and the Polaris, the Yankees really made us)
        - worse electronic systems
        - high arabicity on the submarine (well, we didn’t have our own Hyman Rickover! and the crews were equipped with conscripts instead of contract professionals on boats of the US Navy)

        However, as the Cold War showed, both giant fleets - both ours and Amer, perfectly coped with their duties. Both worked effectively in global conflicts, as for the global war - domestic SSBNs could have set up a worldwide holocaust no worse than the US Navy SSBN. And since there is no difference - why pay more?

        As for the Nimitsev and the like - the presence or vice versa the absence of this technique did not play any role

        The killer of the cities is George Washington, whom Soviet admirals were truly afraid of. And made every effort to neutralize them
  3. mirag2
    mirag2 9 September 2013 08: 43 New
    -8
    A cheap piece of writing from the series “The Americans are not as good as they say.” Uh, such things look pathetic ... It doesn’t matter what happened there, I just saw a soldier pulled into an airplane engine, it flew off the other end, and survived. And what? An aircraft carrier, let Nimitz, let the catapult work poorly, and let their sailors not know anything, the aircraft carrier was and is a powerful striking force that can change the political situation in the region on its own. under conditions of interaction with other components (submarines, satellites, etc.) - so that there is nothing to drive .. Look the truth in the eye. An aircraft carrier alone can destroy an entire state.
    1. kotdavin4i
      kotdavin4i 9 September 2013 09: 20 New
      11
      Quote: mirag2
      the aircraft carrier was and is the strongest striking force capable of single-handedly changing the political situation in the region

      Cheerful morning Dear, well, "don’t tell my horseshoes" - do you even know the number of aircraft that actually perform a combat mission on an aircraft carrier? - What kind of change in the situation in the region are we talking about ???
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 9 September 2013 09: 24 New
      20
      Aircraft carrier — let the Nimitz, let the catapult work poorly, and let their sailors not know anything — the aircraft carrier was and is a powerful striking force capable of changing the political situation in the region alone.

      I can agree with you, with an amendment, if there are no countries in the region that own at least average air defense and anti-ship missiles of any kind. Otherwise, the aircraft carrier turns into a huge, convenient and damn attractive target. With a competent attack, even a security order will not help.
    3. RussianRu
      RussianRu 9 September 2013 10: 23 New
      +3
      A little correction. The soldier was drawn into the turbine, but he did not fly out from the other side. His life was saved by quickly turning off the engine. The video shows how they get it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLsxPqa6AjU
    4. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 9 September 2013 10: 43 New
      0
      Quote: mirag2
      - I saw a soldier being drawn into the engine of an airplane — it flew from the other end — and survived

      Well, in more detail, it is extremely interesting
      1. Santa Fe
        9 September 2013 14: 28 New
        +3
        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
        Well, in more detail, it is extremely interesting

        A famous case. While they hooked the plane to the catapult, the dude from the deck crew sucked into the engine. But it all ended happily - fat americos stuck in the air intake 30 centimeters from the compressor blades. Escaped with abrasions and fear for the rest of his life, he left the fleet the next day

        here is this video, the moment with suction in the turbine - at 0:58
        1. alexs3524
          alexs3524 14 September 2013 03: 12 New
          +1
          when he got out he said the engine was examined there were no comments!
      2. Starover_Z
        Starover_Z 10 September 2013 00: 30 New
        0
        Likely as in the second "Die Hard" - flew into the engine and flew from the other side, but ... in the form of minced meat!
    5. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 9 September 2013 15: 11 New
      +3
      Phrases such as cheap scribble do not add respect to their author.
  4. King
    King 9 September 2013 08: 43 New
    +7
    aircraft carriers needed in modern warfare the main thing is to correctly dispose of them. and this is another question. thanks for the material it was nice to see the Yankees ruining themselves
  5. NOMADE
    NOMADE 9 September 2013 08: 45 New
    +8
    Well, the "supporters of the aircraft carriers" have already been minuscule. Well, indeed, without support from ground-based airfields, the AUG will not be able to provide the "no-fly zone" zone. Especially where there is air defense.
  6. Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 9 September 2013 08: 55 New
    +4
    I do not agree with mark1. The author claims that the aircraft carrier war will not take place. That aircraft carriers are a complex technique, multiplied by sloppiness of personnel. That the giant grouping of US ships is a bluff and nonsense for the ground targets of a country with modern air defense (due to, moreover, outdated flight equipment). I agree that it is not possible to intimidate a developed country with the fleet. We'll have to launch the B-52, and the 200s will work on them, which were created for this. We will see.
    1. NOMADE
      NOMADE 9 September 2013 09: 00 New
      +8
      + a lot! Absolutely right. Carriers, this is part of the system, only one aircraft carrier, this conflict can not be resolved. The author wrote about this. As for emergency situations, the more complex the technique, the more there are (as it is not regrettable.).
  7. RUS96
    RUS96 9 September 2013 08: 56 New
    +3
    It’s not so simple. But the pictures are good.
  8. lewerlin53rus
    lewerlin53rus 9 September 2013 09: 03 New
    +5
    Why not? It’s a sin, as they say, even a chicken ... One such incident on the take-off deck of an aircraft carrier, even for purely technical reasons, apart from the possibility of an emergency landing of a damaged aircraft, can disable it and delete it from the fighting from several days to the complete cessation of participation in these
  9. de bouillon
    de bouillon 9 September 2013 09: 23 New
    12
    hehe well and the author is a brazen liar and provocateur

    the author posted this STRATFOR for September 5 wink well done, fine

    But am I here a week earlier? as you can see, just a week ago, 4 aircraft carriers sailed. Of these, 2 in the campaign, and 2 others in routine training. A month ago, there was still 73rd Washington in the Australia area, but by 29 it had already returned to base.

    generally go here http://nosikot.livejournal.com/ here the author uploads STRATFOR data on AUG and UDC of the USA in the oceans every week. Who is under repair, who has a sequestration, who is in the port, but most of them swim almost everything !! And very active. Nobody is rusting. This is just a distant fantasy of the author.


    by the way about 1991. If I’m not mistaken, then at the time of the invasion of Saddam, and this was not 1991, as our author writes, and August 1990.then at that moment in the region there were no more than 2 AUGs or even just one .. And what could they do according to the author ?? At that time, even the United States was not ready for war with Iraq. The situation was similar to the current one in Syria. There were screams, but there was no plan of action. In short, the US and the West had to spend six months on the formation of multinational coalition since the United States did not want to fight alone. Well, the preparation of public opinion. And then they hit it in full. There is a lot of literature on the Internet on those events and I will say that the AUGs mainly flew to Kuwait.

    Yes, and I noticed one trend Oleg wink

    he completely ignores the events of 2001 and 2003.

    In 2001 there was an invasion of Afghanistan. Of course, the Taliban did not have modern air defense and air forces, but aircraft carriers proved to be an ideal option in the light of the absence of nearby airfields for military aviation. It was deck-based aviation that played a key role in the success of the Northern Alliance and the Americans in operations against the Taliban.

    In 2003 there was already a war with Iraq. In total, the United States gathered a group of 700 combat aircraft. Of the bottom of about 250, these were decks. As you can see, this is almost half. But the special role of the deckers was on the northern front of Iraq. As you know, Turkey, being against the war, did not provide its territory for the US Air Force. In general, loved by Oleg Air Force broke off fellow But the sky was open. And then the AUG from the Mediterranean Sea became the only element of air support for the Kurds, paratroopers from the 173rd brigade of the United States and units of three special forces battalions.

    Yes, and now the Americans, what could prevent a strike from the Red Sea ?? Everyone is waiting for the arrival from the Mediterranean, but the AUG as it was and is located there.

    here who are interested can see the pictures from the aircraft carrier Nimitz. Published since September 4. Red sea. Actively go training. http://www.flickr.com/photos/navcent
    1. Kars
      Kars 9 September 2013 09: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: de bouillon
      there was no more 2 AUG or even just one .. And what could they do according to the author ??



      Which, in principle, was required to prove)))))
      10 billions of bucks - and from them it turns out to be smooth bribes)))
      Quote: Author
      the onset of Nebuchadnezzar * and the Tavalkan.
      * Iraqi Guard elite tank divisions
    2. Santa Fe
      9 September 2013 16: 13 New
      -1
      Quote: de bouillon
      but most of them swim almost everything !!

      After all, you are a smart, thinking person, but pretend that you do not understand anything

      Of course, they periodically creep out into the coastal waters to test the mechanisms and training of the wing. But on long trips go from strength 1-2, three is an exceptional rarity
      While Nimitsev built TEN
      Quote: de bouillon
      In 2001 there was an invasion of Afghanistan ... aircraft carriers were ideal in light of the lack of nearby airfields for military aircraft

      Well, I would not say so bluntly. The Lambert’s monograph states that raids from aircraft carriers lasted 10 hours — the same as during operations from the Al-Dafra Air Base (UAE). At the same time, F-16s from al-Dafra really took part in the operation

      Afghanistan is nonsense, it is not necessary to have Nimitz to “democratize” such a country, the Yankees had enough bases in the region - if they wanted, they could put pressure on the governments of the same Kyrgyzstan (Manas) or their long-standing ally Pakistan and deploy military aircraft at their bases.
      The aircraft carriers drove there only because they were built and now you need to use at least somewhere
      Quote: de bouillon
      But the special role of the deckers was on the northern front of Iraq. As you know, Turkey, being against the war, did not provide its territory for the US Air Force

      Did the Turks provide airspace?))) Or flew through Israel and Jordan?
      Quote: de bouillon
      In 2003 there was already a war with Iraq. In total, the United States gathered a group of 700 combat aircraft. Of the bottom of about 250, these were decks.


      In all, more than 700 Navy and Marine Corps aircraft participated
      in Iraqi Freedom. Those combined assets contributed to a coalition
      total of 1,801 aircraft, 863 of which were provided by the US
      Air Force. 29 Out of a total of 41,404 coalition sorties flown altogether,
      Navy and Marine Corps aircraft flying from carriers and largedeck
      amphibious ships flew nearly 14,000. Of those, 5,568 were
      fighter sorties, 2,058 were tanker sorties, 442 were E-2C sorties, and
      357 were ISR sorties.


      You need to understand that the 700 Navy and KMP aircraft indicated here are half located on land
      Quote: de bouillon
      US Air Force. In general, loved by Oleg Air Force broke off

      But shish
      total departures - 41
      carrier-based aircraft - 14
      land aviation - 27

      It is clear that, if desired, the Yankees could cope without aircraft carriers. The participation of the deck omen is explained simply - Nimits drove only because they were dropped and they need to be used somewhere

      US Air Force Sheikh Isa, Bahrain, in the middle of the Persian Gulf
  10. Nayhas
    Nayhas 9 September 2013 09: 23 New
    +5
    Syrians can sleep peacefully - until the US Air Force aircraft arrived at the airbases in the Middle East - there will be no war. Atomic super-aircraft carrier "Nimitz" can arbitrarily enter and exit the Red Sea, but its ridiculous gestures do not mean anything in modern conditions.

    Too loud statement. Syria 2013 is not Iraq 1991. If you believe the statements of the Americans, the number of air strikes will be limited and there will be enough aircraft from two aircraft carriers + Tomahawks. But of course, it will not do without classical aviation, only the number will be small. In general, we will see what happens in the end, but I think there will be no reason to declare aircraft carriers a useless trough ...
    1. 77bob1973
      77bob1973 9 September 2013 10: 21 New
      -6
      Given the range of the coastal complexes of Syria, an aircraft carrier will not fit closer than 300 km, and then aircraft carrier "hornets" will not reach.
      1. MG42
        MG42 9 September 2013 16: 04 New
        +5
        Quote: 77bob1973
        Given the range of coastal complexes in Syria closer than 300km, an aircraft carrier will not fit, and then the carrier hornets will not reach


        F / A-18 Hornet Combat Radius 726 km, and why should he run into air defense if the first strike always comes with cruise missiles.
        1. 77bor1973
          77bor1973 9 September 2013 21: 43 New
          0
          726 km-1070 km is in theory, but in practice it will be less. At the maximum range, carrier aircraft will not be used.
    2. smsk
      smsk 9 September 2013 10: 42 New
      +1
      And what remains for the Americans? They will have to go to the end, and at least bombard the tomahawks, otherwise the loss of reputation in the eyes of the whole world, a complete loss to Putin. And if they refuse now, it’s not a fact that their allies will next time be with them and not with Russia.
  11. Kubatai
    Kubatai 9 September 2013 09: 50 New
    +3
    The author forgets that Syria is full of state bases, and in Jordan, and in Turkey, and in the UAE. There is also a British base in Cyprus (though there they shouted about the UN consent). So, aircraft carriers are, as before, the status of well and feasible assistance to ground-based aviation. And, by the way, you don’t have to laugh at them - this is a formidable weapon at sea, and in order to level it, you need thoughtful actions from the other side.
  12. Llirik
    Llirik 9 September 2013 09: 54 New
    +6
    The aircraft carrier is strong in its representativeness. He is a geopolitical hammer who, as it were, hints at his presence - here is a zone of US interests. The combat capabilities of a separate AUG are high, but in the context of the massive use of aviation in conflicts over the past 20 years, their percentage contribution to the field is not high compared with ground-based airfields of the Air Force.
  13. 0255
    0255 9 September 2013 09: 58 New
    +3
    And the Super-Hornet deck-based planes look like a laughing stock against the backdrop of the devastating Strike Needles and hordes of small but nimble and ubiquitous F-16s.

    why do the Hornets look like a laughing stock against the backdrop of the F-16? When there was a competition between YF-16 and YF-17, the pilots liked YF-17 more. The designers of Northrop were shocked to learn about the victory of the F-16. And then the F / A-18 based on the YF-17 was already created, it turned out to be better than the deck version of the "sixteenth".
    The F-16 is also far from ideal - it did not hit a single plane in Iraq in 1991 and did not achieve success on ground targets. In Lebanon-82, he accounted for 7 ancient Su-22 attack aircraft, a couple of Mi-8 helicopters and several fighter jets, the rest of the victories to Israel were brought by the F-15.
    And it’s so interesting to know that aircraft carriers are not such a cool thing for the oil war, judging by the incidents on them. Although aircraft carriers are still needed for the air defense of their ships, it is not necessary to write them off.
    1. smsk
      smsk 9 September 2013 10: 55 New
      0
      And it’s so interesting to know that aircraft carriers are not such a cool thing for the oil war, judging by the incidents on them. Although aircraft carriers are still needed for the air defense of their ships, it is not necessary to write them off. [/ Quote]

      Carriers are more a deterrent weapon for countries like Libya and Iraq. So far, they have not shown themselves without the ground forces. Well, cut the budget naturally, where without it.
    2. Santa Fe
      9 September 2013 14: 34 New
      -1
      Quote: 0255
      why do the Hornets look like a laughing stock against the backdrop of the F-16?

      The fact that the F-16s are cheap and there are many

      + F-16 has more thrust-to-weight ratio, less wing load and higher rate of climb
      The ideal machine for low-intensity conflicts - relatively simple, cheap and efficient
      1. Delta
        Delta 9 September 2013 16: 48 New
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        why do the Hornets look like a laughing stock against the backdrop of the F-16?

        The fact that the F-16s are cheap and there are many

        so can you call them a laughing stock? especially compared to the F-16? it would be possible if their LTX significantly differed in the direction disadvantageous for the “Hornets”. Cheap f-16s? just 5 million. Yes, the Hornet is inferior in some respects, but at the same time, the combat radius of the Hornet is larger, the combat load is greater ...
        1. Santa Fe
          9 September 2013 17: 44 New
          0
          Quote: Delta
          Cheap f-16s? just 5 million

          I wonder how you found such a figure)))

          What is the modification? What year? What is the cost (flyaway, development, procurement cost)?
          Quote: Delta
          Yes, the Hornet is inferior in some respects, but at the same time, the combat radius of the Hornet is larger, the combat load is greater ...

          Delta, where a really large combat radius and special capabilities are needed is the task for the F-15C, F-15E, "Reptors" and other monsters of the Air Force + 500 Stratotankers and Extenders (taking into account the reserve and NG)

          And where you need to peck the Papuans - a simple and cheap f-16 does just fine

          Hornet - not fish, not meat, can go to rest

          The same thing about Hawkai - its take-off mass is less than the mass of electronic equipment on board the S-3 Sentry (30 operators versus 3 on Hokai). Here they are, decked superplanes
          1. Delta
            Delta 9 September 2013 18: 32 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            What is the modification? What year? What is the cost


            F-16IN Super Viper (in my opinion a modification of 2008) is worth 50 million. SuperHornet - 55
            1. Santa Fe
              9 September 2013 18: 57 New
              0
              Quote: Delta
              F-16IN Super Viper (in my opinion a modification of 2008) is worth 50 million. SuperHornet - 55

              why did you raise this topic - to consider the cost of Amer aircraft - this is such a bore. occupation is extremely laborious and of little use

              as I understand it, the basic is flyaway cost - only the construction of an airplane, without taking into account R&D, the cost of the program (workshop, production lines) and further operation. For some reason, which is not clear to me, it depends on marginal cost (the dependence of cost on the volume of production - although this should already be a development cost)
              For example, the flyaway cost of Super Hornet for 2009 is 57,5 million.

              But! the most amazing real purchase price of an airplane is
              weapon cost (aka procurement cost). Simply put - a fully finished aircraft, with all the regularly installed avionics, systems and built-in weapons.
              Weapon cost "Super Hornet" for 2009 - 80,4 million

              Now go figure it out!

              The Falken pilot says: wtf ???
          2. Delta
            Delta 9 September 2013 18: 36 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            where a really large combat radius and special capabilities are needed, this is a task for the F-15C, F-15E, "Reptors" and other Air Force monsters + 500 Stratotankers and Extenders (taking into account the reserve and NG)


            By the way, if you have already cited accident data on AB, then in fairness you need to remember the accident rate of air tankers. Well, if one recalls that they are much more vulnerable than an aircraft carrier, then again 1-0 in favor of the aircraft carrier. And the most important thing is to keep tankers in the air CONSTANTLY - too much even for the States. And the aircraft carrier is always ready for action. And in wartime and peacetime. The main thing is to send it to the right region in time. What the Yankees do
            1. Santa Fe
              9 September 2013 19: 10 New
              0
              Quote: Delta
              in fairness, you need to remember the accident rate of air tankers.

              How did you get the idea that they have a high accident rate?
              here, offhand - statistics on the 43rd and 92nd USAF refueling air wing

              The 43rd and 92nd Air Refueling Squadrons flew a combined total of 4,004 hours, 721 sorties, and off loaded a total of 22.5 million pounds of fuel in support of Operations DESERT EXPRESS, DESERT SHIELD, DESERT STORM, DESERT CALM, and PROVIDE COMFORT

              There were no tanker losses in Operation Desert Storm

              despite the fact that the Yankees drove into the region about 300 air tankers, taking into account the reserve
              Quote: Delta
              that they are much more vulnerable

              explain
              they often do not enter the war zone at all
              Quote: Delta
              And the most important thing is to keep tankers in the air CONSTANTLY - too much even for the States.

              Well, it's you in vain. Tankers work 24/7
              Quote: Delta
              And the aircraft carrier is always ready for action. And in wartime and peacetime. The main thing is to send it to the right region in time. What the Yankees do

              Chegozh then stood, snapped a beak when Saddam hollowed Kuwait
    3. smiths xnumx
      smiths xnumx 9 September 2013 15: 29 New
      +7
      To begin with, the only US Air Force RECOGNIZED by the mattresses themselves in the F / A-18C aerial combat from the VFA-81 deck squadron, shot down on January 17, 1991, was accounted for by the Iraqi MiG-25PD. However, in turn:
      From the squadron based on the Saratoga aircraft carrier, 8 F / A-18s rose under the command of Lt. Col. Mark Fox. The goal is an airfield in western Iraq. When the distance to the object was 50 km, and the pilots prepared for the attack, the E-2 Hokai AWACS reported on the approach of a group of Iraqi MiGs in the opposite direction. The Hornets prepared for aerial combat, switched weapons to a fighter version, changed programs on-board computers. Hornet radars spotted two enemy aircraft at a distance of 15 km. It turned out to be a MiG-21 of Chinese manufacture. The fight lasted just a few seconds. Colonel Fox and his led lieutenant Mejill fired one Sidewinder rocket each, with the result that both MiGs were destroyed. And the “Hornets" returned to the main task. During an airfield attack, one of them fired a Sparrow on a take-off MiG-23 and destroyed it. But an Iraqi ground-to-air missile S-75 was shot down and one F / A-18. In Kuwait's raid, the Hornets attacked several armed boats. The result - 4 boats were sunk, 3 damaged. In total, in the operation "Desert Storm" 7 "Hornets" were lost. The pilots of two of them managed to eject.

      http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/f18.html

      The Pakistani Air Force F-16A aircraft participated in combat clashes with Afghan and Soviet aircraft during the war in Afghanistan. They shot down two MiG-23 fighters (which is not confirmed by the data) and two Su-22 fighter-bomber DRA Air Force, as well as the attack aircraft of the Soviet Air Force Su-25, which was piloted by Colonel Rutskoi. During the execution of the combat mission, the Su-25 briefly invaded Pakistan's airspace and was attacked by F-16A, which approached at low altitude. Moreover, in the same battle, the Pakistanis themselves missed two MiG-23MLDs that covered the attack aircraft. One of the Soviet MiG-23s near the border with Pakistan with an air-to-air missile destroyed the Fighting Folkon. During the hostilities in the Persian Gulf, the U.S. Air Force deployed on the theater of operations had 249 F-16As, which were used as attack aircraft, and F-16Cs, used as fighter-bombers. These aircraft made 13 sorties, mainly for delivering strikes against ground targets with conventional free-falling bombs and the Meyvrik UR. According to US official data, six cars were lost that were shot down by fire from the ground. Meanwhile, an objective analysis of the statistics of US aviation losses for 500 indicates that the true losses amounted to 1991 aircraft. In early 20, the US Air Force F-1992C was shot down by an Iraqi MiG-16P fighter-interceptor, which invaded the “restricted” zone in northern Iraq. At the same time, for the first time at the Fighting Falcon, new medium-range AIM-25 AMRAAM missiles were used. In Yugoslavia, a Dutch pilot on an F-120AM shot down an MiG-16. According to NATO officials, one Serbian MIG-29 was shot down on takeoff by an anti-radar missile on May 29 AGM-4 HARM launched from the side of the F-88CLBBCCUJA fighter. In turn, the Serbian anti-aircraft gunners managed to shoot down 16 American F-2s: one in 16. one in 1994 (losses confirmed by NATO)
  14. saag
    saag 9 September 2013 10: 00 New
    +1
    Quote: lewerlin53rus
    Why not? It’s a sin, as they say, even a chicken ... One such incident on the take-off deck of an aircraft carrier, even for purely technical reasons, apart from the possibility of an emergency landing of a damaged aircraft, can disable it and delete it from the fighting from several days to the complete cessation of participation in these

    Yes, to disable Fresnel lenses at the stern and the pilot will not be able to track the position of the deck, it’s impossible or almost impossible to sit, the block of aerofiners (4 pieces) is disabled and the plane does not land
  15. akv0571
    akv0571 9 September 2013 10: 24 New
    +1
    If you still dare to take heroic shelling on the Sirri tomahawks, I hope that Russian experts, especially specialists in the field of electronic warfare, have already prepared a worthy surprise for them.
  16. Lomikus
    Lomikus 9 September 2013 10: 27 New
    -1
    In my opinion, American aircraft carriers are floating coffins, a very inefficient expenditure of budgetary funds, especially with the development of aviation and the submarine fleet, I just drank, there are simpler and cheaper methods for solving the tasks that they are entrusted with.
    1. Maks-80
      Maks-80 9 September 2013 14: 06 New
      +1
      One - two submarines, which will cost less than an aircraft carrier, and even more so AUG and aircraft carrier will end)
      1. MG42
        MG42 9 September 2013 16: 02 New
        +4
        Quote: Maks-80
        One or two submarines, which will be cheaper than an aircraft carrier, and especially AUG and aircraft carrier, will be the end

        Aug always covers 1 - 2 hunter boats ..
  17. sashka
    sashka 9 September 2013 10: 27 New
    +1
    I read the commentary where a person personally saw how the sucker sucked into the air intake, on the other hand it flew out and remained alive. While logged in and no comments .. What kind of business ..
  18. optimist
    optimist 9 September 2013 10: 31 New
    +4
    The article is absolutely out of topic and out of place. If the author intended to scare the Americans, then he would send his opus to some US “topvar”. Also, to me, the discovery of a disaster when maintaining a database. It would be known to the author that in our Air Force during the Great Patriotic War there was a rather large percentage of non-combat losses. If the Americans do not start a war now, he’s a stupid scribe. For swaying and not hitting, already be defeated. And by and large, they don’t care what will happen in BV: just to start a fight, and then let the natives beat each other.
  19. sashka
    sashka 9 September 2013 10: 32 New
    +9
    Aircraft carrier alone does not go anywhere. Around there is still a huge crowd and it is not known who is covering whom. But the crowd has everything to establish "democracy."
    The main objectives of the AUG in wartime are:

    - striking at objects located on the sea coast and in the interior of the enemy;

    - air cover and support for the landing forces and ground forces operating in the coastal zone;


    - gaining and maintaining air superiority in the area of ​​operation,

    - providing air defense of ships, landing troops, large convoys at the passage by sea,

    - blockade of the enemy’s coast,

    - conducting aviation tactical reconnaissance.

    In peacetime, with the help of the ACS, the United States carries out one of the key strategic tasks of the country's national security - a demonstration of strength in key regions of the world.

    To solve these problems, AUGs are combined into aircraft carrier strike formations (AUS). The AUS includes the 2-3 aircraft carrier, up to the 25-30 guard ships, which carry out their anti-submarine, anti-aircraft, anti-missile, as well as anti-ship and anti-ship defense.
    http://military-az.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=398
    1. Santa Fe
      9 September 2013 14: 41 New
      -3
      Quote: Sasha
      - striking at objects located on the sea coast and in the interior of the enemy;

      The Yankees themselves thought it was easier and cheaper to shoot Tomahawk SLCM
      Quote: Sasha
      - air cover and support for the landing forces and ground forces operating in the coastal zone;
      - gaining and maintaining air superiority in the area of ​​operation,
      - providing air defense of ships, landing troops, large convoys at the passage by sea,
      - blockade of the enemy’s coast,
      - conducting aviation tactical reconnaissance.

      These are tasks for the Air Force, not for the Navy.
      Quote: Sasha
      In peacetime, with the help of the ACS, the United States carries out one of the key strategic tasks of the country's national security - a demonstration of strength in key regions of the world.

      Oh nifig yourself 2 pelvis DEMONSTRATE FORCE
      And 800 military bases on all continents are, for laughter

      90 thousand inhabitants of Okinawa held a rally in the village of Emitan, at which they demanded to remove the US Marines air base outside this southern prefecture. The rally was attended not only by local residents, but also by delegations from other municipalities of Okinawa, including Okinawa Governor Hirokazu Nakaim and mayors of almost all its cities and towns, ITAR-TASS reported.
      - news dated April 25, 2010

      Map of US military bases
      1. Delta
        Delta 9 September 2013 16: 55 New
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        These are tasks for the Air Force, not for the Navy.

        yeah, especially in the part - providing air defense of ships, landing troops, large convoys at the transition by sea))))

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And 800 military bases on all continents are, for laughter

        Well, you yourself wrote about the refusal to provide both bases and space. What is left? strange somehow you get it, again contradict yourself. You write that some people are even planning to clean up the bases, bring Egyptian unrest to this effect and then again - bases 800, bases 800, bases 800 - like a spell
        1. Santa Fe
          9 September 2013 17: 59 New
          0
          Quote: Delta
          yeah, especially in the part - providing air defense of ships, landing troops, large convoys at the passage by sea

          On the territory of Iceland and the Faroe Islands there were about 30 NATO airdromes - the Soviet Tu-22 could not even theoretically break through such an interceptor barrier, convoys in the Atlantic were safe (from the air side, of course, they would have been a full star )

          The second important condition. The bulk of the time the convoy is in the area of ​​coastal aviation: the combat radius of modern jet vehicles is many thousands of kilometers (just don’t talk about the pilots' fatigue - the Khornetov raids from aircraft carriers from the AV in the Arabian Sea to Afghanistan (2001) lasted about 6-10 hours) . Refueling? Not a question - in the presence of 500 air force tankers
          Quote: Delta
          Well, you yourself wrote about the refusal to provide both bases and space. What is left?

          nothing. The operation becomes impossible.

          In the case of Syria, the Yankees have a chance - Turkey and Egypt. DBA and so on. Lancers can be driven even from the USA, using a base in Cyprus - for a modest operation without ground intervention should be enough

          and the refusal to provide bases from Jordan and Iraq is nothing more than a game - if necessary, the Yankees can force anyone, but now they don’t want to fan the scandal in the already slippery situation
          Quote: Delta
          bases 800, bases 800, bases 800 - as a spell

          yes, I am impressed and, in a way, scared by this figure

          Kandahar Air Base
          1. Delta
            Delta 9 September 2013 18: 40 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            if necessary, the Yankees can force anyone

            oh, anyone can! How did they achieve this? only their ICBMs? so Russia also always had ICBMs. In particular - aircraft carriers reached. Bluff or not in our time, but they performed their role. Even without real victories. They were intimidating.
            1. Santa Fe
              9 September 2013 19: 24 New
              0
              Quote: Delta
              oh, anyone can! How did they achieve this?

              dollar - world reserve currency
              Quote: Delta
              Even without real victories. They were intimidating.

              C'mon, you fool around. Yankees intimidated everyone with a "red threat"

              Have you heard of Marshall’s plan?
              Or how did the Yankees build AB Ramstein?))) (Spoiler: slave labor of Germans, Turks and all imported Balkans).

              Japanese occupation, Korean meat grinder - here you have real victories
              Zone of Interest - Oil Middle East - inherited from the British Empire

              AB Ramstein, Kaiserslautern
      2. sashka
        sashka 9 September 2013 19: 13 New
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        These are tasks for the Air Force, not for the Navy.

        One does not interfere with the other ... On the contrary, the aircraft carrier provides support. But he is not the main character .. But when he needs to, he shows his teeth to ensure his environment .. AUG is simply a "pipe" that controls the space with a diameter of 500 kilometers or more around itself and from bottom to space in height .. It’s a difficult task to make your way " inside "..
  20. akv0571
    akv0571 9 September 2013 10: 33 New
    -5
    AUG is a horror story or just a powerful argument of intimidation, often it simply solves its tasks with its presence. (Although this is only for very weak countries)
    1. MG42
      MG42 9 September 2013 15: 55 New
      +5
      Quote: akv0571
      AUG is a horror story or just a powerful argument of intimidation,

      But how can I say if the base is not rented out, and neutral waters are always open ..
      Projection of force + mobility of movement + self-sufficiency ..
  21. Chumich
    Chumich 9 September 2013 10: 42 New
    +1
    I think I’ll be right if I say that every complex technique has problems. Our nuclear submarines, which Russia is rightly proud of, have also been in emergencies many times, they have also burned more than once, and so on. Recall the Komsomolets nuclear submarine of the latest alloy, with a working depth of 1 kilometer! And she drowned. The problem of crowding is not only the problem of aircraft carriers. On the same nuclear submarines - a nuclear reactor, missiles and torpedoes with nuclear warheads and all in one maximally crowded building.

    But about the fact that until there is ground aviation, NATO will not begin to do so. 60, even 100 aircraft will not solve anything
    1. sashka
      sashka 9 September 2013 10: 55 New
      0
      Quote: Chumich
      But about the fact that until there is ground aviation, NATO will not begin to do so. 60, even 100 aircraft will not solve anything

      Aviation has several other tasks. The main task will be solved by another part of this component, which is intended for this .. Two boats with 3000 axes on board, and of course they are always nearby, in the USA there are no fools either ..
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 9 September 2013 11: 26 New
        +5
        Two boats with xnumx axes on board,

        You weren’t mistaken?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. sashka
          sashka 9 September 2013 19: 36 New
          0
          Quote: Wedmak
          You weren’t mistaken?

          I’ve made a mistake .. I turn red and pale .. I apologize .. But this does not change the essence ..
    2. Santa Fe
      9 September 2013 14: 50 New
      0
      Quote: Chumich
      Our nuclear submarines, which Russia is rightly proud of, have also been in emergencies many times, they have also burned more than once, and so on.

      High accident rate of Soviet submarines - this is a completely different case. The reason is mediocre command and poor crew training + insufficient level of tech. development with given characteristics "like a probable adversary"

      If you want honest statistics, take a look at the submarines of the American Navy.
      Not a single major fire or reactor core accident 200 submarines in 60 years of their operation

      2 disasters - Thresher (1963) and Scorpio (1968), at the dawn of the era of the atomic submarine fleet. And that’s all! The rest are purely navigational accidents and minor incidents

      The son of emigrants from the Russian Empire - Hyman (Chaim) Rekover - the father of the American nuclear fleet, one of the most experts in his field: shook the breasts of shipbuilders and contractors, built the best crew training system, personally selected submarine officers - the accident rate dropped to almost scratch
  22. pensioner
    pensioner 9 September 2013 10: 48 New
    +4
    The coalition is breaking up before our eyes
    No, it does not break up. On the contrary! Yesterday in the news they showed: the Lithuanians are beating a hoof in the ground, they want to fight ... The boats have already begun to pump their fighting ...
    1. nov_tech.vrn
      nov_tech.vrn 9 September 2013 11: 48 New
      +3
      well, while these people are inflating their boat, they’ll need help only in the occupation forces, or in the funeral home ...
  23. vadson
    vadson 9 September 2013 10: 50 New
    +6
    Remember when aircraft carriers appeared, and why they were created at that time. Nimble aviation dealt well with enemy surface ships. and there were no anti-aircraft missiles or pkr at that time. aircraft carriers were not intended to promote democracy in individual countries.
    dohrena time passed and the meaning remained the same. if the wing from the aircraft carrier can still fill up a lone ship with air defense, or if the order is tried hard, then iron the mainland with current tactical nuclear warheads you can give odds to the air force
    just from impunity, aspirations drank budget, urine in the head the Yankees began to use aug for other purposes
  24. akv0571
    akv0571 9 September 2013 10: 51 New
    +2
    Well, if the Georgians also subscribe ....
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 9 September 2013 11: 27 New
      +6
      Well, if the Georgians also subscribe ....

      It’s necessary for someone to cook kebabs for NATO soldiers ...
  25. pensioner
    pensioner 9 September 2013 11: 00 New
    +3
    U.S. Navy carrier-based aircraft will crash in accidents
    We wish, we wish ...
  26. _KM_
    _KM_ 9 September 2013 11: 05 New
    +1
    Whatever ill-wishers say, an aircraft carrier is a powerful factor in political pressure. Yes, one aircraft carrier is not able to defeat the enemy. But he is able to cause significant damage to almost any country. And this cannot be ignored.
  27. Samy
    Samy 9 September 2013 11: 05 New
    +6
    For more than 70 years of operation of aircraft carriers in all wars and conflicts, stupid Yankees have not realized that they (aircraft carriers) do not need them. Here is the conclusion from the author’s article.
  28. mitya24
    mitya24 9 September 2013 11: 05 New
    10
    Well, that’s it, Syria can breathe out, Putin can relax and recall the ships back. Following the logic of the article, US NAVY will drown himself. It’s not even just drowning, but first it flounders (by accident) around the White House, the Capitol, the Wesminster, the Champs Elysees, the Bundestag and further on the list.
    It is naive to hope for a case in relation to the American deck flyers, who for generations have been doing their job around the world, accumulating real combat experience.
  29. sashka
    sashka 9 September 2013 11: 05 New
    +6
    We will laugh when everything is over. In the meantime, we can only observe. There are not many options .. However, the Obama will soon become bald from scratching "turnips")))
    1. vostok68
      vostok68 9 September 2013 13: 33 New
      +2
      With his genes, baldness is the last thing he can fear
  30. Muadipus
    Muadipus 9 September 2013 11: 16 New
    +7
    It is time to honestly admit that the aircraft carrier is outdated, as the sailing brigantines, rowing galleys and battleships of the Russo-Japanese War once outdated.


    1. An aircraft carrier is a large floating base that can carry anything. And in the sea, away from their native shores, anything can always be needed. The question is only in application.

    2. That's what, and the Americans have always suffered from a lack of good strategists and tactics. For this reason, they at one time did not believe in the need for armored forces, they also ignored the development of nuclear weapons, there are many examples ... The fact is that American culture would have long been degraded without emigrants. They are raised on the bravado of cowboy films. On the one hand, the environment is built on the survival of everyone alone in the financial world, on the other hand, it is very difficult to starve to death, so wherever the wit comes from. An endless stream of dollars - cheating giving a constant flow of resources. Well, they drowned several dozen planes, little things .. they’ll put new ones, the defense industry will earn extra money.

    3. Aircraft carriers - effective for providing air support to naval assault forces. They were made for this. However, like any other type of army or type of weapon, it can only be effective when interacting with other types. it's like a tank without infantry.

    4. Nice to read about the failures of the enemy. The gloating triumphs. But there is also envy, because we will be fair. We have nothing to compare with, we do not have such an aircraft-carrying fleet, so that it is not yet known how ours would squint. Probably less, but they would squint the stopuds.
  31. antonio
    antonio 9 September 2013 11: 31 New
    +7
    The author is engaged in complacency and amuses himself with false hopes about the imaginary inefficiency and vulnerability of AUG. Right rhetoric of one destroyer and enemy of the fleet Khrushchev N.S. which aircraft carriers are "weapons of imperialist aggression." And the indicators of non-combat losses are always high, below quote:

    “The question of the relationship between military and non-combat casualties in war and accident rate in peacetime deserves separate studies. It can be unequivocally stated that the more the complexity of combat training approaches the demand for war, the more accident rate increases in peacetime. But in a war, this state of the air force allows to a much greater extent reduce the number of combat and non-combat losses. I’m not talking about fulfilling the tasks that may not be possible with a low level of training. It should be noted that in any war the percentage is not combat losses of aviation are high.In the Great Patriotic War, out of 106,4 thousand aircraft lost by the Soviet Air Force, non-combat losses amounted to 60,3 thousand (!), the level of non-combat losses of the German Air Force is estimated at 40-50%, the pilots of which, if not downplayed, had an average higher level of training. "
  32. Muxalet
    Muxalet 9 September 2013 11: 35 New
    +2
    No less than an extraordinary park at the airfields, just the consequences are not so terrible. The main problem for an aircraft carrier and aircraft flights is the sea waves, 3 balls and flights are closed, you can take off ... but landing ...? And the question is urgently how to board the damaged to the plane. Without ground-based airfields, carrier-based aviation performs an intelligence and defense function. And the main function of aircraft carriers is, after all, operations are not ground-based but sea-driven — to chase and sink enemy ships and boats, and 80% of ammunition and electronics are designed specifically for these purposes.
    To scare, make some noise, yes, but there’s nothing serious. For this there is the “Tomahawks” —but again they are useless for purposes that change the location.
    1. Santa Fe
      9 September 2013 15: 06 New
      0
      Quote: Muxalet
      there are “Tomahawks” —but again they are useless for purposes that change location.

      Tomahawk Block IV - Able to reprogram in flight, the modern "Ax" received a standby mode in the air and the ability to hit moving targets

      19th Ohio submarine mine, total boat carrying 22 axes in 154 mines
  33. Alikovo
    Alikovo 9 September 2013 11: 52 New
    +1
    Americans themselves are enemies, for the loss of aircraft do not need to look for enemies, I wonder how they did not manage to sink the aircraft carrier.
  34. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 9 September 2013 11: 58 New
    0
    Well, they want to bomb missile systems from cruisers ... AUG is only a cover group ...
    1. iSpoiler
      iSpoiler 9 September 2013 13: 44 New
      +3
      Most likely it will be like in Libya, 3-4 submarines of the Los Angeles type will come up, release the entire ammunition of the Tomahawks, further destroyers, also with the Tomahawks. Well, even though there is no grass to grow, aircraft carriers will come up and iron everything that moves with airplanes. Alone, an aircraft carrier does nothing there..How many more Syrians have “yachons” left, only God knows. Timely and successful salvo of 5-6 missiles will not leave even from the owner nothing above the waterline.)
      But as usual IMHO mine.))
      1. Santa Fe
        9 September 2013 15: 09 New
        0
        Quote: iSpoiler
        like Los Angeles, they’ll release the entire Tomahawk ammunition,

        Hardest Ohio Harnesses
  35. mike_z
    mike_z 9 September 2013 12: 22 New
    +9
    Commenting this article with some scientific, tactical, historical calculations is simply not interesting. Information seized from open sources that does not illustrate anything at all, and even outdated. If I personally did not have to participate in tracking Eisenhower, Nimitz, America in Middle-earth, I might have been silent. But I had to ... They are good sailors and pilots, it's true. Organization of take-offs and landings is about 20 times better than ours at the Kuz, then even the late Timur Avtandilovich Apakidze admitted this, with sadness in his voice and undisguised frustration, but he acknowledged. What will happen there and how to act strategically and tactically is not my watch, I am a mechanic. But to pass off a series of cases during the BP as statistics and draw from this the conclusion that the aircraft carriers are not applicable in the impending conflict - amateurism and populism, at least. Almost the same as the arguments about the military clash between Russia and the United States over Syria.
    1. 0255
      0255 9 September 2013 17: 20 New
      +1
      Organization of take-offs and landings is 20 times better than ours at Kuz

      this is because their aircraft carriers appeared before WW2, and the USSR - in the late 1970s for the Yak-38. Kuzya was commissioned in 1991. At the end of the 1980s, Varyag and Ulyanovsk TAKRs began to be built - but thanks to perestroika and Gorbachev, the Varyag were sold to China, and Ulyanovsk was cut into metal. Clearly, Americans have more experience.
      Soviet aircraft carriers, starting from Minsk and ending with Varyag, were intended to protect their ships, and not to bombard unwanted countries. So, I probably agree with the author - there is nothing for the Nimitz to do in Syria.
      After the war with Japan in the Pacific Ocean, the US Navy did not meet worthy rivals. His only serious rival was the Soviet Navy, which they did not even try to attack.
      During the Korean War in the USSR, there was a plan to launch PKRs with Tu-4s against American aircraft carriers, but they were afraid that the Korean war would grow into World War III. The USSR could supply the Vietnamese with Tu-16 and Tu-22 with anti-ship missiles, and it is not a fact that US aircraft carriers would return home.
  36. Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 9 September 2013 12: 42 New
    +7
    Some kind of anti-avian article.
    In my opinion, everything is not so flat ...
  37. Kibalchish
    Kibalchish 9 September 2013 13: 10 New
    +5
    Can the Nimitz aircraft carrier attack Syria?


    Like a joke. Uncle can I jump from the roof. You can, boy, but only once ...
  38. EtickayaSila
    EtickayaSila 9 September 2013 13: 36 New
    +2
    And I want to sincerely wish our American "friends" such catastrophes (and maybe not similar, but in bold and thicker), more often, more, worse!
  39. 006 Feliks
    006 Feliks 9 September 2013 13: 38 New
    +3
    The article is in fact an interesting one, from the side of statistics and the failures of the American deck air force. And at the same time, the article is optimistic for us and joyful for the suffering Syria!
    Here is also one fact - one aircraft carrier Washington makes a raid per year about 3000 hours, this is a very excellent preparation for carrier-based aviation! For comparison, such a raid on the clock is not done by every static-based fighter regiment in our country, but now you know this trend is increasing every year and the level of our pilots is undoubtedly increasing, but this is not about that.
    I mean, the aircraft carriers will undoubtedly make a significant contribution to the war in Syria.
    1. Santa Fe
      9 September 2013 15: 11 New
      -3
      Quote: 006 Feliks
      Here is one fact - one aircraft carrier Washington makes a raid per year of about 3000 hours

      Think these fly less?

      Aircraft carrier Washington is a wimp compared to the Air Force
      1. avt
        avt 9 September 2013 16: 06 New
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Think these fly less?

        Aircraft carrier Washington is a wimp compared to the Air Force

        laughing Strongly! Powerfully pushed back!laughing Just as in childhood we decided to tackle the question - boy, who do you love more, mom or dad? laughing Or maybe all the same, these are components of something one whole and completely complement each other? Although vseravno - death to aircraft carriers! laughing
        1. Santa Fe
          9 September 2013 16: 19 New
          -2
          Quote: avt
          Or maybe all the same, these are components of something one whole and completely complement each other?

          10 and 90 are two VERY unequal parts

          I'm talking about the ratio of sorties in modern local wars (10% - deck, 90% - Air Force).

          Everything here is so transparent that you have to be very naive to not see the point - the Yankees drive AB only because they built them and they need to be used at least somewhere (otherwise the Pentagon is waiting for a reduction, a bunch of admirals will fly off their seats)
          1. Delta
            Delta 9 September 2013 16: 58 New
            +4
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            10 and 90 are two VERY unequal parts

            EVEN, if so, it’s about like a pawn compared to the strength of a rook. Can the pawns be removed from the chessboard then? although I would not compare pawns with aircraft carriers
            1. Santa Fe
              9 September 2013 18: 14 New
              -1
              Quote: Delta
              EVEN if so, it’s about like a pawn compared to the strength of a rook

              Wow!
              the strength of the pawns is that there are many of them and they are connected to each other, and the six in them are hardly equal to one pawn (this is me about the Desert Storm)

              What is a single or isolated pawn? - nothing, five turns corpse

              If so, then the pawns are destroyers with Tomahawks, and the Ohio PLARK are generally passing pawns)))
              Quote: Delta
              although I would not compare pawns with aircraft carriers

              Yes, from the position of Amer propaganda, they pull on the whole queen))
  40. King
    King 9 September 2013 13: 45 New
    +4
    it would be nice to see how yachts stoke the American fthol.
  41. Lawless
    Lawless 9 September 2013 13: 52 New
    +3
    In the USSR, the emphasis was not on carrier groups, like amers, but on the submarine fleet, long-range aviation and ballistic missiles. We conclude: who next looked at the wars of the future?
  42. ivanpetroffua
    ivanpetroffua 9 September 2013 13: 58 New
    +2
    - I saw how a soldier was drawn into the engine of an airplane — it flew from the other end — and survived.
    )) I will assume that you work in a field unrelated to technology, miracles do not happen. The man was stuck and the remnants of the helmet, gloves and engine flew out from just the other side.
  43. Cormorants
    Cormorants 9 September 2013 13: 59 New
    +2
    In any case, Russia needs to have a couple of modern AUGs.
  44. Maks-80
    Maks-80 9 September 2013 14: 14 New
    +1
    More Americans disasters big and different.
  45. nightingale
    nightingale 9 September 2013 14: 41 New
    +5
    in general, the aircraft carrier is designed to protect maritime communications from counteraction to the transfer of supply arms troops, etc. with the collapse of the union, they did not defend themselves against anyone, but the amers are trying to find at least some use for them.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Santa Fe
      9 September 2013 15: 18 New
      +1
      Quote: nightingale
      The aircraft carrier is designed to protect maritime communications from counteraction to the transfer of supply arms troops, etc.

      the main striking force of the USSR Navy is submarines, and Nimitz was of little use against them. To protect against submarines, ships with GAS and PLUR are needed - hundreds of frigates and destroyers + base "Orions"

      ASROK anti-submarine missile system aboard USS O'Bannon (DD-987)
      1. mike_z
        mike_z 9 September 2013 16: 59 New
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        submarines, and against them Nimitz was of little use. To protect against submarines, ships with GAS and PLUR are needed


        The most effective means of destroying submarines was and remains anti-submarine aviation. The task of those ships about which you write, i.e. anti-submariners - to detect, maintain contact for at least a minute or two and give target designation to winged friends (after that, BOD can even be dissolved, he completed his task), and they will complete the job. If PLO aircraft are based on an aircraft skeleton, then ... you yourself understand, the closer, the faster.
        But the main task of the anti-submarine ... to sleep with the wife of the submariner :))
        1. Santa Fe
          9 September 2013 18: 19 New
          -2
          Quote: mike_z
          The most effective means of destroying submarines was and remains anti-submarine aviation

          Do not lie.
          according to some reports, PL-turntables are not able to work with excitement over 5 points (they can take off, but lower their “snot” - towing GAS - no)

          the most reliable tool in modern conditions - GAS and PLUR
          Quote: mike_z
          If PLO aircraft are based on an aircraft skeleton, then ... you yourself understand, the closer, the faster.

          The last deck aircraft PLO Yankees decommissioned in 2003
          Quote: mike_z
          But the main task of the anti-submarine ... to sleep with the wife of the submariner :))

          The reckoning will be cruel
          1. mike_z
            mike_z 9 September 2013 20: 53 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Do not lie.
            according to some reports, PL-turntables are not able to work with excitement over 5 points (they can take off, but lower their “snot” - towing GAS - no)


            If I lie, then the textbooks lie on which we, the mechanics, were taught at the BSF department (not specialized) and those admirals who commanded 7 OpESk, at whose headquarters I had the honor to serve, and we were also taught and fought regardless of specialty, like squid goats (especially Dobroskochenko and Radzevsky). But this is not the point - I wrote and highlighted - destruction. And GAS lowers the helicopter for detection, we agreed that the submarine has already been detected by the BOD. The turntables didn’t mean - but the planes with depth charges, (where are the turntables here? ..) I don’t know what the Amer’s are, I don’t follow, and we still have anti-submarine aircraft, they feel pretty good and even know how to fly with Kuzi and sit on it. But what would the adversary not have anti-submarine aviation (aircraft) ... ??! This is let someone else knowing comment. I doubt it.
            1. Santa Fe
              9 September 2013 21: 03 New
              -1
              Quote: mike_z
              We agreed that the submarine already detected BOD

              this is actually the main problem.

              And with the discovered, lost stealth, the boat will be separated without problems - anti-submarine missile torpedoes - Asrok, Blizzard, Rastrub-B, the nuclear Whirlwind in the end

              minimum reaction time, parasolonic flight speed - faster than any turntable and PLO aircraft
              Quote: mike_z
              we have anti-submarine aircraft still alive, it feels rather good and even knows how to fly with Kuzi and land on it

              helicopter Ka-27PL

              can be used on warships of all main classes - to corvettes
              Quote: mike_z
              But what would the adversary not have anti-submarine aviation (aircraft) ... ??!

              Why is there - the basic "Orions" and "Poseidons" based on the passenger Boeing-737
      2. iSpoiler
        iSpoiler 10 September 2013 07: 23 New
        0
        Antisubmarine Pkr p700 Granite lol
  46. The Indian Joe
    The Indian Joe 9 September 2013 15: 03 New
    +1
    I read the article and watched the video, with HUGE pleasure! I put you a big plus!
  47. de bouillon
    de bouillon 9 September 2013 15: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: de bouillon
    there was no more 2 AUG or even just one .. And what could they do according to the author ??



    Which, in principle, was required to prove)))))
    10 billions of bucks - and from them it turns out to be smooth bribes)))


    are you ?? or pretend to be?

    I clearly wrote: August 1990 years the date of the invasion of Saddam's troops in Kuwait!

    the beginning of the operation of the United States and its Western allies on January 17, 1991. From August 1990 to January 1991, the United States not only transferred its ground aircraft to the Persian Gulf, but also carrier-based aircraft, when the number of AUGs was brought to 6!

    and at the time of August 1990, the United States was not at war with Iraq. So what could aircraft carriers do then ?? Nothing. The United States did not have a plan or justification for the war. Besides the cries of indignation.

    everyone was waiting for the UN resolution. And it came only on November 29, 1990.
    1. Santa Fe
      9 September 2013 15: 32 New
      -3
      Quote: de bouillon
      when the number of AUG was brought to 6!

      and how many departures in% ratio to the coalition aviation completed these six pans?
      Quote: de bouillon
      at the time of August 1990, the United States was not at war with Iraq.

      Well, well, before that 5 years we were fighting with Iraq, escalating tensions in the Persian Gulf ... and did not have time to work out a plan for the case of force majeure in the CRITICAL IMPORTANT REGION for the USA

      The shooting of the American frigate "Stark" by the Iraqi Air Force, 1987


      Quote: de bouillon
      So what could aircraft carriers do then ?? Nothing. The United States did not have a plan or justification for the war. Besides the cries of indignation.

      Then why do we need floating airfields? Where is their notorious "mobility" and "efficiency"? Where is the "projection of power" anywhere in the world in the shortest possible time?
      Quote: de bouillon
      And it came only on November 29, 1990.

      And the war began on February 17, 1991
      another 2,5 months waited

      By the way, the transfer of American units to the Persian Gulf region began in August 1990.
  48. de bouillon
    de bouillon 9 September 2013 15: 06 New
    +4
    By the way, the number of such disasters has now decreased significantly.

    years have passed. a lot has changed. tightened safety rules, improved technology
  49. kostya_a
    kostya_a 9 September 2013 15: 07 New
    +1
    It seems to me that now AUGs are used to conduct and support local special operations. For example, plant a group of specialists who will conduct reconnaissance or sabotage operations. Further, the implementation of support, cover, followed by evacuation. If on a larger scale, then for the initial stage of the invasion of a bridgehead. Something like this!
    1. Santa Fe
      9 September 2013 15: 38 New
      0
      Quote: kostya_a
      For example, plant a group of specialists who will conduct reconnaissance or sabotage operations


      The converted Ohio submarine has space for 66 fur seals + two lock chambers (instead of rocket mines No. 1 and No. 2) + 8 mines for storing diving and special equipment + Dry Deck Shelter for mini-sumarines and other bulky special equipment

      And of course, the stealth of the boat is higher than that of any surface ship
  50. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 9 September 2013 15: 24 New
    +2
    But can the F-18 carry tactical nuclear weapons, if maybe it’s not such a harmless vessel. Yes, and in Syria, I think the Yankees will play the main role for their hollow axes.
    1. 0255
      0255 9 September 2013 17: 26 New
      +1
      But can the F-18 carry tactical nuclear weapons, if maybe it’s not such a harmless vessel.

      why should the Americans use nuclear weapons in Syria? to export radioactive oil from Syria? they have enough of ordinary bombs