Military Review

Deadly truth

180
The chances of a Russian missile cruiser hitting a US carrier-based compound are negligible


Some classes and types of warships cause society to overstate expectations, and the allegedly enormous combat potential attributed to them is reflected in high-profile nicknames, such as the “aircraft carrier killer,” as 1164 missile cruisers call it in the press. How does this correspond to their real capabilities? Are they able to destroy the most powerful warships of our time - American heavy aircraft carriers (AVT)?

The heavy nuclear missile cruisers of the 1144 project (the most famous of which is “Peter the Great”), the 1164 missile cruisers and the submarines of the 949 project (became famous “thanks to” the tragedy of the Kursk submarine) are really high hopes. But are they capable, acting as part of a group of two or three ships (as is the case today when our Navy performs various tasks of supporting Russian diplomacy and displaying the flag), to destroy or at least disable the American aircraft carrier?

Let us turn to the main tactical and technical characteristics of these ships.

Our capabilities

The 1164 missile cruiser with a displacement of more than 11 000 tons has as its main armament a missile strike complex weapons P-1000 "Volcano" with 16 ammunition anti-ship missiles. The maximum firing range is 550 kilometers.

The main anti-aircraft armament of the ship is represented by the multichannel complex "Fort" (C-300F) with a firing range of up to 90 kilometers.


The 1144 heavy missile cruiser with a displacement of more than 25 000 tons equipped with anti-ship missiles "Granit" with a firing range of about 500 kilometers. The ship has on board 20 such missiles.

As the main anti-aircraft weapon, the ship has two multichannel complexes "Fort", similar to those installed on the cruisers of the 1164 project.

On both ships, the Ka-27 helicopters are based, which can be used for issuing target designation to the main missile system at a distance of kilometers to 300 – 400.

According to Western experts, the destruction of or the decommissioning of such ships requires the entry of four to six Harpoon anti-ship missiles or two or three Tomahawks.

The submarine of the 949A project has as its main armament the Granit missile system, similar to that installed on the 1144 cruisers.

The main means of searching for connections of surface ships on this submarine is a hydroacoustic complex.

Unified combat system

American aircraft carriers almost always operate as part of carrier strike groups or carrier strike compounds. The typical composition of such a group includes one aircraft carrier, six to eight surface covering ships, including two or three Ticonderog type missile cruisers and the same number of Orly Burk destroyers as well as two or three nuclear submarines, mainly "Los Angeles".

An aircraft carrier may include up to two to four carrier strike groups operating in a single battle formation.

Currently, the foundation of the American aircraft carrier fleet are ships of the Nimitz type of various modifications. With a displacement of about 95 tons, they have as their main weapon an airborne group aviation a total of up to 100 units of various aircraft.

The standard composition of the aircraft wing of the aircraft carrier includes the F / A-48C, E, F and D 18, the Viking planes, four - six tankers, the same number of EW planes, four reconnaissance planes, four - radar patrol and E-10 “Hokai”, 2 – 10 control units for anti-submarine and search and rescue helicopters.

The aircraft carrier wing constitutes the basis of the strike power of an aircraft carrier strike group and provides all types of its defense.

Missile cruisers and destroyers of URO are the basis of the defense system of the aircraft carrier group.

Tikonderoga type missile cruisers with a displacement of about 9600 tons as the main armament have different types of missile weapons, located in two universal vertical underdeck launchers Mk-41 with a total capacity of 122 cells.

Typical missile loading includes Tomahawk 26 cruise missiles, ASROC 16 PLUR and Standard-80 2 SAMs.

In addition, the ship has XGNUMX missiles "Harpoon" in the deck launchers.

The destroyers of the ORO-type "Orly Burk" in terms of composition and nomenclature of weapons are similar to Ticonderoga-type cruisers, differing from them only in a reduced amount of ammunition. So, these ships have 96 cells of universal vertical launchers.

Both types of ship are equipped with the Aegis combat information management system.

Carriers, cruisers and destroyers have a developed system of electronic suppression, allowing them to significantly reduce the likelihood of destruction of anti-ship missiles.

It can be assumed that four or seven heavy Russian anti-ship missiles will be required to destroy or destroy an American aircraft carrier. A similar figure for cruisers and destroyers will be from one to three units.

Multipurpose nuclear submarines of the Los Angeles type have 12 launchers that can accommodate Tomahawk anti-ship missiles and four torpedo tubes with 24 torpedo ammunition.

Solving the task of fighting enemy surface ships, the carrier strike group is capable of striking carrier-based aircraft comprising up to 40 aircraft at a distance of 600 – 800 kilometers and Tomahawk missiles to 500 – 600 kilometers from the center of the warrant, having a few dozen such missiles .

Anti-submarine defense carrier strike group is built to a depth of 600 and more kilometers from the aircraft carrier. Anti-aircraft - to 700 kilometers from the center of the order. Its basis in the far and middle zones is deck fighter aircraft, capable of fighting with supersonic cruise missiles. In the near zone, the base of the air defense system consists of the multichannel anti-aircraft fire weapons of the ships guarding collective defense.

In general, the US carrier strike group is a unified combat system in which dissimilar forces and assets operate under the control of a unified automated control system for a naval compound, solving all the defense and offensive tasks assigned to it in a single complex.

Zero chance

In order to hit an aircraft carrier from an aircraft carrier strike group, our ship group led by a missile cruiser or a missile submarine must ensure timely detection of the aircraft carrier group and classify it, approach the distance of use of missile weapons, retain combat capability, get target designation with determining the location of the aircraft carrier in warrant and launch missiles, which, having overcome the opposition of air defense and EW, must hit the aircraft carrier.

Consider the possibility of implementing this complex of events.

Own capabilities of the ship group in the composition of the missile cruiser and of one or three escort ships and reconnaissance support are actually limited to the limits of the radio horizon, that is, several dozen kilometers.

Helicopters available onboard ships for use in the interests of searching for enemy ship formations in large areas are unsuitable due to the insufficient number of these machines onboard the formation ships (maximum two helicopters on the largest ship) and a small radius of action. They can be effectively used only in the interests of issuing target designation and then to the incomplete range of the use of rocket weapons.

The capabilities of the 949A missile submarines of the reconnaissance project are much broader. With the help of their underwater acoustics, they can detect noises from aircraft carrier groups more than one hundred nautical miles away. That is, when the submarine is in the far zone of the anti-submarine defense of an aircraft carrier group, where there is a certain (albeit small) probability of its destruction.

However, it is impossible to classify and, moreover, determine the combat order of enemy connections with the identification of the main order from such a distance. It will be necessary to get close to the enemy up to several dozen nautical miles. That is, to enter the middle anti-submarine defense zone of an enemy compound, where the probability of its destruction is already quite substantial.

When these cruisers were created, that is, under the Soviet Navy, their activities were supposed to be carried out with the support of the naval intelligence system in the ocean (sea) theater of operations. It was based on a developed radio and electronic intelligence system, which was based on ground centers located in the territory of not only the USSR, but also other countries. She also had an effective naval space reconnaissance system, which allows not only to detect and monitor enemy enemy ship formations, but also to target missiles to target virtually the entire ocean area.

Each of the ocean fleets had one or two reconnaissance aviation regiments, based on aircraft that could conduct reconnaissance in the far sea and ocean zones — the Tu-95РЦ and Tu-16Р.

Finally, a numerous and combat-ready atomic submarine fleet allowed to keep in the sea from 10 to 30 and more nuclear submarines, which also solved the tasks of reconnaissance of enemy ship connections.

Such an intelligence system made it possible to detect and track US aircraft carrier connections from the moment they left the base.

Today, of all this power, there are actually only a limited number of nuclear submarines and a substantially reduced system of radio and radio intelligence, which, moreover, has lost all of its overseas centers (in particular, Lourdes in Cuba and Cam Ranh in Vietnam). From the reconnaissance aviation of the ocean zone remained single aircraft. These forces do not allow conducting effective reconnaissance of important areas of the seas and oceans, all the more so as to ensure, in the required volume, with reconnaissance data our compound for an effective strike on an aircraft carrier.

A different picture emerges for an aircraft carrier, which is only capable of controlling air and surface space to a depth of 800 kilometers and more by its own efforts.

With such superiority, a carrier-based compound will be able to prevent our missile cruisers to the distance of the rocket volley, with impunity (even without being detected) striking it with deck aircraft and long-range missiles.

In this respect, the position of the missile submarine is much better. It is able to detect and secretly get close to the enemy aircraft carrier. However, the probability of its detection and destruction is very high.

But even in the case of providing the proper intelligence information, our small ship connection will need to get close to the aircraft carrier connection to the firing distance with rocket weapons.

Having the superiority in the range of use of carrier-based aviation, the enemy will inflict on our compound airstrikes of up to 40 vehicles, of which around 25 are equipped with two “Harpoon” missiles. Attack aircraft and missiles will be covered by EW aircraft.

A volley in 40 – 50 cruise missiles will not be able to repel our ship mix.

Under these conditions, the most powerful air defense missile systems of our shipborne compound "Fort" will be able to destroy only a few missiles each. The means of self-defense of each of the ships in the best case will destroy one or two missiles, some will lead to interference. As a result, more than two dozen missiles hit their targets. We can confidently say that in the end our ships, including the missile cruiser, will be sunk with a high probability.

If this is not enough, the strike can be repeated.

That is, our ship's connection will not even be able to approach the distance of rocket firing.

The conditions for overcoming the opposition of the enemy for the 949A missile submarine are much better. However, in this case, the probability of her death before reaching the position of the use of weapons is essential.

If we assume that our missile cruiser or missile submarine reached the position of a volley and fired it, then the chances of hitting an aircraft carrier are still small.

A volley of 16, 20 or 24 missiles against a naval connection, saturated with multi-channel air defense systems, covered with fighters of a combat air patrol that has powerful EW tools, is unlikely to achieve the goal.

Two or three missiles can be destroyed by fighters. Each of the missile cruisers and destroyers of URO is capable of hitting several missiles. If we take into account that the number of ships that are able to take part in repelling a missile strike can be three-four or even more, it becomes clear that literally units of rockets will remain unaffected. They will be destroyed by self-defense anti-aircraft weapons or they will divert radio-electronic interference from the target.

Chances to achieve hitting at least one rocket are very small.

Thus, it can be stated that even with the successful launch of its missiles along the American aircraft carrier, the chances of a Russian missile cruiser to hit him are negligible. And taking into account other factors, they are practically reduced to zero.

How to equalize forces

So, the powerful balanced enemy grouping, which has about a dozen warships, several submarines and about 100 planes, is opposed by only two or three Russian warships.

Comparison of the performance characteristics of the American Ticondeurogue cruisers and destroyers of the Orly Burk-type URO with our ships shows that they are at least as good as the Russian 1164 cruiser and, if they are inferior, then slightly the 1144 cruiser.

At the same time, against the six cruisers of the Russian Navy, half of which are not capable of operation, the United States is capable of putting around 50 warships of equal value to them.

Therefore, the raids of small Russian groups of warships sent to remote areas of the oceans and hot spots have almost exclusively political significance. Their military influence is negligible.

In order to successfully confront the US carrier group, our fleet is obliged to counter it with an adequate operational force.

Its strength should be comparable to the carrier group: one to three 1164 and 1144 missile cruisers in the security of five to eight destroyer-class surface ships, a large anti-submarine ship, a frigate, a 949A project, four to five multipurpose submarines with the support of a two-three-regimental composition of naval rocket-carrying or long-range aviation, at least a squadron of reconnaissance aircraft of the ocean zone. In the Northern Fleet, the aircraft carrier of the 1143.5 project may be included in the strike group. With its introduction, the combat strength of the strike force of surface ships can be reduced by 20 – 30 percent.

Such a group is able to form a missile salvo equivalent to the American: 40 – 50 missiles and more. In a battle with an American aircraft carrier, our group is capable of destroying it and destroying an aircraft carrier. However, it will itself suffer very tangible losses and will need to restore its combat capability.

Each of our ocean fleets will be able to create only one such compound (if the combat effectiveness of the ships is restored). The Americans are able to put at least four carrier groups against each of them.

The USSR shipbuilding program allowed maintaining parity of naval armaments with the United States at an acceptable level. The cruisers mentioned above were introduced into our fleet almost synchronously with the American Ticonderogues.

Our fleet had five aircraft-carrying cruisers by 1991, one of which was a full-fledged aircraft carrier. Planned to build to 2000-th another three nuclear aircraft carriers such as "Ulyanovsk".

Russia could, with its powerful fleet, be guaranteed to defend its interests practically on a global scale. Today she is deprived of this opportunity. Such is the price of market reforms.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
180 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. saag
    saag 3 October 2013 08: 44 New
    0
    Yes, the main problem is air defense
    1. a52333
      a52333 3 October 2013 08: 59 New
      10
      It is for these purposes that DEPL is necessary. Sneaked up like a flock of hyenas, each once - two bit, and legs. The first bites are for an aircraft carrier.
      1. Kolya
        Kolya 3 October 2013 09: 49 New
        32
        Stop trading through the dollar and the crew of all state AUGs will die of hunger.
        1. Geisenberg
          Geisenberg 3 October 2013 14: 00 New
          +2
          Quote: Kohl
          Stop trading through the dollar and the crew of all state AUGs will die of hunger.


          Just close the government, like right now.
        2. atalef
          atalef 3 October 2013 14: 02 New
          -12
          Quote: Kohl
          Stop trading through the dollar and the crew of all state AUGs will die of hunger.
          trade for rubles --- then pensioners will die first
          1. Silkway0026
            Silkway0026 3 October 2013 21: 52 New
            +8
            stop trading for dollars - the first, probably all the same, the parasites of the Indians will die - immigrants from the promised land. the kayuk will definitely come to them)))
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 4 October 2013 10: 28 New
              +2
              Quote: Silkway0026
              stop trading for dollars - first

              The first ones have already tried
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 3 October 2013 09: 56 New
        14
        Quote: a52333
        DEPL. Sneaked up like a flock of hyenas, each once - two bit, and legs. The first bites are for an aircraft carrier.

        The effective creeping speed is 4-5 knots, at higher speeds (if with a single installation) the diesel-electric submarines are no less noise than the submarines. And how to creep up to the AUG, which destroys a 30-nodal move? Is that the tactics of working out of an ambush, or the creation of a veil. And for this we need LOT of such submarines and reconnaissance and target designation systems. But they are not there either ...
        1. a52333
          a52333 3 October 2013 17: 40 New
          0
          sneak up on the AUG, barring the 30-nodal move
          And what, until the last it is not clear where the AUG is going? Sometimes a month is known.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 4 October 2013 10: 14 New
            0
            Quote: a52333
            it is not clear where the AUG is going? Sometimes a month is known.
            Dear, there are no rails in the ocean and the track is not marked. So, "around the bend, on the side of the road," you cannot ambush ... request And usually not the point of arrival is known, but the task set for the connection. And this is a square of POSSIBLE finding with rather rather big parties. Yet narrowness, straits, etc. known to both parties in advance, so tightly controlled. Not the most convenient place to organize an ambush. Again, do not confuse peacetime with pre-battle situations. When the media shut up their mouths and they began to pour disu with bags (just for those curious) ...
            1. vladsolo56
              vladsolo56 4 October 2013 10: 27 New
              +1
              You would not be bad to recall a very recent case of training launches of Israeli ballistic missiles. Only Russia detected the launch of two rockets from under water. Do you think it is much more difficult to detect AUG in water?
              1. gunnerminer
                gunnerminer 4 October 2013 11: 53 New
                +1
                You would not be bad to recall a very recent case of training launches of Israeli ballistic missiles. Only Russia detected the launch of two rockets from under water. Do you think it is much more difficult to detect AUG in water?


                The reconnaissance and opening of targets is carried out in a comprehensive manner. First of all, aerial reconnaissance of the Navy is needed. In the 80s, the search for AUGs even in such a limited theater as the Mediterranean took 5-7 days by the link of reconnaissance planes! And this is in peacetime, without military opposition from the enemy. Israeli ballistic missile simulators launched from a carrier aircraft.
        2. vjhbc
          vjhbc 3 October 2013 22: 54 New
          +1
          this is when they were so frightening their economical move of 14 knots
          Quote: Misantrop
          Quote: a52333
          DEPL. Sneaked up like a flock of hyenas, each once - two bit, and legs. The first bites are for an aircraft carrier.

          The effective creeping speed is 4-5 knots, at higher speeds (if with a single installation) the diesel-electric submarines are no less noise than the submarines. And how to creep up to the AUG, which destroys a 30-nodal move? Is that the tactics of working out of an ambush, or the creation of a veil. And for this we need LOT of such submarines and reconnaissance and target designation systems. But they are not there either ...
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 3 October 2013 23: 14 New
            +2
            Quote: vjhbc
            this is when they were so frightening their economical move of 14 knots

            Which ... would risk taking an economical move if:
            - the combat mission is set,
            - is there a REAL chance of military opposition of the enemy?

            In an economical way, you can cut through when there is nowhere to rush and you can save fuel and resource mechanisms
        3. Airman
          Airman 4 October 2013 00: 29 New
          0
          Quote: Misantrop
          Quote: a52333
          DEPL. Sneaked up like a flock of hyenas, each once - two bit, and legs. The first bites are for an aircraft carrier.

          The effective creeping speed is 4-5 knots, at higher speeds (if with a single installation) the diesel-electric submarines are no less noise than the submarines. And how to creep up to the AUG, which destroys a 30-nodal move? Is that the tactics of working out of an ambush, or the creation of a veil. And for this we need LOT of such submarines and reconnaissance and target designation systems. But they are not there either ...

          Best of all is a non-nuclear submarine, with VNEU, we do not "yet" have such, And from the Americans, too, they "rented" Norwegian for 2 years to study the characteristics.
          1. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 4 October 2013 00: 49 New
            +2
            Best of all is a non-nuclear submarine, with VNEU, we do not "yet" have such, And from the Americans, too, they "rented" Norwegian for 2 years to study the characteristics.




            We rented a Swedish boat with NAPL. The results of the pilot operation were not satisfied with the command of the US Navy. NPLs with VNEU are effective only when searching or patrolling at the turn or in the designated area. At a maximum low noise speed of 3-3.5 knots. At low and medium speed VNEU power is not enough. not only to ensure a given driving mode, but also for air regeneration.
      3. Arberes
        Arberes 3 October 2013 10: 53 New
        +9
        Quote: a52333
        It is for these purposes that DEPL is necessary.

        DEPLs are good for anti-submarine protection, patrolling coastal areas. They do not possess great striking power, and it is unlikely to overtake the aircraft carrier connection at a speed of 15 knots, in order to even at least monitor the AUG.
        Rights respected author of the article! Our fleet needs aircraft carriers and destroyers and attack boats, and not in single copies. This is me if we want in an open combat clash (God forbid) have good chances of victory!
      4. honest jew
        honest jew 3 October 2013 12: 20 New
        -14
        Tryndet- not to unload bags with coal !!!
        1. Very old
          Very old 3 October 2013 12: 28 New
          10
          Hello, ITSHAK! And where are you, poor thing, so you have broken a hump, tossing bags of coal?
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 3 October 2013 23: 16 New
            +1
            Quote: Very old
            And where are you, poor thing, so you have broken a hump, tossing bags of coal?
            The neighbor relaxed, turning away. Sin was not to punish ... laughing
        2. Very old
          Very old 3 October 2013 12: 40 New
          +2
          Thank you, Itzik, for the "-". And I, as promised, do not minus anyone. The principle is this, panimash
      5. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 3 October 2013 13: 59 New
        +8
        Quote: a52333
        It is for these purposes that DEPL is necessary. Sneaked up like a flock of hyenas, each once - two bit, and legs. The first bites are for an aircraft carrier.


        Yes, even the author is wrapping it up here ... Starting with the fact that the Americans gave nicknames to our ships. The same 1164 - "the smile of socialism" Not a single carrier group ever approached it more than 600 km, except for the s-300f there is still a bunch of anti-aircraft weapons on it just to destroy tomohawks ... "Killer of aircraft carriers" is also an American nickname .. no one was going to chase the AUG on it, for this there are multipurpose nuclear submarines with nuclear torpedoes. Submarine 949A, popularly "baton" and where is there to be afraid?

        Conclusion: Avtyr - Berkhunets.
      6. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 3 October 2013 14: 00 New
        +2
        It is for these purposes that DEPL is necessary. Sneaked up like a flock of hyenas, each once - two bit, and legs. The first bites are for an aircraft carrier.



        In order for the aircraft carrier to receive a static roll of more than 5 degrees and not be able to raise the aircraft, it is necessary to hit at least 15 torpedoes 243 (53-65K) with the BZO (combat loading compartment) MS composition (marine mixture) weight 300 kg. In such a situation, at least 8 diesel submarines, the whole curtain must participate in the attack, and then if the AOG will pass through the area of ​​the veil and will not detect submarines. An AUG attack is a naval operation and is carried out by all fleet forces. For guaranteed destruction of an aircraft carrier, not an AUG the next outfit of forces is needed: the attacking Tu-22M3 airborne division, the Tu-22M3 demonstration regiment, the Mig-29SM fighter regiment, the air squadron of EW aircraft, the connection of missile cruisers, the connection of the plark, and the mpl of the torpedo attack. The first task is to destroy the AWACS accompanying the AUG otherwise, further actions of the attackers will be ineffective and the task of destroying the aircraft carrier will be disrupted.
        1. tirratore
          tirratore 11 November 2013 22: 17 New
          0
          and if you shoot SET-65 and damage the propeller-steering group?
    2. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 3 October 2013 10: 58 New
      +6
      Quote: saag
      Yes, the main problem is air defense

      You listen to the author, and you understand, AMERICAN MUCH MORE. And shoot them useless, they are in body armor. And if anything, Superman will fly to help. The author makes unsubstantiated statements, this is nothing more than a theory. The possibility of a tactical nuclear missile strike is not taken into account at all, and in a conflict with such players this is very possible. I agree with the author only in one thing - the fleet needs to be lifted from its knees, and the faster the better.
      1. Arberes
        Arberes 3 October 2013 11: 12 New
        +5
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        Absolutely ignored the possibility of a tactical nuclear missile strike,

        Well, if everything comes down to the use of nuclear weapons, then of course why do we need ships? hi

        the fleet needs to be lifted from its knees, and the faster the better.
        Here I absolutely agree with you! drinks
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 3 October 2013 12: 08 New
          +4
          Quote: Arberes
          Well, if everything comes down to the use of nuclear weapons, then of course why do we need ships?

          Sea-based tactical nuclear missiles and torpedoes were created to destroy enemy aircraft carrier formations.
          Quote: Samy
          Where are you going to shoot? By AUG? So you still need to find her and get there.

          Their exact location is known every minute. Not all satellites have yet exhausted their resources. laughing
          1. Arberes
            Arberes 3 October 2013 12: 20 New
            +5
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            Sea-based tactical nuclear missiles and torpedoes were created to destroy enemy aircraft carrier formations.

            Yes, I understand all this is excellent! I draw on the author’s article itself about the chances of our attack ships and submarines in a collision without the use of nuclear weapons!
            A nuclear club strike is the start of a third nuclear world war machine gun!
            Then, in truth, the number of ships will become unimportant in other matters, like everything else!
            1. Rus2012
              Rus2012 3 October 2013 12: 35 New
              11
              Quote: Arberes
              I draw on the author’s article itself about the chances of our attack ships and submarines in a collision without the use of nuclear weapons!

              With what the fuck in good health and sober mind we suddenly need to fight with the states putting aside nuclear weapons? What is etiquette and good manners?
              A war is a war and that all forces and possibilities for its conduct are concentrated ...
              And then you see, good manners and chivalrous behavior. It will not happen! If that - the Club of the people's war will swing to the fullest! No wonder we are a nuclear power. Point!
              1. Arberes
                Arberes 3 October 2013 13: 06 New
                +1
                Quote: Rus2012
                With what the fuck in good health and sober mind we suddenly need to fight with the states putting aside nuclear weapons? What is etiquette and good manners?


                Quote: Ingvar 72
                DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IF THE CASE REACHES A SERIOUS CONFLICT WITH THE USA, AND THE EXCHANGE OF MISSILE IMPACT IS A SERIOUS CONFLICT, WILL IT BE LIMITED TO CONVENTIONAL ARMS?

                Well, why then this article and harsh comments on the forum?
                And so everything is clear ???


                Quote: Ingvar 72
                DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IF THE CASE REACHES A SERIOUS CONFLICT WITH THE USA, AND THE EXCHANGE OF MISSILE IMPACT IS A SERIOUS CONFLICT, WILL IT BE LIMITED TO CONVENTIONAL ARMS?

                Yes, I do not exclude it!
              2. IRBIS
                IRBIS 3 October 2013 13: 22 New
                +3
                Quote: Rus2012
                With what the fuck in good health and sober mind we suddenly need to fight with the states putting aside nuclear weapons? What is etiquette and good manners?

                This is a human desire not to ruin the Earth. Or do you have a desire to spend the rest of your life, very short after a nuclear war, without taking off your gas mask and protective suit?
                1. Rus2012
                  Rus2012 3 October 2013 15: 15 New
                  +6
                  Quote: IRBIS
                  This is a human desire not to ruin the Earth. Or do you have a desire to spend the rest of your life, very short after a nuclear war, without taking off your gas mask and protective suit?


                  Dear colleague, in the first, not later than this week, there was an article by Pozhidaev about the use of nuclear weapons and possible consequences. If you wish, you can read it - http://www.amic.ru/news/236244/

                  Personally, I am not a supporter of the use of nuclear weapons along and across. But, not in vain it was created by our fathers and grandfathers and passed on to us by inheritance. No wonder they starved, lived in the cold, were irradiated and died creating! In the same way, we must pass it on to future generations as a guarantor of peace! But, if suddenly fate brings them to a clash with the states, then ALWAYS this clash with the use of weapons will spill over to the nuclear plane. Is always! For we are weak in other areas of defense potential. Only nuclear weapons are the guarantor of stability, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Fatherland. And these words are inscribed and are read out every week in the Order to join the battalion of the Strategic Missile Forces! I agree with them entirely. And I am sure that if there is an order, our heirs will execute it without flinching. "Do what you must, and let what will be" (c) ...
                  Better to die free than live enslaved. Even the GDP said yesterday (meaning): "We will not change our sovereignty for a fat table. Otherwise, we will lose both ..."
                  Therefore, there will be no gas masks and contaminated land until our enemies have lost their minds.
                  Will become insane - will receive by the horns ...
                  1. IRBIS
                    IRBIS 3 October 2013 18: 39 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Rus2012
                    But, it was not in vain that our fathers and grandfathers created it and passed on to us by inheritance. No wonder they were starving, living in the cold, irradiated and dying creating!

                    I agree with you completely. That's right - it's a guarantor. But this does not mean its unconditional use in the event of a conflict with another nuclear power. Even among the absolutely punched supporters of the global war, there is an understanding that the consequences will be the same for everyone and there will be no winners. This is the last argument, really the last for the whole Earth. And everyone understands this. That is why the States have embarked on the development of other types of weapons.

            2. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 3 October 2013 12: 37 New
              +2
              Quote: Arberes
              I draw on the author’s article itself about the chances of our attack ships and submarines in a collision without the use of nuclear weapons!

              DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IF THE CASE REACHES A SERIOUS CONFLICT WITH THE USA, AND THE EXCHANGE OF MISSILE IMPACT IS A SERIOUS CONFLICT, WILL IT BE LIMITED TO CONVENTIONAL ARMS?
              Quote: Arberes
              A nuclear club strike is the start of a third nuclear world war machine gun!

              NOT A FACT, A TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPON IS NOT A STRATEGIC, AND CREATED IN ACCOUNT OF THE FIELD OF APPLICATION. THIS IS ALL EQUAL TO COMPARE ELECTRIC SHOCK AND ELECTRICAL CHAIR.
            3. Gur
              Gur 4 October 2013 16: 45 New
              -1
              If we try to destroy an aircraft carrier, and he, in turn, our ship, believe me, he will immediately earn nuclear weapons and not in one place in the world, it’s 1000%

              And the Aircraft carrier walking along the ocean and the 800-kilometer zone, a fairy tale provided by 40-60 planes, let them try to land at 30 knots, this time then all the planes in the air on the march are also a lie, so the AUG capabilities are a little exaggerated, but the fact that the fleet’s power should be increased is a fact Avax type aircraft are also available, and we have enough ground tracking stations.
          2. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 3 October 2013 15: 29 New
            0
            Their exact location is known every minute. Not all satellites have yet exhausted their resources.



            Satellite search is not carried out by satellites alone. All holes and shortcomings of reconnaissance by a satellite constellation cannot be shut up. Exploration and opening of targets is carried out comprehensively. First of all, airborne reconnaissance of the Navy is needed. took 80-5 days! And this is in peacetime, without military opposition from the enemy.
      2. Samy
        Samy 3 October 2013 11: 55 New
        -1
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        Absolutely ignored the possibility of a tactical nuclear missile strike,

        Where are you going to shoot? By AUG? So you still need to find her and get there.
      3. HAM
        HAM 3 October 2013 11: 57 New
        -7
        I read and thought that the name of the author of the article was Bond, James Bond.
      4. washi
        washi 3 October 2013 14: 17 New
        +2
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        Quote: saag
        Yes, the main problem is air defense

        You listen to the author, and you understand, AMERICAN MUCH MORE. And shoot them useless, they are in body armor. And if anything, Superman will fly to help. The author makes unsubstantiated statements, this is nothing more than a theory. The possibility of a tactical nuclear missile strike is not taken into account at all, and in a conflict with such players this is very possible. I agree with the author only in one thing - the fleet needs to be lifted from its knees, and the faster the better.

        Under the USSR, everything was counted: anti-ship missiles, air defense, anti-aircraft defense. They knew how many missiles were needed to destroy the AUG. They knew that the ship, like the tank, was designed for 15 minutes of battle. There were balanced groupings of ships.
        Now they have driven everything that is still moving to the Middle Sea. To reckon that this crowd of ships will be able to interact with each other as a full-fledged, well-formed formation is ridiculous. Officers even have different training (trainers from different oceans prepare). Yes, and the Navy has been written off since Soviet times (unlike land explorers) to the positions of teachers are not the best, but those who have done something wrong (an idiot in the academy, or for promotion, but so that I would not see him anymore. Or real (from life) : Do you want to serve with him? I don’t either. Let him be promoted to where his mother did to him))
      5. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 3 October 2013 15: 24 New
        +1
        . Absolutely not taken into account the possibility of a tactical nuclear missile strike, and in a conflict with such players this is very possible. I agree with the author only in one thing - the fleet needs to be lifted from its knees, and the faster the better.




        Who will strike tactical missiles with a nuclear warhead? From which carrier? Who will issue target designations and with what? Especially next year, when the naval forces and miserable remnants of naval aviation will be halved again?
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 3 October 2013 18: 24 New
          -1
          Quote: gunnerminer
          Especially next year, when the naval fleet and the miserable remnants of naval aviation once again halve?

          Where did such pessimistic information come from?
          1. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 3 October 2013 21: 47 New
            +1
            Where did such pessimistic information come from?





            Look at the results and productivity of ARZs (aircraft repair plants), for example 150 ARZs. And how shipyards, especially the Far Eastern ones, work.
        2. chehywed
          chehywed 3 October 2013 22: 54 New
          0
          Quote: gunnerminer
          Especially next year, when the naval fleet and the miserable remnants of naval aviation once again halve?

          Are you talking about the Kazakh Navy?
          1. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 3 October 2013 23: 06 New
            +1
            Are you talking about the Kazakh Navy?





            I'm talking about the Russian Navy.
            1. chehywed
              chehywed 3 October 2013 23: 31 New
              -1
              Quote: gunnerminer
              I'm talking about the Russian Navy

              And in Kazakhstan about the Russian Navy, do they write anything good?
              1. gunnerminer
                gunnerminer 3 October 2013 23: 49 New
                +1
                And in Kazakhstan about the Russian Navy, do they write anything good?





                The topic of the blog is about the lack of the ability to combat AUG. The Russian blog, few readers and commentators are interested in what they write in Kazakhstan about someone’s Navy. Kazakhstan does not know what to do with the flow of drugs from Tajikistan. What is the Russian Navy?
                1. chehywed
                  chehywed 4 October 2013 00: 03 New
                  0
                  Quote: gunnerminer
                  Kazakhstan does not know what to do with the flow of drugs from Tajikistan. What is the Russian Navy like?

                  Well, it seems to you that you do not care about the flow of drugs, or the case of a "Russian national unsuitable underflot", this is a real field for the activities of a Kazakh historian!
                  1. gunnerminer
                    gunnerminer 4 October 2013 00: 07 New
                    0
                    Well, it seems to you that you do not care about the flow of drugs, or the case of a "Russian national unsuitable underflot", this is a real field for the activities of a Kazakh historian!




                    The topic of the post is the lack of striking capabilities of the Russian Navy against the USAG and the lack of prospects for gaining such an opportunity in the next five years. Not about my humble person. The article was written by captain 1st rank Sivkov, who had not served in the Navy of Kazakhstan for a day. I am not interested in drugs.
                    1. chehywed
                      chehywed 4 October 2013 00: 45 New
                      0
                      Quote: chehywed
                      And in Kazakhstan about the Russian Navy, do they write anything good?

                      No answer.
                      Quote: gunnerminer
                      Satya was written by captain 1 of rank Sivkov, who had not served in the Navy of Kazakhstan for a day

                      May God give them health, and Sivkov and the Navy of Kazakhstan. Why do Kazakh gunnerminer, so much negative for everything Russian, judging by ALL commentary gunnerminer, well, nothing flies with us, doesn’t shoot, doesn’t swim and does not function normally ... and the last turner of the 6-th discharge is old.
                      Quote: gunnerminer
                      The topic of drugs is not interesting to me.

                      Well, this is in Kazakhstan ... And in Russia? wink
                      1. gunnerminer
                        gunnerminer 4 October 2013 00: 56 New
                        0
                        No answer.


                        Read carefully. Who is the Russian Navy interested in in Kazakhstan? No one. The topic of the post is not about drugs. There is no negative, comments on articles about the remains of the Russian Navy. News about the unfinished boat launched by Ivan Kartsev is presented as an unprecedented achievement. Why go down to such a ridiculous agitation ? Who is this agitation intended for? Assign names to boats, which are enough of a decent number?
                      2. chehywed
                        chehywed 4 October 2013 01: 01 New
                        0
                        Quote: gunnerminer
                        read carefully

                        Yes, and I about the same
                        Quote: chehywed
                        judging by ALL comments gunnerminer, well, nothing flies, doesn’t shoot, doesn’t swim and doesn’t function normally ... and the last turner of the 6 discharge is old.

                        We are waiting
                      3. gunnerminer
                        gunnerminer 4 October 2013 01: 07 New
                        0
                        We are waiting





                        Forward in a marching step! No one bothers to wait. Yes, and the deadlines for the State program have shifted to the right until 2030.
                      4. chehywed
                        chehywed 4 October 2013 01: 27 New
                        0
                        Minus put, for the "included fool". Uncomfortable answering "inconvenient" questions?
                      5. gunnerminer
                        gunnerminer 4 October 2013 11: 55 New
                        0
                        Minus put, for the "included fool". Uncomfortable answering "inconvenient" questions?





                        What is an inconvenient question? The question is Bashamaki? If about the Russian Navy, then the Kazakh press does not write about this fleet, as well as about other fleets, including the Navy of Kazakhstan.
  • alone
    alone 3 October 2013 22: 26 New
    +2
    Quote: Ingvar 72
    You listen to the author, and you understand, AMERICAN MUCH MORE. And shoot them useless, they are in body armor. And if anything, Superman will fly to help. The author makes unsubstantiated statements, this is nothing more than a theory. The possibility of a tactical nuclear missile strike is not taken into account at all, and in a conflict with such players this is very possible. I agree with the author only in one thing - the fleet needs to be lifted from its knees, and the faster the better.


    there is nothing in the world that could be destroyed. AUG is a major operational compound. And the Americans are certainly not so stupid as to make such oversights that would result in the sinking of an aircraft carrier. Yes, and to be honest, it’s not possible to disagree with you about that the fleet needs to be raised to their level. but it turns out so that soon every machine-gun point will have to be plugged with nuclear missiles.
  • Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 3 October 2013 11: 31 New
    +1
    no ... the main problem is theft!
    1. washi
      washi 3 October 2013 14: 26 New
      +2
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      no ... the main problem is theft!

      The main problem is not the competence of the Navy command, and not only. Tell you how from Kamchatka, Sakhalin, Khabarovsk, planes with caviar flew to the Arbat military district. They even showed it on TV once (though before Serdyukov’s appointment).
  • Rus2012
    Rus2012 3 October 2013 12: 08 New
    +7
    Quote: saag
    Yes, the main problem is air defense

    ... about5 war against AUG :)
    Well, as much as you can!
    Better consider the situation - bad weather 1 month, carrier-based aviation for fun. Air Force ground bases out of reach ...
    Well, who who?

    The second option.
    Soon there will be a head part of the "Aerophone" theme type (capture and homing by distinguishing in different spectra of electromagnetic waves: from radio waves to the visible spectrum). Preliminary target designation - active passive satellites and over-the-horizon radar.
    Carrier RSD-RDD ...
    Why exhibit symmetrically? To ruin a country?
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 3 October 2013 12: 28 New
      +4
      Even if 5 AUG is suddenly magically formed in our country, then our detractors will start yelling - the USA has almost a century of experience in using aircraft carriers, we don’t have to eat bread like cabbage soup ...

      So far, there is, that is, we will act by it. They will trample on the AUGs; we will be shuffling nuclear weapons with Tu-95, Tu-22M as they were being prepared under the USSR. Let them know and do not rock the boat ...
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 4 October 2013 00: 15 New
        +1
        They’ll trample on the AUGs, we’ll shumon the nuclear weapons with the Tu-95, Tu-22M as they were prepared in the USSR. Let them know and do not rock the boat ...




        Do you know how many Tu-95SM and Tu-22M3 can tear themselves off the runway, at least with a half fuel supply and without weapons? What is the minimum number of vehicles you specified that are required for a successful AUG attack?
  • TR-25
    TR-25 3 October 2013 15: 35 New
    +2
    The problem is not in the defense of ships, but in armament. After all, the X-101 rocket with a firing range of up to 10.000km was created and put into service for aircraft.
    The X-101 is a subsonic long-range cruise missile. The navigation system based on the GLONASS system leads the missile to the target. Unlike the X-555, the new rocket will be able to destroy both small-sized (from 2 – 3 m) and moving objects, including a moving car.
    and the expense of the new electronic database, the guidance system was less than in Soviet missiles. The vacant place took fuel and warhead. If X-555 flew 2 thousand. Km with 200-kilogram of the warhead, then X-101 already on 10 thousand. With 400 kg warhead. There is also a nuclear version of the new missile, which received an X-102 index.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 3 October 2013 16: 48 New
      0
      After all, the X-101 missile with a firing range of up to 10.000km was created and adopted for aircraft.

      You are not confused with the flight altitude? She only hits 5500.
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 3 October 2013 18: 40 New
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        You are not confused with the flight altitude? She only hits 5500.

        This is more than enough.
    2. Windbreak
      Windbreak 3 October 2013 18: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: TR-25
      Unlike the X-555, the new missile will be able to destroy both small-sized (from 2-3 m) and moving objects, including a moving car.
      "a representative of the military-industrial complex told Izvestia." Very reliable information.
  • Airman
    Airman 4 October 2013 00: 39 New
    0
    Quote: saag
    Yes, the main problem is air defense

    The main problem is reconnaissance and detection, without them, both air defense and anti-ship missiles become ballast on the ship. The author forgot to say about space reconnaissance and about our A-50s, which can greatly facilitate the life of our sailors.
  • SHILO
    SHILO 3 October 2013 08: 46 New
    +7
    "According to Western experts, the destruction or incapacitation of such ships requires hitting four to six Harpoon anti-ship missiles or two or three Tomahawks."

    Shaw for hre ... nb - who generally shoots "Tomahawks" at the boats. They have a prep time clock! Rave.
    1. goldfinger
      goldfinger 3 October 2013 10: 02 New
      11
      Quote: SHILO
      Shaw for hre ... nb - who generally shoots "Tomahawks" at the boats. They have a prep time clock! Rave.

      Anti-ship missile Tomahawk BGM-109 B / E. TTX you will find yourself.
      Basing:
      Surface ship
      Control system:
      Radar seeker
      Warhead:
      High explosive
      Application:
      Anti-ship
      A country:
      USA
      Range:
      550 km.
      Year of development:
      November 1983, XNUMX


      The Tomahawk cruise missile is designed in two main versions: the strategic BGM-109A / C / D - for firing at ground targets, and the tactical BGM-109B / E - for the destruction of surface ships and vessels. All variants, due to the modular construction principle, differ from each other only by the head part, which is connected to the middle compartment of the rocket using a docking unit.

      The anti-ship missile "Tomahawk" BGM-109 B / E, which has been in service with the US Navy since 1983, is designed to fire at large surface targets at over-the-horizon ranges.
      1. SHILO
        SHILO 3 October 2013 10: 37 New
        +2
        Yo - mine! request
        I did not know about such a modification - I admit. recourse My plus. hi But the article from this "jamb" has not ceased to be. yes
      2. DEfindER
        DEfindER 3 October 2013 11: 52 New
        +7
        Quote: goldfinger
        Anti-ship missile Tomahawk BGM-109 B / E. TTX you will find yourself.

        I can’t find this miracle, and I have not heard about such tomahawks, they are all subsonic, and only Papuans are suitable to drive through the desert ..
        From wikipedia:
        Tomahawk BGM-109E
        The proposed anti-ship modification, to replace the TASM. Not implemented, development discontinued in the mid-1980s.

        And according to the article, in principle, I agree that reconnaissance at AUG is real up to 800 km due to aviation, so we need to use our long-range aviation for detection and target designation, and the range of our volcanoes is much greater than that of harpoons.
        1. goldfinger
          goldfinger 3 October 2013 13: 17 New
          +1
          Quote: DEfindER
          Quote: goldfinger
          Anti-ship missile Tomahawk BGM-109 B / E. TTX you will find yourself.

          I can’t find this miracle, and I have not heard about such tomahawks, they are all subsonic, and only Papuans are suitable to drive through the desert ..
          From wikipedia:
          Tomahawk BGM-109E
          The proposed anti-ship modification, to replace the TASM. Not implemented, development discontinued in the mid-1980s.

          And according to the article, in principle, I agree that reconnaissance at AUG is real up to 800 km due to aviation, so we need to use our long-range aviation to detect and target, and the range of our volcanoes is much greater than that of harpoons.

          Composition

          It has a modular design, made according to the airplane scheme. The cylindrical fuselage with the lively head part consists of six compartments, in which the active radar seeker with fiberglass fairing, the onboard control system, the warhead, the fuel tank, the main engine and the steering wheel drives are located. To the last compartment coaxially with the missile docked launch solid propellant rocket engine. All compartments are made of aluminum alloy and equipped with stiffeners. To reduce infrared radiation, the body and aerodynamic surfaces have a special coating.

          An active radar homing head, an inertial navigation system, a radio altimeter and a power supply are installed on board the missile. GOS weighing about 34 kg is capable of changing the radiation frequency according to an arbitrary law to increase the noise immunity in the conditions of electronic countermeasures. An inertial system weighing 11 kg includes an onboard digital computer (BCM), an autopilot (AP), consisting of three gyroscopes for measuring the angular deviations of the rocket in the coordinate system and three accelerometers to determine the accelerations of these deviations. An active short-pulse radio altimeter (range 4–8 GHz) with a beam width of 13–15 ° has a vertical resolution of 5–10 cm and a horizontal resolution of 15 cm.

          The high-explosive warhead is equipped with a contact fuse with a slowdown and allows for achieving the greatest damaging effect to undermine warhead inside the ship.
          1. goldfinger
            goldfinger 3 October 2013 13: 24 New
            0
            A small-sized Williams International F107-WR-402 turbojet bypass engine with a low compression ratio and an axial two-stage fan was developed especially for the Tomahawk rocket. Its high performance characteristics allow it to maintain a transonic cruising flight speed (0.7M) for a long time.


            The starting solid propellant rocket propulsion system develops thrust up to 3700 kgs and in 10–13 s after launch from under water or from a ship launcher (launcher) it provides the launch of a rocket to a controlled flight area. The accelerator is separated from the rocket by means of explosive bolts after the fuel has completely burned out.

            The launch of the Tomahawk anti-ship missile system is carried out from deck launchers, standard torpedo tubes (TA) or from vertically positioned missile containers. The concept of vertical launch of anti-ship missiles from surface ships is the main one in the development of launch technology for this weapon, therefore the main standard launchers are universal installations of the Mk41 type, capable of launching Tomahawk, Standard guided missiles and Asroc-VLA anti-submarine missiles.

            One of the options for converting surface ships into missile carriers is to equip them with unified quadruple launchers Mk143. These launchers are designed for storing and launching Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles. In this case, one launcher can accommodate four Tomahawk or Harpoon missiles or two missiles of each type. Before their launch, the launcher is hydraulically installed at an angle of 35 ° with respect to the deck. An armored casing protects missiles from shrapnel and mechanical damage, as well as personnel in case of accidental (emergency) triggering of the launch booster.


            In submarines, the rocket is in a steel capsule filled with nitrogen. The gas medium under slight excess pressure provides storage of the rocket for 30 months. The capsule is loaded into the TA like a regular torpedo. In preparation for launch, water fills the TA, and through special openings also the capsule. This leads to equalization of internal and external pressure corresponding to a start depth of 15–20 m. After that, the TA cover opens, and the rocket is fired from the capsule using the hydraulic system, which is then removed from the device. When the missile reaches a safe distance for the firing submarine with the help of a 12-meter halyard, the accelerator starts up, ensuring the passage of the underwater section of the trajectory over a period of about 5 s. The inclusion of a starting solid propellant rocket under water greatly unmasks the submarine, especially in the acoustic field. Preparation for launch from TA takes about 20 minutes. A capsule design was created from fiberglass reinforced with graphite fiber, as a result of which its weight decreased by 180-230 kg.
            1. goldfinger
              goldfinger 3 October 2013 13: 27 New
              0
              One of the difficulties of the combat use of anti-ship missiles is the lack of proper technical means of detecting an enemy surface ship and target designation, since the shooting is carried out at a long (over-the-horizon) range. To solve this problem, the USA has developed an automated system "Outlaw Shark" for over-the-horizon target designation of anti-ship missile launchers using patrol helicopters and carrier-based aircraft. At the same time, data on the target located beyond the horizon are received from various means in real time in the computer of the KR carrier vehicle. Having processed them, the computer issues target designation to the calculating device of the KR, as well as information about other ships located near the missile's flight path.
              Performance characteristics, firing range, km 550
              Maximum flight speed, km / h 1200
              Average flight speed, km / h 885
              Missile length, m 6.25
              The diameter of the rocket, m 0.53
              Wingspan, m 2.62
              Starting weight, kg 1205
              Warhead
              High explosive type
              Weight, kg 454
              Marching engine
              Dry engine weight, kg 58.5
              Fuel weight, kg 135
              Thrust, kg 300
              Engine specific gravity, kg / kgf 0.22
              Length, mm 800
              rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/bgm109b_e/bgm109b_e.shtml
              Diameter, mm 305
              https://www.google.ru/#newwindow=1&q=ракеты+томагавк+противокарабельные. С уважением.
        2. Windbreak
          Windbreak 3 October 2013 18: 46 New
          0
          Quote: DEfindER
          Tomahawk BGM-109E
          Alleged anti-ship modification to replace TASM
          And TASM is RGM / UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile. So also anti-ship modification
  • Dangerous
    Dangerous 3 October 2013 08: 48 New
    12
    "At the same time, against six cruisers of the Russian Navy, half of which are non-combatant, the United States is capable of deploying about 50 warships of equal value." Many stubbornly refuse to understand this and still believe that the cruiser Moscow will tear apart the entire US grouping in the Mediterranean Sea alone.
    "Its strength should be comparable to that of an aircraft carrier group: one to three missile cruisers of projects 1164 and 1144, guarded by five to eight destroyer-class surface ships, a large anti-submarine ship, a frigate, three to six missile submarines of the 949A project, four to five multipurpose submarines with the support of a two- or three-regiment division of naval missile-carrying or long-range aviation, at least a squadron of reconnaissance aircraft in the oceanic zone. " - science fiction writer! laughing
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 3 October 2013 09: 12 New
      +5
      Quote: Dangerous
      Many stubbornly do not want to understand this and still believe that the cruiser Moscow will tear alone the entire US group in the Mediterranean Sea.

      RKR pr.1164, as well as the PLARK pr.949A, as the TARK pr.1144 for the destruction of the American AUG, have on board their missiles with a nuclear warhead, because you can’t drown an ordinary carrier aircraft ...
      Plus, it is necessary to provide an over-the-horizon control center for RCC; until recently, this task was solved using the ICRC system. However, due to the fact that we live in Russia, now it is incapable. The number of satellites is clearly not enough, because devices removed from duty are not replaced by new spacecraft. Even in the best of times, the ICRC system did not provide central banks in remote areas of the Pacific Ocean and the South Atlantic. Given the tendency to launch weapons into space, the combat stability of the system may be reduced.
      1. ale-x
        ale-x 3 October 2013 11: 24 New
        +2
        It seems "Legend" was its name ..
      2. washi
        washi 3 October 2013 14: 29 New
        +1
        Quote: PSih2097
        Quote: Dangerous
        Many stubbornly do not want to understand this and still believe that the cruiser Moscow will tear alone the entire US group in the Mediterranean Sea.

        RKR pr.1164, as well as the PLARK pr.949A, as the TARK pr.1144 for the destruction of the American AUG, have on board their missiles with a nuclear warhead, because you can’t drown an ordinary carrier aircraft ...
        Plus, it is necessary to provide an over-the-horizon control center for RCC; until recently, this task was solved using the ICRC system. However, due to the fact that we live in Russia, now it is incapable. The number of satellites is clearly not enough, because devices removed from duty are not replaced by new spacecraft. Even in the best of times, the ICRC system did not provide central banks in remote areas of the Pacific Ocean and the South Atlantic. Given the tendency to launch weapons into space, the combat stability of the system may be reduced.

        Partially restored, fortunately.
    2. vlrosch
      vlrosch 3 October 2013 09: 22 New
      +8
      The eternal memory of L.I. Brezhnev, if it weren’t for us, he would have nothing to scare African tribes.
      1. Arberes
        Arberes 3 October 2013 11: 00 New
        +9
        Quote: vlrosch
        The eternal memory of L.I. Brezhnev, if it weren’t for us, he would have nothing to scare African tribes.

        Here, L.I. Brezhnev had just enough mind to lay the aircraft carriers (Ulyanovsk, Varyag) because he perfectly understood what ships are in the ocean without air cover. Our aircraft-carrying cruisers (KUZNETSOV) were created primarily not to strike at other countries, but to cover their ship groupings!
        So that African tribes can live in peace!
  • rugor
    rugor 3 October 2013 08: 51 New
    +6
    It's a shame for the state.
  • smel
    smel 3 October 2013 08: 51 New
    22
    The methodology of the author’s calculations is clearly not up to par. And the results of these calculations will not please most readers. But, unfortunately, the conclusions are largely true.
    1. Captain Vrungel
      Captain Vrungel 3 October 2013 14: 04 New
      +2
      The calculation procedure is clearly not up to par. The economic result is impressive.
  • xetai9977
    xetai9977 3 October 2013 08: 53 New
    +3
    They still say on TV they say that "the cruiser" Peter the Great "alone will withstand the battle with the aircraft carrier squadron of the US Navy" .....
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 3 October 2013 09: 13 New
      12
      Quote: xetai9977
      They still say on TV that "the cruiser" Peter the Great "alone will withstand the battle with the aircraft carrier squadron of the US Navy."

      Well, they don’t say how long it will last ... 20 minutes will survive ...
      1. Genry
        Genry 3 October 2013 09: 47 New
        +2
        His task is to launch missiles with a special charge and leave, fighting off.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 3 October 2013 09: 59 New
          +5
          Quote: Genry
          His task is to launch missiles with a special charge and leave, fighting off.

          In order to release them, it is necessary to approach the distance of the "shot", but the pancake AUG is not in command of the rams, the speed of the AUG allows you to keep the attacking Petr1 at an advantageous distance for her while carrying regular strikes on him.
          1. Genry
            Genry 3 October 2013 14: 01 New
            +1
            So this is the task of "Peter" - to drive away or keep at a distance, which we now see in the Mediterranean Sea.
            And he can fight back:
            1st line: Fort-M S-300FM
            2nd SAM "Dagger"
            3rd ZRAK "Dagger"
        2. military
          military 3 October 2013 10: 30 New
          +6
          Quote: Genry
          His task is to launch missiles with a special charge and leave, fighting off.

          ... to the bottom
      2. military
        military 3 October 2013 09: 49 New
        +2
        Quote: Nayhas
        20 minutes stand ...

        hardly ... flight time will be much shorter ...
        1. Genry
          Genry 3 October 2013 12: 27 New
          +3
          At a speed of 1000 km / h (roughly) - a distance of 500 km will fly for 30 minutes (grade 1 primary school).
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 3 October 2013 13: 12 New
            +2
            1000 km / h is a slow tomahawk. Granite, Basalt, Volcano, if memory serves, on the final trajectory before 3.5M develop, and even a few meters above the water. You can shoot down only with a lot of luck.
            1. Genry
              Genry 3 October 2013 14: 39 New
              +2
              Quote: Wedmak
              1000 km / h is a slow tomahawk.

              We talked about the approach, all missiles have subsonic.
              Quote: Wedmak
              You can shoot down only with a lot of luck.

              The probability of defeat "Kortik" ("Kashtan") 0,94-0,99 in automatic mode.
              If you use the "flying radar", you can detect anti-ship missiles in the far section and shoot down there at subsonic speed.
              Although launches of anti-ship missiles (only launches) can detect a ship's radar beyond the horizon (flare) and launch missiles (S-300fm) for auto-capture (someone is unlucky as the Aeroflot TU-133 over the Black Sea).
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 3 October 2013 15: 21 New
                +2
                We talked about the approach, all missiles have subsonic.

                I don’t see where it was said.
                Mosquito - cruising 2,35М. True and beats not far.
                The probability of defeat "Kortik" ("Kashtan") 0,94-0,99 in automatic mode.

                Yeah, but I did not find, for what purpose? If subsonic - I believe, but with 2.5M, probably less. Again, it only works for one purpose. Even if there are 4-6, and there are more missiles - a breakthrough is provided.
      3. DEfindER
        DEfindER 3 October 2013 12: 17 New
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        Well, they don’t say how long it will last ... 20 minutes will survive ...

        Why do people even consider such moronic scenarios? Alone, Peter will never go on a rapprochement with the AUG, if the AUG approaches it, he will either leave (speed allows) or approach the nearest ground base with bombermery or strike aircraft. Has anyone ever played a strategy ever? In general, if he receives target designation, for example, from a satellite, about the approximate location of the AOG position, he will be able to make a volley from a distance of up to 700 km, i.e. on the verge of discovering it aug th ..
        In general, we still have the Club system:
        1. kostya_a
          kostya_a 3 October 2013 13: 59 New
          0
          3 pieces made for testing wassat
  • borisjdin1957
    borisjdin1957 3 October 2013 08: 55 New
    -8
    from the Don.
    The need for invention is cunning. I don’t think that GDP can not oppose Amers. We have bright minds! There will be an answer!
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 3 October 2013 09: 59 New
      18
      Quote: borisjdin1957
      I don’t think that GDP can not oppose amers. We have bright minds!

      Yeah, Serdyukov with his woman's company. Valuable potential if abandoned in the USA. Because until they plant laughing
      1. ale-x
        ale-x 3 October 2013 11: 28 New
        +3
        He's being retrained.)) And you think why the army was transferred to the brigade? Schaz Taburetkin will be sent to the army, he already knows how to lead the troops with their structure. And what not?
      2. borisjdin1957
        borisjdin1957 3 October 2013 20: 03 New
        0
        from the Don.
        Not all are corrupt in our country! But there is an answer!: PRO killer: !!!
    2. 225chay
      225chay 3 October 2013 10: 10 New
      +8
      Quote: borisjdin1957
      I don’t think that GDP can not oppose Amers. We have bright minds! There will be an answer!

      Yes, the great "patriot" Nanochubais
      The Livanovs, Churovs, Golikovs and others will respond very "effectively"
    3. Andrey from Tver
      Andrey from Tver 3 October 2013 10: 15 New
      +9
      Quote: borisjdin1957
      I do not think that GDP can not oppose something to amers

      Probably, Putin will oppose the American AUG yachts Abramovich and other oligarchs? Or specially trained fighting penguins? I also found a "need", cunning for inventions.
  • awg75
    awg75 3 October 2013 08: 57 New
    +5
    sad as that, because it is very similar to the truth .... you need to grow
  • Dwarfik
    Dwarfik 3 October 2013 08: 59 New
    0
    Good morning! Yes, it is possible that our fleet is not the most advanced, but among the Americans I did not understand from the article where are modern aircraft carriers? Our fleet, although not large, fulfills its tasks, and conflicts and wars are waged not only by the fleets, but by all means of counteraction (Syria is a prime example.)
    1. Orik
      Orik 3 October 2013 09: 31 New
      +3
      smile Why amer "modern" aircraft carriers? Others do not have such, especially in such an amount.
  • leon-iv
    leon-iv 3 October 2013 09: 01 New
    11
    I read and I think who such a piled pile duck is Sivkov. Spets can be seen from afar.
    The capabilities of the 949A missile submarines of the reconnaissance project are much broader. With the help of their underwater acoustics, they can detect noises from aircraft carrier groups more than one hundred nautical miles away. That is, when the submarine is in the far zone of the anti-submarine defense of an aircraft carrier group, where there is a certain (albeit small) probability of its destruction.

    However, it is impossible to classify and, moreover, determine the combat order of enemy connections with the identification of the main order from such a distance. It will be necessary to get close to the enemy up to several dozen nautical miles. That is, to enter the middle anti-submarine defense zone of an enemy compound, where the probability of its destruction is already quite substantial.

    Yes Yes. But this is the nuance. Destruction of the AUG. This is a complex task. And it does not produce only nuclear submarines or only NK or only AB. For example, a submarine needs to know that the enemy is somewhere there. Then there is a volley of missiles which they themselves are exploring with their own radar.
    Even lazy to disassemble everything. And for example, in order not to guess about Aegis, you need to write a cyclogram of work
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 3 October 2013 09: 15 New
      +4
      Quote: leon-iv
      For example, a submarine needs to know that the enemy is somewhere there.

      Quite a professional definition. The main question is, how does the submarine know that the enemy is "somewhere out there"? Moreover, how does she know the distance to this "somewhere there"?
      1. Genry
        Genry 3 October 2013 09: 57 New
        +2
        "Somewhere out there" - it is always known, it is easier than the weather forecast.
        It always was: each aircraft carrier was determined a couple of times a day.
        In times of crisis, their "tail" will be permanent.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 3 October 2013 10: 05 New
          +5
          Quote: Genry
          "Somewhere out there" - it is always known, it is easier than the weather forecast.
          It always was: each aircraft carrier was determined a couple of times a day.

          They don’t hear you at the General Staff of the Russian Navy, otherwise they would have laughed at their predecessors who have plundered billions of rubles into the AUG detection system consisting of a group of reconnaissance satellites in space, a Tu-95RTS fleet, RTR ships and dozens of nuclear submarines ... Having lost all this in a short time and without creating anything in return it turns out you should not lose heart, Genry knows the way out!
      2. leon-iv
        leon-iv 3 October 2013 10: 08 New
        +4
        The main question is, how does the submarine know that the enemy is "somewhere out there"? Moreover, how does she know the distance to this "somewhere there"?

        Signatures. By taking the temperature values ​​of water, you can determine the range. Or do you want to say that all ships of the same series have the same signatures?
    2. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 3 October 2013 09: 54 New
      +6
      The Granit anti-ship missile system contains data on the composition of orders with the possibility of determining priority (aircraft carrier, landing ship, transport, etc.) and secondary targets for their distribution between salvo missiles. And there is no need to thoroughly know the entire composition of the order. The RPC will take care of this.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 3 October 2013 10: 07 New
        +2
        Quote: Black Colonel
        RCC itself will take care of this.

        Well i.e. from the base I let it out into the white light as if a pretty penny and don’t heat my head, she herself will find the AUG in the ocean and figure it out to whom to pile on cabbage soup ...
  • lewerlin53rus
    lewerlin53rus 3 October 2013 09: 03 New
    +8
    This, of course, is the whole theory. And the theory, as you know, can only be supported by practice. But God forbid actually get to practice. In such theoretical fabrications, it is impossible to take into account the notorious human factor, which can change all theoretical conclusions to the exact opposite result. In general, quite a few copies are already broken on this subject. And the most important conclusion is that it is necessary to increase the power of our fleet. And so, in general, in principle, I believe that there is no need to destroy an aircraft carrier. Depriving him of the ability to release and receive aircraft nullifies all the advantages of this floating airfield. Touch that in a global war there will still be no winners. This is a deterrent, for police operations against objectionable regimes that do not have serious opportunities to provide some substantial resistance. And recent events in Syria have clearly shown this. If the Americans were confident in their impunity, no diplomatic actions would save Assad from destruction.
    1. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 3 October 2013 09: 59 New
      +3
      "Deprivation of his ability to release and receive aircraft"
      Everything is correct. Wars must be waged humanely. Destroyed the catapult - no one will take off, disabled the elevator - no one will lift the letaki from the hangars to the deck. Let sworn friends bite your elbows! laughing
      1. ziqzaq
        ziqzaq 3 October 2013 10: 58 New
        +6
        Quote: Black Colonel
        Everything is correct. Wars must be waged humanely. Destroyed the catapult - no one will take off, disabled the elevator - no one will lift the letaki from the hangars to the deck. Let sworn friends bite your elbows!

        That's for sure, but destroyed the white house - no one will fight .......
    2. Per se.
      Per se. 3 October 2013 10: 54 New
      +4
      Quote: lewerlin53rus
      Depriving him of the ability to release and receive aircraft nullifies all the advantages of this floating airfield. Touch that in a global war there will still be no winners. This is a deterrent, for police operations against objectionable regimes that do not have serious opportunities to provide some substantial resistance
      So, in your opinion, is aviation needed for police functions? An aircraft carrier is only its floating airfield, which is not on its own and not for its own sake. Do they spoil catapults and elevators? This is strong, from the heart ... Americans have gone further, they have already learned to destroy our aircraft carriers at the drawing level, and all the successful propaganda against them is also their success, the destruction of the enemy not only in the bud, but even in the very perspective of conception. This is much simpler than wrestling after how to sink these ships. Our entire carrier fleet was deliberately destroyed, even those ships that could be completed or converted into aircraft carriers, because without aviation it is now impossible to successfully solve the tasks put forward by the fleet. All the fleets of the world receive new aircraft-carrying ships, and we are all encouraged to laugh at cheap and angry. And, of course, an aircraft carrier is not a weapon of the weak and the poor.
      1. lewerlin53rus
        lewerlin53rus 3 October 2013 12: 15 New
        +2
        Quote: Per se.
        So, in your opinion, aviation is needed for police functions
        But it depends on whose and which one. Russia and the United States have different goals and methods in the geopolitical arena. In any case, now. Russia does not set itself the task of changing undesirable regimes and capturing mineral resources using military force.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 3 October 2013 13: 02 New
          +2
          Quote: lewerlin53rus
          But it depends on whose and which one. Russia and the USA have different goals and methods in the geopolitical arena
          Any country has one principle in the geopolitical arena - ensuring the security and sovereignty of its country, and one method - if possible, a strong army and navy. There is no good or evil bomb, "socialist" or "capitalist" type of weapons, there are good or bad weapons, a weak army and navy or strong and full-fledged armed forces. Undesirable regimes are those that send us militants to the Caucasus, and it would be better if these regimes pressed on distant frontiers than after getting a problem on their own land. For this, in particular, a strong fleet is needed. Without the control of other people's resources, it is more difficult to use our own, and without military force in general, it is not possible to preserve our sources of minerals and other resources. The fleet is not built in one day, when necessary, it will not appear instantly. And the stronger the fleet, the armed forces as a whole, the more diverse the methods and possibilities for solving problems of national security and national interests.
  • Letnab
    Letnab 3 October 2013 09: 04 New
    +2
    reminds Ilya of Muromets against the horde .... :)
    What can you do if you have lost so much yourself blindly ..
  • Landwarrior
    Landwarrior 3 October 2013 09: 05 New
    +6
    Well, while heavy mine missiles are on alert, there is still time to "pull up the laggards" .... But every day, less and less hi
  • marat1000
    marat1000 3 October 2013 09: 09 New
    -1
    But it seems to me that on the contrary it’s good that they go with such a large group, it’s better to launch a nuclear ballistic missile towards them, then nothing will definitely remain from the group. The damage will be enormous, and in general it is high time to create deep nuclear missiles that cause flooding. I wonder how much you can raise a wave if a nuclear bomb in the layers of the ocean explodes? Hmm ...
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 3 October 2013 09: 19 New
      +4
      Quote: marat1000
      But it seems to me that on the contrary it’s good that they go with such a large group, it’s better to launch a nuclear ballistic missile towards them, then nothing will definitely remain from the group.

      I understand that brilliant thoughts do not go alone, so you probably have a solution to the rather simple problem of target designation for that very "nuclear ballistic missile" ...
      1. xetai9977
        xetai9977 3 October 2013 09: 43 New
        +6
        Marat I wonder if you personally hope to start a nuclear war and survive at the same time?
      2. matross
        matross 3 October 2013 12: 03 New
        0
        Quote: Nayhas
        solution to a rather simple problem of target designation

        If a nuclear strike is delivered preventively by ICBMs, then the target designation objective may be resolved by reconnaissance ships and aircraft. When struck by powerful nuclear weapons, special accuracy is not needed. And if it’s a response, then it doesn’t make sense at all - it’s impractical to spend the few remaining after an ICBM attack on the AUGs. It is necessary to hit the territory and infrastructure of the aggressor.
        The scenario is sad, but I think it's not so fantastic.
        I'm sorry to intervene hi
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 3 October 2013 18: 46 New
          +2
          Quote: matRoss
          If a nuclear strike is delivered preventively by ICBMs, then the target designation objective may be resolved by reconnaissance ships and aircraft. When struck by powerful nuclear weapons, special accuracy is not needed.

          AUG speed is 20 knots, during the time from its detection by intelligence services, programming of nuclear missile launchers, approach to the indicated AUG square can go far from that place. For example, in 20 minutes. at 20 knots the course is 12 km., and it can take much more than 20 minutes, the AUG itself determined that the enemy opened its location, course and speed and can increase its speed and change course, after which the nuclear warhead will explode where there is no AUG and in sight ...
          PS: at the expense of "precision is not needed", 01.07.1946/20/500. in the Bikini Atoll area, the Americans experienced 1000kt. (air explosion) an atomic bomb on a group of ships. As a result, ships located at a distance of 2,1-25.07.1946m received severe damage. from the epicenter of the explosion, those that were further away practically got off with a slight fright. For example, the aircraft carrier Saratoga is at a distance of 8 km. from the epicenter did not receive any damage. 45/500/800 detonated a nuclear charge deepened in a diving bell at a depth of XNUMXm., the distance to the bottom is XNUMXm. as a result, within a radius of XNUMXm. all ships were sunk within a radius of XNUMXm. the ships received severe damage to the underwater part, within a radius of about a kilometer, the ships received light damage. T. Ya. a nuclear explosion is dangerous to a ship when it occurs relatively not far from it, but the further the distance, the less the effect.
          1. matross
            matross 4 October 2013 11: 50 New
            0
            Earnestly hi
    2. leon-iv
      leon-iv 3 October 2013 10: 09 New
      0
      TsU damn BR is Khetai tales. Yes, and it makes little sense.
    3. Corrint_25
      Corrint_25 3 October 2013 11: 26 New
      +3
      Quote: marat1000
      launch a nuclear ballistic missile to them

      And goodbye friend forever ... love In 10-20 minutes, nuclear mushrooms will grow around the world crying
  • Zhenya
    Zhenya 3 October 2013 09: 09 New
    12
    No offense, but more and more often this site began to remind me of the YELLOW PRESS, a lot of information is left and every month it becomes more political than military.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 3 October 2013 09: 20 New
      +4
      Quote: Marrying
      a lot of information is leftist and every month it becomes more political than military.

      Those. problems of the domestic Navy do you attribute to political problems?
      1. Black Colonel
        Black Colonel 3 October 2013 10: 03 New
        0
        Not the problems themselves, but how they are served
    2. Very old
      Very old 3 October 2013 11: 06 New
      +2
      And where to go? The site is open to everyone ... I read smart things. I do not comment nonsense.
  • Stiletto
    Stiletto 3 October 2013 09: 11 New
    16
    And what is the meaning of such a wall-to-wall sea battle? If he wants to drown the AUG, it will most likely be done with the help of nuclear weapons. Complex, so to speak, wholesale. Because any attempt to conduct a battle between such rivals will inevitably result in a nuclear confrontation, and, in principle, is possible only under conditions of an inevitable apocalypse.
    1. apro
      apro 3 October 2013 11: 25 New
      +3
      The only bright thought in the stream of comments. There is still a decision to use ballistic missiles of medium and shorter range guidance heads allow to heat the boxes, Chinese experiments have confirmed that it is possible without jar.
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 3 October 2013 09: 12 New
    +4
    Yes, target designation is our sore spot now, and yet I strongly doubt the ability of AUG to repel a volley from 16 supersonic anti-ship missiles (let's say they found and identified it).
    The author proceeds from the fact that the AUG is always in a state of combat readiness, airplanes in the air, cruisers are ready for launch. And if the attack is sudden? At night? 16 missiles from the cruiser, 24 from the submarine = already 40 missiles! Threat response time no more than 30 seconds. In the best case scenario, they will beat a dozen, no more.
    In order to successfully confront the US carrier group, our fleet is obliged to counter it with an adequate operational force.

    Adequate! And not half the fleet that the author painted!
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 3 October 2013 09: 22 New
      +3
      Quote: Wedmak
      And if the attack is sudden? At night? 16 missiles from a cruiser, 24 from a submarine = already 40 missiles!

      It remains only to "suddenly" be 300 km away. from AUG all of the listed grouping, can you tell me how? Or does AUG reconnaissance work at night?
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 3 October 2013 09: 42 New
        +4
        can tell me how?

        They will fix themselves. AUG in the open ocean is not needed by anyone and poses no threat (by the way, the author kept silent about this). But if they come to the coast ... But they come, there is nowhere to go. There is already room for maneuver. What is worth "hiding" a cruiser in one of the many bays? Will the submarine hide in the bay? Here, the coastal complexes will make their contribution.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 3 October 2013 09: 55 New
          +4
          Quote: Wedmak
          Sami will tidy up. AUG in the open ocean no one needs

          Denis, the AUG will never come "to the shore" until they first destroy the enemy's naval forces at sea or in bases. Therefore, your scenario is not real.
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 3 October 2013 10: 20 New
            0
            Quote: Nayhas
            AUG will never come "to the shore" until they first destroy the enemy's naval forces at sea or in bases.

            Are you talking about now, well, AUG vs Syria?
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 3 October 2013 10: 43 New
              0
              Quote: Cynic
              Are you talking about now, well, AUG vs Syria?

              irrelevant.
              PS: where did you spot the Navy near Syria?
              1. Cynic
                Cynic 3 October 2013 10: 49 New
                0
                Quote: Nayhas
                where did you spot the navy near Syria?

                RCC not only have the Navy, the Syrians have Bastions with Yakhonts.
          2. Wedmak
            Wedmak 3 October 2013 10: 28 New
            +4
            Denis, the AUG will never come "to the shore" until they first destroy the enemy's naval forces at sea or in bases.

            I agree. There are also no fools. That is why so many disputes will arise about the value of the AUG as a combat unit. Because as soon as they are capable of rolling the enemy an order, or even two, weaker than themselves. Even with the coastal defense that we have now, closer than 500 km, not a single AUG will slip.
            Therefore, your scenario is not real.

            Exactly, for the above reason and at present. And then, the whole problem is target designation.
            Nevertheless, the article emphasizes that the AUG is able to repel a volley of P-1000 and Granites without any special complications. That is what I doubt.
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 3 October 2013 10: 41 New
              +2
              Quote: Wedmak
              And then, the whole problem is target designation.

              Denis, this is the main problem! I have already drawn the analogy below, but I will repeat myself. The battle of the AUG against the domestic grouping 1144, 1164 and 949 is a battle between the sighted and the blind. Ships in the sea do not stand still, their speeds are identical, so the one who "sees" the enemy is able to choose the time and place of the strike, and the one who does not see the enemy in real time is forced to hammer the air with his fists until the "fists" run out, and then ...
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 3 October 2013 10: 52 New
                0
                But what about the reflection of the volley of the P-1000? Imagine that target designation has already been issued and a salvo has been fired.
                1. Nayhas
                  Nayhas 3 October 2013 11: 43 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  But what about the reflection of the volley of the P-1000? Imagine that target designation has already been issued and a salvo has been fired.

                  If you successfully approached the launch distance of the anti-ship missiles to a maximum range of 600 km, then most likely the result will be zero. It should be understood that the Vulcan flies along such a high path along a high path, i.e. climbs up to 12km. height and letiiiiiit ... towards the adversary. Accordingly, the launch of anti-ship missiles will be detected by Hokai and will monitor the anti-ship missiles pointing fighters from an aircraft carrier at them. The Volcano itself does not differ much in size from the aircraft, it is 11,7 m long, 0,88 in diameter, 2,6 m in wingspan, 2,3 tons in mass. It flies in a straight line and it is not difficult to bring it down in mid-flight.
                  RCC flying "over the waves" pose a danger to any ship, but then you have to compromise the range.
        2. labendik
          labendik 3 October 2013 12: 33 New
          0
          You think somehow strange, no one has yet canceled the struggle for the possibility of shipping.
      2. Metlik
        Metlik 3 October 2013 10: 03 New
        +2
        Quote: Nayhas
        It remains only to "suddenly" be 300 km away. from AUG all of the listed grouping, can you tell me how?

        Submarines can take a stand and wait. Finding them without movement will not be so easy.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 3 October 2013 10: 11 New
          +4
          Quote: Metlik
          Submarines can take a stand and wait. Finding them without movement will not be so easy.

          WHAT PLACE TO WAIT? Do you have any idea what the oceans are? Come on, even the Mediterranean Sea? In what place of the Mediterranean Sea should one take the position of a submarine in order for AUG to run into it? How many submarines do you need to cover the whole sea?
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 3 October 2013 10: 29 New
            +1
            So we are not going to attack anyone. Therefore, chasing ACG in the oceans is not necessary. It is enough to take a position off their shores at strategic points.
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 3 October 2013 10: 46 New
              0
              the radius of the AUG aircraft is 700 km or more. where is this point?
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 3 October 2013 10: 54 New
                0
                And where does the aircraft? Flying is in air defense. Coastal, ship, etc. There are just comparable detection ranges.
                But to hear AUG for as much as possible? 100 KM? 200? This is already within the reach of our RCC.
            2. Misantrop
              Misantrop 3 October 2013 10: 47 New
              +1
              Quote: Wedmak
              It is enough to take a position off their shores at strategic points.
              The only problem is that this "point" is the size of a quarter of a globe ... request
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 3 October 2013 10: 57 New
                0
                Well, let's say AUG is hardly trampled on the ice. Subpolar regions can be excluded and only satellite reconnaissance can be carried out there. And as for the rest .. well, yes ... you can’t block a couple of dozens of submarines, well, the rest of the intelligence should not sleep.
          2. Metlik
            Metlik 3 October 2013 13: 43 New
            0
            Quote: Nayhas
            WHAT PLACE TO WAIT? Do you have any idea what the oceans are? Come on, even the Mediterranean Sea? In what place of the Mediterranean Sea should one take the position of a submarine in order for AUG to run into it? How many submarines do you need to cover the whole sea?

            And how did the submarines act in the Second World War? Received intelligence data about the course of the enemy ship and reached the point of interception. Now we seem to have satellites.
      3. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 3 October 2013 11: 44 New
        +1
        so it is ... it's dark !!! laughing
    2. gladiatorakz
      gladiatorakz 3 October 2013 10: 55 New
      +3
      Quote: Wedmak
      . And if the attack is sudden? At night?

      I immediately remembered: USA - flew to the moon. In the USSR, a ship was assembled in the sun. Astronauts:
      - Well we will burn, the temperature is millions of degrees. winked
      - The Palitburo is not fools. Fly at night. laughing
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 3 October 2013 11: 14 New
        0
        At night, not because it is dark - do not care for the radar, but because the shift may be shortened and the crew weary - the reaction time is longer.
      2. Stiletto
        Stiletto 3 October 2013 13: 56 New
        +1
        Quote: gladiatorakz
        Quote: Wedmak
        . And if the attack is sudden? At night?

        I immediately remembered: USA - flew to the moon. In the USSR, a ship was assembled in the sun. Astronauts:
        - Well we will burn, the temperature is millions of degrees. winked
        - The Palitburo is not fools. Fly at night. laughing


        And the historical phrase of the first astronaut ?!

        - "Well, you bastards, a living person, into a tin can, where are you driving something? What do you have there, everyone has a roof ..."
        GO!!! wassat
  • Xroft
    Xroft 3 October 2013 09: 13 New
    +3
    Yes, it seems everyone has long understood that a real combat confrontation between fleets / ships of major powers is not possible (all this immediately leads to the use of nuclear weapons and 50 ships in a group or 5 are no longer important there), and modern nuclear weapons pass through the air defense system of any fleet.
    The essence of the fleet is now the effect of the presence / delivery of troops (the transport part of the military fleet, not warships) and that’s all. Patrol ships need to chase pirates / defend borders, it’s not normal when atomic cruisers like Peter the Great run for motors (but as the presence effect very powerful, aborigines tremble with fear). That's why they rely on the Eagles and their restoration.
    ps it is clear that in order to protect the borders of the state it is necessary to have a combat-ready fleet of 1 formation in 10 ships with Orlan at the head, which is capable of fulfilling the main functions. This is what’s happening now.
  • svskor80
    svskor80 3 October 2013 09: 14 New
    +3
    Yes, no one will attack the American squadron with one cruiser, and do not be shy to admit that the Russian fleet in its current state is not an enemy of Amer. The fleet certainly needs to be developed and built, and not sold to the Indians and the Chinese, and then there will be pride in the country, and ships under the USSR learned to build perfectly.
  • Dimy4
    Dimy4 3 October 2013 09: 15 New
    +7
    But an aircraft carrier does not have to be drowned, it is necessary to inflict damage on it, in which he will not be able to receive and send aircraft. After that, it turns into an expensive warehouse of aircraft, which, in order not to lose it at all, needs to be quickly withdrawn from the battle, distracting the ships of the group for towing and guarding.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 3 October 2013 09: 17 New
    +1
    This is clear to the hedgehog ... the god of war is always on the side of large battalions ... but who said that in this case, in the event of a real confrontation, they will naughty with simple weapons ... if everything is adult, a nuclear warhead will fly ... and 200 meters there, 200 meters does not play a role here ... and it is the Americans who know that they can use their show-offs only in local conflicts. Naturally, a small naval force will not be able to grind the armada, so it is not required of it ... to detect ... to pinch ... to depart.
  • ZIV
    ZIV 3 October 2013 09: 18 New
    +2
    The author is not correct. No one will ever plan to destroy the AMG with one ship, even with such a serious weapon. According to all the "textbooks" for such an operation, various forces should be involved, ranging from submarines to missile-carrying and bomber aircraft. Moreover, all actions must be clearly planned and synchronized in time. Strikes with torpedoes, missiles of various types and bombs should be delivered from all directions almost simultaneously, which will lead to the "dispersion" of air defense forces and means.
    1. labendik
      labendik 3 October 2013 12: 28 New
      0
      And where do we have these "heterogeneous forces". In the tutorial?
  • kirieeleyson
    kirieeleyson 3 October 2013 09: 20 New
    +9
    Hello comrades. Konstantin Sivkov tried to re-open the theme of the old holivars "who will win - the legacy of the USSR or the modernized URO USA".
    In my opinion, the article is very superficial and reveals little of the main tasks of both our Eagles, and also lubricates the limitations and tasks of the USA AUG.
    It so happened that under the current alignment of forces, a possible battle can hypothetically be compared with a shot from the Aurora, where, after the aggression of either side, the conflict may rapidly slide to the third world war (at worst, civilians would have time to reach the metro).
    There are many hairpins and caustic remarks that can be discussed in the article, but it is important to single out only two:
    - I don’t believe in the efficacy of the Aegis complex with its anti-missiles of all stripes.
    An analogue of ijis is the "iron dome" system in Israel, where enterprising Jews implemented their overland version, reconfiguring it in terms of positioning. As we know from the results of the Indian official commission, the efficiency of the complex was 0.39 (the Indians checked the "iron dome" during the tender for such systems). There remain SM / standard missiles This is generally enchanting: more than a quarter of the missile ammunition is designed for reloading, a failure occurs at launch and the missiles remain in the cells. The second standards have just begun to fly poorly, by the way, the Americans are silent, otherwise the US Citizens will tear the Pentagon rats for disrupting a world-class project and spending a huge amount (like with the F-35)
    - the range of guaranteed destruction of our missiles, target designation, and modernization of project cruiser systems. Well, you need to understand that the modernization was carried out, well, why write the estimated data of the 80s then ..
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 3 October 2013 09: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: kirieeleyson
      - I don’t believe in the efficacy of the Aegis complex with its anti-missiles of all stripes.

      If we accept your position, the same can be said about domestic means of attack, "I do not believe in the effectiveness" of the anti-ship missiles Granit and Vulkan. By the way, there is every reason for this, they have never been launched at the maximum range in the fleet, the shelf life of both Granite and Vulcan has practically expired. By the way, Granites were removed from the nuclear submarine of pr.949, it seems, for this reason. At Kuznetsovo, too, Granites are gone. Perhaps Peter 1 wears all the living that remain.
      Quote: kirieeleyson
      The second standards have just begun to fly poorly poor, by the way the Americans are silent

      For the ignorant, they are already purchasing SM-6 with transverse defeat of RCC.
      Quote: kirieeleyson
      - the range of guaranteed destruction of our missiles, target designation, and modernization of project cruiser systems. Well, you need to understand that modernization was carried out

      Modernization was carried out only in your imagination. In 2000 Granites extended shelf life and all.
      I understand that you do not believe in the obvious, for the sake of this it is enough to ridicule the enemy, doubt his capabilities and ascribe to yours what is not and never was, then you can live calmer, isn't it?
      1. kirieeleyson
        kirieeleyson 3 October 2013 09: 58 New
        +4
        Quote: Nayhas
        you don’t believe in the obvious, for the sake of this it’s enough to ridicule the enemy, to doubt his capabilities and to attribute to yours what is not and wasn’t, then you can live calmer, isn't it?

        I will not argue on all sub-quotes and arrange disputes.
        I will say briefly: I am not flooded with urapatriotic kvass in the morning, this is an opinion, IMHO. My friends and I served on Peta and there are many officers (senior staff) I know who have had more than one night with chess and went on discussing all this in due time.
        There are various data on the tests of our "granites" and their latest test runs. There are differences, and very significant ones. (filling, rudders, composition of the mixture and, as a consequence - a change in performance characteristics) I do not argue, the American fleet is stronger, bigger, more powerful, richer. But in the confrontation between 1 Petit and 1 AUG in 18 auxiliary ships from an order of 6-8 destroyers or URO cruisers of the Arleigh Burke or Ticonderoga type, I remain unconvinced: With proper provision of target designations and correct liner to the theater of operations, Petya will destroy all AUG ships if will release all PUs. This will be the only blow for him, he is unlikely to be able to fight back further, but even without the nuclear warhead, he is able to destroy up to 7 ships, including the "mother". According to the calculation, 2 missiles with a separate warhead are used per uterus.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 3 October 2013 10: 35 New
          +4
          Quote: kirieeleyson
          My friends and I served on Peta and there are many officers (senior staff) I know who have had more than one night with chess and went on discussing all this in due time.

          Lord officers either incorrectly explained to you, or unfortunately do not know the enemy’s capabilities or hold them for fools. In order for Peter1 to be able to launch the launch of the Granites with the guarantee of the destruction of at least one ship, he needs to approach the AOG for 150 km, this is the maximum range of Granite's flight along a low trajectory outside the enemy radar detection zone. But who will allow him to do this if he is discovered by means of AUG reconnaissance for 800 km? AUG by the way does not stand still and is able to develop 30uz., Change course. Even if Petr1 receives accurate data on the coordinates of the ACG, its speed and course after the ACG changes course, he simply will not find it where it was supposed to be. It will be a fight between a blind man with a sighted one, a blind man is told in the ear where his opponent is, and while moving, he laughs at how the blind man hits the void while delivering unrequited blows ...
          1. kirieeleyson
            kirieeleyson 3 October 2013 11: 03 New
            0
            Eugene, I propose to leave idle speculation just to these officers, who should do all this at a crucial moment. I remember handing out these questions, but was once mercilessly torn to pieces by my tactics.
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 3 October 2013 11: 48 New
              0
              Quote: kirieeleyson
              I remember handing out these questions, but was once mercilessly torn to pieces by my tactics.

              To be afraid of wolves ... If I’m wrong and they poked me with my nose, but I realized, then I’m only glad about it, because I was put on the right path. Hallelujah!
          2. leon-iv
            leon-iv 3 October 2013 11: 08 New
            +3
            if it is discovered by means of reconnaissance of the AUG for 800 km.?

            Hokay? And if the IBM is covered by interference? From the warrant?
            In my opinion, we are engaged in a spheroconine. For no one will hammer AUG with simple missiles. There will be NBC, and the breakthrough will be carried out under the guise of PFYaV, and there are other handouts for everyone. And according to my relative, a submariner, the main problem is not air defense, but rather interference. And a suitable submariner on a boat hunter will be able to go inside the warrant. So as they say it is not so simple.
      2. leon-iv
        leon-iv 3 October 2013 10: 19 New
        0
        By the way, from the submarine pr.949 Granites removed, it seems for this reason.

        there are no calibers when upgrading, you can cram more. And they will be more interesting than Granites both in flight profile and in electronic stuffing.
        For the ignorant, they are already purchasing SM-6 with transverse defeat of RCC.

        Here’s the nuance of the AIM 120’s head, and it’s imprisoned for hitting a target in the sky and not at low altitudes. Do you have a photo head SM-6?
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 3 October 2013 10: 48 New
          0
          Quote: leon-iv
          Here’s the nuance of the AIM 120’s head, and it’s imprisoned for hitting a target in the sky and not at low altitudes. Do you have a photo head SM-6?

          And what will the photo give? I do not argue that on the SM-6 is AIMGSN from AIM 120, it has recently passed tests and successfully hit the target. If so, what are the headaches?
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 3 October 2013 11: 04 New
            0
            And what will the photo give?

            awesome a lot
            If so, what are the headaches?

            Range of effective interception heights. It very much depends on the mirror of the antenna, or rather its geometric characteristics.
            she recently passed tests and successfully hit targets

            How to tell you. Again, who made the tests and how they believed. Interference and so on and so forth.
            And then it may turn out like with a stronghold, like they were producing, but it seems to be not.
            1. kirieeleyson
              kirieeleyson 3 October 2013 11: 48 New
              0
              Regarding the calculation of this range: how to determine if you can see the photo?
            2. Nayhas
              Nayhas 3 October 2013 18: 57 New
              0
              Quote: leon-iv
              Range of effective interception heights. It very much depends on the mirror of the antenna, or rather its geometric characteristics.

              SM-6 does not detect the target itself, this is nonsense. There, the system in the form of target designation from external sources, the E-2D produces target designation of the SM-6, i.e. roughly speaking, "pokes his nose" at the target, and that, after confidently capturing the target with its ARLGSN, switches to homing and destroys the target. By the way, regarding supersonic targets. This year, they wrote that the E-2D was targeting an AIM-120 rocket launched from the F-15, and a low-flying supersonic target was hit.
              1. kirieeleyson
                kirieeleyson 4 October 2013 09: 37 New
                0
                Quote: Nayhas
                a low flying supersonic target was hit.

                On September 5, the U.S. Navy conducted the second test of the SM-6 missile with over-horizon guidance.
                Using a newly developed active homing system, the missile intercepted the BQM-74 aerial target.
                BQM-74 Chukar
                Maximum speed: 972 km / h

                Eugene, the tests were subsonic, and the target (target) was caught without 1 rudder, which came off in the course of the collision. It is too early to talk about the success of the carrier, we also got burned on our Redoubt.
        2. kirieeleyson
          kirieeleyson 3 October 2013 10: 51 New
          0
          You also need to take into account the subsonic target. So the SM-6 has yet to break spears over supersonic targets. Moreover, in a head designed for other methods of use. The "clapperboard" is already old, but it touched a good one. In general, as far as I remember, we have some tricks for AMRAAM, you need to look ..
    2. Cynic
      Cynic 3 October 2013 09: 35 New
      +3
      Quote: kirieeleyson
      Konstantin Sivkov tried to re-open the theme of the old holivars "who will win - the legacy of the USSR or the modernized URO USA".

      And for some reason, in terms of the use of conventional weapons ?!
      We will not shake the air in vain, but the new military doctrine of Russia in which the rejection of the principle of Retaliatory strike has been completely ignored. It also declared the use of even a preventive nuclear strike.
      The picture would have been even more fun if the author had considered our DBK against AUG, and what we break through and take on board!
      1. kirieeleyson
        kirieeleyson 3 October 2013 10: 11 New
        0
        Granites are all with JAB. That's why Petya doesn’t go far, doesn’t go to the Pacific and the Atlantic, otherwise the Americans will begin retaliatory maneuvers and raise a howl about a reboot, etc.
        Too strong differences in the doctrines and tactics of behavior among us and amers ..
    3. Tartary
      Tartary 3 October 2013 14: 45 New
      0
      Quote: kirieeleyson
      Well, you need to understand that the modernization was carried out, well, why write the estimated data of the 80s then ..

      And so I think ...
      It was announced about the liquidation of one and withdrawal towards the second Tamagavka, released from the US base in Italy towards Syria ...
      Then, in different resources, the info slipped that there were not two missiles, but either 4-d, or 6 ...
      About the telephone conversation of our intelligence leader (as stated) and theirs, I also definitely believe. Otherwise, why would the Americans actually have sucked in sali?
  • bddrus
    bddrus 3 October 2013 09: 21 New
    +4
    it may be so, but with what fright do you have to equal a country with an economy several times larger than ours and a military budget 10 times bigger than ours ??? To do this, there is a strategic nuclear forces - to equalize the chances in the confrontation with the United States
  • vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 3 October 2013 09: 23 New
    +8
    Guard!!!! what is happening, Russia does not have a fleet, let's all scream in unison how bad everything is, tearing hair. Who can tell me which one in the world will attack ships flying the Russian flag? This is not a conflict, this is a war with all the consequences. As long as Russia has a nuclear deterrent, I don’t think that there is a full capable attack on Russia, or even on its fleet.
    The fleet must be built and it must be developed, no one disputes, but you should not shout the Guard.
  • sigdoc
    sigdoc 3 October 2013 09: 30 New
    +2
    And after honoring the article, what should we crap about?
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 3 October 2013 09: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: sigdoc
      And after honoring the article, what should we crap about?

      No, just stop clapping when she writes that the cruiser pr.1164 scared the American squadron, because they were afraid of its anti-ship missiles.
    2. Cynic
      Cynic 3 October 2013 09: 37 New
      0
      Quote: sigdoc
      what you need to crap?

      In vain there is no advertising of toilet paper, in vain!
  • Poppy
    Poppy 3 October 2013 09: 34 New
    +1
    It always seemed to me that RTOs should destroy aircraft carriers - they are cheap, small and fast
    asymmetric answer
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 3 October 2013 10: 08 New
      +7
      Quote: Poppy
      RTOs must destroy aircraft carriers - they are cheap, small and fast

      And what is their seaworthiness to take them out into the ocean against AUG? Or do they need to be made a LOT and staffed with the same cheap crews of guest workers? According to the principle "someone will break through, and the rest do not mind"? lol
  • fklj
    fklj 3 October 2013 09: 39 New
    -1
    What a mess? Either "we shall tear all of them," now "save yourself, who can."
    Does anyone read the article before publishing?
    Such "yellow" material undermines the authority of the site as a whole.
  • soldier's grandson
    soldier's grandson 3 October 2013 09: 41 New
    0
    thanks to Gorbatom for the conversion and disarmament, so far the projects are only on paper and the promises about the launch of new ships
  • dmb
    dmb 3 October 2013 09: 48 New
    +9
    In matters of maritime strategy, of course, I am an amateur, but the author seems to argue worse than the ensign from the movie "DMB". He looked at things more realistically than academician-geopolitician Sivkov: "We will definitely crash, but later." Describing the enchanting pictures of firing missiles at each other, the author completely forgot what we would be doing in this fascinating business. If we have to fight off the adversary from our borders, then, firstly, we are a more land power than the sea and we fight mainly on land, and secondly, if the adversary rushes at us in several fleets at once (and otherwise it makes no sense for him to rush, we size is still larger than Honduras), then, as other commentators rightly noted, no one will argue too much, but will throw a vigorous bonboy over them, so that, as the same ensign-philosopher said, "The whole world is in dust." Well, our "strategists" do not want to understand that the world has changed, and the AUG is a means of waging local wars with non-nuclear powers, and exclusively as an aggressor. For all the stupidity of our leadership, we, thank God, have not yet reached this point, because even they understand that as soon as they send troops outside the country, to die for the interests of VTB and Gazprom, they will have a kirdyk.
    1. Samy
      Samy 3 October 2013 12: 08 New
      0
      The author examines a narrow aspect of the confrontation - the struggle at sea. What does it have to do with "a vigorous bonboy jumps over them,"? This is another question. At sea we will be laid to the bottom, which, by the way, will enable the adversary to come close to us. Well, then it's also sad ...
  • bubla5
    bubla5 3 October 2013 09: 52 New
    +1
    A volley in 40 – 50 cruise missiles will not be able to repel our ship mix.
    A volley of so many missiles, the Americans means they can reflect, some kind of one-sided article, but what about aviation, etc.
  • UVB
    UVB 3 October 2013 10: 00 New
    +1
    Whatever they say, they could build ships in the Union! They are 30 years old, and they are not much inferior to modern ones, and in some ways still unsurpassed. Another thing is that they are few! It would be a comparable amount - the alignment would be completely different.
  • b-130
    b-130 3 October 2013 10: 01 New
    +5
    The author is infinitely far from the fleet, another amateurism, unfortunately ......
  • Asgard
    Asgard 3 October 2013 10: 10 New
    +3
    The fact is that the arithmetic used by the author is not applicable to military operations ....
    Recall Gena Lyachin (Kingdom of Heaven) Captain | rank, on the "roaring cow" as the media write, he was in the Mediterranean and practically walked under the keel of the "Theodore Roosevelt" aircraft carrier ..... (during the attack on Yugoslavia))

    Recent events when a grouping from different fleets of the Russian Federation (ORDER) stood in front of Syria - the Yankees immediately went for repairs, because their ships leaked (zassali-naval term))
    There is no fighting spirit there, and they shoot down their targets (and even then not always)) and they will have losses, Mama do not worry, as they fought only against the "Papuans" ...

    We would have to compensate for the lag in the number of units of ships with "political will" and a single use of "Granites" on the ship carrying weapons (the Qatari gas carrier))) ...

    and all ......
    ALL would understand everything and silently would listen to what they were told))))
    I already wrote, constantly defending -We are losing people (which is priceless)) and ships ....
    and lose credibility (constantly)))
    The time has come-it is necessary to attack is the aggressors ....
    Then defeat with little blood ...
  • gleb49
    gleb49 3 October 2013 10: 15 New
    +1
    In addition to ballistic missiles, we do not have effective weapons. I do not believe that our submarines can imperceptibly plow. Intelligence of NATO, the United States and our reptiles are enough. Will we respond to precision strikes, this is the question. Would you like to check this out?
  • varov14
    varov14 3 October 2013 10: 19 New
    +1
    So in a naval war, completely new ideas are needed. The idea at first glance should be completely crazy - small forces, a lot of scrap metal.
  • varov14
    varov14 3 October 2013 10: 22 New
    0
    So in a naval war, new ideas are needed. The idea should look extremely crazy - with small forces, a lot of scrap metal.
  • Algor73
    Algor73 3 October 2013 10: 27 New
    +2
    Maybe the article is superficial, but still true. Almost all ships of the USSR. Relying on nuclear weapons, the issue of technical re-equipment of the fleets remained on the sidelines. If Russia considers itself a superpower, then the fleet must be strengthened in the first place - politics is not only done on paper in the cabinet, but by the presence of force in one or another point of the globe. Many trust in Putin. Yes, he did a lot, but even more and more ... l (including the post-Soviet countries that turned away from Russia).
  • kidman
    kidman 3 October 2013 10: 27 New
    +4
    WIG need to be put into operation.

    1. roial
      roial 4 October 2013 15: 53 New
      0
      What's the point ?? With its 500 kilometers it will be easy prey for fighter jets.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 4 October 2013 16: 22 New
        0
        What's the point ?? With its 500 kilometers it will be easy prey for fighter jets.




        10! IMHO apply only in peacetime for emergency rescue operations.
  • EGORKA
    EGORKA 3 October 2013 10: 56 New
    +4
    Quote: Nayhas
    Quote: kirieeleyson
    My friends and I served on Peta and there are many officers (senior staff) I know who have had more than one night with chess and went on discussing all this in due time.

    Lord officers either incorrectly explained to you, or unfortunately do not know the enemy’s capabilities or hold them for fools. So that Peter1 could, with the guarantee of the destruction of at least one ship, launch Granites to him you need to approach the AOG at 150 km., this is the maximum range of Granite's flight along a low trajectory outside the enemy radar detection zone. But who will allow him to do this if he is discovered by means of AUG reconnaissance for 800 km? AUG by the way does not stand still and is able to develop 30uz., Change course. Even if Petr1 receives accurate data on the coordinates of the ACG, its speed and course after the ACG changes course, he simply will not find it where it was supposed to be. It will be a fight between a blind man with a sighted one, a blind man is told in the ear where his opponent is, and while moving, he laughs at how the blind man hits the void while delivering unrequited blows ...

    As far as my memory does not change, the low trajectory may be 150 km as you write near granite, but it does not need to approach this distance, the missile launch range is much greater, and the missiles descend to a low trajectory when approaching, and the missiles fly "in a flock "and they exchange information among themselves, one leading rocket flies higher, if it is shot down, it will be replaced by any other, when approaching, they distribute targets and ... somehow like this, as far as I remember.
  • Xroft
    Xroft 3 October 2013 11: 08 New
    +3
    And as usual, fans of the Aircraft Carriers will run right now with demands to swell the billions of green so that there is something to show Kuzkin’s mother ....... in arguments like 20 fighter planes, the Papuans will be blown apart, and why do the Amers have, and we don’t?
  • UVB
    UVB 3 October 2013 11: 08 New
    +3
    Often in such articles you can read that our ships will not be able to get close to the ACG at a distance to strike. And if they are already in the affected area? But carrier-based aviation still needs time for take-off, but after all this time they can not be given. And I do not think that in the event of an aggravation of the situation, our multi-purpose nuclear submarines will not fall their mouths. And remember how during the Arab-Israeli, Indo-Pakistani conflicts, our cruisers 26 and 68bis kept these AUGs at gunpoint, preventing the aircraft from flying up.
    1. creak
      creak 3 October 2013 11: 22 New
      +2
      How is it that during the Arab-Israeli conflicts, our cruisers did not allow the American carrier-based aircraft to take off? Our naval reconnaissance aircraft Tu-16, who flew daily for additional reconnaissance of the US 6th Fleet from the Egyptian airbase "Cairo West", were necessarily accompanied by American carrier-based aircraft ... action is something new ...
  • Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 3 October 2013 11: 30 New
    +2
    Already several articles of this nature were when the combat capabilities of the fleets were considered in isolation from the general strategic potential of Russia. After all, there is still a strategic and tactical nuclear weapon, which is located in the air (on strategic bombers), coastal missile systems. marine carriers of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. So, arithmetic is unacceptable here. Although I agree that the potential of the Russian Navy is incomparable with the potential of the Soviet Navy. I hope that a specialist article will appear on the combat capabilities of our Navy in the combat capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces.
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 3 October 2013 11: 38 New
    +2
    I like the author’s conclusions that many of our anti-ship missiles will be able to reflect the AUG without problems. Where such confidence? or is it backed up by those tests when the American Aegis system works for a goal that follows a well-known trajectory ??? By the way, if you look at the number of test launches, you can see that the percentage of defeated conditional targets in percentage terms is not so great. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but it seems like about 90 launches and about 70 interceptions.
    Again, do not forget about the performance characteristics of conditional goals, which are negatively different from our RCC in favor of the latter. To tmou, again, the issue of flight paths.
    Yes, SM3 intercepted a satellite in an orbit of 250 km altitude. But again, obviously all the coefficients were introduced into the system, the point was calculated where the satellite traveling at a constant speed and the rocket were to meet. So, as for me, then again this is not an indicator.

    and in general, this business is not grateful to sit, guess who is someone and write completely incomprehensible articles about this, backed up only by propelled tactical and technical characteristics, which, by the way, often diverge from the actual ones.
    1. labendik
      labendik 3 October 2013 11: 40 New
      -1
      Is it about ballistic missiles?
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 3 October 2013 13: 43 New
        0
        Well, if my memory serves me right, then the combat LSI Aegis is designed to work both for the ballistic goals and for the RCC. If you take the same Airlie Burke, then his nomenclature of weapons consists of SM anti-aircraft missiles, Tomogavkov, working to defeat, and not to intercept, because subsonic missile and ASROCK. If I am mistaken, then correct.
        There is also a "six-barrel" Phalanx, but it has a range limit of 5-6 km, so it is not easy for it to work against an anti-ship missile such as a volcano or granite. I'm not talking about art.
        I’m all about the fact that from the anti-aircraft means only the Aegis system. correct again if I am mistaken!
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 3 October 2013 11: 54 New
      +1
      Yes, SM3 intercepted a satellite in an orbit 250 km high.

      Also, the rocket itself was specially modified.
    3. Nayhas
      Nayhas 3 October 2013 12: 19 New
      0
      Quote: silver_roman
      Again, do not forget about the performance characteristics of conditional goals, which are negatively different from our RCC in favor of the latter. To tmou, again, the issue of flight paths.

      The issue of creating a targeted environment is very complex. It is impossible to make the target exactly the same as the CR of a probable enemy, many characteristics are unknown. This applies to absolutely all countries. BUT, the targets that are used by both Russia and the USA are known. Basically, these are subsonic targets repeating the characteristics of subsonic RCs or other aircraft. The United States has made enough efforts to create a supersonic target, first bought MA-31s created on the basis of the X-31 from Russia, and then created its own supersonic target GQM-163 Coyote, on which they work out the interception of supersonic low-flying CRs. They say that it’s successful, but the question is not how much this is true, but that they are working on it, and we are not.
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 3 October 2013 12: 45 New
        0
        GQM-163 Coyote on which they practice the interception of supersonic low-flying KR. They say that it’s successful, but the question is not how much this is true, but that they are working on it, and we are not.

        What to intercept harpoons?
        Well this is not at all interesting. Subsonic with a simple flight profile.
        But with a skoyet it’s not so simple. I remember a conversation with prof. Here you still need to know who and how experienced.
  • labendik
    labendik 3 October 2013 11: 38 New
    +1
    It turns out that our cruisers, on the principle of placement and design of launchers, the day before yesterday. Even the American destroyer has 5 times more missiles than our heavy cruiser. It’s sad.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 3 October 2013 12: 04 New
      +2
      Even the American destroyer has 5 times more missiles than our heavy cruiser.

      So you compare the types of missiles at least for a start. Most of the missiles on destroyers URO - anti-aircraft. They are quite small, so you can cram a lot of them.
  • ed65b
    ed65b 3 October 2013 11: 50 New
    +1
    I agree with Ivanovich. The author compared three fighters and a horde of gopniks, the pepper is clear that you can’t resist a crowd against the crowd. According to the unspoken opinion of the author, it’s time to give up and there is nothing to restore the former Navy. This is a red thread through the entire article. MINUS.
  • Basileus
    Basileus 3 October 2013 11: 51 New
    +2
    To Russia to compare the capabilities of the fleet with the capabilities of the American, we will all need to go on a very long and meager diet. I don’t think that there are a lot of people who want to try) We would at least bring SV to mind.
    1. silver_roman
      silver_roman 3 October 2013 15: 01 New
      +2
      as for me we don’t need to be equal to the Americans. The United States is surrounded by two oceans - naturally distant from the main theaters of war, by the way, which they themselves create away from their borders.
      They had a fleet and during the USSR was stronger, but it’s another matter that we could respond with a fleet. Now this is not, but the opportunities should be consistent with the goals. you need to patch holes in the defense of the territory of Russia (at least create a solid radar field - the north is not covered), and then, when the economy and the military-industrial complex, education, DEMOGRAPHY (in the first place), the social program is normal, then you can think about the ocean fleet. I don’t see the point in AUGs now. need a coastal strong fleet with the possibility of long hikes. For this, frigates and corvettes are built. The next in line is a promising destroyer. And the aircraft carrier pulled up with time, only time is needed for development, consolidation of efforts.
  • regdan
    regdan 3 October 2013 12: 05 New
    +1
    Paul van Riper is a man who has proved to the whole world that it is possible to drown half of the USA AUG with the help of fishing barges. Oh you citizens commentators, wipe the snot.
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 3 October 2013 12: 37 New
      +2
      Firstly, one. Secondly, everything is not going smoothly there either. The Americans themselves made a lot of miscalculations (by giving terms for deployment and not setting a no-fly zone, for example), for which they eventually paid.
      1. regdan
        regdan 3 October 2013 13: 09 New
        +1
        I don’t care what they did there or didn’t. Fighters that would drown AUG the USA will not wait. And notice drowned the USA AUG without any vigorous bombs.
    2. silver_roman
      silver_roman 3 October 2013 15: 10 New
      0
      yeah, that was the case. Not a gift in Soviet times, there was a mosquito fleet. Many small ships, small displacement boats with powerful weapons that can give heat to any cruiser. Speaking of US cruisers like the Tikanderog: a little more in terms of displacement than their destroyer. like about 11 tons. Petya has 000 tons or more. Although the Varangian is also with the tikanderoga nearby.
  • honest jew
    honest jew 3 October 2013 13: 06 New
    +2
    Quote: Very old
    Hello, ITSHAK! And where are you, poor thing, so you have broken a hump, tossing bags of coal?

    Quote: Old very
    Hello, ITSHAK! And where are you, poor thing, so you have broken a hump, tossing bags of coal?

    the bags in general I don’t have with coal but with money, although sometimes it’s also necessary hi
  • Novoyur
    Novoyur 3 October 2013 13: 11 New
    +2
    This article should be thrust into the face of Gorbachev, who was rushing with his perestroika in those years, as with a stupa, cutting the military budget, closing shipyards by ending funding and transferring them to the production of pans and kitchen furniture. It’s a pity Yeltsin has already rested in a different world, and his role in the destruction of the ship’s composition can be estimated at 5 plus, during which ships were bundled and sold on needles, often with undeveloped resources of main machines and mechanisms, ships that were upgraded and repaired were written off, written off the largest ships that there is nowhere to build in Russia today. Today, in order to raise a lot of people, both civilians and uniform, who are still living and living on those dollars received from the sale of ships on needles at bargain prices, that’s for next to nothing, many times less than the generally accepted world prices for scrap metal. With these criminal acts, the fleet lost almost 70% of the ship's composition. And how many ships rot in backwaters, which could then be preserved for long-term storage, as was done in Soviet times. 3 atomic cruisers rot True, they want to restore one, but this is still in the plans. submarines. Is this not a betrayal and a crime that actually disarmed our country in front of the USA and NATO. How Americans laugh when they see our BDK and SKR in the middle-earth, who are 40 years old, seeing our attempts, remembering well which ships opposed them before the collapse of the USSR.
    1. creak
      creak 3 October 2013 13: 33 New
      0
      In the best of times, the 5th operational squadron of the USSR Navy in the Mediterranean Sea numbered 75-80 pennants with ground-based aviation.