Red storm. Can the Nimitz aircraft carrier attack Syria?

127
Red storm. Can the Nimitz aircraft carrier 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.

Finale

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/
127 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +21
    9 September 2013 08: 32
    A strange article with strange findings. I would say stupid.
    1. +18
      9 September 2013 09: 26
      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 do not feel sad, but hope that they will not have to hang out in the Syrian sky on parachutes and watch their birds make a "hard landing" in the absence of a pilot ...
    2. avt
      +27
      9 September 2013 09: 48
      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. +8
        9 September 2013 10: 43
        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. +3
          9 September 2013 13: 32
          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
            +3
            9 September 2013 14: 18
            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
        +4
        9 September 2013 20: 39
        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. +16
      9 September 2013 11: 30
      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 no secret that in all conflicts, all US AUGs stood quietly on the sidelines, "smoked". As always, they waited for the "play" to begin. So to speak, they play the role of a scarecrow. For example, I would have thought on the site of the Syrian leadership, how to deprive the flying "pigeons" of the Dovecote. That's where the shame for the United States will be.
    4. +16
      9 September 2013 11: 35
      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
        +3
        9 September 2013 14: 19
        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
        +7
        9 September 2013 15: 09
        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. +3
          9 September 2013 16: 40
          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
      +3
      9 September 2013 15: 26
      I completely agree. The article is, to put it mildly, strange.
    6. Hug
      +1
      9 September 2013 15: 29
      The impression is that the author of the "sent Cossack" - so skillfully and persistently makes anti-advertising to aircraft carriers, so that the Russian Navy abandoned the idea of ​​building aircraft carriers in the bud.
      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. +3
        9 September 2013 16: 50
        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. +3
          9 September 2013 17: 32
          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
      +7
      9 September 2013 15: 34
      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 the Americans borrow from themselves, pushing their "green" into central banks around the world, so who pays for this needs to be figured out more ..
  2. +31
    9 September 2013 08: 39
    )) The author’s emphasis is familiar. smile The article is interesting, albeit controversial. But it is a fact that the US aircraft carriers alone will not take them out. So, the author's phrase - "The Syrians can sleep well - until the US Air Force arrives at the airbases in the Middle East - there will be no war," is 100% correct. Maximum, massive rocket fire from ships and submarines.
    1. +6
      9 September 2013 13: 03
      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. +3
        9 September 2013 14: 19
        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 "J. Washington" and 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 cities - "George Washington" is who the Soviet admirals were really afraid of. And made every effort to neutralize them
  3. -8
    9 September 2013 08: 43
    Cheap scribbling from the series, "The Americans are not as good as they say." Wow, how pathetic these things look ... It doesn't matter what happened to them, I saw how a soldier was sucked into the plane's engine, he flew out with the other end, and survived. So what? The aircraft carrier, let "Nimitz", let the catapult work poorly, and let their sailors not know how to do anything, the aircraft carrier was and is the strongest strike force, capable of single-handedly changing the political situation in the region. under the conditions of interaction with other components (submarines, satellites, etc.) - so that there is nothing to drive ... face the truth, an aircraft carrier alone can destroy an entire state.
    1. +11
      9 September 2013 09: 20
      Quote: mirag2
      the aircraft carrier was and is the strongest striking force capable of single-handedly changing the political situation in the region

      Good morning Dear, well, "do not 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 can we talk about ???
    2. +20
      9 September 2013 09: 24
      The aircraft carrier, let "Nimitz", let the catapult work poorly, and let their sailors not know how to do anything, the aircraft carrier was and is the strongest strike force capable of single-handedly changing the political situation in the region.

      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. +3
      9 September 2013 10: 23
      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. 0
      9 September 2013 10: 43
      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. +3
        9 September 2013 14: 28
        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. +1
          14 September 2013 03: 12
          when he got out he said the engine was examined there were no comments!
      2. 0
        10 September 2013 00: 30
        Probably like in the second "Die Hard" - flew into the engine and flew out from the other side, but ... in the form of minced meat!
    5. vladsolo56
      +3
      9 September 2013 15: 11
      Phrases such as cheap scribble do not add respect to their author.
  4. +7
    9 September 2013 08: 43
    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. +8
    9 September 2013 08: 45
    Well, "supporters of aircraft carriers" have already minus. Well, really, without support from ground airfields, AUG will not be able to provide a "no-fly zone" zone. Moreover, where there is air defense.
  6. Asan Ata
    +4
    9 September 2013 08: 55
    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. +8
      9 September 2013 09: 00
      + 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. +3
    9 September 2013 08: 56
    It’s not so simple. But the pictures are good.
  8. +5
    9 September 2013 09: 03
    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
    +12
    9 September 2013 09: 23
    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. +2
      9 September 2013 09: 53
      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. -1
      9 September 2013 16: 13
      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

      Afghan is nonsense, for the "democratization" of such a country it is not necessary to have Nimitz, 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 longtime ally Pakistan and deploy combat 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.


      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. +5
    9 September 2013 09: 23
    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
      -6
      9 September 2013 10: 21
      Considering the range of Syrian coastal complexes closer than 300 km, an aircraft carrier will not fit, and further aircraft carrier "hornets" will not reach.
      1. MG42
        +5
        9 September 2013 16: 04
        Quote: 77bob1973
        Given the range of Syria's coastal complexes closer than 300 km, an aircraft carrier will not fit, and further aircraft 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
          0
          9 September 2013 21: 43
          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. +1
      9 September 2013 10: 42
      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. +3
    9 September 2013 09: 50
    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. +6
    9 September 2013 09: 54
    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. +3
    9 September 2013 09: 58
    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 Hornets look like a laughingstock against the background of the F-16? When there was a competition between YF-16 and YF-17, the pilots liked the YF-17 more. The Northrop designers 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. 0
      9 September 2013 10: 55
      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. -1
      9 September 2013 14: 34
      Quote: 0255
      why do Hornets look like a laughingstock against the background 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. +3
        9 September 2013 16: 48
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        why do Hornets look like a laughingstock against the background of the F-16?

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

        so you can call them a laughing stock? especially compared to the F-16? it would be possible if their performance characteristics were SIGNIFICANTLY different in a direction disadvantageous to the Hornets. Cheap F-16? only 5 million. Yes, the Hornet is inferior in some parameters, but at the same time, the Hornet has a larger combat radius, the combat load is greater ...
        1. 0
          9 September 2013 17: 44
          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 parameters, but at the same time, the Hornet has a larger combat radius, the combat load is greater ...

          Delta, where a really large combat radius and special capabilities are needed - this is a task for the F-15C, F-15E, Raptors 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. 0
            9 September 2013 18: 32
            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. 0
              9 September 2013 18: 57
              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, Super Hornet's flyaway cost 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's pilot seems to be saying wtf ???
          2. +1
            9 September 2013 18: 36
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            where a really large combat radius and special capabilities are needed - this is a task for the F-15C, F-15E, Raptors and other monsters of the Air Force + 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. 0
              9 September 2013 19: 10
              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
      +7
      9 September 2013 15: 29
      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 aircraft carrier Saratoga, 8 F / A-18s rose under the command of Lt. Col. Mark Fox. The target is an airfield in western Iraq. When the object was 50 km away and the pilots prepared for the attack, the E-2 Hawkeye AWACS aircraft reported on the approach of a group of Iraqi MiGs on a collision course. The Hornets prepared for air combat, switched their armament to the fighter variant, and changed the programs in the on-board computers. Hornets' radars detected two enemy aircraft at a distance of 15 km. It turned out to be a Chinese-made MiG-21. The battle lasted just a few seconds. Colonel Fox and his wingman Lieutenant Mejill fired a Sidewinder missile at a time, destroying both MiGs. And the Hornets returned to the main task. During the attack on the airfield, one of them fired a Sparrow at a MiG-23 taking off and destroyed it. But an Iraqi S-75 surface-to-air missile also shot down one F / A-18. On the roadstead of Kuwait, the Hornets attacked several armed boats. As a result, 4 boats were sunk, 3 were damaged. In total, 7 Hornets were lost in Operation Desert Storm. The pilots of two of them managed to eject.

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

      The F-16A aircraft of the Pakistani Air Force participated in military 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-bombers of the DRA Air Force, as well as the Soviet Air Force Su-25 attack aircraft, piloted by Colonel Rutskoi. During a combat mission, the Su-25 briefly invaded Pakistani airspace and was attacked by F-16A, which approached at low altitude. Moreover, in the same battle, the Pakistanis themselves missed two MiG-23MLD, which covered the attack aircraft. One of the Soviet MiG-23s near the border with Pakistan destroyed the Fighting Falcon with an air-to-air missile. During the fighting in the Persian Gulf, the US Air Force deployed in theater of operations had 249 F-16A aircraft, which were used as attack aircraft, and F-16C, which were used as fighter-bombers. These aircraft made 13 sorties, mainly to strike ground targets with conventional free-fall bombs and the Maevrik missile launcher. According to American official figures, six vehicles were lost to fire from the ground. Meanwhile, an objective analysis of the statistics of US aviation losses in 500 indicates that the true losses amounted to 1991 aircraft. In early 20, a US Air Force F-1992C shot down an Iraqi MiG-16P interceptor fighter that had invaded a "no-go" zone in northern Iraq. At the same time, for the first time on the Fighting Folkone, new medium-range missiles AIM-25 AMRAAM were used. In Yugoslavia, a Dutch pilot in an F-120AM shot down a MiG-16. According to NATO representatives, one Serbian MIG-29 was shot down on takeoff by an anti-radar missile on May 29 AGM-4 HARM, launched from an F-88CLBBCCUJA fighter. In turn, Serbian anti-aircraft gunners managed to shoot down 16 American F-2s: one in 16. one in 1994 (losses confirmed by NATO)
  14. +1
    9 September 2013 10: 00
    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. +1
    9 September 2013 10: 24
    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. -1
    9 September 2013 10: 27
    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. +1
      9 September 2013 14: 06
      One - two submarines, which will cost less than an aircraft carrier, and even more so AUG and aircraft carrier will end)
      1. MG42
        +4
        9 September 2013 16: 02
        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
    +1
    9 September 2013 10: 27
    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
    +4
    9 September 2013 10: 31
    The article is absolutely out of topic and out of place. If the author intended to scare the Americans, he would send his opus to some state "topvar". To me, too, the discovery, - disasters while maintaining the database. The author would know that in our Air Force during the Great Patriotic War there was a fairly high percentage of non-combat losses. If the Americans do not start a war now, they are stupidly a scribe. For to swing and not to hit is to be defeated. And they, by and large, do not care what will happen in BV: if only to start a fight, and then let the natives beat each other.
  19. sashka
    +9
    9 September 2013 10: 32
    The aircraft carrier on its own and does not go anywhere. There is still a huge crowd around 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. -3
      9 September 2013 14: 41
      Quote: Sasha
      - striking at objects located on the sea coast and in the interior of the enemy;

      The Yankees themselves considered that it was easier and cheaper to shoot the 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. +2
        9 September 2013 16: 55
        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. 0
          9 September 2013 17: 59
          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. +1
            9 September 2013 18: 40
            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. 0
              9 September 2013 19: 24
              Quote: Delta
              oh, anyone can! How did they achieve this?

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

              Come on, talk about it. Yankees intimidated everyone with the "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
        +5
        9 September 2013 19: 13
        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 necessary, he shows his teeth to ensure his surroundings .. AUG, in simple terms, is a "pipe" that controls space in a diameter of 500 kilometers or more around him and a height from the bottom to space .. It's hard to get through " inside "..
  20. -5
    9 September 2013 10: 33
    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
      +5
      9 September 2013 15: 55
      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
    +1
    9 September 2013 10: 42
    I think I'll be right if I say that every complex technique has problems. Our nuclear submarines, which Russia is rightfully proud of, have also been in emergency situations many times, they have also burned more than once, and so on. Remember that the nuclear submarine "Komsomolets" is made of the newest alloy, with a working depth of 1 kilometer! And she drowned. Crowding is not just a problem with aircraft carriers. On the same nuclear submarines - a nuclear reactor, missiles and torpedoes with nuclear warheads, and all in one maximally crowded hull.

    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
      0
      9 September 2013 10: 55
      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. +5
        9 September 2013 11: 26
        Two boats with xnumx axes on board,

        You weren’t mistaken?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. sashka
          0
          9 September 2013 19: 36
          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. 0
      9 September 2013 14: 50
      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 technical level. development with the given characteristics "like a potential enemy"

      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. +4
    9 September 2013 10: 48
    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. +3
      9 September 2013 11: 48
      well, while these people are inflating their boat, they’ll need help only in the occupation forces, or in the funeral home ...
  23. +6
    9 September 2013 10: 50
    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. +2
    9 September 2013 10: 51
    Well, if the Georgians also subscribe ....
    1. +6
      9 September 2013 11: 27
      Well, if the Georgians also subscribe ....

      It’s necessary for someone to cook kebabs for NATO soldiers ...
  25. +3
    9 September 2013 11: 00
    U.S. Navy carrier-based aircraft will crash in accidents
    We wish, we wish ...
  26. +1
    9 September 2013 11: 05
    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. +6
    9 September 2013 11: 05
    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. +10
    9 September 2013 11: 05
    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
    +6
    9 September 2013 11: 05
    We'll laugh when it's over. In the meantime, we can only observe. There are not so many options .. However, the frame will turn bald soon from scratching "turnips")))
    1. +2
      9 September 2013 13: 33
      With his genes, baldness is the last thing he can fear
  30. +7
    9 September 2013 11: 16
    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
    +7
    9 September 2013 11: 31
    The author is engaged in complacency and flatters himself with false hopes about the alleged inefficiency and vulnerability of AUG. Directly the 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 is the quote:

    "The question of the ratio of combat and non-combat losses in wartime and accidents in peacetime deserves separate research. It can be unequivocally stated that the more the complexity of combat training approaches the requirement of war, the more accidents in peacetime increase. But in war, this state of the Air Force allows to a much greater extent to reduce the number of combat and non-combat losses. I am not talking about the implementation of the tasks, which may be impossible with a low level of training. It should be noted that in any war the percentage of non-combat aviation losses is high. In the Great Patriotic War of 106,4 thousand lost Soviet Air Force aircraft 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 underestimate, had on average a higher level of training. "
  32. +2
    9 September 2013 11: 35
    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, to make some noise is yes, but there is nothing serious. For this there are "Tomahawks", but again they are useless for changing deployment targets.
    1. 0
      9 September 2013 15: 06
      Quote: Muxalet
      there are "Tomahawks" - but again they are useless for changing deployment targets.

      Tomahawk Block IV - can be reprogrammed in flight, the modern "Ax" received a standby mode in the air and the ability to defeat moving targets

      19th mine SSGN "Ohio", in total, the boat carries 22 axes in 154 mines
  33. Alikovo
    +1
    9 September 2013 11: 52
    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. 0
    9 September 2013 11: 58
    Well, they want to bomb missile systems from cruisers ... AUG is only a cover group ...
    1. iSpoiler
      +3
      9 September 2013 13: 44
      Most likely, it will be like in Libya, 3-4 submarines of the Los Angeles type will surface, release the entire ammunition load of tomahawks, then destroyers, also with tomahawks. Well, at least the grass won't grow there - aircraft carriers will do and will iron out everything that moves the planes. Alone, an aircraft carrier does not fucking do there .. God only knows how many Yahonts still have left for the Syrians. A well-timed and successful salvo of 5-6 missiles will not leave anything above the waterline even from them.)
      But as usual IMHO mine.))
      1. 0
        9 September 2013 15: 09
        Quote: iSpoiler
        like Los Angeles, they’ll release the entire Tomahawk ammunition,

        Hardest of all tourniquet "Ohio"
  35. +9
    9 September 2013 12: 22
    It is simply not interesting to comment on this article with some kind of scientific, tactical, historical calculations. Information taken from open sources, which does not illustrate anything at all, and even outdated. If I personally did not have to participate in tracking the "Eisenhower", "Nimitz", "America" ​​in Mediterranean, maybe I would have kept silent. But I had to ... They are good sailors and pilots, it's true. The organization of takeoffs and landings is 20 times better than ours on the Kuza, this was admitted then even by the now late Timur Avtandilovich Apakidze, with sadness in his voice and unconcealed annoyance, but admitted. What will happen there and how to act strategically and tactically - not my watch, I am a mechanic. But to pass off a series of cases during BP as statistics and draw a conclusion from this about the inapplicability of aircraft carriers in an impending conflict is amateurishness and populism, to say the least. Almost the same as the reasoning about the military clash between Russia and the United States over Syria.
    1. +1
      9 September 2013 17: 20
      The organization of takeoffs and landings is 20 times better than ours on Kuza

      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. In the late 1980s, the construction of the aircraft carrier "Varyag" and "Ulyanovsk" began - but thanks to perestroika and Gorbachev, "Varyag" was sold to China, "Ulyanovsk" was cut into metal. Obviously, Americans have more experience.
      Soviet aircraft carriers ranging from "Minsk" to "Varyag" were intended to protect their ships, and not to bomb unwanted countries. So, probably, I agree with the author - there is nothing for "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
    +7
    9 September 2013 12: 42
    Some kind of anti-avian article.
    In my opinion, everything is not so flat ...
  37. +5
    9 September 2013 13: 10
    Will the aircraft carrier Nimitz be able to attack Syria?


    Like a joke. Uncle can I jump from the roof. You can, boy, but only once ...
  38. +2
    9 September 2013 13: 36
    And I want to sincerely wish our American "friends" similar disasters (or maybe not similar, but fatter and thicker), more often, more, more terrible!
  39. +3
    9 September 2013 13: 38
    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. -3
      9 September 2013 15: 11
      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
        +4
        9 September 2013 16: 06
        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. -2
          9 September 2013 16: 19
          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. +4
            9 September 2013 16: 58
            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. -1
              9 September 2013 18: 14
              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. +4
    9 September 2013 13: 45
    it would be nice to see how yachts stoke the American fthol.
  41. +3
    9 September 2013 13: 52
    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
    +2
    9 September 2013 13: 58
    - 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. +2
    9 September 2013 13: 59
    In any case, Russia needs to have a couple of modern AUGs.
  44. +1
    9 September 2013 14: 14
    More Americans disasters big and different.
  45. +5
    9 September 2013 14: 41
    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. +1
      9 September 2013 15: 18
      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 was submarines, and against them Nimitz was of little use. To protect against submarines, ships with GAS and PLUR are needed - hundreds of frigates and destroyers + base "Orions"

      ASROK anti-submarine missile system aboard the USS O'Bannon destroyer (DD-987)
      1. +3
        9 September 2013 16: 59
        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. -2
          9 September 2013 18: 19
          Quote: mike_z
          The most effective means of destroying submarines was and remains anti-submarine aviation

          Do not lie.
          according to some reports, the submarine turntables are not capable of operating in the excitement of more than 5 points (they can take off, but they cannot lower their "snot" - when towing the 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. +1
            9 September 2013 20: 53
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Do not lie.
            according to some reports, the submarine turntables are not capable of operating in the excitement of more than 5 points (they can take off, but they cannot lower their "snot" - when towing the GAS - no)


            If I'm lying, then the textbooks are lying according to which we, mechanics, were taught at the BSF department (not specialized) and those admirals who commanded 7 OpEsk, in whose headquarters I had the honor to serve, and they also taught us and beat us regardless of our specialty, like sidor goats (especially Dobroskochenko and Radzevsky). But that is not the point - I wrote and emphasized - destruction. And the helicopter lowers the GAS for detection, we have agreed that the submarine has already been detected by the BPKashka. I didn’t mean the turntables - but the planes with depth charges, (and what about turntables? ..) I don’t know about the amers, I don’t follow, but our anti-submarine aviation is still alive, it seems like it feels good and even knows how to fly with the Kuzi and sit on it. But what would the foe not have anti-submarine aviation (aircraft) ... ??! Let someone else in the know comment on this. I doubt it.
            1. -1
              9 September 2013 21: 03
              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
              our anti-submarine aircraft is still alive, it seems to be feeling pretty good and even knows how to fly with the Kuzi and sit 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, there are - base "Orions" and "Poseidons" based on the passenger Boeing-737
      2. iSpoiler
        0
        10 September 2013 07: 23
        Antisubmarine Pkr p700 Granite lol
  46. The Indian Joe
    +1
    9 September 2013 15: 03
    I read the article and watched the video, with HUGE pleasure! I put you a big plus!
  47. de bouillon
    +1
    9 September 2013 15: 03
    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. -3
      9 September 2013 15: 32
      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

      shooting of the American frigate "Stark" by the Iraqi Air Force plane, 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 force" anywhere on Earth 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
    +4
    9 September 2013 15: 06
    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. +1
    9 September 2013 15: 07
    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. 0
      9 September 2013 15: 38
      Quote: kostya_a
      For example, plant a group of specialists who will conduct reconnaissance or sabotage operations


      The converted Ohio nuclear submarine has space for 66 "fur seals" + two airlock chambers (instead of missile silos # 1 and # 2) + 8 mines for storing diving and special equipment + Dry Deck Shelter for mini-sumarins and other bulky special equipment

      And of course, the stealth of the boat is higher than that of any surface ship
  50. +2
    9 September 2013 15: 24
    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. +1
      9 September 2013 17: 26
      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
  51. +1
    9 September 2013 15: 42
    God forbid Russia from owning even one aircraft carrier. This is a VERY expensive pleasure for solving local issues. It is necessary to restore the naval base system. It's effective and not that expensive. In addition, in addition to the financial component of this issue, there is also a personnel component. It's like in football. Well, that’s not ours and that’s all. It will take decades to train deck pilots. That's how many of them are prepared in the USA. Somewhere from the 40s. XX century. We don't have that much time.
  52. +4
    9 September 2013 15: 45
    In our country there are more cosmonauts than pilots who can sit on the deck.
    1. +1
      9 September 2013 17: 03
      Quote: mitya24
      In our country there are more cosmonauts than pilots who can sit on the deck.


      And at times!
  53. MG42
    +3
    9 September 2013 15: 47
    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.

    It’s hard to comment on this, only the guided missile destroyers accompanying Nimitz will release tomahawks from escort destroyers in the Red Sea, there are about 200 of them, there are also destroyers escorting Harry Truman and they can limit themselves to this... since it’s so expensive lol , through the desert territories of Saudi Arabia and Jordan from the south, an attack on Syria, nothing will interfere there and no Russian ships will fly over the heads, in the end, an attack at a second pace from the north at the US Air Force base Incirlik in Turkey, bombers may well take off there..
  54. +1
    9 September 2013 16: 34
    One of the rockets got caught on something and was accidentally launched by a tug of the cord. The sailor was not taken aback and threw it aside, unfortunately ending up in a box with the same missiles.
    What a resourceful sailor, and most importantly, what an accurate calculation, earned money for the Red Star. laughing
  55. +4
    9 September 2013 16: 57
    Nonsense. And here there are accidents. They are everywhere, in any army in the world.
  56. +4
    9 September 2013 17: 09
    And I suggest you stop mocking the illiterate article, or what other topics?
    A comparison came to mind: if you collect a hundred or two cases of dental caries in children after eating chocolates, then chocolate should be banned. How many cases have a stomach ulcer healed from alcohol?!! This proves that you need to drink the awl without diluting it. And everyone, so as not to get ulcers!
  57. Sirozha
    +1
    9 September 2013 17: 18
    Good article about aircraft carrier crashes. But to tie this to Syria... I doubt that a hundred crashes will deter anyone. Don't go into the forest to be afraid of wolves.
  58. +3
    9 September 2013 17: 28
    It seems to me that aircraft carriers are necessary in the event of a ship-ship confrontation. Without aircraft carriers, a squadron of ships will be in an obviously losing situation in relation to a squadron with aircraft carrier ships. It is foolish to assign unusual functions to aircraft carriers, to believe that aircraft carriers should crush entire countries such as Iraq or Syria Like, if they can’t, then the money is a waste of money.
    1. MG42
      +6
      9 September 2013 17: 47
      Quote: krpmlws
      that aircraft carriers are necessary in the event of a ship-ship confrontation. Without aircraft carriers, a squadron of ships will be in a deliberately losing situation in relation to a squadron with aircraft carriers.

      Naturally, deck crews can not only strike at enemy ships, but also cover their own, greatly increasing the capabilities of the ship’s air defense, while coastal aviation will reach the AUG, the deck crew will have time to make several sorties, refuel and replenish ammunition, since its aircraft carrier will be closer..
      If it is very far from the enemy air base, then only bombers without cover will reach the AUG and they will run into the same deck crew... everything is interconnected..
  59. +3
    9 September 2013 18: 46
    Although we ourselves could use a few aircraft carriers) Especially in light of the closure of all Air Force and naval aviation bases outside of Russia.
  60. +2
    9 September 2013 19: 03
    As a non-specialist, I don’t enter into polemics, although I read all the opinions with interest. It's nice to read intelligent opinions. I just have one question. The United States can blow up its own Nimitz, and then blame everything on the Syrians (kamikaze submariners, etc.), since their chemical weapons have not worked well. And accordingly: “Syria attacked us! We are responding...” Will they receive a legal basis for the bombing? belay
    1. 0
      9 September 2013 21: 01
      Quote: Egoza
      The United States can undermine its own Nimitz,


      Elena, of course they are crazy guys, but not that crazy. It is cheaper to ignore the international community and bomb than to sink your own ship. The goal must be truly great, like Rudnev’s, when he ordered the opening of the kingstons of the Varyag cruise missile. It even gives me goosebumps... it's like killing my own son. Don't think.
  61. +1
    9 September 2013 20: 02
    Quote: Egoza
    As a non-specialist, I don’t enter into polemics, although I read all the opinions with interest. It's nice to read intelligent opinions. I just have one question. The United States can blow up its own Nimitz, and then blame everything on the Syrians (kamikaze submariners, etc.), since their chemical weapons have not worked well. And accordingly: “Syria attacked us! We are responding...” Will they receive a legal basis for the bombing? belay

    Why didn’t this work for the amers with chemical weapons? It seems to me that everything is going according to their plan, not ideal, of course, rough, but it’s going. Therefore, they don’t need to blow up their own aircraft carrier.
  62. 0
    9 September 2013 20: 58
    It’s time to stock up on popcorn and watch “live” not so much the bombing of Syria (the snail will be moving there someday) but the next massacre of the “sharp and stupid ends” (Avinoscephils and aircraft carrierphobes)...
    Well, what about the truth? She is, as usual, “out there somewhere”... tongue
  63. 0
    9 September 2013 21: 12
    Earnestly good Apparently, aircraft carriers are already outliving their usefulness. The purpose of aircraft carriers remains to destroy enemy ships and protect their own merchant ships in the roadstead. For attacking countries, they may not be effective today. Were they effective before? Well, except for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, of course? But that's a different story. In my opinion, aircraft carriers have only fought with each other before, sank enemy battleships and engaged in reconnaissance.

    Are aircraft carriers needed in times of anti-ship missiles that can fly at subsonic speeds on the march, scraping waves with their bellies, and when attacking a target, accelerate to supersonic speed in a few strokes?
    1. 0
      13 September 2013 17: 50
      We need to teach cruise missiles to land on the deck of aircraft carriers.))) It would be fun if one of these neatly lands on the deck without a warhead on board and with the inscription “What, you didn’t expect it?! From Russia with love.” laughing
  64. alex popov
    +1
    9 September 2013 21: 13
    There will be no bombing.
    The combination “the wolves are fed and the sheep are safe” was played out very competently, Putin thoroughly prepared for the 20th and it was not in vain that he rubbed something into Obama for almost half an hour. After Kerry’s statement that only the release of chemical weapons under international control would rule out a military operation, the Russian Foreign Ministry recommended that Assad do this, and the Syrian Foreign Ministry immediately agreed with the proposal. 3 statements in a general spirit for not a full day. Plus support from the British Foreign Office. Everything is played out like clockwork, the apocalypse is postponed, and the Saudis and Qataris are shaving.
    Viva Russian diplomacy. everything is beautiful and extremely impressive! If Obamach backtracks now... well, then everything will be like in that saying “if you have no intelligence, consider yourself disabled.”)
    1. 0
      13 September 2013 17: 53
      By the way, the Saudis were promised a large contract for the construction of bridges, roads and other communications in Russia.))
  65. +1
    9 September 2013 21: 18
    Well, who cares about what and the lousy one about the bathhouse, again the aircraft carriers will fail everything...
  66. alex popov
    +1
    9 September 2013 21: 20
    The option that Putin offered to Obama at 20 allows him to save face and get out of an extremely sticky situation: “Bomb... you can’t... not bomb.” I think Putin clearly explained to Obama that Russia will help Siri to the end, and that we also have our own red lines. and immediately offered a way out...If Obama does not and can do something else in his place, he will cling to this proposal. Time, of course, will tell, but for Syria this is, at a minimum, a reprieve, and for the world, a step back from the apocalypse. "Caribbean 2" may not happen. Still, Obama is not Kennedy...
  67. +2
    10 September 2013 07: 36
    Oleg Kaptsov's Holy War Against Aircraft Carriers Continues?
    Nude nude
  68. 0
    13 September 2013 00: 54
    It seems to me that the future belongs to small aircraft carriers with relatively small UAVs (drones). It will be cheaper and the human factor will have less influence.
  69. Gur
    0
    14 September 2013 21: 32
    Personally, it’s clear to me that our armed forces understand this too