Military Review

Aircraft carriers - floating coffins?

156
Aircraft carriers - floating coffins?

When children play war, they spend more time not shooting, but arguing: "You are killed!" "No, not killed! You missed!" The older the children are, the worse. I remember one player in "Dungeons & Dragons" who cried when his hero was killed - he did not speak to us for years, all grieving for his dead elf.


Exactly the same dispute, reproduced by the world press, since August, the US armed forces have been leading. Believe it or not, these are still more whiners and sufferers than virtual role-playing gamers. Information plums and information plum charges, custom articles and a lot of good old malicious slander.

It all began with the military exercises "Millennium Challenge 2002", which we arranged this summer in the Persian Gulf. The big scandal happened because the commander of the forces of the conditional enemy, General Paul Van Ryper, refused to participate in the middle of the exercises, because everything was arranged in the exercises so that the troops of the United States defeated. According to the scenario, the States invaded a nameless country of the Persian Gulf (either Iraq or Iran). The States tested their new doctrine for the use of the combined high-tech forces, so van Ryper, naturally, went for any low-tech tricks that he could think of to spoil everything. When the Americans jammed his control and communications channels with interference, he sent messages with motorcyclists.

But it was all empty tricks. Americans had nothing against it. Also, I suppose, they would congratulate Van Riper, treat him with a drink for ingenuity at the banquet after the exercises.

The truth is that van Riper created something so significant that I still can not believe that the central press did not unleash it. Having nothing but a few "small boats and airplanes", van Ryper managed to sink almost the entire fleet of the United States in the Persian Gulf.

The conclusion from here is simple and straightforward, like a skull box: not one of the combat groups of the US Navy, not one of the hugely wonderful aircraft carriers so loved by us, will not even last a day in battle against a serious opponent.

Command fleet tried to make a good face with a bad game, but it turned out they were very awkward. They simply announced that the sunken ships had "returned buoyancy" so that exercises could continue as planned. It is because of such pearls that the military is considered stupid. What a pity that Bonaparte didn’t think of this after Trafalgar: "My fleet, it will now return buoyancy!" What a pity that Philip did not demand to return the buoyancy to his armada when it went to the bottom: "Ay-ah, guys, this English is to sink my todos boat, chinga sus madres, so escuche: the el fleet is ahora again to sail, EXPLAIT?"

Everyone in this stories their motives to do so and not otherwise - starting with a retired US Marine General named Paul Van Ryper, a hero in the eyes of most readers. Even the Armie Times weekly, publishing this story, admitted that van Ryper has a reputation as a “rare bastard”, who does not tolerate high-tech scenarios similar to those tested by the military this time. He also has a reputation as a man who does not feed him with bread, let him put his bosses in a puddle of military exercises.

But such a fact must be a good commander of a conditional opponent. Perhaps this van Riper and a bastard, but after all the good generals are for the most part such. The same Patton was by no means one of those with whom you would have dreamed of getting stuck in an elevator. Rommel was even worse; They say how one morning somewhere in the desert Rommel announced to his staff officers: "Today is Christmas. Now we will celebrate it. Hans, how is your wife? Herman, how is your wife?" Without waiting for the officers to answer, Rommel said: "That's all for Christmas. And now - get cards."

And what van Riper would not have been guided by in his actions, do you seriously believe that the authorities, who “restored the buoyancy” of the sunken ships, objectively than he? Their careers are entirely dependent on the success of this operation, and they have exactly the same reason for lying or falsifying the results.

Harzuya on the Internet, the story continued to grow mud. The gullible types, who take at face value everything that the Pentagon says to them, decided to believe the command - that Van Riper is simply troublemakers. Paranoids, who think that the CIA even controls the weather, took it for granted that the results of the exercises were predetermined from the very beginning.

Many discussions have come down to the question of what the Millennium Challenge exercises are held for. The gullible warriors voiced themselves on the net: "After all, the whole meaning of military exercises was to identify weak spots! Therefore, it is natural that when Van Riper sank the ships, they made notes and resumed the teachings!"

The thought is good, but somewhat naive. Most military exercises are by no means neutral. They think like a demonstration of a new weapons or doctrines. The Millennium Challenge was conceived as a demonstration of the doctrine of high-tech joint forces. Therefore, when Van Riper sank the fleet, one can argue that the comrades who commanded them did not simply say: "Well done, old man! We should take note of your tactics in order to prevent similar failures in the future!"

What does not reach the majority of inattentive readers is that some of Van Riper’s actions are full of rubbish and not worth a jigger - but others are so dreadful that the US Navy will take more than one year to recover from them.

The same trick with sending messages with motorcyclists is a good example of actions that are widely publicized and give the impression of intelligence and ingenuity, but there is little sense from them. Well, you sent a message with the motorcyclist. First, they move at a speed of 60 km / h, in contrast to the almost lightning-fast radio waves. The loss is huge. What if the motorcyclist is attacked? And there is no message - or the message is intercepted. I would love to fight against the army, which has nothing better than motorcyclists.

But what Van Riper did to the United States fleet ... that is another matter. He had nothing at his disposal except small aircraft and watercrafts — fishing vessels, patrol boats, and the like. He told them to cut circles across the Persian Gulf aimlessly, infuriating the fleet trying to follow them. When the admirals finally lost patience and ordered all the planes and ships to leave, van Ryper sent them to the attack all at once. And they sank two-thirds of the fleet of the United States.

It should have scared the hell out of anyone who cares how much the States are ready to fight in the next war. After all, this means that a handful of Cessn, fishing boats and private craft in stock, equipped with good fighters and armed with anti-ship missiles, are able to destroy the US aircraft carrier. This means that hundreds of billions (yes, billions) of dollars invested by us in shipbuilding are thrown to the wind, cost nothing.

A few years ago, the commander of a United States submarine said: "The US Navy has two types of ships: submarines and targets." The fact that large surface ships are dinosaurs has become increasingly clear with each decade since 1921.

That was the year Billy Mitchell was finally given the opportunity to prove what he had been saying for years: large surface ships without air support have no chance against aviation. They did not hate anyone in the armed forces like Mitchell did for these words, but he was not going to shut up. Finally, thanks to the huge overabundance of military vessels remaining after the First World War, he got his chance. The German battleship Ostfriesland and three unclaimed American battleships were anchored off the coast of Virginia to see what three of Mitchell’s pimped bombs could do with them. Here you need to remember how big and formidable these "dreadnoughts" seemed to people in those days. They had the thickest armor, the largest weapons and the reputation of the most deadly killing machines on earth, on the sea. The idea that a plane could sink them seemed ridiculous to most people. Of course, the fleet command was in the know and tried by all means to stop the tests. They all too well understood what would come of it - and there was nothing good for their careers.

The little biplanes flew ... and sank all the ships. First a destroyer, then a huge German battleship, then all three states of the battleship. The Navy attempted to ignore the results, but, at every step, Mitchell began to move from the battleships as the basis of battle groups to aircraft carriers.

The British did not pay any attention to Mitchell's demonstration performances. Their battleships were better made, better armed and equipped with better crews. What will these japanese monkeys do to them when Britain has an unapproachable strong point in Singapore and the coastal waters are patrolled by the royal naval forces?

Three days after Pearl Harbor, the British found out what they would do to them. A powerful battle group led by the battleship Prince of Wales and the battle cruiser Ripalz set off to counter the landing of the Japanese in Malaysia and came across numerous squadrons of Japanese aircraft. A few minutes later, both ships went to the bottom, and the “Prince of Wales” was sinking so quickly that almost the whole crew sank with it. With the disappearance of the ship fence, His Insecurity Singapore fell at such a rate that the British still cannot speak on this subject.

The battleship in 1941, the aircraft carrier is now: a big, proud, expensive ... easy target. In World War II, aircraft carriers showed themselves to be powerful, but then there were no microchips yet. Now, when an enemy tanker is capable of launching 60 self-guided cruise missiles from a distance of hundreds of miles, no aircraft carrier will survive the first real battle.

Carriers are not only the largest and most expensive ships ever built, they are also the most vulnerable. Because one serious hit of a cruise missile, and aircraft can no longer take off from an aircraft carrier, its best weapon. They will go to the bottom together with the crews without firing a single shot.

This was the real lesson of the Millennium Challenge II. And that is why the Navy is so angry with Van Riper: he tore off their disguise. He showed all the boobies in their homeland that a combat carrier group could be sunk by "small aircraft and ships." When the weapon becomes smaller and more deadly, large targets simply cannot survive.

Calls were enough. In the Falkland War, the Argentine air force, which, in fact, “team A” cannot be called, managed to tear the British fleet to shreds, flying up at low altitude and high speed to fire the rocket Eksoset. And they did this hundreds of kilometers from their shores without the help of ground-based systems.

If the Argentines were capable of this with 1980 technology of the year, think about what the Chinese, Iranians, or North Koreans could have created in 2003 with a floating target the size of a city, which is a state aircraft carrier.

If your library has a copy of the "Jane" weapons systems directory, look in the section of anti-ship weapons. Among the standard weapons, it is possible that the old “Harpoon” is still leading, but it’s not at all necessary to possess such elaborate products. Anti-ship missiles are easy to manufacture and use, because surface ships are always slow-moving, leave giant marks on the radar and cannot dodge.

For some time, we may be lucky, as long as we rush to muddle like Iraq. And Iran? The Iranians are not cowardly slaves like Iraqis. They are intelligent, they are purposeful, and they hate us more than poison. Imagine how many small planes and ships the Iranian coast has. Imagine if each of them is filled with explosives and turned into a kamikaze. And now add here all the anti-ship missiles that Iranians have the opportunity to purchase on the open market. If you want to get scared for real, add one more atom bomb.
Aircraft carriers - floating coffins?


For example, the Iranians will apply the Van Riper method: they will fire everything at once from each ship, aircraft or boat, what they have, direct fire on the aircraft carrier. We hope for the valor of the sailors and suppose that they will shoot down 90% of the missiles flying into them. As a result, we still have a wrecked aircraft carrier.

Now let's try to change the scenario for the US against China off the coast of Taiwan. The Chinese have everything: submarines, airplanes, anti-ship missiles - the devil, but they TRADE with this good with other countries! I will say without any obscenities: not a single American aircraft carrier in a full-scale naval battle in Chinese waters takes even five minutes.

Let us return to the objection, which is surely lingering among many of you: “The Navy must have thought about all this!” What are you talking about? And who did not let the British think in 1940? There was plenty of evidence that the battleships are nothing more than giant coffins. They decided not to think about it.

What is now engaged in the US Navy. Here, after all, careers, and big money, and traditions. There was always a surface fleet; hence, it will always exist. Approximately this is the depth of their argument.

The day will come, and the second Pearl Harbor will come to us. Perhaps not this year - fighting with a clown like Saddam, the US Navy will probably survive, sending its aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf. But if Iran enters the cause, the aircraft carriers will not last a day. Have they ever been on the Chinese coast in wartime, they will erase from the face of the earth. Come combat carrier group close to the shores of North Korea ... what remains will not be enough even divers really admire the remains.

What is more disgusting is that admirals, captains and contractors know all about it. Damn it. Perhaps we deserve what happens to us. Only now will not die the authorities. Unhappy gullible boys on those aircraft carriers will die, unhappy suckers who thought that they would be trained and given a free ride around the world, or they might even get a chance to "defend America." They will perish, and not believing in the reality of what is happening, when all this giant shell starts to crack and go under water.
Author:
Originator:
http://politikus.ru/
156 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 10 September 2013 07: 04
    44
    smile On October 17, 2000, in the Sea of ​​Japan, our SU-24 passed over the US aircraft carrier "KITTY HOCK" at an altitude of 50 meters! Which is equal to the destruction of the ship! the crew of the SU-24 Lieutenant Colonel A. Renev and Major M. Aristarkhov, of course, were awarded ... something like that! good
    1. Canep
      Canep 10 September 2013 07: 21
      14
      It was like that, but if they allied, they would have been awarded a golden star.
      A provocative article for members of the forum, now the next swing will unfold between supporters of targets and their opponents. I will not participate but I will observe. soldier
      1. xetai9977
        xetai9977 10 September 2013 07: 59
        12
        An aircraft carrier, to put it mildly, is not an easy target. They never swim alone, but only as part of powerful AUGs, which are hard to break through the defense of. Oh, add deck aviation and the picture will become clear. Aircraft carriers are certainly expensive, but necessary to establish their interests somewhere. not to love Americans, but they were never fools. Any costs of a war are more than paid for by the exploitation of the resources of the defeated countries, the imposed arms supplies, and the promotion of their business. And on occasion, the costs of the war can be shifted to satellites, such as the Saudis and Qatar.
        1. bootlegger
          bootlegger 10 September 2013 08: 22
          10
          The battleships Tirpitz and Bimark were not easy targets either. When they were designed by aviation and submarines did not reach the required technical level. When they became relatively perfect, they left them no chance. Apparently, aircraft carriers can expect the same.
          This technique has not yet been tested, at the modern level, on this side, and the combined development of cruise missiles, boats and airplanes may not leave them any opportunities for existence.
          Apparently, naval equipment expects the same as land equipment. However, it is significant and clearly visible, it will not live on the battlefield for long.
          Apparently the time of gigantism ends here.
        2. Mikhail3
          Mikhail3 10 September 2013 13: 45
          +2
          The mosquito fleet does not need to break through the AUG. Wooden boats, tiny battery motors .... rocket bodies and unpretentious launchers coated with paint, which airplanes absolutely smear. Several hundred wooden, plywood eventually shells will be drowned by both an aircraft carrier and any AUG that will slip. If such a boat is being driven by a person, dive overboard at the launch of a rocket. There is even a chance to survive if the boat has a foam board. But you can not even put a person behind the wheel! Exactly the same device that controls the UAV, only three times more primitive. No fleet, except the submarine, in principle, is able to cope with this. There are some more simple and merciless solutions ... in general, to be honest, the Navy is a complete waste of money. It is very gratifying that the United States is not able to do without it ...
        3. Rus2012
          Rus2012 10 September 2013 19: 44
          +1
          Quote: xetai9977
          An aircraft carrier, to put it mildly, is not an easy target.

          Who says it's easy?
          It will become easy when the armament of the PRC (and ours too) becomes RSD with a targeting and homing system.
          Today, all the elements are already mona to say worked out, it remains only to compose:
          - active and passive spacecraft of the 17Ф16 / 17Ф17 type
          http://topwar.ru/12554-morskaya-kosmicheskaya-razvedka-celey.html

          - over-the-horizon radar type "Voronezh" VZG
          http://topwar.ru/10085-radiolokacionnye-stancii-dalnego-obnaruzheniya-sprn-voron

          ezh.html

          - PKR-RSD type DF-21, with appropriate adaptation, Topol-M with the latest ACS, which allows re-targeting already in flight and with a new head of the Aerophone type, will be suitable.
          http://topwar.ru/12264-ballisticheskimi-raketami-po-avianoscam.html

          In the meantime - the real practice of the USSR in the fight against AUG -
          http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/73
          http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/253

          It’s impossible to say that everything is hopeless!

          And finally, Russia will build aircraft carriers one way or another. I just would not want it to work out like with the French De Gaulle ...
          1. Dimka off
            Dimka off 13 September 2013 18: 42
            0
            Quote: Rus2012
            And finally, Russia will build aircraft carriers one way or another.

            I would bet on huge and powerful nuclear missile cruisers. Bigger and bigger Orlanov. Well, on board there are naturally a lot of missiles for various purposes.
        4. Mature naturalist
          Mature naturalist 10 September 2013 21: 15
          +2
          Quote: xetai9977
          as part of powerful AUGs, to break through the defense of which oh how hard

          You do not write that "it is impossible to break through the defense," but write that it is "difficult to break through." Conclusion You yourself confirmed that the aircraft carrier is vulnerable, and due to the fact that it is large and crowded, losses will be significant.
        5. Dimka off
          Dimka off 13 September 2013 18: 22
          0
          if you bet on the AUG or missile cruisers and strategic aviation - I choose the second. More chances to win.
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 10 September 2013 08: 47
        +3
        Quote: Canep
        now the next swing will unfold between supporters of targets and their opponents.

        wassat
        And if the ship remains the carrier mainly UAV?
        They are, by definition, less cumbersome and lighter ... In the end, many allow parachute landing, "many into the net". Yes, and you don’t want to plant Mona, if it’s one-time use, like rockets, they are the same UAVs ...
        laughing
        Yesterday Oleg famously "painted" aircraft carriers into coffins ...
        1. SPACE
          SPACE 10 September 2013 10: 35
          +1
          Quote: Rus2012
          Yes, and finally don’t put Mona, if, for a single use, aki - missiles, the essence of the same UAV

          That's right, in Russia there are already 4 fifth-generation aircraft carriers of the "Orlan" type built in the 80s, and if you take into account Antaeus, then the submarine aircraft carriers, all the same, I never cease to be surprised at the sagacity of our designers! good
          Z.Y. I'm really serious!
      3. SPACE
        SPACE 10 September 2013 09: 07
        -1
        Aircraft carriers - floating coffins?

        Quote: Canep
        A provocative article

        Like a nail into this gilded floating box.
        1. Aryan
          Aryan 10 September 2013 11: 12
          +5
          as always
          big ship
          big torpedo sad
      4. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 10 September 2013 13: 27
        +5
        Quote: Canep
        It was like that, but if they allied, they would have been awarded a golden star.
        A provocative article for members of the forum, now the next swing will unfold between supporters of targets and their opponents. I will not participate but I will observe. soldier


        Good girl. Do not participate everyone will be easier.

        An article would be provocative if some of our home strategists wrote it from the heart. And so, in fact, the very emotional arguments of someone from the opposite side are given. It’s good that someone else can think there - there will be someone to clean up the rubble.
      5. Vashestambid2
        Vashestambid2 10 September 2013 15: 34
        +6
        Quote: Canep
        A provocative article for members of the forum, now the next swing will unfold between supporters of targets and their opponents.


        So Avinostsev again offended, this time a guy from the past. We must defend !! angry
        1. MG42
          MG42 10 September 2013 18: 41
          +3
          Quote: Vashestambid2
          So Avinostsev again offended, this time a guy from the past.


          Indeed, from the past an article was printed 21.06.10 author Gary Brecher

          http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/analysis/view/48212/

          Or maybe earlier ..
    2. Vashestambid2
      Vashestambid2 10 September 2013 15: 31
      +7
      The guy who wrote the article on the verge of a nervous breakdown. laughing And he decided to let off his steam on the first come in !! smile

      The day will come, and the second Pearl Harbor will come to us. Damn it.

      In 1941, more than one aircraft carrier was NOT sunk in Pearl Harbor !! smile
      The day will come, and the second Pearl Harbor will come to us. Maybe not this year - fighting a clown like Saddam,

      Damn yes article 30 years ago !! stop
      not a single American aircraft carrier in a full-scale naval battle in Chinese waters will last even five minutes.

      Well, the Japanese Super Fleet was sunk, in Normandia they landed. What is the problem !! smile

      unfortunate suckers who thought they would be trained and rented around the world for free

      Well, half a century already swim and everyone is happy !! drinks
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 10 September 2013 17: 20
        +3
        Quote: Vashestambid2
        In 1941, more than one aircraft carrier was NOT sunk in Pearl Harbor !!

        it is impossible to sink a ship that is not there. The Americans withdrew the aircraft carriers before the Japanese attack, which indicates that they knew about the upcoming attack, but allowed it for propaganda purposes.
      2. MG42
        MG42 10 September 2013 17: 29
        +4
        Quote: Vashestambid2
        In 1941, more than one aircraft carrier was NOT sunk in Pearl Harbor!

        Yes, it’s correct that there weren’t American battleships with destroyers, but on the other hand it also shows the advantage of aircraft carriers, only japanese at the right time in the right place, as a means of surprise attack worked effectively, there were six japanese aircraft carriers and 560 aircraft >>

        Highly dynamic movie recreating the events of the battle of Pearl Harbor
    3. Nukem999
      Nukem999 10 September 2013 21: 23
      +2
      .............
  2. NOMADE
    NOMADE 10 September 2013 07: 05
    11
    What a bomb! soldier I feel will be a hit for a long discussion wassat I feel like they are now clamoring, but the article is unambiguous - plus and bold!
    We now need a lot of modern low-noise and relatively cheap - submarines, many destroyers and missile cruisers with powerful air defense and a powerful interaction system.
    Personally, my opinion is that aircraft carriers are needed, but as "simplified" / cheap as Kuznetsov's type, but instead of attack missile weapons, to strengthen air defense on it and without catapults (so that there would be less to "break", albeit at the expense of the takeoff speed of the air wing). The main task, the air defense of the ship's order. In this form, they are acceptable, i.e. by analogy with American aircraft carriers in WWII. That is, up to 40 tons. The maintenance and service of such aircraft carriers is much more purposeful and relatively less sensitive to loss, in contrast to the one hundred thousandth nuclear engineer.
    1. tomket
      tomket 10 September 2013 12: 58
      +2
      Do you have planes to take off without a catapult with Kuznetsov in full combat load?
      1. Tektor
        Tektor 10 September 2013 23: 06
        +2
        Do you have planes to take off without a catapult with Kuznetsov in full combat load?
        Even the An-26 with powder accelerators can, not to mention MiGs, which with powder accelerators can start from a place - into the sky (especially from a springboard) ...
    2. VAF
      VAF 10 September 2013 16: 28
      +5
      Quote: NOMADE
      I feel will be a hit for a long discussion


      Probably will not, because everything is very clearly said there - AGAINST A STRONG OPPONENT !!!
      List of strong opponents in the studio wassat
      This is all from the series = if my grandmother would have ... she would be ... grandfather!

      Quote: NOMADE
      We now need a lot of modern low-noise and relatively cheap - submarines, many destroyers and missile cruisers with powerful air defense and a powerful interaction system.


      So you yourself answered lol just for some reason get around the fact- WE need it, but THERE IS ALL THERE ALWAYS !!!!

      Or say guys. you wait, now we will be reelected by the .. the eleventh year, if Min Fin allows wassat and then ...
    3. Rink
      Rink 10 September 2013 18: 10
      +6
      Quote: NOMADE
      ... We now need a lot of modern low-noise and relatively cheap - submarines, many destroyers and missile cruisers with powerful air defense and a powerful interaction system. ...

      Obviously, nothing can be invented to protect your own coast better than high-speed missile boats. Due to their low cost, they can be built in hundreds, and they can carry several powerful anti-ship missiles and air defense systems of the Shell type (for their own protection). If you provide an intermittent channel between them for data exchange and satellite / aeronautical target designation, any AUG in the battle with this hornet’s swarm will be doomed.

      But ...
      Such small boats are not suitable for long-distance ocean trips or for long-term patrols at a great distance. Application in the Arctic is also questionable. It seems to me personally that this strategy is suitable only for small areas of bays and inland seas. And if we consider that the range of cruise missiles is more than a thousand and the radius of combat use of modern carrier-based aircraft is measured in many hundreds of kilometers, then we can say that the "hornet swarm" will become useless. He simply will not have time to reach the firing line, and the enemy fleet will be able to launch hundreds of missile launchers according to the BSU strategy.

      Conclusion: what is suitable for Iran and the Persian Gulf may not work for Russia in the Arctic or on the Pacific coast. Unless in the Baltic and on the Black Sea ... but AUG is unlikely to be found there.
      1. Tektor
        Tektor 10 September 2013 23: 10
        0
        And at the far frontiers - there is nothing better than Iskander or RS-26 Frontier / Vanguard ...
      2. NOMADE
        NOMADE 11 September 2013 04: 11
        +1
        I agree with your arguments. But in my opinion, a "mosquito" fleet is needed, but for the protection of the nearest frontiers, an ocean-going fleet is also needed. That is, there must be a balance of forces at different frontiers.
  3. Lech from ZATULINKI
    Lech from ZATULINKI 10 September 2013 07: 07
    11
    Funny article.
    Mostly common phrases.
    I wanted a more serious analysis of a serious specialist.
    Questions to him are standard.
    For example, how many BASTION missiles are needed to sink, for example, an aircraft carrier like NIMITS.
    What forces can penetrate the defense of an aircraft carrier escort squadron.
    The real possibilities of NICA against a serious adversary such as CHINA? and then lea.
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 10 September 2013 07: 11
      12
      Quote: Lech s ZATULINKI
      For example, how many BASTION missiles are needed to sink, for example, an aircraft carrier like NIMITS.

      To incapacitate him for an indefinite period, one is enough to hit the take-off deck.
      1. Canep
        Canep 10 September 2013 07: 30
        +5
        Quote: Vladimirets
        just one that hit the take-off deck.

        not to the take-off, but to the landing part of the deck (it is one on the whole ship, and there are several catapults). Not a single pilot will take off if the network is nowhere. And then, under the landing part of the deck is a power plant.
        1. Anatoli_kz
          Anatoli_kz 10 September 2013 09: 07
          +5
          "... No pilot will take off if the net has nowhere ..."
          This is doubtful. During a real attack, the pilot will seek to fly up faster and engage in battle, rather than remain a target on the aircraft carrier.
        2. Fornit
          Fornit 10 September 2013 15: 26
          +5
          Quote: Canep
          And then, under the landing part of the deck is a power plant.

          Nonsense ... From the power plant to the "landing part of the deck" 7 decks of 2,2 m ... The power plant wanted to spit on the anti-ship missiles. Here are torpedoes - another calico ... Considering that the Americans carry aviation kerosene in side tanks ...
      2. Nick888
        Nick888 10 September 2013 08: 31
        0
        Or a good blow to the captain’s cabin.
        1. yanus
          yanus 10 September 2013 11: 56
          +4
          Quote: Nick888
          Or a good blow to the captain’s cabin.

          The control center is duplicated there.
          But even a single Bastion missile, if it hits an aircraft lift, a catapult steam generator, or one of the weapons storage rooms, will turn an aircraft carrier into a barge with a pair of aircraft. And there are enough of such key goals.
          As for "whether it hits or not," it's a separate story. There are only a few aircraft carriers in the world, and in addition to their radar signatures, those "key" targets could well have been added to the homing head.
          So getting one modern anti-ship missiles for an aircraft carrier is very painful. And whether he drowns or not - the tenth matter, he cannot fulfill his task. In addition, cross out the carrier from the AUG and think about what they will do with the rest of the RCC ships without mini-aux and cover fighters.
      3. pilot-mk
        pilot-mk 10 September 2013 11: 38
        +2
        Quote: Vladimirets
        To incapacitate him for an indefinite period, one is enough to hit the take-off deck.

        Why is it necessary to mutilate the deck? It is enough to create an aircraft carrier a small roll and flights on it are canceled.
        1. yanus
          yanus 10 September 2013 14: 35
          +4
          Quote: pilot-mk
          Quote: Vladimirets
          To incapacitate him for an indefinite period, one is enough to hit the take-off deck.

          Why is it necessary to mutilate the deck? It is enough to create an aircraft carrier a small roll and flights on it are canceled.

          there are ballast systems for leveling the roll ....
    2. Vashestambid2
      Vashestambid2 10 September 2013 15: 09
      0
      Quote: Lech s ZATULINKI
      For example, how many BASTION missiles are needed to sink, for example, an aircraft carrier like NIMITS.


      Lots of. smile With a destruction range of only 120 km, against 1000 km of the F / A-18 E / F Super Hornet, he has no single chance !! wink
    3. VAF
      VAF 10 September 2013 16: 37
      +3
      Quote: Lech s ZATULINKI
      For example, how many BASTION missiles are needed to sink, for example, an aircraft carrier like NIMITS.


      In principle, one for the eyes ... to incapacitate, or maybe .. to sink, there are only two but:

      1. it is necessary to have these Bastions in service (after all, aircraft carriers do not go in the Black Sea, and do not plan to).

      2. Why would an aircraft carrier "shove" to the enemy's coast at a distance of 300 km or less?

      Quote: Lech s ZATULINKI
      What forces can penetrate the defense of an aircraft carrier escort squadron.


      We do not have such forces and means!

      Quote: Lech s ZATULINKI
      The real possibilities of NICA against a serious adversary such as CHINA?


      The Chinese can really create problems even if not in quality. but .. in quantity!
      1. yanus
        yanus 10 September 2013 17: 28
        0
        Quote: vaf
        2. Why would an aircraft carrier "shove" to the enemy's coast at a distance of 300 km or less?

        Well, there would be a desire to sink. The same "bastion" can be loaded onto a barge / container / dry cargo ship, covered with mock-ups of containers and slowly sail in the desired direction.
        1. VAF
          VAF 10 September 2013 18: 42
          +1
          Quote: yanus
          The same "bastion" can be loaded onto a barge / container / dry cargo ship, covered with mock-up containers and slowly sail in the desired direction.


          In theory, yes, but in practice ... I doubt it ... the entire combat zone is declared a closed territory and "hto will go there" and will not answer the request, "friend or foe" call .. you are the target.

          we omit the aspect about "suicide bombers", because. you yourself understand that after the first launch this barge / container ship / dry cargo ship is already crying

          If they had written a multi-purpose nuclear submarine..this is another matter, but again the question ... but where should I get it .. so much request
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 10 September 2013 21: 52
        +9
        Quote: vaf
        In principle, one for the eyes ... to incapacitate, or maybe .. to sink, there are only two but:

        Sergey, I respect you as an aviation specialist, but as for the fleet, to put it mildly, you are not quite right.
        One anti-ship missile will be enough if it will carry an uninterrupted fire fighting system and will reach the ASU at D = less than 1,0 km. And even that is not a fact: if the projection is from the bow or stern, then the shock wave will tear and demolish antenna posts, planes on the deck, etc. RCC in conventional equipment, of course, will cause damage, but it will not put the AVU out of action and will not sink it. And repair teams during the day minimize damage, minimizing them.
        Quote: vaf
        We do not have such forces and means!

        There is, but the operation to defeat the AUG is the business of the fleet, in which submarines, aircraft, missile ships and, necessarily, EW forces will be involved. But as a rule (calculations show) there are not enough forces, therefore they ask for help from the General Staff. Equip YES, involve space, inflict providing explosive strikes. Now it is really possible to fight AUG with the help of BR with hypersonic warheads.
        ps I refused to crush the water in the mortar, but could not resist, I'm sorry.
        1. old man54
          old man54 10 September 2013 22: 39
          +1
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          There is, but the operation to defeat the AUG is the business of the fleet, in which submarines, aircraft, missile ships and, necessarily, EW forces will be involved.

          hi You "+", Alexander! good
    4. Tektor
      Tektor 10 September 2013 23: 15
      0
      For example, how many BASTION missiles are needed to sink, for example, an aircraft carrier like NIMITS.
      According to the "secret" performance characteristics of missile products, three hits of Onyx, or one Kh-31AD, into the compartment with fuel and lubricants are enough. Not a joke.
  4. NOMADE
    NOMADE 10 September 2013 07: 16
    +4
    Quote: Lech from ZATULINKI
    Funny article.
    Mostly common phrases.
    I wanted a more serious analysis of a serious specialist.
    Questions to him are standard.
    For example, how many BASTION missiles are needed to sink, for example, an aircraft carrier like NIMITS.
    What forces can penetrate the defense of an aircraft carrier escort squadron.
    The real possibilities of NICA against a serious adversary such as CHINA? and then lea.


    I support! It would also be interesting to give a specific description of the plan - Van Riper, and not in general terms.
    1. Canep
      Canep 10 September 2013 07: 25
      +3
      I believe the results of Van Riper are tightly classified. The Americans will shout at the whole world how to destroy their fleet with the help of improvised means (Cesny, fishing boats and motorcycles).
      1. Stiletto
        Stiletto 10 September 2013 09: 42
        0
        I will not say anything about aircraft carriers. But the mosquito fleet is definitely worth developing. In terms of price and quality, it has no equal. Cheap and cheerful.
        1. SPACE
          SPACE 10 September 2013 10: 57
          -1
          Quote: Stiletto
          But the mosquito fleet is definitely worth developing

          To an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 100 tons, we oppose 000 missile boats of a / and 50 tons with a couple of "mosquitoes" to a couple of "RBU" and one ZRAK Dirk on board. The kirdyk will come not only to the aircraft carrier, but to the whole AUgu.
          1. SPACE
            SPACE 10 September 2013 14: 44
            +4
            Some kind of anonymous stratech, in impotent spite minusanul laughing this is probably the seas with the aircraft carrier Nimitz, I understand, there is nothing to say.
            Dear it, the explanation is especially for you, 1000 tons is enough to place two mosquitoes on the sides of the wheelhouse, this is the main strike weapon of a missile boat. Then two RBUs, one on the bow and one on the stern, this is for anti-submarine and anti-torpedo defense. Well, one ZRAK Dirk / Tunguska / Shell on the roof of the cabin, against cruise missiles and aircraft. The presence of a HOOK and a pair of three of the TA533 is a matter of course. The task in the composition of the connection of the same boats is to approach the firing range of the mosquito complex, with active opposition from AUG and nuclear submarines ... then, if you have mosquito, think for yourself, to help you use the ancient P-15 complex and the drowning of the Eilat cruiser in the last century.
            Only about randomness is not necessary.
            "Gulchat, open your face" laughing
            1. VAF
              VAF 10 September 2013 16: 44
              +2
              Quote: SPACE
              The task in the composition of the connection of the same boats is to approach the distance of firing with the mosquito complex, with the active counteraction of aviation AUG and nuclear submarines


              I'll put you +, but .... please list how many "live" ships armed with Mosquitoes are in service with us?
              By the way, Yakhont is just as easily placed on boats, and how many ships are armed with anti-ship missiles Yakhont?
              But then ... we will try to "drown" AUG wassat
              1. SPACE
                SPACE 10 September 2013 19: 19
                +1
                Quote: vaf
                I will put you +, but

                Dear Sergey hi As the familiar colonel used to say, any task must be considered from three sides, 1. From the point of view in general. 2. In terms of perspectives. And 3. From the point of view of what, is available at the time of setting the problem. In this case, take my reasoning from a general point of view. And from your point of view, I have no right to reason, because of not knowing the true state of affairs on these types of weapons, well, I should not quote Wikipedia, and indeed these data are secret.
                ZY In general, my personal opinion is that aircraft carriers do not even deserve such close attention to them. Firstly, in peacetime there is no point in being afraid of them. In the ocean, at least 500 km from the coast, they are useless and are not dangerous to anyone, these are two. And thirdly, if a "big boom" begins, then why the hell to spend energy on them, perhaps they will have nowhere to return ...
                1. Boa kaa
                  Boa kaa 10 September 2013 22: 51
                  +2
                  Quote: SPACE
                  In this case, take my reasoning from a general point of view.

                  Demian, well then I propose to destroy the AUG with the help of an electromagnetic mass accelerator from the Zarya orbital combat complex (Kosmos-1279 KS).
                  The second option is to direct the radiation (again from space) to explode the active zone of the AVU nuclear reactor. They are working on it, but infa has already leaked to the TLV screens.
                  1. SPACE
                    SPACE 11 September 2013 00: 33
                    0
                    Quote: BoA KAA
                    Demian, well then, I propose to destroy the AUG with the help of an electromagnetic mass accelerator from the Zarya orbital combat complex (Cosmos-1279 KS). The second option is to blow up the active zone of the AVU nuclear reactor by directed radiation (again from space). They are working on this, but the infa has already leaked to the TV screens.

                    Backward wave EMU and other proton accelerators? laughing Let's leave the fantastic weapons on the NFP for now and get by with traditional methods, i.e. we transfer them from the category of general to the category of promising. Although, if you insist, I will carefully listen to your suggestions on EMU.
            2. Mhpv
              Mhpv 10 September 2013 17: 09
              +1
              You created a symbiosis of RTOs and at least IPC. Where you saw RBUs ​​on torpedo tubes, torpedoes (a couple of three) and ASG (Hook is a hook).
              A missile boat is a class of high-speed, small-sized warship, the main weapon of which is a rocket.

              Small missile ship (abbreviated as MRK) is a subclass of missile ships in the Soviet naval classification. It occupies an intermediate position between the missile boat and the large missile ship.
              1. SPACE
                SPACE 10 September 2013 19: 32
                0
                Quote: mhpv
                You created a symbiosis of RTOs and at least IPC. Where did you see torpedoes (a couple of

                I have never seen or even heard! Think of it as "pure reasoning" laughing Ie I suppose the possibility of creating this sample.
                HOOK in capital letters, meaning the Hydro-Acoustic Complex.
                Best regards hi
            3. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 10 September 2013 22: 43
              +2
              Quote: SPACE
              SPACE

              Demyan, I’m honestly mistaken people, I’m not negative. He was guilty of the Professor, for which he had already paid. But to the point.
              The monster of shipbuilding thought that you described will be released at least on 2,5-3. This means that there will be no speed, which is why the RCA differs from other ships, except for weapons, autonomy and D navigation. In the meantime, he will go on D esp. he is blown away by aviation from the AVU.
              1. SPACE
                SPACE 10 September 2013 23: 56
                0
                Quote: BoA KAA
                Demyan, I’m honestly mistaken people, I’m not negative.
                laughing
                No problem, Alexander.
                Quote: BoA KAA
                The monster of shipbuilding thought that you described will be released at least on 2,5-3.

                2-3 It pulls on TFR, too much. Look at the dimensions of the boats within 600 t and their fillings. And the proposed weapons fit in 1000 very well.
                Quote: BoA KAA
                This means that there will be no speed, which is why the RCA differs from other ships,

                In the age of rockets, speed is not important, only to enter the area of ​​proposed databases. Can be done in advance. Autonomy can be ensured by the presence of one support ship.
                Quote: BoA KAA
                In the meantime, he will go on D esp. he is blown away by aviation from the AVU.

                One yes, but if their 10-20, going front in a checkerboard pattern in two lines? These are 10 daggers, 80 missiles from Tunguska and 40 gun barrels, I wonder who can penetrate such an air defense? They are even on Orlan 6.
            4. Pathfinder_II
              Pathfinder_II 12 September 2013 20: 00
              0
              but it is not easier to do a light high-speed glider for 1 mosquito, without any weapon systems .. with a short-range transceiver with the ability to determine the distance to a similar glider .. the simplest search algorithm .. moves forward trying to maintain the distance to the "brothers" on the right and left from itself .. when illuminated by radar, with the signal signature of any of the AUG ships, responds by launching a "mosquito" in a given direction.)) .. when detecting a ground (obstacle) it turns in a given direction (for example, to the right) .. and so on until the fuel it will spend .. when trying to capture without a key (a certain code via the communication channel) - self-detonation .. we immediately release the flock into a free search and alyaverdy .. part can be equipped with GNSS + inertial navigation system in order to set the search area for the flock. Intellectual companions will be the anchor point for the rest. Cheap and cheerful.))
              PS Other characters, such as Uranus, can also be used as RCC.
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 10 September 2013 22: 32
            +2
            Quote: SPACE
            Kirdyk will come not only to the aircraft carrier, but also to the whole AUGU.

            Only after they destroy AVU aviation, security ships, and they find an aircraft carrier offshore 800-1000 miles! And now answer (only really, without CLUB type commercials) which marine airborne radars and radars located on 1000t media are capable of detecting and repulsing an anti-ship missile with an 0,01 sq m EPR in a timely manner?
            1. SPACE
              SPACE 11 September 2013 00: 18
              0
              Quote: BoA KAA
              Only after they destroy AVU aviation, security ships, and they find an aircraft carrier offshore 800-1000 miles!

              Well, 1000 miles or km, it’s you who have bent, at the limit of the AUG aviation, let's already have 600-500km. It is only necessary to break through the forest of harpoons, but they will be a problem for them to use in large numbers against boats.
              Quote: BoA KAA
              Which marine air defense missile system and radars located on the 1000t carrier are capable of detecting and repulsing an anti-ship missile attack with an 0,01 sq m EPR in a timely manner?

              The radar from the Shell, and also the optical channel, you can push one boat forward, the boats themselves can be manufactured taking into account the low radio frequency, not to mention electronic warfare equipment ...
              You know, you are trying to argue, checking the idea for consistency? I suggest you think together about the task.
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 11 September 2013 10: 57
                +2
                Quote: SPACE
                Are you trying to argue, test the idea for consistency? I suggest you think together about the task.

                Demyan! You are a good person! But, excuse me, from SPACE. It is impossible (not ethical) to brag about myself, I will say one thing: the experience of service allows me not to test the ideas of yesterday. As for "thinking about the task", this was already when proposals for new tactics were sent in volumes to higher headquarters. The General Staff of the Navy is also thinking about the prospects for us.
                And as for the NFP branch, you came up with a great idea!
                1. SPACE
                  SPACE 11 September 2013 20: 43
                  0
                  Quote: BoA KAA
                  Demyan! You are a good person! But, excuse me, from SPACE.

                  At one time, smart people gave me advice: "They find it where no one walks." Yes, I'm from SPACE. what
                  Quote: BoA KAA
                  service experience allows me not to test the ideas of yesterday. As for "thinking about the task", this was already when proposals for new tactics were sent in volumes to higher headquarters. The General Staff of the Navy is also thinking about the prospects for us.

                  Experience is good, Respect! But here the main thing is not to focus on stereotypes. So I went to the site with my opinion, and went out with your laughing . That's what the VO site is for exchanging ideas, knowledge, experience.
                  hi
        2. Fornit
          Fornit 10 September 2013 15: 30
          +1
          Quote: Stiletto
          I will not say anything about aircraft carriers. But the mosquito fleet is definitely worth developing. In terms of price and quality, it has no equal. Cheap and cheerful.

          5 points! Youth! WIG!
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas 10 September 2013 11: 06
        +2
        Quote: Canep
        I believe the results of Van Riper are tightly classified.

        What's the secret? In the Persian Gulf, busy shipping and using several civilian vessels is easy to approach the launch distance of the RCC to the target. The Americans, however, could not sink non-combatants and therefore lost.
      3. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 10 September 2013 22: 21
        +4
        Quote: Canep
        I believe the results of Van Riper are tightly classified

        Oh oh Well, who will be nonsense to keep secret? Any carrier (listed in the comments) must have an Airborne Radar, SU, PU (holders). For example, Cessna is not suitable: it carries only 380 kg of payload. Harpoon weighs 750-800, plus SU, radar, etc. Yachts are not to be armed either: launch containers, SU, etc. Next: to get there, you need to enter shooting data, or turn the shovel to pinpoint the target. It was then that what happened to the Syrian RCA during the war with the Jews. And all this will be done by war ships, which (do not cling to the side of the AVU, as in the photographs for the press) are extended tens of kilometers from the AVU. The construction depends on the nature of the threat: aviation, anti-ship missiles, submarines with maintenance.
  5. Strashila
    Strashila 10 September 2013 07: 23
    +6
    As a military specialist wrote in an article on Iraq ... the best and most reliable connection is a field telephone cable. Well, an aircraft carrier ... Americans use them where they have nothing to answer.
  6. Krsk
    Krsk 10 September 2013 07: 36
    +2
    ... what remains will not be enough even for divers to really admire the remains ...

    And damn it shshii to carno !!!
  7. mark1
    mark1 10 September 2013 07: 38
    18
    Well, an article! The steeper will be yesterday. In all seriousness, it is argued that missiles of the "Harpoon" or "Penguin" type (others on small fishing vessels, and even more so boats "simply will not fit), can deprive an aircraft carrier of buoyancy, which, among other things, has passive protection in the form of a powerful NKZ and PTZ. of course, like all other floating craft, you can drown (by no means from slave boats), but in more than 50% this will happen not because the attacking side is very smart, but in view of the fact that the aircraft carrier commander is either a slob. -24, yes, there were such cases and they always gave "Hero" for them, but this once again shows how difficult it is to break through to the aircraft carrier even in peacetime, when the racism syndrome increases many times over. In Soviet times, an attack of one AUG required up to 3,14 regiments of missile-carrying naval aviation, 2 SSGN + surface forces with the participation of a cruiser, while the planned losses were catastrophic. Has something really changed since then?
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 10 September 2013 11: 15
      +4
      Quote: mark1
      missiles like "Harpoon" or "Penguin" (others on small fishing vessels, and even more so boats "simply will not fit) can deprive an aircraft carrier of buoyancy, which, among other things, has passive protection in the form of a powerful NKZ and PTZ.

      Harpoon pairs are few for this, dozens of Penguins will be required.
      Quote: mark1
      The case with the Su-24 was mentioned, but such cases took place and they always gave a "Hero" for them, but this once again shows how difficult the task is to break through to the aircraft carrier even in peacetime, when the rash syndrome increases many times over.

      In peacetime, everything is possible, the Su-24 pilots knew very well that no one would shoot them down. They somehow forget that NATO planes regularly fly around our ships, and no one screams in horror that this is the fault.
      1. Vashestambid2
        Vashestambid2 10 September 2013 15: 49
        +5
        Quote: Nayhas
        Harpoon pairs are few for this, dozens of Penguins will be required.

        laughing laughing laughing laughing laughing
        From the Antarctic, penguins from the catapult will be loaded and dusted, laughing I imagine the officers' faces when they watch the sailors catch the penguins running across the deck !! laughing


        soldier Sir! They attack us with penguins.
        am What? We will answer the same, upload the penguins to the fighter.
        soldier But Sir! They are protected by Greenpeace !!
        am I said download the penguins !!

        laughing laughing laughing laughing laughing
      2. Vashestambid2
        Vashestambid2 10 September 2013 15: 53
        -1
        Penguins will need dozens.


  8. NOMADE
    NOMADE 10 September 2013 07: 39
    +3
    Quote: Andrew Y.
    smile On October 17, 2000, in the Sea of ​​Japan, our SU-24 passed over the US aircraft carrier "KITTY HOCK" at an altitude of 50 meters! Which is equal to the destruction of the ship! the crew of the SU-24 Lieutenant Colonel A. Renev and Major M. Aristarkhov, of course, were awarded ... something like that! good


    This information (and flight parameters), urgently transferred to the Syrian Air Force, in the form of democratic assistance! laughing They seem to have about 20 more - Su 24. You look, they will drown the adversary in the event of a conflict (especially as far as I understand they have their own comicadze). what Then the United States will manage to the whole world ..!
    1. Canep
      Canep 10 September 2013 08: 27
      17
      Then the Americans did not expect anyone at all and thought that the Russians did not have kerosene, ours received the task to look after the AUG, approached 400 km, but no one met them, 200 km, too, no one, went on the aircraft carrier - they stirred. One Su-24 deployed the landing gear and flaps and began to simulate the landing approach. So let's amers signal to him that the lane is not ready for landing, and that he needs to go around. During this flight, the deck of Kitty Hawk was photographed in detail, and the commander of the AUG, the admiral (I do not remember his last name), who was resting on a sun lounger at that time, got into the frame. Putin sent this photo to the American President (then, in my opinion, there was still Clinton). The admiral was naturally retired (kicked in the ass), and the pilots were awarded. The pilots, in turn, also sent a letter with a photo, but not to the president, but to the aircraft carrier's website, the Americans commented on this letter as "not subject to translation." laughing laughing laughing
      1. lewerlin53rus
        lewerlin53rus 10 September 2013 08: 58
        +7
        Quote: Canep
        the Americans commented on this letter as "untranslatable."

        Yeah, apparently it was written something like this laughing
      2. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 10 September 2013 11: 02
        +3
        actually there were a couple of "crackers" smile ... from an American military letter from an aircraft carrier about this: ... I feel as if we were fucked ... laughing .
      3. little man
        little man 10 September 2013 11: 37
        +1
        One Su-24 released the landing gear and flaps and began to simulate a landing approach. So let Amers tell him that the strip is not ready for landing, and that he needs to go to the second round.

        Masterpiece!!! laughing
        1. Canep
          Canep 10 September 2013 12: 04
          +1
          Amer mixed up the Su-24 and F-14.
          1. Bosun
            Bosun 10 September 2013 13: 26
            +1
            Which confirms the study of the aircraft of the probable enemy, they have zero. Then the Mi-8 is confused with Chinook and that’s it, the marines had fun on board the adversary. 3 days to plunder, as befits the winners. laughing
      4. VAF
        VAF 10 September 2013 17: 22
        +1
        Quote: Canep
        Then the Americans didn’t wait for anyone and thought that the Russians didn’t have kerosene, ours were given the task of keeping an eye on the AUG, they approached 400 km, but no one met them, 200 km also no one, marched on an aircraft carrier — they moved.


        Seryoga .. all your comments are already .. "fairy tales overgrown with fables" and from the series "everything is mixed in a heap .. and horses and people."

        1. landing approach on an aircraft carrier is on the Tu-16R in 1970, because before fighters were under the belly (under the AFA), so as not to be photographed, in this case K.K. simulated an approach, with the release of mechanization and the chassis .. naturally Amer was dumped and here it is .. the aircraft carrier.

        2. In 2000, these were planned activities to search for the AUG, accompanied by a Su-27-x link. Amer approached 300 km to our territory.
        Passed over the aircraft carrier twice. and all overflights were as many as 3 and all three times successfully entered.

        Here is a photo of the span ... it’s clear that the amers flee from surprise and no 20-30 meters of entry per 100m. in the second run already at 50 soldier

        1. Canep
          Canep 10 September 2013 17: 38
          +1
          Quote: vaf
          Seryoga .. all your comments are already .. "fairy tales overgrown with fables"

          For what I bought for it and sold, where I read it it was written more about the cap that the admiral was looking in a hurry to start commanding. The picturesque picture turned out. You would write an article about all these cases, so that there are no such tales.
          1. VAF
            VAF 10 September 2013 18: 48
            +3
            Quote: Canep
            For what I bought for it and sold, where I read it it was written more about the cap that the admiral was looking in a hurry to start commanding.


            Well ... not fatal, I just corrected it ... and it was like in the Top Gun movie when Tom Cruise walked next to the KDP ... the same thing here ... coffee and caps and everything else flew wassat

            But the admiral was not there ... just at that moment there was a meeting with commanders of all ranks and the only thing he asked .. "what was it" because we did not plan any flights belay
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 11 September 2013 00: 17
              +1
              For what I bought and sold it, where I read it it was written about the cap which the admiral was looking for in a hurry to start commanding [/ quote] This is joke from the movie "Hot Heads"
    2. rolik
      rolik 10 September 2013 17: 09
      +3
      Quote: NOMADE
      They seem to have about 20 more - Su 24.

      In our plane, our pilots were sitting. And in Syrian, Syrian will sit.
      That’s the whole difference, the point is in the person driving the plane.
      But actually on the topic.
      The reconnaissance aircraft Il-38 was barraging at a considerable distance from the aircraft carrier, without attracting the attention of air defense systems. At the same time, his crew recorded the start of the refueling and transmitted the information to the operation headquarters. A pair of Su-24MR approached Kitty Hawk at maximum speed under the guise of two Su-27 fighters. When our planes appeared, panic arose on the deck of the aircraft carrier, which recorded the camera equipment. The American sailors hastily cut off the powerful hose sleeves along which the ship was refueling to enable their aircraft to fly into the air. But time was lost. According to our pilots, in real combat conditions this could lead to the death of an aircraft carrier. Pilots Alexander Renev, Mikhail Aristarkhov, Igor Radchenko, Vladimir Osipov were awarded orders for this operation.
      A similar attack was carried out on February 9, 2007. A pair of Tu-95MS in the Pacific Ocean south of Japan came close to the aircraft carrier strike group of the US Navy led by the Nimitz nuclear carrier. Moreover, one of the aircraft flew twice over the deck of an aircraft carrier at an altitude of about 610 meters.
      1. VAF
        VAF 10 September 2013 17: 30
        +2
        Quote: rolik
        The American sailors hastily cut off the powerful hose hoses along which the ship was refueling to enable their aircraft to fly into the air. But time was lost.


        Write almost everything correctly, only chopping the hoses from the tanker does not greatly affect takeoff from an aircraft carrier, under certain conditions! +! drinks

        Here is a photo of the second call, when the tanker has already fallen off and is preparing to take off the F-18 .... wink

        1. old man54
          old man54 10 September 2013 22: 50
          +1
          Quote: vaf
          only chopping the hoses from the tanker does not greatly affect takeoff from an aircraft carrier, under certain conditions! +!

          Hello! Well, how to say it does not affect, you are a pilot, Sergey! Almost always takeoff of an aircraft with AB is carried out against the wind and at full speed to simplify takeoff of an aircraft at the expense of its own speed AB (70 / 80% of the maximum). hi
          1. VAF
            VAF 11 September 2013 17: 20
            0
            Quote: old man54
            not much effect on takeoff from an aircraft carrier


            Once again, CAREFULLY we read my komen, and the phrase .. maybe you do not understand everything? wink
            But I specifically wrote- for amers not much, because the presence of a catapult allows you to take off from any aircraft carrier’s operating modes, up to a stand (though not fully armed), and so ... both in the wind and when not in full swing .. please, and even more so the air defense on duty!
            So I do not accept reproach! wink

            And you immediately .. well, you're a pilot wink And you do not know that in ANY Family of Aviation in the BP course there are landing exercises with a side and tail wind, as well as take-off with a tail wind? wink

            Do you think that with amers, and even with catapults, everything is different and these 20 knots of speed give a big increase?
      2. Alex 241
        Alex 241 11 September 2013 00: 21
        0
        ...............
        1. studentmati
          studentmati 11 September 2013 00: 32
          +1
          Good night, Sasha. This event is another, albeit tragic, fact of the participation of the Russian Federation (at that time the USSR) in world politics!
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 11 September 2013 00: 45
            +1
            Greetings Sasha, you know the background of those events, the aircraft carrier was lost, the task was to find the PILOTS! They fulfilled their duty to the end! Eternal memory to them!
            1. studentmati
              studentmati 11 September 2013 00: 51
              0
              Quote: Alex 241
              They fulfilled their duty to the end! Eternal memory to them!


              Eternal memory to them and a low bow for the military labor and feat! And let speculations and assumptions be on the conscience of those who have the conscience to pronounce them ...
  9. krpmlws
    krpmlws 10 September 2013 07: 44
    +3
    An article from the cycle from April 1st. Surprised by the many advantages of a provocative, delusional article.
    1. avt
      avt 10 September 2013 09: 29
      +4
      Quote: krpmlws
      An article from the cycle from April 1st. Surprised by the many advantages of a provocative, delusional article.

      Why is it surprising? Oleg has imitators. It is quite understandable phenomenon. laughing But the article is weak. Oleg, at least in sincere hatred of the aircraft carriers, is trying to find some links and numbers, he gives his own analysis and fiercely upholds it, therefore they argue with him. laughing
    2. Cheloveck
      Cheloveck 10 September 2013 09: 33
      +2
      Quote: krpmlws
      An article from the cycle from April 1st. Surprised by the many advantages of a provocative, delusional article.

      Why is it crazy?
      The essence is an absolute analogy with the headquarters exercises before the Patriotic War, when Zhukov completely defeated the Reds under the command of Pavlov with the "blue" ones.
      Then Pavlov's identity was "resurrected", leaving command of the Western District ...
  10. Dangerous
    Dangerous 10 September 2013 07: 51
    +2
    I notice that more and more one-sided "Urastatis" appear on the site. Where, apart from the superficial thoughts of the author, there is nothing more concrete. Neither the radius of action of the order's radar station, nor the detection zone of ships around it, nor the weapons with which the order's ships and submarines are equipped are indicated. Of course, one aircraft carrier will not last long, but as part of a ship group it will never be sunk by a mosquito fleet. By the way, there was an article on this topic here a year ago, where they convinced us that Russia needed a mosquito fleet. Yes, and military exercises are one thing, but a combat operation is completely different.
  11. IGS
    IGS 10 September 2013 07: 52
    +3
    People, in principle, are the same everywhere ... And we have enough: "Yes, we will break like ..." and "everything is bad! I know who is to blame!" ... and so, no numbers, no exact description of the reasons for the conditional loss, even who guilty, and it's not clear lol ... probably the lobby of the submarine manufacturers paid. But it’s better for us to perceive all such articles as a deliberate misinformation, although on what they are based, it’s better not to get it ..
  12. Dimy4
    Dimy4 10 September 2013 08: 01
    +4
    Although I’m not an expert, it seems to me that even if he stays afloat after the attack, he will not be able to receive and send planes accordingly, which is tantamount to drowning.
  13. Revolver
    Revolver 10 September 2013 08: 34
    +6
    The article is really funny, and consists of 2 parts. The first part is similar to the thoughts of the Russian author. And the second feels like a translation of an American essay on a given topic. The place of gluing where Van Riper is left alone and go to Mitchell.
    Who is right? Life will show. Assad probably dreams of sinking the Nimitz, but the guts are thin, the Nimitz will not stick under the Yakhonti, and Assad's Air Force is of museum age, and in recent years, they have been spending their resources strenuously, and had no normal service - not before that. So, deck-mounted F-18s will be enough to deal with the MiG-21 and even the SU-24, if they risk attacking. "Moscow" with its "Granites" in principle can, but will not, because Assad, despite the fact that he is an ally and seemingly a friend, is not worth the world war. So the proof will have to wait until Iran's turn comes, and that won't be tomorrow.
  14. dimon-media
    dimon-media 10 September 2013 08: 59
    +2
    The article is true. It is impossible to repulse a massive missile strike. (figuratively) Imagine a volley of two or three dozen yachts. Here, the law of large numbers, together with the theory of probability, will already apply. Aircraft carriers are only strong against banana republics that do not really have aviation, good air defense, or powerful and numerous anti-ship systems.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 10 September 2013 23: 35
      +1
      Quote: dimon-media
      The article is true. It is impossible to repulse a massive missile strike. (figuratively) Imagine a volley of two or three dozen yachts

      The article is nonsense! And from 100 RCC type P-120, only 8-10 reaches the AVU. Therefore, the outfit of forces was the MPA Division, 3-4 PLARK, jammers and other providing crap. Subject to the simultaneous approach of volley missiles to the main target. Now imagine how, at sea, when counteracting the enemy, to organize the interaction of aviation and submarines in a submerged position. Is there an operational level military site? or operational tactical? Tell about this hemorrhoids to the uninitiated, maybe then they will believe that to sink AVU is not a pound of raisins to be picked from a loaf!
  15. vlad.svargin
    vlad.svargin 10 September 2013 09: 04
    +1
    Carriers are not only the largest and most expensive ships ever built, they are also the most vulnerable. Because one serious hit of a cruise missile, and aircraft can no longer take off from an aircraft carrier, its best weapon. They will go to the bottom together with the crews without firing a single shot.


    Aircraft carrier stuffed with even the most modern electronics is poorly protected
    from the actions of submarines. He becomes a good target. Not so long ago, even diesel submarines could accompany this "structure" unnoticed for weeks while listening to radio communications with the pilots. I admit that the human factor of aircraft carrier acoustics is quite possible. But nuclear submarines have the means of destruction even more effective than cruise missiles and they are also crammed with modern electronics. But even of the "civilian container ship" type, it can have modern CDs. So the aircraft carrier is quite vulnerable, I join the author of the article.
    1. Starina_hank
      Starina_hank 10 September 2013 12: 18
      0
      And how did you, my dear man, listen to the talks of pilots with a submerged submarine?
      1. vlad.svargin
        vlad.svargin 10 September 2013 13: 39
        +4
        If you don’t know, then I remind you, even in the 60's, the radio watch was closed after a depth of 50 m.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 10 September 2013 23: 49
          +1
          Quote: vlad.svargin
          If you don’t know, then I remind you, even in the 60's, the radio watch was closed after a depth of 50 m.

          And then, if you had "Paravan" or its equivalent.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 10 September 2013 23: 47
      +1
      Quote: vlad.svargin
      Not so long ago, even diesel submarines could accompany this "structure" unnoticed for weeks while listening to radio communications with the pilots.

      Oh how! Are you a diver? and probably served on the heroic diesel who "accompanied" the AMG for weeks? Well, someone (you see from the former druzhbanov) cast a bullet for you! I already keep quiet about the radio communications of the pilots ... This can be done by the OSNAZ group when the submarine is on the surface. But then you need to forget about secrecy, which means 3,14 on a boat.
  16. IRBIS
    IRBIS 10 September 2013 09: 14
    +7
    The need for aircraft carriers showed the experience of the Second World War. The Americans and the Japanese were quite successful in their application. This is a real experience in the combat use of this class of ships. There is no other experience, and all the articles, conjectures and fabrications about the futility of aircraft carriers are still just idle talk. How many targets were hit by planes taking off at the right time from the decks of aircraft carriers? And how many aircraft carriers were drowned? At the same time, overwhelmingly, they were also sunk by carrier-based aircraft.
    Therefore, all this is a golem theory, to which malice and envy are mixed.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 10 September 2013 23: 53
      +2
      Quote: IRBIS
      The need for aircraft carriers showed the experience of the Second World War.

      I finally heard the voice of reason, not emotion. Namesake, you are absolutely right!
  17. labendik
    labendik 10 September 2013 09: 28
    +2
    Article is complete nonsense. Only potential enemies can write this. We don’t need to worry about modernizing the army, we’ll find a couple of hundred AN-2 and fishing boats.
  18. Chukcha
    Chukcha 10 September 2013 09: 40
    +2
    A friend of mine (retired) told me the following - to destroy an aircraft carrier, the first nuclear torpedo is enough to immobilize, but not drown, at least 1 torpedoes. And then, they must get right. But what would drown ..., here 5 torpedoes will be few. They are very floating, contagious.
    1. Fornit
      Fornit 10 September 2013 15: 40
      +1
      Quote: Chukcha
      I am familiar with the copyrang (retired)

      1. First, "caperang". This title has nothing to do with a copier. Why does the Chukchi disrespect?
      2. With one vigorous torpedo, the entire AUG can be drained, not just its core. There is no reception against scrap.
  19. Per se.
    Per se. 10 September 2013 09: 57
    +6
    "Aircraft carriers - floating coffins?", But what can you say, anything can become a coffin, from the best tank in the world to the most perfect ship. In general, another, good-quality jingoistic patriotic article, where modern, high-tech weapons are reduced to the level of "a sledgehammer on the computer", and that's it, no mind is needed, cheap and cheerful. What, exactly, did the Paul van Riper example prove? Only that with competent counteraction, you can fight and inflict damage with any available weapon, but if the same Riper had the best weapon, he would impress even more. For me personally, this proves only one thing - Riper is a talented commander who, no doubt, would find a worthy use for any weapon. Hitting aircraft carriers, another provocative gruel and plot plot. On the forehead it is necessary to scrawl - AIRCRAFT CARRIER, AIRCRAFT CARRIER, and not a ship for the sake of producing an impression. Aviation will not be needed, aircraft carriers will not be needed, as well as land airfields; as long as aviation is needed, aircraft carriers will also be needed. These are scientific and technological progress, the evolution of technology and military affairs, the strategy of war at sea. Pearl Harbor for the Americans was created precisely by aircraft from aircraft carriers, like the Prince of Wales and Repals were killed by aviation, albeit the base one. You can't do without aviation and floating airfields, so, enough of this nonsense about cheap and angry, in the end, a penny bullet takes a priceless human life.
  20. dizelniy
    dizelniy 10 September 2013 10: 01
    0
    Cape assassination in assessing the enemy is the last thing, taking into account the transfer of the main nuclear strike component to submarines, the correct conclusion for us is the construction at some stage of aircraft-carrying cruisers with the tasks of operating their enemy formations against enemy ships and air defense. This will allow you to safely deploy your yao carrier submarines and ensure their stability during the execution of the bz.
  21. vitek1233
    vitek1233 10 September 2013 10: 03
    +2
    What to argue. That's when the aircraft carrier is sunk then we will calculate what was the consumption of missiles
  22. aud13
    aud13 10 September 2013 10: 06
    +1
    The carrier group is certainly a serious thing, but ...
    What Riper proved is that they have pain points. Apparently, he perfectly understood the tactics of the actions of his conditional opponents during the exercises and did everything to not follow their plans. Of course, during real combat conditions, everything can turn out differently, but as one of the options for action against the AUG, it seems to me noteworthy.
  23. Cherdak
    Cherdak 10 September 2013 10: 06
    +3
    A surprisingly curious coincidence - today an article appeared on SUN that fully confirms the author's fear: "Flight tests of the BrahMos aircraft version of the BrahMos missile on the Indian Su-30MKI fighter are scheduled to begin this year." And this bhai-bhai "Yakhont" is capable of speeds up to Mach 2,8, has a warhead of up to 300 kg and is released 300 km from the target, ie. outside the affected area of ​​hypertension.

    And if you combine underwater, surface and air launches - it will be a funeral song!
    1. Canep
      Canep 10 September 2013 10: 21
      +5
      Nickname cool: Finland - the attic of Russia
    2. VAF
      VAF 10 September 2013 17: 44
      +2
      Quote: Cherdak
      and issued 300 km from the target, i.e. outside the affected area of ​​hypertension.


      This is your "pearl" out of ignorance or how hi ?

      For information- Modern missiles of the modifications SM-2 Block IV (RIM-156) and SM-3 (RIM-161) differ from each other, primarily in their purpose.
      The former were designed to destroy planes, helicopters and cruise missiles, and the latter to destroy ballistic missiles.
      RIM-156 have only two steps, RIM-161 - four.
      The target’s hitting ceiling for the latter is more than 160 kilometers, range - 270 nautical miles.
      The range of the RIM-156 is about 200 nautical miles, the ceiling is 33 kilometers.
      They also differ in guidance system and warheads.

      Passed tests and adopted the SM-6 ERAM (Extended Range Active Missile) with an extended range, which replaces the SM-2.
      Its main advantage is the guidance system, borrowed from the latest series of AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles.
      This system provides target destruction beyond the range of ship radars due to the possibility of targeting from remote radars in real time.



  24. explorer
    explorer 10 September 2013 10: 26
    +1
    The author has designated the EXISTENCE of the solution to the problem: "Destruction of AUG by small cash".
    You can of course
    Quote: Chukcha
    1st nuclear torpedo, which would immobilize, but not drown, at least 5 torpedoes. And then, they must get right.

    - but this is an attack on the forehead.
    Or maybe a solution: to create an abundance of false targets (probes, rafts, etc.) and to overload the AUG information system while simultaneously attacking with an effective means under their cover.
  25. Nayhas
    Nayhas 10 September 2013 10: 31
    +2
    The author is undoubtedly right. But he did not say that not a single fleet could repel such an attack. NO ONE. Of course there is a way out, to drown all the longboats, boats and schooners indiscriminately in a certain radius. But only aviation can handle this, and where is aviation based? The answer is unequivocal, an aircraft carrier.
    Van Riper is undoubtedly a bastard, he put himself in a favorable position, the Americans could not sink civilian ships and shoot down all civilian aircraft, this is a crime for which the tribunal shines. Therefore, he is a bastard. But there are a lot of "bastards" in the world, they will even be happy if the Americans smash any ship chandler or fisherman into chips by mistake, there will be more curses against the "skikhkov", how they kill peaceful traders and fishermen!
    However, the author is wrong that the Americans are doing nothing. They are developing unmanned boats to test civilian schooners, dozens of them can be launched from escort ships, preventing attempts to approach the cherished "floating coffin", up to destruction on the spot. So there is a problem and it is being solved ...
  26. de bouillon
    de bouillon 10 September 2013 10: 32
    0
    Quote: Vladimirets
    Quote: Lech s ZATULINKI
    For example, how many BASTION missiles are needed to sink, for example, an aircraft carrier like NIMITS.

    To incapacitate him for an indefinite period, one is enough to hit the take-off deck.



    how and with what will you deliver the BASTION to get closer to strike the aircraft carrier ??

    here xetai9977 very correctly put it. many here think that he is the only aircraft carrier floating. But this is a whole group of ships.

    for example, what can overcome the security zone
  27. de bouillon
    de bouillon 10 September 2013 10: 37
    +3
    Quote: Cherdak
    A surprisingly curious coincidence - today an article appeared on SUN that fully confirms the author's fear: "Flight tests of the BrahMos aircraft version of the BrahMos missile on the Indian Su-30MKI fighter are scheduled to begin this year." And this bhai-bhai "Yakhont" is capable of speeds up to Mach 2,8, has a warhead of up to 300 kg and is released 300 km from the target, ie. outside the affected area of ​​hypertension.

    And if you combine underwater, surface and air launches - it will be a funeral song!


    the chances are small

    if only there will be many missiles, as well as the carriers themselves. Yakhont is certainly a great weapon, but 300 km is actually very small against the AUG. Because the carrier will be in the affected area of ​​the guard ships. And do not forget that 300 km for Yakhont is on a combined trajectory. Very vulnerable to air defense.

    The most effective method of applying Yakhont is a maximum shot of up to 120 km. Then the rocket will go along a low-altitude trajectory.
  28. bond_es
    bond_es 10 September 2013 10: 50
    +1
    carrier group is good only in punitive operations. when the enemy will not resist. but in real warfare they are goals number 1 and they will be drowned for two times.
  29. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 10 September 2013 10: 54
    +3
    Quote: Andrew Y.
    smile On October 17, 2000, in the Sea of ​​Japan, our SU-24 passed over the US aircraft carrier "KITTY HOCK" at an altitude of 50 meters! Which is equal to the destruction of the ship! the crew of the SU-24 Lieutenant Colonel A. Renev and Major M. Aristarkhov, of course, were awarded ... something like that! good

    Yes it was. And the second Su-24, having released its landing gear, imitated landing on an American aircraft carrier. The Americans did not come up with anything better than they released the Prowler electronic warfare aircraft to counter them. Our two Su-27 escort fighters "got rid of" him in all poses, in front of the frightened Americans. They even had to interrupt refueling by cutting off the hoses. They were able to launch their first fighter in 30-40 minutes, when ours finished their mischief and flew away. Later, photographs were sent to the commander of the American aircraft carrier as a gift from our pilots.
    1. VAF
      VAF 10 September 2013 17: 48
      +2
      Quote: VohaAhov
      And the second Su-24 firing the chassis simulated landing on an American aircraft carrier.


      Write everything correctly +! And there was Proler and one A-18 ... just about fucked up ... it's you in vain. but dragged away and given the opportunity to work out the scouts without interference, yes!
      Only there was no landing approach .. this is not the case !!! wink

  30. shark
    shark 10 September 2013 11: 05
    +3
    In principle, it is obvious that with the development of missile weapons, huge ships are a thing of the past. They are good for showing the flag, for a small personal armageddon in a single African country. But in modern wars at sea, it will be a miracle if these leviathans manage to fire a volley It is necessary to develop a high-speed, well-armed mosquito fleet for operations in the coastal zone and again a high-speed fleet consisting of ships of rank 2 and 3, with powerful (enhanced) air defense for operations in the sea and ocean zones. Special attention should be paid to their missile weapons .The firing range, the ability to set interference and false targets are relevant as never before. Do not forget about the submarine fleet. It may be worth moving away from stereotypes and creating new types of submarines with an unprecedented combination of weapons.
    And the main thing is the aircraft carriers. Of course, these ships are the pride of the country that created them, a vivid confirmation of the power and ambitions of a naval power. But there are no precedents for the number of resources necessary to ensure the safety of the AOG even in peacetime. Such a number of ships, missiles, personnel for the sake of one aircraft carrier, it’s simply not logical. Again, if we are talking about a serious war, and not another democratization of another banana republic. This suggests the conclusion that aircraft carriers were created exclusively for neocolonial wars.
  31. nikcris
    nikcris 10 September 2013 11: 22
    0
    No need to drown aircraft carriers. They will drown themselves. I recalled two incidents in the Vietnam War. One with Enterprise is worth it. Viet Cong residents couldn’t do so much damage good
  32. nod739
    nod739 10 September 2013 11: 23
    +1
    Quote: Stiletto
    I will not say anything about aircraft carriers. But the mosquito fleet is definitely worth developing. In terms of price and quality, it has no equal. Cheap and cheerful.


    support

    ... recently, in some article, it was that a large group of cheap small planes of the 60s, with modern weapons and avionics, were able to destroy the raptor link, because there were more of the first and the raptors simply didn’t have enough missiles to shoot down all ...
  33. smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 10 September 2013 11: 26
    +3
    Well, to begin with, the only more or less "naval" war after the Second World War was the Falklands War of 1982, in which the British carrier-based aircraft on the "Harrier" VTOL managed to show themselves quite worthily:
    The distribution of losses of Argentine aircraft for reasons:
    "Mirage" III (2) - 1 shot down by fighters, 1 shot down by "friendly fire"
    "Dagger" (11) - 9 shot down by fighters, 2 shot down by air defense
    A-4 Skyhawk (22) - 8 shot down by fighters, 9 shot down by air defense systems, 1 crashed while evading a missile, 1 shot down by "friendly fire", 3 lost for unclear reasons
    IA-58 "Pukara" (15 + 11) - 1 shot down by fighters, 2 shot down by air defense systems, 7 destroyed on the ground, 3 lost for non-combat reasons, 2 lost for unclear reasons, 11 captured after the war
    MB-339 (2 + 3) - 1 shot down by means of air defense, 1 crashed for non-combat reason, 3 captured after the war
    "Canberra" (2) - 1 shot down by fighters, 1 shot down by air defense systems
    SC.7 Skyvan (2) - 1 destroyed on the ground, 1 lost for non-combat reasons
    T-34 "Turbo Mentor" (4) - 4 destroyed on the ground
    C-130 "Hercules" (1) - 1 shot down by fighters
    Learget 35 (1) - 1 shot down by air defense systems
    SA316 "Aluette" III (1) - 1 destroyed on the ship
    SA330 "Puma" (6 + 1) - 3 shot down by air defense, 2 destroyed on the ground, 1 crashed while evading a fighter attack, 1 captured after the war
    Sea Lynx (2) - 2 lost for non-combat reasons
    CH-47 Chinook (1 + 1) - 1 destroyed on the ground, 1 captured after the war
    A109 "Hirundo" (1 + 2) - 1 destroyed on the ground, 2 captured after the war
    Bell 212 (2) - 2 captured after the war
    UH-1 Iroquois (9) - 9 captured after the war

    TOTAL:
    Aircraft (62 + 14) - 21 shot down in air combat, 16 shot down by ground air defense systems, 2 lost from "friendly fire", 1 crashed while evading a missile, 12 destroyed on the ground, 5 lost for non-combat reasons, 5 lost for unclear reasons .14 ​​captured after the war
    Helicopters (11 + 15) - 3 shot down by ground air defense systems, 4 destroyed on the ground, 1 destroyed on a ship, 1 crashed when evading a fighter attack, 2 lost for non-combat reasons, 15 captured after the war
    Of the 73 aircraft lost during the war, 61 (83%) were combat losses, 7 (10%) were non-combat. For 5 aircraft, the circumstances of the loss are not entirely clear. One Skyhawk was destroyed on May 30 when a British aircraft carrier was attacked either from a missile or collided with the wreckage of other aircraft, and is counted as a combat loss. Two "Pukars" on May 1 and two "Skyhawks" on May 9 cannot be unequivocally attributed to combat or non-combat losses.
    After the ceasefire, British aircraft captured 14 aircraft and 15 helicopters. Given this aircraft, the irretrievable losses of Argentine aviation in the war are 76 aircraft and 26 helicopters.

    http://artofwar.ru/p/ponamarchuk_e/text_0230.shtml
  34. left-wing
    left-wing 10 September 2013 11: 27
    +2
    With aircraft carriers, a contentious issue and only a real war can give an answer, alas ....
  35. nod739
    nod739 10 September 2013 11: 41
    0
    Quote: Canep
    Then the Americans didn’t wait for anyone and thought that the Russians don’t have kerosene,


    so there, besides the pilots, the reconnaissance also worked perfectly, ours flew at the moment when the aircraft carrier was refueling, and this is not a pleasure for 5 minutes, and it seems like the deck is busy and nobody can take off, in fact,
    those. off guard
  36. barbiturate
    barbiturate 10 September 2013 11: 46
    +4
    the article amused) if you believe in nonsense, about ships arbitrarily floating somewhere in the sea and firing all at once at an aircraft carrier (uhahaha, well, the child wrote, by God)), then the sinking of one ship (aircraft carrier) is the whole fleet?) And what do the planes do? and an aircraft carrier warrant ?. How much nonsense has already been written about airborne ships, but this one is the strongest. It seems that the author just decided, "People write the same, let me scribble something, which Temko is poppier ... ?? Yeah, there is" Well, in the days of microchips, the author lives in his head, but for some reason he got a bullet there)
  37. Mhpv
    Mhpv 10 September 2013 11: 48
    +5
    I’m interested, and there is a daredevil on the forum who will go to destroy the AUG as a part of those ships, or use her tongue to indulge well while surfing the Internet, because there will be little chance of returning to the base.
    Does anybody want!
    It’s good to fight with the wrong hands and sons.
  38. MG42
    MG42 10 September 2013 11: 55
    0
    Tamara and I
    We walk in pairs,
    Medics
    We are with Tamara.

    If anything
    Will happen,
    Come to us
    To be treated.

    So yesterday it was already on the same topic, our song is good, start over again .. wassat
  39. Sadikoff
    Sadikoff 10 September 2013 11: 56
    0
    You don’t have to drown, just use a weapon with EMP. Then, if you want to, then do it.
  40. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 10 September 2013 11: 56
    +1
    In fact, this article has already slipped, only in a truncated form. Of course, I am not a super expert, but still inclined to develop a submarine fleet. For the long spread of sea pilots, I had the opinion that at a distance of 200-300 km it was possible to detect the Sq. approaching zero. In principle, submariners also confirm this, including by deeds. The range of destruction of the marine systems Onyx, Caliber, Mosquito 300-450km.
    It is NOT necessary to drown an aircraft carrier, it’s enough to damage it and the aircraft will not be able to fly, and then it becomes a target for conventional coastal aviation.
    Of course, complete drowning from a strike is also not canceled.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 10 September 2013 12: 09
      +2
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      According to the long spread of sea pilots, I had the opinion that at a range of 200-300 km the possibility of detecting a square. approaching zero. In principle, submariners also confirm this, including by deeds. The range of destruction of the marine systems Onyx, Caliber, Mosquito 300-450km.

      And what is the possibility of submarines at a range of 300-450 km. detect a sea target? Ask the submariners how they are 300 km away. without surfacing, they can detect an aircraft carrier in order to launch anti-ship missiles not in white light?
      1. 1c-inform-city
        1c-inform-city 10 September 2013 12: 46
        +1
        There is an external target designation system and there’s no point in completely floating up. Otherwise, why should all boats be equipped with expensive missile systems with such a range?
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 10 September 2013 17: 19
          0
          Quote: 1c-inform-city
          There is an external target designation system and for this there is no sense in surfacing completely.

          Yes, there were Tu-95RTs aircraft that illuminated the surface situation, at a predetermined time, the nuclear submarine launched an antenna on the water surface and received information through a communication session. The scheme was not stable, because Tu-95RTs is a rather defenseless target, it was quickly detected and intercepted, i.e. "in which case," he definitely went to the bottom. BUT currently even that is not.
  41. slvevg
    slvevg 10 September 2013 12: 15
    +1
    The missile cruiser of project 1164 (formerly "Ukraine"), which is located at the shipyard of the 61st Kommunar shipyard in Nikolaev, will be completed there by the end of the year and offered to Russia for 1 billion rubles, a representative of the Military-Industrial Commission under the government of the Russian Federation said on Friday ...
    http://podrobnosti.ua/economy/2013/09/06/928446.html
  42. MG42
    MG42 10 September 2013 12: 18
    +3
    For some time, we may be lucky, as long as we rush to muddle like Iraq. And Iran? The Iranians are not cowardly slaves like Iraqis. They are intelligent, they are purposeful, and they hate us more than poison. Imagine how many small planes and ships the Iranian coast has. Imagine if each of them is filled with explosives and turned into a kamikaze. And now add here all the anti-ship missiles that Iranians have the opportunity to purchase on the open market. If you want to get scared for real, add one more atom bomb.
    Aircraft carriers - floating coffins?

    While no one is attacking Iran, how many times has Iran threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz in order to hit Kuwait’s oil exports to cut off Qatar, Iraqi exports?
    and why the Iraqis are cowardly, if the author even recalls a little the history of the protracted Iran - Iraq war under Hussein ... two countries fought from 1980 to 1988, even chem was used for exhaustion. weapons after which they signed a peace agreement there were no winners. The loss of manpower in Iraq was lower than Iranian.
    If everyone throws a cap at the same time at an aircraft carrier, then under their weight he will sink ..
  43. Rash
    Rash 10 September 2013 12: 31
    +1
    Apparently there is nothing to throw hot on the site, the tension was asleep with Syria, nobody is interested in chemical weapons, and such crazy articles are published
    1. Dimka off
      Dimka off 13 September 2013 18: 50
      0
      Quote: Rash
      Syria tension slept

      take control of chemical weapons and destroy Assad. The West just does not back down. It just poses a serious threat to Israel.
  44. avg
    avg 10 September 2013 12: 36
    +3
    If we talk about protecting our territory, in order to effectively counteract the American AOG, we need to bring to mind the satellite constellation, increase the number of multi-purpose diesel and nuclear submarines, build new missile boats and, finally, withdraw from the INF Treaty. And only then, if the fat is accumulated, get yourself a couple of AUGs to put in order all kinds of mongrels, such as the presumptuous Qatar.
  45. Cherdak
    Cherdak 10 September 2013 13: 05
    +3
    Quote: Canep
    Nickname cool: Finland - the attic of Russia


    No worse than the Minesweeper of the Soviet Union.

    And so we St. Petersburg, only the cottage is far
    1. Canep
      Canep 10 September 2013 15: 00
      +1
      In Finland, a summer cottage or something? I guessed that you were Russian, I only thought that I had skidded about working in Finland.
  46. AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 10 September 2013 13: 26
    +1
    I already read an article about the futility of aircraft carriers, and with particular interest comments on them. Accordingly, I draw my conclusions. The prospects or futility of aircraft carriers will only be decided by real combat! And no other way! So far, the effectiveness of AUGs has not been identified in a war with a high-tech enemy, using electronic warfare systems and high-precision weapons. And the results of using high-tech weapons can be unpredictable!
    In the meantime, the authors of articles and comments are guided by the experience of using aircraft carriers in World War II, and in operations against the "Papuans"! Well, generals (admirals) are always preparing for the last war! So we'll see ...
  47. Cherdak
    Cherdak 10 September 2013 13: 40
    0
    Someone else's thoughts. It is believed that to destroy an aircraft carrier it is necessary to have 15-20 hits, 7-10 hits will allow the aircraft carrier to be disabled for a long time, with 3-5 hits the aircraft carrier will continue fighting.
    RCC "Granite" with a successful hit could theoretically drown an aircraft carrier.
    The American doctrine provides for the use of an aircraft carrier as part of an aircraft carrier strike group (AUG), which includes, among other things, destroyers and URA cruisers. They have their own missile defense systems. In addition to cruisers and destroyers, the AOG includes 1-2 multipurpose submarines designed to combat enemy submarines.
    Thus, in the normal course of service by sailors of the Russian Navy and the US Navy, at the moment, our fleet does not have the opportunity to drown an aircraft carrier.

    But there can always be a freelance situation that will allow you to commit obviously impossible.

    Instructions:

    1. Divers shall be approached to the target in such a way as to go ahead in the direction of the aircraft carrier, if the squadron is moving. If it is anchored, the direction of approach to the target does not matter. The depth of immersion (in the daytime) should not exceed several meters, so as not to impair visibility. At night, mining is carried out in the water position.

    2. If the squadron is moving, then the carrier should be mined while waiting for the hull to pass over the divers. At the time of passage, using special remote devices (which should be included in the equipment), mining is carried out (hanging of magnetic mines on the ship's hull). Then the departure takes place.

    3. The sailing process itself should consist of standing still if the squadron is moving (skip forward) or sailing towards the base. If urgent detonation is necessary, then the departure is carried out in the direction opposite to the shore (since the retaliatory strike and the enemy’s landmark will be sent there).

    4. Undermining is carried out after the group moves away at a considerable distance from the target, but not exceeding half the radio signal coverage area (in case of possible interference).

    5. Leaving the affected area is carried out in those directions where the enemy’s retaliatory strike will not be oriented.

    In all the cases described, it will be practically impossible to detect a sabotage group, even if constant visual observation of the surface is carried out.

    The task of sinking the aircraft carrier will be able to carry out a group of 20 divers. If you need to liquidate escort ships, you will need a group of 100 people.
    1. nikcris
      nikcris 10 September 2013 14: 07
      +2
      View Enterprise Case wink
      There were no saboteurs, there was no external influence. Normal negligence. But AUG went for half a year to bite seeds. And what does theory tell us about the transience of modern wars? wassat
    2. Zerstorer
      Zerstorer 10 September 2013 14: 40
      +2
      Questions and comments:
      1) How quietly for the enemy to carry out the saboteurs in the case of movement AUG?
      2) The mining of a moving ship is in doubt.
      3) The evacuation of the group (if provided) also causes problems.
      4) The influence of weather conditions has not been taken into account.
    3. MG42
      MG42 10 September 2013 16: 20
      +3
      Watch an American film, how the old man from the list below moves, it is really possible for a diver to swim up there, he can break with screws >> four five-blade propellers rotate the turbines.



      List of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers:
      <Nimitz> (CVN-68) - entered service on May 3, 1975
      <Dwight D. Eisenhower> (CVN-69) - entered service October 18, 1977
      <Karl Vinson> (CVN-70) - entered the fleet on May 13, 1982.
      <Theodore Roosevelt> (CVN-71) - entered the fleet on October 25, 1986
      <Abraham Lincoln> (CVN-72) - entered the fleet on November 11, 1989
      <George Washington> (CVN-73) - Enlisted in the Navy July 4, 1992
      <John C. Stennis> (CVN-74) - added to the fleet on December 9, 1995
      <Harry Truman> (CVN-75) - entered the fleet on 25 July 1998
      <Ronald Reagan> (CVN-76) - Introduced into the Navy on July 12, 2003.
      USS George HW Bush (CVN-77) - included in the fleet on January 10, 2009.

      The CVN77 will be a "transition" ship from the Nimitz class to the new CVX aircraft carriers. This ship is supposed to work out promising technologies intended for use in the CVX design. The aircraft carrier will have a redesigned hull and island, reduced radar signature, improved catapults and aircraft maintenance systems, and a reduced crew.

      RIA News

      The CVX project, the Americans, apparently, will not give up, no matter what the costs .. >>
    4. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 11 September 2013 00: 48
      +4
      Quote: Cherdak
      Divers must reach the target

      Not familiar with the EITI-PDSS system? It's a pity! Then it would not have occurred to you to send "divers" under a moving aircraft carrier. And at the anchorage of the PSPO boats with preventive grenade throwing, they will forever discourage you from mining ships. 10 squadron of the Italian Navy was successful only at first, when the British did not know about the threat from the combat swimmers.
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 11 September 2013 01: 15
        0
        Somehow we got into a conversation over a glass of tea with a combat swimmer in the past, from the Saturn base, he said that the worst thing is trawling with "cats" the slightest wound and certain death, the blood in the water does not clot.
  48. Icestar777
    Icestar777 10 September 2013 13: 43
    0
    the reality of what is happening when this whole giant shell begins to crack and go under water.

    Amen!!!
  49. vvpll
    vvpll 10 September 2013 13: 56
    +3
    Aircraft carrier can be disabled by one unexploded missile.
    John McCain will not let you lie.
    link: http: //www.seapeace.ru/seafarers/accidents/293.html
  50. Icestar777
    Icestar777 10 September 2013 13: 58
    0
    Quote: Cherdak
    In all the cases described, it will be practically impossible to detect a sabotage group, even if constant visual observation of the surface is carried out.

    There will be a mere trifle, to deal with the anti-sabotage group .......