Military Review

Blow out of the water. The continuation of the disaster

387



This material is the final part of the discussion of the article by A. Nikolsky "The Russian fleet goes under water." In its quest to prove that AOG is the best and most effective form of organization fleetA. Nikolsky raised a number of interesting questions, but, alas, gave them rather strange answers. This time we will try to look at the situation from a different angle and evaluate how high the survivability of an aircraft carrier ship is and how difficult it is to build such a ship.

For sinking of the American aircraft carrier it was required to 30 of hits of rockets "Granit"

I am afraid that 30 will not hit "Granites" with conventional combat units to drown "Nimitz".

His superstructure-island will fall off, decks will swell up from the unbearable heat, everything that can burn will burn, and not a single human being will remain from the crew, but the radioactive charred box will still rise above the water, slightly tilting on the port side.

100000-tonne Leviathans have a huge reserve of buoyancy - you can beat them aboard above the waterline for as long as you like, but they will only sink when they receive significant damage to the underwater part of the hull. During the Second World War, the ruins of aircraft carriers burnt and abandoned by crews drifted for another day - until they were finished off by submarines and their own escort (for example, the death of the aircraft carriers Yorktown and Hornet).

10 - 12 was required to disable it.
... we take as the average 25 hits "Onyx" for the removal of the aircraft carrier down.

Senator John McCain sadly looked at the number "25" and thought about something
- How much explosive contains every Onix's warhead?
- The mass of the warhead 250 kg, of which explosives account for about half. Plus a hundred liters of unburned kerosene T-6 and the kinetic energy of the parts of the rocket that hit the ship at three speeds of sound.
- Sounds bad ...


What is fun? Again, this McCain smoked in the wrong place!


Blow out of the water. The continuation of the disaster

The next flight is delayed. For a long time



Ooh, tomorrow this place will hurt!



The poor man. Probably, 10 PKR Granit got into it ...



It is said that scars adorn


In his youth, Senator McCain witnessed (according to the popular version the culprit) of the terrible fire on the Forrestal aircraft carrier: an 127-mm Zuni rocket spontaneously launched from one of the planes, hitting the attack aircraft that was fully loaded and prepared for departure. The fuse stopped the explosion, but fuel from the flared Skyhawk tank poured in, immediately ignited by hot rocket debris.

The firestorm swept across the entire stern of the ship. Fuel tank explosions, detonating bombs fireworks ... wounded by shrapnel to the head in legs and chest, McCain crawled out of his last strength along the smoked deck - just to get away from the burning kerosene lava. You can say he was lucky. But 134 was less fortunate for his colleagues - they all burned and suffocated in the smoke.

The fire aboard the Forrestal raged for three hours (the strong smoke from the interior, which made the fighting posts on the lower decks unsuitable for service, continued for 14 hours). Over the 21 plane was thrown burning aircraft, several dozen cars were damaged. The aircraft carrier temporarily lost its course, completely lost its combat capability and ability to perform any tasks. Two days later, the burnt “Forrestal” box, exhausted, moored at the berth base in the Philippines. Repairs were estimated at a quarter of the cost of building a new aircraft carrier.

This is what a single unexploded Zuni has done, accidentally flying across the deck of the Forrestal!

Floating airfields have extremely low resistance to combat damage. Lots of aircraft, tanks and ammunition - all of these fire hazardous pieces are neatly placed on the upper (flight) deck, where they are deprived of any constructive protection. The smallest fragment, the spark - and the fiery hell begins.

The Yankees introduced draconian security measures, confiscated matches and lighters from the whole crew, forbadeing to remove the fuses from the bombs on pain of death before the aircraft reached the starting catapult. The flight deck forced irrigation system was urgently developed - when activated, the Nimitz turns into Niagara Falls. Fire shutters, advanced fire extinguishing system on the hangar deck, armored tractors that can quickly push an emergency plane overboard. Improving the reliability and quality of manufacturing ammunition. Regular training of personnel (the second specialty of the American seaman - fire).

The measures taken were effective: over the past 45 years, not a single destructive fire has been noted on board the aircraft carriers of the US Navy. Even the most serious accidents (aircraft collision on the deck of AB Nimitz, 1981 or jammed descent aviation the cannons on board the same AB, 1988) did without catastrophic losses: the fire was quickly localized, the air wing lost a couple of dozen aircraft, but the ship itself did not receive significant damage.


This will be a fire show!

But no fire brigade and deck irrigation systems will save Nimitz. with the detonation of hundreds of kilograms of blasting on the flight deck. The blast wave, splinters and red-hot explosion products will completely burn out all the nearby spottings with aircraft equipment. In the conditions of a crowded arrangement of aircraft, the entire deck in one moment will turn into a sea of ​​raging fire and a shapeless pile of debris of the Hornets, Prowlers and Houkaev.

Will the surface of the deck be able to maintain its working condition, or will it be pierced in 9 locations, as happened on the Forrestol? Can catapult, aerofinishers, elevator lifts, and ammunition elevators, reflective shields, fuel dispensers, and landing aid optical systems (a low-angle light system) survive?



The situation with the Onyx warhead blast (or “Calibra”) on the hangar deck looks no less terrible (a rocket can penetrate the deck, board or fly through the lifts of the aircraft lifts) - an explosion in a confined space will destroy the aircraft inside. As for fire extinguishing systems, an explosion and fragments will tear down all the blinds, tear out pipelines, sensors and nozzles, which is called “with meat”. Electrical lighting will go out. Kerosene will rush out of the ruined pipelines - the fire will spread across the gallery and third deck ...

Will the Yankees be able to save the ship or will they be forced to take down the crew and sink the damaged Nimitz? Everything will depend on the specific situation: What is the probability of a repetition of enemy attacks? Did the aircraft carrier save the course? How does the reactor feel? Did you manage to localize fires and avoid catastrophic explosions of fuel storage facilities and ammunition?

Most likely, the answer to all questions will be "yes." Even the most powerful and destructive of modern RCCs succumb to numerous armored bulkheads and inert gas cofferdams. This “floating island” is too large to destroy it with ordinary weaponsthat do not cause damage to the underwater part of the hull.

We will not be able to get to the reactors and ammunition storage, but a single hit of the RCC is likely to put the AV out of order - everything will happen like on the Enterprise: six decks will be burned down, aerofinisers' rooms, an optical signaling system, an air defense system, several dozen airplanes - The aircraft carrier will lose the ability to use the wing and will completely lose its combat capability. ...

The enemy ship is no longer able to complete the task. It is heavily damaged and will not be back soon. Isn't that a great result?

And if he risks returning to the shores of Europe, he will receive a new portion of the surrender.


Burnt feed AB "Enterprise". The damage and the condition of the ship are visible to the naked eye.

And, therefore, the missiles will hit the aircraft carrier pointwise: one - in the room of aerofinishers and four more - on catapults. Total: only five "Onyxes" - and "Nimitz" is unarmed. Well, if you shoot at a Chinese frigate, or even better at an Afghan aul, then it’s possible not only to get into the aerofinisher, you can also get out the window

A. Nikolsky vainly makes fun of high-precision weapons. Japanese kamikazes in a similar way planned to destroy the Essexes with accurate ram attacks into the elevators and the superstructure, however, in practice it turned out that one strike on the aircraft-loaded deck would suffice for a catastrophe to occur.

The only thing that is remarkable about this stories - flight profile on the final segment of the trajectory. Due to the specific layout of the aircraft carrier ships, the most logical approach seems to be the attack algorithm implemented by the American Garpun anti-ship missiles - when approaching the target, the rocket makes a slide and, like a fiery meteorite, falls on the ship’s deck.

From 2006, the aircraft wing of the American aircraft carrier includes up to the 60 F / A-18E “Super Hornet”, performing equally well the role of attack aircraft and fighter.

Probably worth noting that the carrier (Carrier) and the wing (Air Wing) - two independent values ​​that exist separately from each other.

Aviakrylo is an organizational unit of the United States Navy, denoting the number of units of aviation equipment assigned to Nimitsu, and has little in common with the number of aircraft that are DIRECTLY aboard a ship. If all the specified 80-90 machines are piled up, they tightly block the decks, elevators, catapults and the runway, as a result, the Nimitz will turn into a viable air transport, and the aircraft used in the hangar will become useless ballast.

The Yankees act reasonably: on board the Nimitz, depending on the situation and climatic conditions, there is no more than 50-60 aircraft units (fighters, DRLO, EW, PLO, helicopters). The rest are dispersed in the nearest air bases in the US allied countries in readiness No. XXUMX, so that they can come to the ship on the first call (compensation for combat losses, reconfiguration of the air group depending on the changed conditions, etc.).

AUG can constantly hide behind four locking F / A-18E. Each Super Hornet carries AIM-10 AMRAAM 120 missiles and is able to knock down Onyx 5-6. Total: AUG air patrol will knock down Onyx 22.

1. It is highly unlikely that the 35-40 F / A-18E could provide a 24-hour air patrol of four fighters for at least one week. A modern jet is not a kite. Dozens of man-hours of maintenance fall at each flight hour, and the operational readiness of aviation units is usually far from 100%.

2. The flight time of the missile "Caliber" - no more than two minutes.
There is no need to launch rockets at maximum range. Despite all the skepticism objections, there is a lot of reliable evidence of the PLO AUG breakthrough by submarines from different countries. Underwater carriers “Calibrov” have high chances to approach the AUG on 50 km, having the opportunity to clarify the position of the enemy using their own sonar tools, and then shoot him “point-blank.”

Only two minutes ... How big is the chance that the combat air patrol (DRLO plane + Hornety) will be near the RCC launch site, and not two hundred miles to the north?

Low-flying RCC are extremely difficult to detect objects. Their small size, against the background of the underlying water, which in itself is a wonderful reflector - there’s nothing to hope that the Hawkai radar can detect them for a hundred miles. Next, the reaction time of the fighters - they need to turn around and take the necessary position in space, to detect and take on escort low-flying anti-ship missiles. Finally, AIM-120 missiles need time to reach the target, which by that moment can already separate the warhead and reach the supersonic (2,9 M).

Enemy aviation is completely ineffective in intercepting underwater anti-ship missiles.

“As of the middle of 80, the cost of one boat of the 949 project was 226 million rubles, which at par was only 10% of the cost of the Roosevelt multi-purpose aircraft carrier (2,3 billion dollars without taking into account the cost of its aviation wing).”
Example: the cost of the last Nimitz is “George Bush” 6,2 billion dollars (2009 year), and the cost, according to the contract, of the second boat of the 885 Kazan project is 47 billion rubles, or 1,45 billion dollars.

The question of the peculiarities of pricing in different countries and the comparison of ship values ​​in different periods of time is worthy of an entire dissertation. The “sausage method” (comparison of photographs of storefronts), the US inflation calculator, the salary method is the most amusing, each time a different result is obtained, which is badly combined with what we are seeing today.

The figure 226 million of Soviet rubles is quite common, but one paradox arises: frigates of the type "Oliver H. Perry" built at the same time cost the Pentagon 194 million dollars per piece. How did a small primitive frigate full in / and 4500 tons cost almost as much as the Soviet super cruise with two YASU and 24 “Granit” missiles (surface in / and “loaf” 14 700 tons) ?? And this is without taking into account the ruble exchange rate against the dollar (the official 60 rate is a cop. For $ 1 is not an indicator here: the real rate was known on the black market - 1: 4). It turns out that the boat project 949А was worth in dollars ... 56 million - cheaper than other ore carrier! Absurd.

The explanation is only one - the number 226 million is incorrect. The author believes that the cost of building a Soviet boat was “sprayed” on dozens of ministries and departments, as a result, the real cost of the “loaf” could exceed one billion full-fledged Soviet rubles.

But one thing is certain: the Soviet Navy was much smaller, simpler and cheaper than the American fleet. At the same time, he coped brilliantly in local conflicts, and in the case of a global war, he had every chance of success in direct confrontation with the AUGs of the “probable enemy”.



Nowadays. The declared cost of a multi-purpose PLN project 885 "Ash" amounted to 47 billion. Rub. or 1,45 billion dollars. Perhaps its final cost, after refining and conducting all tests, will increase even more and reach 2 billion green bills. In general, this corresponds to international standards. The lower wages of Sevmash workers, compared to Newport News Shipbuilding, are more than offset by the greed of individuals — if the boat were built in America, it would be about the same price ($ 2 billion). It is three times cheaper than building the aircraft carrier George Bush.

But, as is often the case, the cost of the product itself is nothing compared with the cost of its operation. The life cycle of the Nimitz is estimated at 30-40 billion dollars (excluding the wing). Why so much? Much will explain the picture:


The smallest one in the picture is Varshavyanka-type diesel-electric submarines. But, despite its modest size, it is capable of throwing a flock of cruise missiles at AUG. The second “baby” is nothing else than the SSBN Ave. 941 “Shark” is the largest submarine in the history of Mankind. The size of aircraft carriers are simply terrifying. All in one scale

Fantastic "floating city" with irrational sizes. Crew - 3200 people. (+ 2500 air wing). For comparison: the crew of the submarine "Ash" - 90 sailors.
An aircraft carrier is not just a big barge. These are tens of thousands of kilometers of cables and pipelines, four super-catapults that accelerate an 20-ton aircraft in seconds to a speed of 200 km / h. The complexity of construction and operation is exacerbated by the inadequate size of all parts and systems. A nuclear installation, air lifts, numerous fuel pumps, highways and fire safety systems, 2000 arsenals with tons of bombs ... You knew that under the Nimitz flight deck a dense network of water cooling systems was laid - otherwise, the deck would glow red hot from jet engine emissions . And it is on the square two football fields! Now think of the complexity of service ...

In a word ... the submarine is cheaper. In order.

Five aircraft carriers are five AUGs, of which four in a threatening period may be in service.

Forced to upset A. Nikolsky. To ensure operational readiness of the connection of four AVs, it will be necessary to build 6-8 aircraft carrier ships. It is enough to follow the combat path of any “Nimitz” or French “Charles de Gaulle” AB to understand that these giants spend about half of their life in the docks and near the ship repair walls, passing current, average, capital, dock, scheduled or preventive repairs with the subsequent carrying out factory sea trials.

Four AUGs are 250-270 multipurpose fighters. This amount is enough to gain air superiority over most countries of the world. Only a limited circle of great countries and Israel can not be afraid of such power.

First, not 250-270, but 150 in total.
Secondly, this amount is not enough for any modern local operation.

- “Desert Storm” - 2600 combat aircraft and combat support aircraft. 70 000 combat missions. The contribution of carrier-based aviation (6 AUG) - 17%;

- Yugoslavia - 1000 aircraft units. 35 000 combat missions. The contribution of carrier-based aviation is 10%.

Draw your conclusions.

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. saag
    saag 18 November 2013 08: 25
    +6
    And why hunt for him? In the article, the author writes what I would like to see, as the theory goes
    1. Canep
      Canep 18 November 2013 08: 29
      37
      Continuing the theme, the author also succeeded, good pictures of the dissociated ships and the ditched aircraft. And the author forgets about the Flurry torpedoes. A volley of 3 boats of 6 Shkvalov with a probability of 200% will send the peacekeeper to the bottom (it will not hurt, namely it will drown). Breaking through the anti-submarine defense of the AUG is also possible, albeit difficult.
      1. ben gun
        ben gun 18 November 2013 08: 50
        59
        Who is stronger than "Nimitz" with an escort and an air group, or the Russian Navy, I hope to find out in reality, WE will never happen. In the case of a real application of our answer "Nimitzu" and the escort - who will be the coolest to discuss will already be our descendants in the caves and metro tunnels (a la Metro 2033).
        Oleg is a big plus for the analysis of the draft of A. Nikolsky.
        1. Good Ukraine
          Good Ukraine 18 November 2013 14: 48
          +8
          hi Article "+". I could not answer in more detail even in the comments to A. Nikolsky's delusional article “The Russian fleet goes under water”.
          drinks
          1. Xroft
            Xroft 18 November 2013 18: 50
            +9
            As the saying goes shah and mate (s) AUG fans, in the USSR there were no fools they knew how to fight with the states.
            1. Delta
              Delta 18 November 2013 18: 51
              -15 qualifying.
              Quote: Xroft
              not fools lived in the USSR; they knew how to fight the states.


              So how is it? happened?
              1. ATATA
                ATATA 18 November 2013 18: 59
                18
                Quote: Delta
                So how is it? happened?

                So the defeat was not military, but ideological.
                Carriers have nothing to do with it.
                1. Basarev
                  Basarev 21 November 2013 21: 55
                  +2
                  Also, one should not forget that the nose is different. Admiral Kuznetsov and Nimitz are not the same at all, this is a big difference. And if Nimitz is really miserable without an air wing, then this number will not work with Kuznetsov - remember how the British got angry when Kuznetsov walked past the islands
                2. cdrt
                  cdrt 22 November 2013 18: 51
                  +1
                  Quote: ATATA
                  Quote: Delta
                  So how is it? happened?

                  So the defeat was not military, but ideological.
                  Carriers have nothing to do with it.


                  1. This is even worse
                  2. Yes, you came up with the actually universal way of explaining ANY military loss laughing
              2. Zaslavsky-S
                Zaslavsky-S 24 November 2013 17: 53
                0
                Was there a war?
            2. cdrt
              cdrt 22 November 2013 18: 49
              +2
              Quote: Xroft
              As the saying goes shah and mate (s) AUG fans, in the USSR there were no fools they knew how to fight with the states.


              And the peasants (military sailors who determine the naval policy of the whole of the present world) do not even know that Oleg Kaptsov, the AUG’s comrades, put the checkmate and checkmate laughing laughing laughing

              In fact - since the 80s the number of AVs in the ranks in the world is only growing, and quickly.
              The conclusions, in fact, are as follows:
              - or all sailors (and at the same time governments, parliaments) of virtually all developed countries and embezzlers (which is unlikely)
              - or the author exists in some alternative reality
              - or either everything that the author writes on the topic is a deliberate provocation (for the author is not) of chatter (I apologize - for comments) in any direction specified in the article by the author

              somehow
              laughing
              1. Santa Fe
                22 November 2013 20: 00
                0
                Quote: cdrt
                In fact - since the 80s the number of AVs in the ranks in the world is only growing, and quickly.

                And how much has it grown, compared, for example, with 1989?
                1. cdrt
                  cdrt 22 November 2013 21: 08
                  +1
                  Caught laughing
                  given the massive write-off of old aircraft carriers in the USA after the end of the Cold War, write-offs in the World Bank and France - the total number - probably decreased (the USA probably wrote off about 8-9 in total, France one less, the World Bank wrote off like all three, and the new (s ) - when will it still be (out), Argentina is 1. Total - 14, well, our 3 pre-aircraft carriers were written off.

                  Although ... if we take the current "destroyers" of Japan +2, the Italian fleet +1, RF +1, Vospy +8, UDC America +1, Ocean +1, Spain 0 (UDC Juan Carlos +1, Prince of Asturias -1) it will probably be the same.
                  The plans are for Australia +2, Japan + X (I don’t know how many "destroyers"), South Korea seems to be like WB +1 or +2, France - either 0 or +1. UDC America - +4 more.

                  Yes, most of them are not pure ABs, but 15 million USD (or 330 billion rubles in our case, as recently announced) will not be pulled by everyone, but ABs are needed.
                  Well, the F-35 doesn’t seem like Hornet of course, but it’s already very close to a normal AV plane (much closer than Harrier, not to mention the Yak-38).
                  1. Santa Fe
                    22 November 2013 22: 12
                    0
                    Quote: cdrt
                    "destroyers" of Japan +2

                    Japan has plans to purchase F-35B SPVP?

                    Both Hyuugi are small and cheap, smaller than Mistral. They have built-in weapons.
                    More like the anti-submarine cruiser "Leningrad"
                    Quote: cdrt
                    Pospy +8, UDC America +1

                    What are these aircraft carriers. This is UDC
                    the complexity and cost of building these ferries is 3-4 times lowerthan Nimitz. the speed is 22-24 knots, there are no catapults / jumps / aerofinishers, instead of a part of the hangar and jet fuel tanks there is a stern docking chamber and marines' hubs.
                    Quote: cdrt
                    Well, the F-35 doesn’t seem like Hornet of course, but it’s already very close to a normal AV plane (much closer than Harrier, not to mention the Yak-38).

                    And many countries expressed a desire to purchase F-35B and 35C?
        2. Klim
          Klim 18 November 2013 20: 58
          -14 qualifying.
          It has long been proven that a large-scale nuclear war will not lead to any planetary catastrophe, not to any nuclear winter, not to descendants in caves and subway tunnels. All nuclear weapons stockpiles are just a puff in the background of our planet.
          1. JIaIIoTb
            JIaIIoTb 19 November 2013 01: 47
            +5
            Quote: Klim
            It has long been proven that large-scale nuclear war will not lead to any planetary disaster.


            Evidence, please provide.
            Or shooting your life at the Semipalatinsk test site at least during the day (with the Geiger counter constantly in the frame).
            1. Su24
              Su24 19 November 2013 08: 07
              -8
              Quote: JIaIIoTb
              Quote: Klim
              It has long been proven that large-scale nuclear war will not lead to any planetary disaster.


              Evidence, please provide.
              Or shooting your life at the Semipalatinsk test site at least during the day (with the Geiger counter constantly in the frame).


              Count yourself. The power of nuclear arsenals is known, and the warhead radius is also. What is the area of ​​destruction and radioactive contamination? Minimal compared to land area. Living in the zone of infection, as shown by the Chernobyl practice, is quite possible.
              To destroy life, you need to evaporate the World Ocean. For fun, I calculated the energy necessary for this - 1,5 billion megatons (!). So, the ability to destroy life on Earth is just as inaccessible to modern people as it was in the Middle Ages. Belief in human omnipotence is illusory. Any major volcanic eruption or powerful earthquake will have a much more destructive effect.
              1. Xroft
                Xroft 19 November 2013 11: 09
                +7
                Toto, the entire Fukushima area was evacuated .... the Japanese do not want to live in the infection zone request Add toxic rains throughout the whole earth, not all of humanity may die out, but about 95%, the remaining 5% will not be able to restore technology and will slide into the Stone Age. Even now, let’s say a whole city of 300t size survives, a lot of technological chains will be preserved? They will not be able to recreate an electric kettle ... it will be the collapse of the whole era. Human naivety is amazing.
                Ps God forbid we see this.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 19 November 2013 20: 23
                  +6
                  Quote: Xroft
                  Toto, the entire Fukushima area was evacuated .... the Japanese do not want to live in the zone of infection Add toxic rains throughout the earth, not all of humanity will die out, but about 95%

                  First, in an accident at a nuclear power plant, there is orders of magnitude more residual radiation than in an atomic explosion. Secondly - even for tiny Japan, this is a small infection area. People will die out due to secondary reasons - hunger (violation of food supply), cold (non-functioning heating), unsanitary conditions, illnesses.
                2. cdrt
                  cdrt 22 November 2013 19: 08
                  +3
                  Quote: Xroft
                  Toto, the entire Fukushima area was evacuated .... the Japanese do not want to live in the infection zone request Add toxic rains throughout the whole earth, not all of humanity may die out, but about 95%, the remaining 5% will not be able to restore technology and will slide into the Stone Age. Even now, let’s say a whole city of 300t size survives, a lot of technological chains will be preserved? They will not be able to recreate an electric kettle ... it will be the collapse of the whole era. Human naivety is amazing.
                  Ps God forbid we see this.


                  In an accident at a nuclear power plant, the problem is that tons of fissile materials fly out, which are just poisonous to everything.
                  In a bomb, on the contrary, the more efficient the bomb, the more completely nuclear fuel burns out, correspondingly less infection. There are of course all sorts of secondary effects, but they are usually also much weaker in infection than the blunt release of nuclear fuel and its decay products at nuclear power plants.
                  1. lucidlook
                    lucidlook 22 November 2013 22: 11
                    0
                    Quote: cdrt
                    In an accident at a nuclear power plant, the problem is that tons of fissile materials fly out, which are just poisonous to everything.
                    In a bomb, on the contrary, the more efficient the bomb, the more completely nuclear fuel burns out, correspondingly less infection.

                    In your opinion, how much radioactive fuel (in percent) manages to react during the (thermo) nuclear explosion?

                    And do you know about the cobalt bomb? After all, you don’t even have to deliver it anywhere - you lifted it into the stratosphere above your territory, pulled there - and that’s all, to all of humanity Khan.
                  2. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 22 November 2013 23: 18
                    +2
                    Quote: cdrt
                    In an accident at a nuclear power plant, the problem is that tons of fissile materials fly out, which are poisonous to everything.
                    In a bomb, on the contrary, the more efficient the bomb, the more completely nuclear fuel burns out, correspondingly less infection. There are of course all sorts of secondary effects, but they are usually also much weaker in infection than the blunt release of nuclear fuel and its decay products at nuclear power plants.

                    I would like to add that the USSR detonated 1400 nuclear charges of various power in the atmosphere over its own territory. And on the New Land the Tsar Bomb is 50 megatons! The states have detonated more than 500 charges in their atmosphere! Apart from thermonuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean. And other owners of nuclear weapons. So far, everything is within normal limits ... I would also like to remind the school schedule of reducing the intensity of the radiation background in the epicenter of a nuclear explosion: every 24 hours minus 10%. At the same time, I cannot but agree that long-lived isotopes of Sr90 and radioactive Cs remain, contaminating the territory for a long time (until they are washed away into the deep layers of the earth's surface). The main primary damaging factors will be powerful heat and gamma radiation, followed by a shock wave. This will destroy the entire social-industrial environment. This will be the main factor in the return of the surviving humanity to the "Stone Age". All this is well understood, both by ours and the amers. Conclusion - in the RF / US conflict, nuclear weapons will not be used in the foreseeable future. This is where other instruments of military-political influence come to the fore, the main of which is the famous AUG. Americans have spent more than 200 since the end of the Second World War! local military operations were overwhelmingly victorious. Almost everywhere they used their AUGs, both for their intended purpose and as a military pressure factor, to achieve the desired results.
                    One thing is clear. Russia can no longer sit in foreign policy defense (otherwise time will be lost, and they will get to us, as to the USSR in their time). Its cruisers with anti-ship missiles as well as the submarine fleet cannot perform the function of a threat to any state (in comparison with the AUG), because they are not intended for this (the "coast guard" fleet since Soviet times and the Soviet naval doctrine). Even the Chinese and Hindus have aircraft carrier ships. But we are not like that wassat , even though we have the longest sea border in the world!
              2. cdrt
                cdrt 22 November 2013 19: 05
                +1
                Quote: Su24
                To destroy life, you need to evaporate the World Ocean. For fun, I calculated the energy necessary for this - 1,5 billion megatons (!).


                At one time Velikhov dealt with this topic. On the Internet, you can easily find his articles ... read
            2. Indifferent
              Indifferent 21 November 2013 07: 16
              0
              Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Immediately settled after a nuclear strike and still live! Why scare the children of Semipalatinsk? They shudder at one word!
              1. Legioner
                Legioner 22 November 2013 00: 59
                +2
                What problems have settled on the territory near the Chernobyl nuclear power plant or near the territory of the "lighthouse", and have your own children, then we will look at you on some "TV" channel with a request "help me need an expensive operation".
          2. Basarev
            Basarev 21 November 2013 21: 58
            +1
            This is not zilch at all. The Soviet nuclear arsenal was enough to destroy the ball 16 times
          3. Vadim12
            Vadim12 22 November 2013 08: 55
            +2
            Life will not be directly destroyed, but after irreversible changes, including the climate.
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 22 November 2013 23: 57
              +2
              Quote: Vadim12
              Life will not be directly destroyed, but after irreversible changes, including the climate.

              Not life will be destroyed, but a civilization with very large casualties! This is a big difference. Therefore, nuclear weapons containment tool, not real use!
          4. cdrt
            cdrt 22 November 2013 18: 54
            +4
            Quote: Klim
            It has long been proven that a large-scale nuclear war will not lead to any planetary catastrophe, not to any nuclear winter, not to descendants in caves and subway tunnels. All nuclear weapons stockpiles are just a puff in the background of our planet.


            By whom, when, to whom is it proven?
            With links, please, to any credible source (well, for example, Nature or something like that).

            And that is very similar to the phrase with which any UFO broadcast begins: ... it has long been proven that aliens constantly visit us ...
            laughing
          5. Balbus
            Balbus 30 November 2013 15: 23
            0
            In the USSR, it was planned to carry out a series of peaceful nuclear explosions to create freshwater lakes. We spent two or three and zaviz with this matter. Probably because the water in them is very healing. And you can live in the infected zone only for a short time, and the children will be born immediately five years and from three heads for two.
      2. sub307
        sub307 18 November 2013 10: 27
        52
        I don’t know, it’s difficult, not difficult. But I know for sure that during my service in the 4th ZSKPL of the Northern Fleet, while performing combat service in the Mediterranean, our boats quite regularly, by some "coincidence", ended up inside the AUG at a "pistol shot" distance from the aircraft carrier. As the saying goes, the rivets could be counted by looking through the periscope.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 18 November 2013 11: 02
          -3
          Quote: sub307
          by some "coincidence", they ended up inside the AUG at a "pistol shot" distance from the aircraft carrier. As the saying goes, the rivets could be counted by looking through the periscope.

          This is a peaceful time. What could the Americans have done to prevent the submarine "inside the AUG"? Fenced off with networks? Or drown them in order to start a war?
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 18 November 2013 12: 03
            33
            Quote: Nayhas
            What could the Americans have done to prevent the submarine "inside the AUG"?

            At least react. Somehow. And not to portray at this time "search for a submarine potential enemy" hell knows which side. lol Having not their own submarines is an extra free training for crews for them.
            And networks do not need to be fenced at all. It is quite enough to turn off the gas in active mode, so that the crew of the submarine very quickly frenzied from the sound of the hull request
          2. sub307
            sub307 18 November 2013 12: 15
            29
            And what, we have ever been in a state of "hot" war with states that have AUG. Let me remind you that "they", like "us", were in a state of military service "specifically - here and now," and the "cold war" in general in principle. You suppose "they" were simply "complacent and looked favorably upon the" penetration of "submarines" under the side "of an object such as an aircraft carrier. Not all attempts" themselves were successful. We were also "caught" when surfacing to charge the battery most often. There were also under water, they "chased" us.
            "What could the Americans have done to prevent submarines" inside the AUG "? Fenced off with nets? Or drown them in order to start a war?"
            Anti-submarine nets, including in bases, and maybe in anchor places. parking lots. In general, a whole complex (to list "you will be tortured") of measures (for "peacetime" including) has been developed, allowing to "raise" or expel submarines from the area. And, rest assured, the escort ships in a compartment with anti-submarine aircraft, in case of detection of submarines, would have "frolicked" in full. "Active sending" of their acoustic "personal belongings" would "beat off" all our ears and "shower" buoys at least. If entogo did not happen - "lohanuli" and "missed the puck."
            1. Indifferent
              Indifferent 21 November 2013 07: 26
              +1
              Some passions of mug from books of authors like Novikov-Priboy! When which boat the acoustics raised their signals, and the crew was driven to insanity.
              Here you are in the database. Our work against PDSS. They sprinkle the boat with combat grenades around the perimeter, like peas, and sleep like a murdered man. If the commander and coward, then he will get away from the region from the very first sound of the anti-submarine. And if smart and brave, then he and the two KPUGs will not be squeezed out together with their aircraft!
            2. stjrm
              stjrm 23 November 2013 12: 40
              +3
              Quote: sub307
              And what, we have ever been in a state of "hot" war with states that have AUG. Let me remind you that "they", like "us", were in a state of military service "specifically - here and now," and the "cold war" in general in principle. You suppose "they" were simply "complacent and looked favorably upon the" penetration of "submarines" under the side "of an object such as an aircraft carrier. Not all attempts" themselves were successful. We were also "caught" when surfacing to charge the battery most often. There were also under water, they "chased" us.
              "What could the Americans have done to prevent submarines" inside the AUG "? Fenced off with nets? Or drown them in order to start a war?"
              Anti-submarine nets, including in bases, and maybe in anchor places. parking lots. In general, a whole complex (to list "you will be tortured") of measures (for "peacetime" including) has been developed, allowing to "raise" or expel submarines from the area. And, rest assured, the escort ships in a compartment with anti-submarine aircraft, in case of detection of submarines, would have "frolicked" in full. "Active sending" of their acoustic "personal belongings" would "beat off" all our ears and "shower" buoys at least. If entogo did not happen - "lohanuli" and "missed the puck."


              This Enterprise, shot through a periscope, a distance of about 25 cab.
              There, behind him, on the starboard side, is the universal transport supply Sacromento, to the right of Saromenty, the cruiser URO.
              North Pacific. RTM from the 45th division.
            3. The comment was deleted.
          3. Good Ukraine
            Good Ukraine 18 November 2013 15: 16
            25
            hi
            Quote: Nayhas
            This is a peaceful time. What could the Americans have done to prevent the submarine "inside the AUG"? Fenced off with networks? Or drown them in order to start a war?


            The peacetime of ordinary citizens is very different from the peacetime of the military, and especially sailors, and especially submariners.
            Submariners on a hike after diving live according to the "WAR HAS STARTED" routine. And this is not a whim. They don't know what's on the surface. They really do heavy duty on the front lines of the defense.
            So, when an enemy is detected, the submarine crew carries out the ENTIRE complex of measures to enter the "combat course" with the use of weapons with the only difference - "Start" is not pressed. In this case, it is considered that the submarine was detected by the enemy, who is conducting counter actions. And at this moment the time goes by seconds. Activities are also underway to continue stealth.
            And so all the time until returning home.
            And if the submarine was at a distance of using weapons, this means that it was not detected and won. And no one will push her out. They will hunt for her.
            The submarine task is secrecy.
            And if she is in the middle of an adversary's warrant? - make a conclusion yourself.
            1. Delta
              Delta 18 November 2013 15: 44
              -3
              Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
              The peacetime of ordinary citizens is very different from the peacetime of the military, and especially sailors, and especially submariners.
              Submariners on a hike after diving live according to the "WAR HAS STARTED" routine.


              For submariners, peacetime is no different from peacetime for the rest of the military. You confuse the general combat readiness of the crew and the ship itself with readiness in a combat situation.

              Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
              They don't know what's on the surface


              They know that on the surface. There are communication sessions. And between the sessions there is an VLF connection.
              1. Good Ukraine
                Good Ukraine 18 November 2013 16: 28
                17
                hi
                Quote: Delta
                They know that on the surface. There are communication sessions. And between the sessions there is an VLF connection.


                Time interval between communication sessions. And VLF communication is not intended for ordinary conversations and questions about "how is it up there?"
                I meant something completely different. Our submarines found themselves in the center of the AUG not because they could not be "pushed out" from there. But because they did their job well.

                And it will be very bad if crews of different types of nuclear submarines carrying combat duty distinguish between peacetime and wartime.
                And if you notice that their duty is called "combat"
                I repeat once again - submariners at the EDGE OF DEFENSE.
                From the time of detection to the moment of the attack, the crew of the submarines is almost as much time as the air defense troops of the ABM from the time of detection of the BR and their destruction.

                I just wanted to clarify that in submariners on combat duty, peacetime differs from military time only in the command to use weapons.
                And if the military did not understand this, then he went to sea for a walk, and not on duty.
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 18 November 2013 16: 57
                  15
                  Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
                  in submariners carrying combat duty, peacetime differs from military only in the use of weapons.

                  Exactly. And it is also added that in the event of a failure of equipment or, fail fate, a collision, it will not be "pretend" to burn or drown ... There is no spare life even in the warehouse of the headquarters of the flotilla request
                  1. Good Ukraine
                    Good Ukraine 18 November 2013 17: 40
                    10
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    Exactly.

                    Thank you colleague !!!
                    A striking example is the events at the Kursk nuclear submarine
                    The submarine is not a pleasure boat.
                    Real men work and serve in the submarine fleet.
              2. Misantrop
                Misantrop 18 November 2013 16: 55
                +7
                Quote: Delta
                They know that on the surface. There are communication sessions. And between the sessions there is an VLF connection.
                To be honest, the setting (at least in our time) was FUCKING HOW different. Surfacing for a communication session and determining a place - once or twice a day. The information is either closed (the main part of the crew is inaccessible), or through the political department. You yourself know WHAT then poured as a "pump". Peaceful and positive news in the news feed VERY rarely slipped ... And on the ridge of the cruiser there are 2 combat ballistic ones, each with a bunch of warheads. And when all this economy is suddenly brought to heightened readiness ... what
            2. Nick
              Nick 18 November 2013 20: 27
              +8
              Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
              Submariners on a hike after diving live according to the "WAR HAS STARTED" routine.

              That's right, and not only submariners! All forces entering the database live and act according to the laws of wartime. Even we, the conscripts of the Strategic Missile Forces, who intervened in the database for the protection and defense of the KP and BSP, were constantly reminded of this at briefings ...
          4. Nick
            Nick 18 November 2013 20: 14
            +4
            Quote: Nayhas
            This is a peaceful time. What could the Americans have done to prevent the submarine "inside the AUG"? Fenced off with networks? Or drown them in order to start a war?

            Uh, this is not a peace time but a cold war. If the submarine was not yawned, then they could organize resistance to its maneuvers inside the AUG, including the corps ...
        2. pr 627
          pr 627 18 November 2013 23: 18
          10
          It was in Polyarny, in the distant 80s. In the company there was one drop of the commander of the BC-2, sad, but after a good dose of alcohol, it turned out. There is a special department on the boat, investigating the exit into the torpedo attack of the DPL pr.641 on AB " Ferrestal ". The torpedo salvo was imitated by a bubble from a TA, after which they surfaced inside the order of escort ships. The name of the commander of the submarine is Kosolapov.
          1. stjrm
            stjrm 23 November 2013 11: 52
            +1
            Quote: pr 627
            It was in Polyarny, in the distant 80s. In the company there was one drop of the commander of the BC-2, sad, but after a good dose of alcohol, it turned out. There is a special department on the boat, investigating the exit into the torpedo attack of the DPL pr.641 on AB " Ferrestal ". The torpedo salvo was imitated by a bubble from a TA, after which they surfaced inside the order of escort ships. The name of the commander of the submarine is Kosolapov.


            Only one question, but how did this sad drop command on 641 projects?
            Given that he is the commander of the warhead-2 (rocket-artillery warhead), and on pr.641 there is no such warhead. Well, there are no rockets or artillery.
            Investigation by a special department of the launch of a torpedo attack - especially amused ....
        3. cdrt
          cdrt 22 November 2013 19: 14
          +2
          Quote: sub307
          I don’t know, it’s difficult, not difficult. But I know for sure that during my service in the 4th ZSKPL of the Northern Fleet, while performing combat service in the Mediterranean, our boats quite regularly, by some "coincidence", ended up inside the AUG at a "pistol shot" distance from the aircraft carrier. As the saying goes, the rivets could be counted by looking through the periscope.


          And what could the Yankees do with them?
          Sink?

          It is funny that the very fact of being inside the ACG is perceived as something outstanding, at the same time as the discussion that the ACG is not a question of drowning. wink
      3. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 18 November 2013 16: 53
        +7
        Quote: Canep
        And the author forgets about the Flurry torpedoes.

        I will not be clever, but the barrage range is 20 km or even less. Moreover, according to some reports, it is not used now
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 18 November 2013 21: 05
          +9
          Quote: Pilat2009
          the barrage range is 20 km or less.

          But if several heavy torpedoes reach the target, then the entire crowd of support for the aircraft carrier will no longer be able to reach the submarine. This bandura is TOO hefty and tenacious to drown EXTREMELY, so almost everything will be used to save the wounded crew. And if, in addition to the aircraft carrier, the most "evil" ships also get its warrants - then even more so
      4. Marconi41
        Marconi41 19 November 2013 04: 50
        +2
        Do you know the maximum firing range of "Shkvalami"? Who will let us go there ?! In addition, squalls are practically not controlled, so I think that the author is right - the RCCs are much more effective.
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 22 November 2013 19: 26
          +2
          Quote: Marconi41
          Do you know the maximum firing range of "Shkvalami"? Who will let us go there ?! In addition, squalls are practically not controlled, so I think that the author is right - the RCCs are much more effective.


          Just a Flurry, as I understand it, a thing is enough in itself. Speed ​​is super, but with handling and range it’s somehow not very good.
          But 610mm torpedoes - yes. And the range is quite so-so, and the weight of the warhead, and the guidance along the wake trail - it seems that they did not create any counteractions.
        2. stjrm
          stjrm 23 November 2013 12: 12
          +1
          Quote: Marconi41
          Do you know the maximum firing range of "Shkvalami"? Who will let us go there ?! In addition, squalls are practically not controlled, so I think that the author is right - the RCCs are much more effective.


          This is the deceased in the Bose Enterprise. Shot through the periscope. The distance is about 25 kbt.
          Filmed at the time of replenishment of stocks (there is a universal supply vehicle Sacromento from the starboard side, the cruiser URO is still to the right ..) The submarine is in the close protection zone .... wink
          This is EM Spruins from the near guard of the AUG (by the way with a towed GAS), the one that should be detected, etc., the submarine which removed all this ....., the distance is about 20 kb
          North Pacific. RTM from the 45th submarine division.
        3. stjrm
          stjrm 23 November 2013 12: 14
          +1
          Quote: Marconi41
          Do you know the firing range ....


          The Enterprise photo was lost, here it is ...
      5. Scotch
        Scotch 21 November 2013 02: 16
        +2
        The author did the right thing not to mention these "super" torpedoes, since the maximum range of use is 13 km. crosses out all her promoted virtues.
      6. ramzes1776
        ramzes1776 24 November 2013 03: 02
        0
        Quote: Canep
        We won’t be able to get to the reactors and ammunition storage facilities, but a single hit by anti-ship missiles is likely to put the AB out of order - everything will happen like on the Enterprise: six decks, airfisher rooms, an optical alarm system, self-defense air defense systems, several dozen aircraft - An aircraft carrier will lose the ability to use an air wing and will completely lose its combat effectiveness. ...

        This is just from a missile strike with a conventional warhead, but we must not forget that we have RCCs with a nuclear warhead !!!
    2. Hunghuz
      Hunghuz 18 November 2013 11: 44
      0
      hi And the Chinese brothers created the world's first ballistic RCC with a range of 5 thousand km ........ ???????? and right now changes))))))
      1. 77bor1973
        77bor1973 18 November 2013 23: 53
        0
        The combat effectiveness of which is in question!
    3. Megatron
      Megatron 18 November 2013 14: 42
      0
      Why is there an MI-24 on the deck of an aircraft carrier? ))))
    4. Army1
      Army1 18 November 2013 15: 19
      +2
      The article is excellent as the previous one, it will be necessary to show it as a fan of the dermocratic fleet.
      1. Basil123
        Basil123 18 November 2013 16: 13
        +1
        article, of course, plus only fleets have different tasks)) aug, if you draw an analogy, it’s a ram that rushes to the fortress which may not reach)) or it may not break through)) plus a lot of service staff)) and our submarines are like scouts that are inside this fortress)) or next to ** battering ram ** ............))
        1. igor36
          igor36 18 November 2013 20: 17
          +5
          Quote: Vasily123
          article of course, plus only fleets have different tasks

          The task of any fleet is one - to protect the interests of the country. But protection methods are developed based on the capabilities of the fleet. As for the submarine fleet, I will say that, as the submariners say, there are two types of ships - submarines and targets. A submarine is an offensive weapon and more specialized than AUG, but being an asymmetric response (a cheaper way to counter it)
          1. cdrt
            cdrt 22 November 2013 19: 30
            +2
            Quote: igor36
            Quote: Vasily123
            article of course, plus only fleets have different tasks

            The task of any fleet is one - to protect the interests of the country. But protection methods are developed based on the capabilities of the fleet. As for the submarine fleet, I will say that, as the submariners say, there are two types of ships - submarines and targets. A submarine is an offensive weapon and more specialized than AUG, but being an asymmetric response (a cheaper way to counter it)


            About the fact that the submarine is cheaper than the AUG ... how else to prove it is necessary.
            Here was the article.
            They simply compared the cost of AUG with collateral and PLACR with the Legend together. No matter how cheaper it turned out at all.
            Yes, and remember - 2 PLACR cost as 1 AB, while AB can be used in different ways, and PLACR - only one option - the first hit on the ACG
    5. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 19 November 2013 05: 59
      +1
      The article forgot to mention the new type of aircraft carrier under construction Gerald R. Ford laid down on November 14, 2009. And recently launched.

      Its value amounted to attention - 45 billion and he is ready for 70% and without an air wing, in contrast to the cost of the aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type "G. Bush" given in the article for 9 billion dollars!

      And also from history and curiosities.

      In February 2008, in the Pacific Ocean, two Tu-95MS Russian Long-Range Aviation aircraft simulated an attack on the aircraft carrier Nimitz, flying in the immediate vicinity. When the Russian aircraft left about 800 km to the ship, four F / A-18s were lifted to intercept. At a distance of 80 km from the aircraft carrier group, American aircraft were able to intercept the Tu-95MS, but, despite this, one of the strategic bombers twice passed over the Nimitz at an altitude of about 600 meters, the second flew 90 km from the ship.


      Latches often fail on the newest aircraft carrier of the U.S. Navy, during the first military campaign in the Persian Gulf (May 2011), on the 2 aircraft carrier, all 423 toilets were refused. In total, such incidents occur on the 25 aircraft carrier once a week; more than 10000 man-hours were spent. Failures of the vacuum drain system are a major problem for an aircraft carrier.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 19 November 2013 06: 39
        +4
        Quote: Sith Lord
        At a distance of 80 km from the aircraft carrier group, American aircraft were able to intercept the Tu-95MS,

        And what's so surprising? Americans fly over our cruisers just as often! Now, peacetime and this incident is not an indicator. But about the latrine-funny)))
      2. Su24
        Su24 19 November 2013 08: 17
        +1
        Quote: Sith Lord
        Its cost was attention - $ 45 billion and it is 70% ready and without an air wing, in contrast to the cost of the aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type "G. Bush" given in the article for $ 9 billion!


        This is where you read this ??? The cost of work on "Ford" is 13 billion, and 10 billion each for subsequent ships of the series.
        1. Lord of the Sith
          Lord of the Sith 19 November 2013 13: 57
          +4
          The latest American nuclear carrier “Gerald Ford” launched, according to the Associated Press. The launching ceremony took place on Saturday, November 9, at the Newport News shipyard in Virginia. The traditional stage of such ceremonies - breaking a bottle of champagne on the side of the ship - was entrusted to Susan Ford Bales, the daughter of the 38th president of the United States, whose name was given to the aircraft carrier.

          Work on the construction of the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier is currently 70 percent complete, said US naval officials. It is planned to complete the completion of the ship by 2015, after which the aircraft carrier will go through a series of sea trials. The United States Navy Gerald Ford is expected to enter in 2016.

          In total, the US Navy should receive ten aircraft carriers of the Gerald Ford type, which will replace the obsolete aircraft carriers of the Nimitz and Enterprise types. "Gerald Ford" will be the first in the last 40 years, a new type of aircraft carrier as part of the US Navy. One of the distinguishing features of this ship is the ability, in the future, to take on board deck unmanned aerial vehicles.

          Two billion dollars were spent on the Gerald Ford project more than planned - 42,5 billion, according to other sources, 45 billion instead of 40,3 billion dollars. However, the AP notes, it is expected that the increased production costs of such an aircraft carrier will be offset by cost savings during its operation. Due to the fact that the new ship will require a smaller crew, it is planned to save up to $ 4 billion over a 50-year estimated life span.
          1. Symbiotos
            Symbiotos 21 November 2013 23: 54
            +3
            :) I also wanted to draw your attention to the launch of the new series aircraft carrier. Which is cheaper to operate, and in general the ship "works" on completely new principles of organizing and conducting combat operations. Americans do not sleep "in shafts", but also know about their shortcomings and improve. And we need to develop.
        2. gladysheff2010
          gladysheff2010 19 November 2013 14: 55
          -1
          Dear! Since you soon deny it, so be so kind as to argue, your trick is the same! The article is unconditional +, the author not only started well, but also reported and finished just as brightly and concisely.
      3. Delta
        Delta 19 November 2013 12: 37
        +4
        Quote: Sith Lord
        At a distance of 80 km from the aircraft carrier group, American aircraft were able to intercept the Tu-95MS, but, despite this, one of the strategic bombers twice passed over the Nimitz at an altitude of about 600 meters


        Well, what's the point in flying a potential bomber shot down over an aircraft carrier?
        1. Lord of the Sith
          Lord of the Sith 19 November 2013 13: 58
          +2
          It is clear that they will not fly up like this, but will release the Kyrgyz Republic 400-500 km from the AUG.
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 23 November 2013 00: 36
            +1
            Quote: Sith Lord
            It is clear that they will not fly up like this, but will release the Kyrgyz Republic 400-500 km from the AUG

            At such a distance, it is guaranteed to be eliminated by carrier-based aircraft. The range of which is up to 1000 km above the sea and even more over land.
    6. GSH-18
      GSH-18 19 November 2013 06: 29
      +3
      Quote from the article: “a single hit of anti-ship missiles with high probability will put AV out of action”

      Extremely doubtful! It is also doubtful that this missile will fly there. And even the fact that it will be launched at all. This will be prevented by the range of carrier-based aircraft, which is significantly superior to the range of our anti-ship missiles (that is, the ship’s group will be attacked by aircraft before approaching the salvo range). Aircraft DRLO aircraft carrier, anti-ship missiles of its cruisers (having target designation in contrast to our NK) and nuclear submarines (and their torpedoes). As well as powerful air defense and anti-aircraft defense aircraft and escort cruisers. The author, apparently by mistake, got the hunter and the game!
      ====================================================================== =========
      Quote from the article: “First, not 250-270, but only 150.”
      Dear author, do not mislead the audience! The modern Amer aircraft carrier is capable of carrying up to 100! Aircraft of various types. For example, at least 25! aircraft can carry 2 harpoons! Thus forming up to 50 in a salvo! RCC from a safe distance for themselves and under the cover of interceptor aircraft!
      Simply, if you take your article as the ultimate truth, it turns out that Americans are round idiots who are scattering money down the drain with the sole purpose of being sunk in the very first real clash!
      laughing
      1. alex popov
        alex popov 20 November 2013 22: 53
        +4
        100? transport, no more. Combat use of 48-50 attack aircraft and not simultaneously.

        Quote: GSH-18
        range of carrier-based aircraft, significantly exceeding the range of our anti-ship missiles

        From above you can see who is arguing. But "he sees an eye, but has no tooth." To hit a target, you need to not only see it, but also get it ... With what? see below.

        For example, at least 25! aircraft can carry 2 harpoons! Thus forming up to 50 in a salvo! RCC from a safe distance for themselves and under the cover of interceptor aircraft!

        Oh, these numbers. how to argue with them ...
        The maximum firing range of an air-based anti-ship missile system Harpoon AGM-84A is 150 km, the speed is 0,85 M. The flight time to the target is 10-11 minutes at the maximum distance. The same notorious Project 1144 is armed with the S-300FM with 96 missiles, incl. 46 48N6E2 missiles with a range of 200 km, a launch interval of 3 seconds and a detection-tracking and target designation range of 300 km. That is, by the time the Hornets group reaches the maximum launch distance of Harpoons, they will already be on the S-300FM sight. No sudden and safe strike, maximum, approach, volley and hasty flight from missiles flying towards the meeting at a speed of 1,5-2 M., again, taking into account only numbers (you operated with them, claiming the total superiority of the aircraft carrier group over our anti-ship missiles , isn't it?) "Peter the Great" has an excellent ability to cope with subsonic harpoons and some of the carriers using only long-range air defense systems, without involving any medium-short-range air defense systems, or ADS, or jammers, or other means. It turns out that the efforts of the purely aviation group AUG are not enough to guarantee the destruction of either Peter the Great or the escort covered by its air defense.
        What to do? Use Harpoons from Eagles and Teaks? Again, in order to simply approach the range of combat use, the AUG needs to move closer to the "Peter" at the notorious 150-200 km, the speed of the AUG is 30 knots (along the weakest of the links guarded by the AB). While the AUG passes 100 km, the difference between the range of combat use subsonic Harpoons and supersonic Onyxes, not to mention the 300 km difference with Granites, AUG will be covered by a wave of our anti-ship missiles, covering 100 km in 4-5 minutes ... Taking into account the latest news, Aegis is in ideal conditions could not cope with a single "faulty subsonic target", it is not necessary to say that Aegis is able to cope with a hundred supersonic anti-ship missiles.
        Oh yes, there is the MK-48, with a range of 48-50 km. Again, the use of surface ships in this scenario is natural suicide. Tomahawks RGM / UGM-109B? yes, range 450 km. But subsonic speed provides a half-hour handicap to simply get out of the radius of this RCC. Yes, and they removed it, it seems, just because they themselves were not sure of it.) Nuclear submarines remain.
        Summarize? For a less or less guaranteed defeat of the surface group of our (alien) Navy, protected air defense and armed anti-ship missiles, the efforts of the notorious submarines will be required ... That is, where it all began.)
        To stop speculation I’ll say right away, these are just numbers. No more. In life, I’m more than sure that our fleets will not have to face such a scale. Both we and the Americans are able to believe that the current situation does not give Amers guaranteed superiority, which means it is not their element, they are not fighting on equal terms.) And this is just forgetting that after the very first missile towards the ships the world will jump in nuclear war ...
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 20 November 2013 23: 06
          +1
          Quote: alex popov
          after the first rocket towards the ships, the world will rush in a nuclear war ...

          There is an asymmetric solution against AUG. Reliable and Guaranteed - Anti-ship long-range ballistic missiles. Moreover, tested and in trial operation. It is only necessary to repeat the remaining backlog on the new scientific, technical and technological achievements of recent years ...
          http://topwar.ru/36200-protivokorabelnye-ballisticheskie-rakety-dalnego-deystviy
          a.html #

        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 21 November 2013 15: 09
          +2
          Quote: alex popov
          No sudden and safe strike, maximum, approach, salvo and hasty flight from missiles flying towards the meeting at a speed of 1,5-2 M. again, taking into account only the numbers (you operated on them, claiming the total superiority of the aircraft carrier group over our anti-ship missiles , is not it?)

          I have given here the possible actions of only carrier-based aviation. In addition to aviation, there are also multi-purpose submarines, destroyers and cruisers with anti-ship missiles, which may also want to take part in a consolidated attack ...
          If desired, there may be more than one aircraft carrier in the AUG.
        3. GSH-18
          GSH-18 21 November 2013 15: 47
          +1
          Quote: alex popov
          What to do? Use Harpoons from Eagles and Teaks? Again, to approach the range of combat use, the AUG needs to get close to the "Peter" at the notorious 150-200 km, the AUG speed is 30 knots

          The air group can release the ammunition load once, then fly to "refuel", release the ammunition load again, etc. in general, as much as necessary, I think from the second or third time they will succeed (the "Petra" will run out of s-300). And there the cruiser auga might want to take part, who knows? .. And you don't take into account that in addition to attack aircraft, there will also be interceptors in the attacking air group?
          Quote: alex popov
          the current situation does not give Amers guaranteed superiority, which means that this is not their element, they do not fight on equal terms.)

          Here you are completely right! I think 11 Amer’s AUGs against our three combat-ready cruisers (Petruha Moscow Varyag), for amers, that’s it!
          I here in no way extol amer's naval power (although they have the most Augs, and they are not bad sailors). I'm just for the balanced development of our fleet. And categorically against its one-sided development, the "asymmetric response" in the form of an inflated amount of the underwater component, to the detriment of NK! It is unreasonable to assign duties that are not typical for them on the nuclear submarine. And the surface component of the Russian Navy should have aircraft carriers (aircraft carriers), if only because the Russian Federation has the longest sea border in the world. And the nuclear submarines alone cannot get rid of here. Simply, very soon the Americans will arm the Augs with new supersonic missiles, and then what to do with all this number of nuclear submarines ??
          1. alex popov
            alex popov 21 November 2013 17: 56
            0
            Quote: GSH-18
            Here you are completely right! I think 11 Amer’s AUGs against our three combat-ready cruisers (Petruha Moscow Varyag), for amers, that’s it!

            I’m sorry, don’t ... measure here.)
            Of 11 AB, half is constantly in the dock for scheduled / overhaul. They cannot concentrate more than 3 ACGs against one opponent, simply because they will have to expose other strategically important areas, and there will be plenty of those who want to take advantage of it. The rhetorical question, how many fronts can the US Navy master a war on? This also applies to our fleet, but our doctrine is defensive, they have an offensive ...

            Quote: GSH-18
            In addition to aviation, there are also multi-purpose submarines, destroyers and cruisers with anti-ship missiles, which may also want to take part in a consolidated attack ...

            So then we have someone to hunt in addition to multi-purpose submarines, there is Long-range Aviation Tu-22M with X-22, which on 5M will leave no chance for either an AB or an escort ... What do you not take this into account?
            The air group can release the ammunition load once, then fly to "refuel", release the ammunition load again, etc. .... And there the cruiser auga might want to take part, who knows? .. And you do not take into account that in addition to attack aircraft there will also be interceptors in the attacking air group?

            From a damaged AV, neither take off nor land ... at least 50, even 100 aircraft cannot. If a mess starts, the first task will be to disable AB. Oh, by the way, what is the use of attack aircraft with SD with a range of less than the combat range of medium and small radius air defense systems? Clog the screen? )
            As for the participation of Orlikov and Tikov in the exchange of missiles, I already wrote that they first need to approach the range of combat employment of their anti-ship missiles, which, again, is much less than the similar distance of our anti-ship missiles ... not everything is so simple.
            I am just for the balanced development of our fleet

            everything is just behind, arms and legs. But you need to compare desire and opportunity.
            In this article, the author reasonably shows the difference in the cost of AB and nuclear submarines. Aircraft carriers are attack weapons. Who are we going to attack? ) Defend? There are many reasons for the "relative security" of AB. AB will not be able to defend itself, the order will defend it. Aircraft-carrying cruisers equipped with air defense and anti-ship missiles ... well, maybe. Again, they are not pure AB ...
            Quote: GSH-18
            Russia is the longest maritime border in the world.

            The very long sea border beyond the Arctic Circle. there’s nothing to do with steam catapults. Baltic? Easier and cheaper from ground airfields ... remains the Pacific Ocean and the Black Sea. 3-4 AUG. Did I understand you correctly?

            Quote: GSH-18
            And some submarines can’t escape here. Simply, very soon, the Americans will arm the Augs with new supersonic missiles, and then what to do with all this amount of nuclear submarines ??

            news about hypersonic missiles in service with the United States at lunchtime for 10 years. I understand that using the F-35 as an example, they can put a crude missile into service, and then "bring it to mind for a long time and persistently." If so, we can sleep well.) "Pentagon Wars" is an excellent film "about that.")
            Z.Y. IMHO, Strategic Rocket Forces-the best protection against AUG as well.)
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 22 November 2013 21: 12
              0
              Quote: alex popov
              Of 11 AB, half is constantly in the dock for scheduled / overhaul. They cannot concentrate more than 3 AUGs against one opponent

              Here's an authoritative reference about 7! "concentrated" AUGs in the form of 2 AUS. There were enough seven, and if it turned out to be a little, they would have fitted it without any problems. http://gazetam.ru/no140401/st02.htm
              ================================================== ============
              Dear, the answer to the question-whether Russia needs AUGi-lies on the surface and is absolutely obvious-needed. To do this, you just need to realize that a more powerful is simply a ship’s formation (if the parties have an equal number of other military stray), or a ship’s formation strengthened by naval aviation, which will inextricably accompany the formation anywhere in the world. yes

              Quote: alex popov
              Aircraft carriers are weapons of attack. Who are we going to attack? )

              Aircraft carriers are, first of all, an effective instrument of foreign policy. Or are you satisfied with the openly defeatist foreign Russian "policy of soft power" ?? You need to start thinking about how you can really protect your supporters around the world, and not just your own territory. Russia is a large state, so should be the interests. As practice shows, it is not realistic to defend these interests by a troop of cruisers and submarines. And let's stop the useless and counterproductive discussion in the spirit of: But at naaas, but at them!
          2. Locksmith
            Locksmith 23 November 2013 00: 12
            +2
            Quote: GSH-18
            A viagroup can release ammunition once, then fly to "refuel", release ammunition again, etc. in general, as long as they need, I think they will succeed from the second or third time (the "Petra" will run out of s-300)

            I apologize, I could not stand it, Peter can just out of hooligan motives stop the whole booth by "putting" a pair of anti-aircraft missiles on the AV deck = read the book "Experience of the Vietnam War", about our air defense, there this idea was discussed and it was CATEGORALLY forbidden to use this idea, not enough for the United States to deliver a nuclear strike against Vietnam wink
            1. GSH-18
              GSH-18 23 November 2013 00: 45
              0
              Quote: Locksmith
              I apologize, I couldn’t stand it, Peter can just out of hooligan motives stop the whole booth by "putting" a pair of anti-aircraft missiles on the AV deck

              lol Anti-aircraft missiles are not designed to strike surface or ground targets. From the name and the hedgehog it’s clear that such missiles are fired at aircraft yes
              1. rudolff
                rudolff 23 November 2013 01: 05
                +4
                Correct you, GSH-18. Some anti-aircraft missile systems have the ability to work on ground targets. In particular, the S-300.
                1. GSH-18
                  GSH-18 23 November 2013 01: 14
                  0
                  Quote: rudolff
                  Correct you, GSH-18. Some anti-aircraft missile systems have work on ground targets. In particular, the S-300.

                  Maybe. But this is not their target. It’s the same as firing a mortar at an airplane.
                2. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 23 November 2013 23: 23
                  +1
                  What for? After all, there are anti-ship missiles - and put them.
              2. Misantrop
                Misantrop 23 November 2013 01: 09
                +1
                Quote: GSH-18
                From the name and the hedgehog it’s clear that such missiles are fired at aircraft
                And on approaching aircraft to shoot zapadlo or not kosher? Or on warming up engines before take-off? wink
                1. GSH-18
                  GSH-18 23 November 2013 01: 18
                  0
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  And on approaching aircraft to shoot zapadlo or not kosher? Or on warming up engines before take-off? wink

                  Yes, no problem, I'm only for! wink
                  I outlined my vision for a possible contact ZUR-NK yes
                  1. rudolff
                    rudolff 23 November 2013 01: 41
                    +2
                    S-300 missiles have the ability to target radio-emitting targets, such as radar. Given the mass of explosive warheads of the order of 140 kg, it can be an unpleasant surprise for the NK. The only problem is the range.
                    1. GSH-18
                      GSH-18 23 November 2013 01: 56
                      +1
                      Quote: rudolff
                      S-300 missiles have the ability to target radio-emitting targets, such as radar. Given the mass of explosive warheads of the order of 140 kg, it can be an unpleasant surprise for the NK. The only problem is the range.

                      Well, you convinced me. Only this looks like the use of gold gronat against infantry. When there are normal, cast-iron.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        23 November 2013 03: 54
                        +1
                        Quote: GSH-18
                        Well, you convinced me. Only this looks like the use of gold gronat against infantry. When there are normal, cast-iron.

                        And what is worse than missile defense missiles?

                        In 1988, the American aircraft carrier Saratoga accidentally shot the Turkish frigate Muavenet with anti-aircraft missiles SiSperrow. 5 dead. 22 wounded. Frigate superstructure in dust

                        The result of the Talos complex’s RIM-8 anti-aircraft missile entering the target destroyer.
                      2. GSH-18
                        GSH-18 23 November 2013 09: 04
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And what is worse than missile defense missiles?

                        Nah, everything's fine. So it’s possible to adapt rocket torpedoes for firing at planes if you wish ... When there is a weapon designed to work on a certain type of target.
                      3. Santa Fe
                        23 November 2013 13: 10
                        0
                        Quote: GSH-18
                        Nah, everything's fine. So it is possible to adapt rocket torpedoes for firing at aircraft if you wish ...

                        Why SAM is worse than RCC. Can you name specifically - what is their weakness?

                        The smaller warhead is successfully compensated by the shorter reaction time and higher flight speed. The only problem with aiming - SAMs with semi-active aiming (radio command I and II types, using external target illumination, etc.) do not allow firing at ships outside the RG

                        Although this problem was successfully resolved - Talos had a special. RIM-8H modification, aimed at sources of radio emission - the Yankees used them to shoot Vietnamese radars, could be used on ships - at ranges up to 180 km.

                        1988 - Operation Praying Mantis - the American cruiser Wainwright destroyed the Iranian Joshan corvette with three SM-1MR short-range missiles.

                        The cost of anti-aircraft missiles of the SM family is usually lower than the cost of anti-ship missiles

                        The fact that the anti-aircraft guided missile is a dual-use weapon has always been occupied by everyone. The Talos could cut a destroyer in half. extremely powerful "toy". In a number of parameters, it even surpassed the modern S-300
                      4. GSH-18
                        GSH-18 23 November 2013 13: 27
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Why SAM is worse than RCC. Can you name specifically - what is their weakness?

                        Do you not know how the RCC differs from missiles? belay That is, according to your logic, you can shoot anti-ship missiles at airplanes? belay
                        I would answer in detail to such a question to some newcomer to the site. And you are a knowledgeable person. According to this, you can compare the performance characteristics yourself and understand what the difference is and what it is designed for yes
                      5. Santa Fe
                        23 November 2013 13: 59
                        0
                        Quote: GSH-18
                        That is, according to your logic, you can shoot anti-ship missiles at airplanes?

                        No, the inverse relationship is not valid. Too low speed, maneuverability and a different mode of operation of the GOS

                        But you still didn’t answer - what is the weaker than the anti-ship missiles? I brought you 10 facts when missiles were effectively used to destroy ships and ground targets.

                        Talos is burning again
  2. Dart2027
    Dart2027 23 November 2013 23: 12
    0
    And how long will it take them to sit down, refuel and take off again? And how many of them will come back alive, after all, the S-300 can get there? Here you can’t get by with airplanes alone. Here is a blow from all AUG ships, with the support of the air group - yes.
    I would say that we need "medium aircraft carriers". The fleet should have ships of all classes in its composition, and this is a fact, but the giants who build in the USA are too much. If something happened, they simply could not release their air group, how it would be over. In my opinion, 70-80 thousand tons is the limit, beyond which it is pointless.
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 24 November 2013 09: 38
      -1
      Quote: Dart2027
      I would say that we need "medium aircraft carriers". The fleet should have ships of all classes in its composition, and this is a fact, but the giants who build in the USA are too much. If something happened, they simply could not release their air group, how it would be over. In my opinion, 70-80 thousand tons is the limit, beyond which it is pointless.

      I do not know what you have in vmdu under "medium aircraft carriers". However, TAKRs of Russia are definitely not needed, since they are powerless against an aircraft carrier and in modern conditions are useless. Amer aircraft carriers have an average displacement of 80 thousand tons. They have a flat take-off deck (an indisputable advantage over the raised nose-jumps). And a much more impressive air group. The larger the aircraft carrier, the larger the air group, the larger the air group, the more powerful the anti-aircraft missile defense, air defense, strike aircraft component, patrol density and anti-missile defense. Russia needs just such aircraft carriers (100 aircraft), from 80 thousand tons of displacement, EM aircraft catapults, a nuclear power plant. Build Soviet TAKRs-throw money down the drain.
      1. lucidlook
        lucidlook 24 November 2013 13: 38
        -1
        The approach should be strictly scientific. I think that tonnage, as well as general functionality, should be calculated on the basis of the results of careful computer simulations of various military operations using advanced weapons (primarily unmanned) in all kinds of combinations and permutations. And if this simulation shows what needs to be done, for example, 87.5 thousand tons, then that's right. And there’s nothing to be measured with any pipis.
  • Su24
    Su24 19 November 2013 07: 48
    0
    Japanese kamikaze similarly planned to crush the Essexes with well-aimed ramming strikes at elevators and a superstructure, however, in practice, it turned out that a single strike into an air-loaded deck would be enough to cause a catastrophe.


    The Japanese learned this on themselves at Midway. But it must be said right away that the AB is not always in a vulnerable position, but only during intensive takeoff and landing operations.

    We will not be able to get to the reactors and ammunition storage facilities, but a single hit of anti-ship missiles with a high probability will disable the AB


    Will output how much? During WWII AB, takeoff and landing operations were temporarily suspended several times, but were soon resumed.

    “Wing” is the organizational and staffing unit of the US Navy, indicating the number of aircraft assigned to “Nimitz”, and has little to do with the number of aircraft directly on board the ship.


    The author will not be at a loss to bring the standards of the American Navy? Sorry, this is just some unfounded statement.

    It is highly unlikely that the 35-40 F / A-18E could provide a round-the-clock air patrol of four fighters for at least one week. A modern jet is not a kite. For every hour of flight, there are dozens of man-hours of maintenance, and the degree of operational readiness of aviation units, as a rule, is far from 100%.


    48 fighters, and maybe more, which has been repeatedly confirmed in practice. And the ship does not turn into "useless air transport". The duration of the Super Hornet patrol is 2,5 hours, therefore, 4 sorties are required to ensure round-the-clock patrolling of 40 fighters. And the norm for Nimitz is 120 departures. So, it is possible to support 8-10 aircraft, and there will still be a reserve for launching other aircraft. "Record" figures for air flights exceed 200 per day.

    First, not 250-270, but 150 in total.
    Secondly, this amount is not enough for any modern local operation.


    Note how famously the author takes, at his discretion, the aircraft from the AB. Well, he doesn’t like it, 250, we’ll make 150! I don’t know if a potential adversary is aware of this.
    And here's what I can't understand - why are the authors of all such "analyzes" directing AV to attack continental targets? That there are no more tasks in the World Ocean? Do you no longer need to sink enemy ships, carry reconnaissance behind them (without deck AWACS in any way)? This approach is simply an uncritical transfer of American practice to oneself. The task for the Russian AV is to cover their own ships, reconnaissance, target designation. You will say that 50-70 aircraft is not enough? Yes, this is not enough. But this is more than zero, oddly enough. Even 14 MiG-29K on Vikramaditya is more than zero. Strange, isn't it?
  • Rustam009
    Rustam009 20 November 2013 14: 32
    0
    Quote: saag
    And why hunt for him? In the article, the author writes what I would like to see, as the theory goes

    A bit of practice: http: //www.21122012.com.ua/vojna-i-geopolitika/906-rossijskie-istrebite
    li-su-27-nadrugalis-nad-amerikanskim-avianosczem-kiti-xok.html
  • Basarev
    Basarev 21 November 2013 21: 51
    0
    And rightly so. The bearer, of course, is complex and time-consuming, but the combat potential of the bearer is impressive. The question is how to use this potential ...
  • smart ass
    smart ass 18 November 2013 08: 33
    +7
    Oleg as always plus sign, bravo)
    1. Walking
      Walking 18 November 2013 13: 53
      +2
      I join +
  • Sashkessss
    Sashkessss 18 November 2013 08: 41
    +5
    Thanks to Oleg for the material presented, it was very interesting to read. I apologize, but I did not read the first text that A. Nikolsky created, I will correct it now. And so - everything is in great detail, clearly, without unnecessary twists and unnecessary elevation of the Russian fleet. Everything is proved with calculations and so on.
  • Per se.
    Per se. 18 November 2013 08: 48
    23
    "Draw your conclusions." Conclusion number 1, RPG-7 is much cheaper than a tank, and a penny bullet can take away a priceless human life. Conclusion No. 2, dear Oleg, as a journalist, could apply his talent on the Yankees' websites, convincing them to scrapped their "useless" aircraft carriers. Conclusion number 3, do not confuse God's gift with an egg, dreaming to pierce the wheels of expensive foreign cars as cheaply and angrily as possible with a rusty carnation, it's time to get a good car yourself. AUG is not an end in itself, but only a harmonious component of the fleet, which requires ships of different classes for its normal functioning. This is inconceivable without aviation and its carrier - aircraft carriers. Russia is a rich and strong enough country to have a full-fledged fleet. There is no need for demagoguery, there is no need to compete with the United States in the number of AUG, but Russia can and should have 3-4 AUG on duty.
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 18 November 2013 11: 07
      12
      And why, even within the framework of your reasonably logical logic, do not think about countermeasures?
      I see no reason why this should not be done. After all, a similar approach and analysis of the pros and cons, which subsequently, allow to neutralize the shortcomings.
      You say that there is no need to think about how to sink the "cheap and angry", but it is necessary to build.

      It seems strange to me.
      1. Shur
        Shur 24 November 2013 23: 19
        0
        So you have to think. The USSR is full of what just copied. often contrary to the common sense and talent of our designers.
    2. Petrix
      Petrix 18 November 2013 11: 29
      +7
      Quote: Per se.
      Russia is rich and strong enough to have a full fleet. There is no need for demagogy, there is no need to compete with the USA in the number of AUGs, but Russia can and should have 3-4 on-duty AUGs.

      Does Russia have a full-fledged fleet? How many percent of the power of the fleet of the USSR? That's when there will be so many ships, so as not to prejudice the border protection, to allocate the necessary amount to provide 3-4 AUGs, then aircraft carriers can be built. Or when the ruble becomes the world currency, and in Russia the printing press.
      1. Evgeny_Lev
        Evgeny_Lev 18 November 2013 11: 47
        +1
        I propose to compare it not with the fleet of the USSR, but for example with the fleet under Ushakov, how is this option?

        Lol /

        All these "dry" comparisons are striking, without taking into account the current geopolitical layouts.
        1. Petrix
          Petrix 18 November 2013 11: 56
          17
          Quote: Evgeny_Lev
          All these "dry" comparisons are striking, without taking into account the current geopolitical layouts.

          Russia is facing radical terrorists, nationalist-separatist movements. And you still hang on the neck of the country the construction of aircraft carriers for some geopolitical interests across the ocean. It is in the interests of the Americans to divert Russia's resources from truly important tasks.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 19 November 2013 00: 06
            +2
            Quote: Petrix
            It is in the interests of the Americans to divert Russia's resources from truly important tasks.
            Yeah. For example - from the enrichment of the Serdyukovs. Or from dragging the Olympic flame around the planet and its surroundings. Well, just EXTREMELY necessary for the country's survival, who would doubt it ... lol
          2. Dart2027
            Dart2027 23 November 2013 23: 26
            0
            So America finances them.
          3. Shur
            Shur 24 November 2013 23: 28
            0
            Exactly. Now the Chekists are putting pressure on Russian nationalists. Duck, okay, it would be good on business, otherwise it's just an "order". Taking tough measures, etc. And again the "pure virgins" in hijabs are torn (the spotter stubbornly suggests writing in jackets). What is it? Are we enemies or fools there?
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 18 November 2013 12: 34
        +3
        Quote: Evgeny_Lev
        And why, even within the framework of your reasonably logical logic, do not think about countermeasures?
        It is imperative to reflect, but these reflections should not become attracted, for a deliberately drawn conclusion about the "inferiority" of AUG.
        Quote: Petrix
        That's when there will be so many ships, so as not to prejudice the border protection, to allocate the necessary quantity to provide the 3-4 AUG, then aircraft carriers can be built. Or when the ruble becomes the world currency, and in Russia the printing press.
        Ships are not built in one day, dear Alexey, from the project to the laying, launching and commissioning, years pass, in our case, and more than a dozen years. If this is not done now, then it will be “too late to drink Borjomi”.
        1. Shur
          Shur 24 November 2013 23: 32
          0
          So he (Alexey) is actually "for". He writes that corvettes and anti-submarine ships are needed, etc., first.
      3. 77bor1973
        77bor1973 19 November 2013 00: 03
        +2
        It's just that in the USSR and in Russia the ship was considered as a self-sufficient universal unit, and not as an accessory for a foreign AUG, even the Kuzma looks more powerful than any US aircraft carrier with some inferiority in terms of power plant and aircraft weapons.
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 22 November 2013 22: 38
          0
          Quote: 77bor1973
          in our USSR and in Russia, the ship was considered as a self-sufficient universal unit, and not as an accessory of a foreign AUG

          Well, yes, all the naval commanders of the world of the times of battleships also thought so. Until the deck aircraft sent their pieces of iron to the bottom in the shortest possible time laughing
          After that no one is building battleships for some reason ... request
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 23 November 2013 00: 11
          0
          Quote: 77bor1973
          "Kuzma" looks more powerful than any US aircraft carrier, with some inferiority in terms of power plant and aircraft weapons.

          Did you yourself at least understand what you wrote ?? laughing laughing laughing
      4. Su24
        Su24 19 November 2013 08: 24
        +2
        Quote: Petrix
        Quote: Per se.
        Russia is rich and strong enough to have a full fleet. There is no need for demagogy, there is no need to compete with the USA in the number of AUGs, but Russia can and should have 3-4 on-duty AUGs.

        Does Russia have a full-fledged fleet? How many percent of the power of the fleet of the USSR? That's when there will be so many ships, so as not to prejudice the border protection, to allocate the necessary amount to provide 3-4 AUGs, then aircraft carriers can be built. Or when the ruble becomes the world currency, and in Russia the printing press.


        Borders are guarded by border guards. Have you heard of such? And the fleet has tasks in the World Ocean.
      5. Shur
        Shur 24 November 2013 23: 23
        0
        Indeed, we would be restored to a state of usefulness. And so in all areas. You need to start with machine tools. They understand this, but the couple react somehow languidly. Without the rear, without industry, everything will come to naught. Here we have the sad experience of swelling funds in scrap metal.
    3. ATATA
      ATATA 18 November 2013 12: 05
      +6
      Quote: Per se.
      Russia is a rich and strong country enough to have a full-fledged fleet. There is no need for demagogy, there is no need to compete with the USA in the number of AUGs, but Russia can and should have 3-4 on-duty AUGs.

      Indeed, demagogy is enough.
      Answer one question.
      What for?
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 18 November 2013 13: 12
        +7
        Quote: ATATA
        Answer one question. Why?
        Okay, I'll answer. War, like disease, is easier to prevent than to cure. The Navy is a unique military instrument that solves a whole range of not only combat, but also political tasks. Without the fleet that Tsar Peter began to create, Russia would never have become a great world power, and the further, the importance of the fleet in the world political kitchen becomes greater. It is easier to stop the problem, to extinguish the hotbed of tension in the bud than to clear up the problems with the same nationalist separatists and radical terrorists, which Petrix so ardently speaks of above. Fleet, aircraft carriers, why? Why live at all, Alexey, to fight for something? There is an evolution of military development, including at sea, do you think that all the countries that are now occupied by aircraft carrying ships are mad about fat? You will still be convinced that we do not need VTOL aircraft, nuclear cruisers, and much more. The information war did not stop, the necessary public opinion was being created, at one time, even under Gorbachev, instead of launching Energia with the Buran, they drew a starting sausage, “stolen” from the people, like money flew away. So, maybe, indeed, we don't need space either? The fleet will not solve its problems with submarines alone, you need to cover your boats, especially strategic ones, and track others. The United States and submarines can build incomparably more than we can, especially since their nuclear submarines are detected by our submarines earlier. We will save on the development of the fleet, we will remain at a broken trough, whistling about "saving" against the background of flowing billions.
        1. Petrix
          Petrix 18 November 2013 13: 40
          +2
          Quote: Per se.
          We will save on the development of the fleet, we will remain at the trough,

          Quote: Per se.
          Do you think that all the countries that are currently occupied by aircraft carriers are furious?

          It's not about saving. It's about what is more profitable for the same money - to build a nuclear submarine or AUG? In order to deal with aircraft-carrying ships, countries have developed to the right degree both economically and industrially.
          I agree that the construction of an aircraft carrier is a good thing for both the navy and industry, but now you can not distract resources from burning issues. If there are enough resources and the coast is covered, then I am only FOR.

          Quote: Per se.
          Stopping the problem, extinguishing the source of tension in the bud is easier than after dissolving the problems with the same nationalist separatists and radical terrorists, which Petrix speaks about so passionately about. Fleet, aircraft carriers, why? But why live at all, Alexei, for something to fight for?

          I am for a strong fleet, you do not confuse. And the survival of the fleet, with the superiority of the enemy, I see in the secrecy and dispersal of strike units. And let the aircraft go into space, there is more promising.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 18 November 2013 19: 29
            +5
            Quote: Petrix
            It's about what is more profitable for the same money - to build a nuclear submarine or AUG? In order to deal with aircraft-carrying ships, countries have developed to the right degree both economically and industrially.
            What’s better here, sorry for another analogy, but it’s not a matter of choosing one car or five motorcycles, we are trying to compare ships of different tasks and classes. In World War II, boats became a formidable force primarily against the merchant fleet, the sinking of warships by boats is incomparable with the successes of aviation. Moreover, the anti-submarine warfare with the participation of an aircraft carrier in the group, as well as the organization of guarding the convoys, put an end to the successes of the boats of Admiral Doenitz. Let this be a story, boats became atomic, missiles appeared, but aviation also changed, anti-submarine warfare intensified, both from surface ships and with increased resistance of the boat against the boat. The fleet is a single organism, all these disputes about an aircraft carrier, well, honestly, the same as arguing in chess, whether you need a queen or not, it’s better to choose a few pawns. Resources and burning issues, so no one offers the impossible, especially without the development priorities of the armed forces.
            1. Petrix
              Petrix 19 November 2013 11: 06
              0
              Quote: Per se.
              Resources and burning issues, so no one offers the impossible, especially without the development priorities of the armed forces.

              So there is no dispute. Moreover, now there is already the creation of ships and submarines for the AUG order. Those. we are already building the AUG, and the aircraft carriers will be the final touch.
          2. GSH-18
            GSH-18 22 November 2013 21: 52
            -2
            Quote: Petrix
            I am for a strong fleet, you do not confuse. And the survival of the fleet, with the superiority of the enemy, I see in the secrecy and dispersal of strike units. And let the aircraft go into space, there is more promising.

            You, dear Petrix, confuse low visibility with invisibility, endowing the latter with nuclear submarine cruisers. I will omit for the time being the fact that our nuclear submarines are more noisy than those of amer. Here is a respected, real fact of the "invisibility" of the nuclear submarine (that ours, that amerskih, no difference) from my friend Mariman with the SF. He told me this interesting thing. The working depth of our nuclear submarines is up to 100m! (as it turned out) That is, most of the submarine's trip arrives in this depth range. The nuclear submarine is a fairly large submarine. Walking underwater at a speed of 30-40 knots, a seething trail is formed behind it on the surface of the water, up to a kilometer in length !!! How do you like this invisibility ?? Any non-specialized aircraft detects these tracks like two fingers on the asphalt! Even military satellites can see them from space. What to say about specialized carrier-based aviation ?? request So that!
            1. stjrm
              stjrm 23 November 2013 15: 40
              0
              [quote = GSh-18] [quote = Petrix] .... from my friend mariman with SF. He told me such an interesting thing. The working depth of our submarines is up to 100m! (as it turned out) That is, most of the submarine hike comes in this depth range. The submarine is a fairly large submarine. Walking in an underwater position at a speed of 30-40 knots, behind it on the surface of the water a seething trail is formed, up to a kilometer in length !!! How do you like this invisibility ?? Any non-specialized aircraft detects these tracks like two fingers on the asphalt! They are even seen by military satellites from outer space. What to say about specialized carrier-based aviation ?? request So that! [/ Quote]


              How many nodes? 30-40? Who is this? Yes, and in combat service?
              The depth of submersion of the submarine is determined by the COMMANDER ... Based on the specific task being performed, the navigation area, hydrological conditions, the submarine in the navigation area .... etc. Well, naturally take into account the performance characteristics and the real state of the ship ....
              And so yes, it is possible to pass almost 80% of the entire BS at 90 meters, but still not be detected.
              Secrecy for the submarine is the most important element, but this is not the end in itself of any military campaign, but only a necessary condition for a sudden attack on the enemy.

              In the photo Enterprise. A picture with a simple camera, through the periscope. The distance to the adversary is about 25kb. There, behind the price, on the starboard side, the Sacromento supply transport, behind the Sacroment cruiser URO. Taken at the time of replenishment of the aircraft carrier. A little to the right (well, I didn’t fit into the viewing angle) was EM Spruens, by the way with a towed Gus. Which was supposed to find the submarine filming all this. There is his photo in the same distance.
              All filmed in the North Pacific. RTM from the 45th division in Kamchatka. By the way, there was not just an AUG, but an AUS consisting of three aircraft carriers and more than 60 short-range and distant guard ships. This is the year 1983.
              Anticipating the question "Didn't you find it?"
              Of course, already three times, they even delivered two conventional attacks with an anti-submarine helicopter. All this was later ....
              TILL THE TIME OF DETECTION OF THE SUBWAY, I WAS IN THE POSITION OF APPLICATION OF ARMS TWO DAYS !!!!

              I would love to show pictures of modern and which ships, and taken when,
              but my son asked, and I myself understand that now it’s impossible. Then maybe after some time wink
              1. GSH-18
                GSH-18 23 November 2013 16: 24
                -1
                Quote: stjrm
                How many nodes? 30-40? Who is this? Yes, and in combat service?
                The depth of immersion of the submarine is determined by the COMMANDER.

                Now, exactly as you said, Kherachat lol
                Yes, the commander determines, based on the performance characteristics of weapons and communication capabilities. It goes to the depths when there is a threat of detection, or post-salvo maneuvering. Who is the author of the photo in your comment? Most likely the commander of the Amer submarine. Although perhaps one of our lucky few who received a star of the hero of the Russian Federation for such a daring maneuver.
                1. stjrm
                  stjrm 23 November 2013 16: 44
                  +1
                  Well I registered there and when removed and by whom.

                  No "Hero" was received for this. This is far from an isolated case of a successful PLO AUG breakthrough. Could you and still throw pictures of any American iron shot through the periscope back in 1975-1977. Filmed by submarine commanders (Project 641) from the 182 separate submarine brigade (former Bichevinka, Kamchatka). But the quality is not very good, and it's too lazy to scan. I could have presented the current ones, but I explained .... it's not the time today.
                  So why are you insisting that the submarines on the BS (and even let them on other outputs) go 30-40 nodal moves?
              2. Former ... USSR
                Former ... USSR 23 November 2013 18: 18
                +1
                cool comment, but Russia now has few boats and you need to take into account the satellite fleet in Canada, only 14 frigate URO
                1. stjrm
                  stjrm 25 November 2013 11: 33
                  0
                  Quote: Former ... USSR
                  .... but Russia now has few boats, and the fleet of satellites in Canada only has 14 frigate UROs


                  This is actually annoying. And not only this. And who will serve on the new ships? to go to sea? Who will teach them how?
                  The theory is known to many, in many magazines you can read the schemes for constructing an AOG, the schemes for constructing a PLPL for attacking these AUGs, etc. In life, everything is somewhat different, there are a lot of factors that affect the success of a business.
                  Only in the sea can one work out certain elements, only in the sea, in direct contact with the eventual adversary, one can understand not only one’s abilities, weaknesses, in some ways, but also the abilities and weaknesses of their rivals.
                  But knowledge of simple technical and technical characteristics of weapons and weapons, theoretical knowledge of tactical methods of using weapons cannot succeed. The theory is without practice - beautiful drawings, no more.
                  I am not a supporter of those who advocate for full-fledged aircraft carriers (which the states have). I believe that they do not need Russia.
                  And there are few ships today, yes. smile
              3. GSH-18
                GSH-18 24 November 2013 10: 19
                +1
                Quote: stjrm
                TILL THE TIME OF DETECTION OF THE SUBWAY, I WAS IN THE POSITION OF APPLICATION OF ARMS TWO DAYS !!!!

                The boat does not know if it is detected or not. Therefore, it is not necessary to so unequivocally affirm the unconfirmed. It is possible that your sub was still on the way a couple of times conditionally liquidated by multi-purpose submarines AUG. You don’t know for sure that the aug didn’t practice on it, the time is peaceful. yes
                1. stjrm
                  stjrm 25 November 2013 10: 34
                  0
                  Quote: GSH-18
                  Quote: stjrm
                  TILL THE TIME OF DETECTION OF THE SUBWAY, I WAS IN THE POSITION OF APPLICATION OF ARMS TWO DAYS !!!!

                  The boat does not know if it is detected or not. Therefore, it is not necessary to so unequivocally affirm the unconfirmed. It is possible that your sub was still on the way a couple of times conditionally liquidated by multi-purpose submarines AUG. You don’t know for sure that the aug didn’t practice on it, the time is peaceful. yes


                  The fact is, my friend, that I bring you, not annoyingly, but AMERICAN data.
                  The associated maneuvering of this submarine and the data from AMERICAN DOCUMENTS.
                  And Los Angeles, he was there, yes. Even short-term contact with our submarine is 1 minute!, Later the contact was lost and not restored. There was even a report to the AUG commander about the discovery, but he did not even attach importance to it.
                  If you think that during the threatened period, during direct databases, the submarine will try to come close to the aircraft carrier or near-guard ships, then you are deeply mistaken.
                  And if the Americans had not found the submarine as part of the AWG ORDER, it would have been a shame. Since during the time of tracking, the submarine surfaced more than 100 times under the periscope, raising other retractable ones. Of this, more than 50 times within the close protection of aircraft carriers.
                  Everything I have told you does not mean that this is done easily and that the Yankees are suckers. This suggests that "the devil is not so terrible as he is painted." I personally know about 8 successful breakthroughs by PLO AUG with access to the position of using weapons by our submarines. It has been documented that the PLPL was not detected until the moment of taking up a position to use weapons.
                  And I see nothing particularly surprising in this.
        2. Army1
          Army1 18 November 2013 15: 23
          0
          The United States and submarines can build incomparably more than we do, especially since their submarines are earlier spotted by our boats.

          request fool
        3. ATATA
          ATATA 18 November 2013 17: 49
          -1
          Quote: Per se.
          problems with the same nationalist separatists and radical terrorists,

          Does this require an aircraft carrier?
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 18 November 2013 18: 43
            +4
            Quote: ATATA
            Does this require an aircraft carrier?
            This requires airplanes. Dear Oleg, in previous articles, argued that aircraft carriers can be replaced with basic aviation, including on various islands of the world's oceans, I agree, it was cool, only, somehow the question of providing and protecting these scattered air force bases, about the possible rent I don't even speak. What makes you so annoying about the concept of "aircraft carrier"? When mines and torpedoes appeared, several new classes of warships arose, the appearance of aviation here is no exception, in the emergence of a class of ships armed with aircraft. Aviation will not be needed, and aircraft carriers will not be needed either.
            1. ATATA
              ATATA 18 November 2013 18: 58
              +1
              Quote: Per se.
              For this we need airplanes

              Do you need aircraft carriers to fight the separatists and nationalists of Russia?
              How will these aircraft carriers help in the Caucasus?
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 18 November 2013 20: 07
                +2
                Quote: ATATA
                How will these aircraft carriers help in the Caucasus?
                So in the Caucasus, as well as in Syria, the infection climbs from afar, and there it is necessary to treat it with "dust", somewhere on the Arabian Peninsula. Of course, political issues in preserving peace and suppressing encroachments on national interests are more complex, but it is the fleet that can solve them on distant frontiers. In addition, it is difficult or impossible for the fleet to solve various tasks without the help of naval aviation, but here, if we talk about efficiency, carrier-based aviation is much closer and more convenient than base aviation.
              2. Under
                Under 19 November 2013 05: 30
                +1
                Quote: ATATA
                Do you need aircraft carriers to fight the separatists and nationalists of Russia?
                How will these aircraft carriers help in the Caucasus?

                Russia has become so flawed that it needs armed forces only in order to drive bearded whips with machine guns through the forests?
                1. Shur
                  Shur 24 November 2013 23: 43
                  0
                  No, they already go to cities .. You are probably lucky or don’t notice. Be careful on the buses there, the trains ...
              3. Setrac
                Setrac 19 November 2013 21: 34
                +1
                Quote: ATATA
                Do you need aircraft carriers to fight the separatists and nationalists of Russia?
                How will these aircraft carriers help in the Caucasus?

                To protect their territory, at least its mainland, aircraft carriers are really not needed. However, the main trade routes on our planet are seas and oceans, and the one who controls these oceans controls international trade, he profits from this control, and this is where a normal fleet is needed, not a "death blow" fleet, that is ... aircraft carriers.
              4. vi-king001
                vi-king001 21 November 2013 06: 50
                +4
                I'm sorry, but I will outline the possible situation as clearly as possible. even if it looks a little hyperbolic ...

                imagine another aggravation in the North. Caucasus or somewhere in the Volga region. just chasing beards through the woods is long, expensive and not very effective, as practice shows. But if there was an opportunity to send a couple of AUGs to the Persian Gulf region and provide a "no-fly zone" over Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the results could surpass any efforts of the special services and the army on our territory. so one only helps the other. more precisely, it could help if we had the tools to effectively project our peace-loving plans beyond our borders ...
                1. Shur
                  Shur 24 November 2013 23: 53
                  0
                  You know, they just don't care .. They're fanatics. The Saudis are allies of the United States, how do you imagine this? To move such formations there and threaten you need to have a lot of political weight, backed up by allies. God forbid that it was. Few, that's just probably. First, NATO and the United States must be weakened wildly, or destroyed by increasing the number of gays and common people. In the meantime, they will cover their beloved petrochemicals with a roof. For Russia, it is precisely this creeping fundamentalism that is now dangerous, and it creeps not without the patronage of the Americans and the gang. Thugs, of course, they released "Godzila", which is still eating handouts, but will soon climb on the owner. As always they think to replay, but this flywheel spins faster than they expected.
      2. Patriot8482
        Patriot8482 21 November 2013 19: 29
        0
        I join the question, it is also very interesting. "Like a fish needs a bicycle?"
    4. silver_roman
      silver_roman 18 November 2013 14: 15
      +6
      I completely agree with many:

      Quote: Per se.
      AUG is not an end in itself


      And here to the point. The aim of the AUG is not to destroy the fleet of a potential enemy, but to create a demoralizing factor. Sometimes the AUG under the side of some "dictator" and his country can completely change the foreign policy of the state.

      I am pretty sure of the sense of impunity on the part of the states. When the metro was built in the USSR, they understood that in the event of a nuclear war it would be a wonderful bomb shelter. Take a look at the metro in the states. Many stations are located deep in our pedestrian crossings.

      Quote: Per se.
      Russia is quite rich and strong country


      The biggest, very strong and wealthy, but "rich" is a loose concept. I adhere to the logic of today's IMF actions and fleet renewal: you need to protect the country's maritime borders at home, i.e. not far from the coast, and then think about AUGs. In addition, it is necessary to create an economic bridgehead for the maintenance of such compounds.
      Another thing is nuclear submarines, as part of the nuclear triad. This is a separate segment, requiring a different kind of attention.

      Now at least create a destroyer to cover the same AB ... by the way, soon I expect the appearance of at least a layout. If only I could take a peek. It seems to be working on it.
      Comrade Mechanic is usually in the subject ... there is none now, he is apparently working!
      1. Santa Fe
        18 November 2013 14: 40
        0
        Quote: silver_roman
        Sometimes the AUG under the side of some "dictator" and his country can completely change the foreign policy of the state.

        Examples of such cases

        When AUG was able to change the policy of some "dictator"
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 18 November 2013 15: 46
          +3
          Well, you must admit that when the media flashes that the AUG is moving to the shores of a country, then at least this causes caution on the part of the leadership of that country. Take also the Mediterranean and the wave of revolutions. When there is a conversation about democracy and its means, AUGs are immediately visible.
          And on the account of specific examples, the means of influence of the AUGs are different: both demoralizing and military: Iraq and more than once, Yugoslavia ... almost Syria, but agree, Assad would have been told a year ago that he would get rid of chemical weapons , he would probably spit in the face. Of course, this is not only augs ...
          In addition, no one will ever admit that he, sorry, put in his pants!
          1. Delta
            Delta 18 November 2013 16: 00
            +1
            Quote: silver_roman
            Well, you must admit that when the media flashes infa that the AUG is moving to the shores of a country, then at least this causes caution on the part of the leadership of this country


            I will say more - not only of this country. For some reason, Russia stiffened in response to the advance of the AUGs to the shores of Syria. Why? AUGs are, after all, a bunch of useless, vulnerable troughs.
            1. Santa Fe
              18 November 2013 16: 17
              +3
              Quote: Delta
              For some reason, Russia stiffened in response to the nomination of the AUGs

              Foreign Ministry statement?
              Urgent strengthening of the Mediterranean group?
            2. Kipish
              Kipish 18 November 2013 16: 37
              +5
              Why did America stiffen when Russian ships pulled up to the Syrian shores, according to your logic, are they afraid to shred them?
              1. Delta
                Delta 18 November 2013 16: 45
                +2
                Quote: Kipish
                Why did America stiffen when Russian ships pulled up to the Syrian shores, according to your logic, are they afraid to shred them?


                Russian ships pulled in there in response to US actions. During the Cold War, there was an arms race. If in some ways the Union was ahead of the States, they were catching up and vice versa. Are you afraid of each other, or just wanted parity?
              2. The comment was deleted.
              3. silver_roman
                silver_roman 18 November 2013 17: 10
                +8
                Well, by the way, at the expense of the states, there was nothing like that.
                There was an extremely competent maneuver on the part of our command: when the subdivision of the naval ships syshya went home, ours quickly sent their ships there. The result was that it was as if the Americans were scared. By the way, this is not what I came up with (this version). The interview with the military rank was somehow looking at this.
                During the Cold War, the Americans did not disdain to splash in our territorial waters, and ours once rammed them no less audaciously. Everyone knows the case of our 1135 "Selfless" ramming on the Yorktown Tikanderogu.
                1. Santa Fe
                  18 November 2013 17: 39
                  0
                  Well here to be afraid. Amer ships violated the border of the USSR guide - 12 miles from the coast of Crimea
                  However, NO ONE FIRED at them. and didn't even ram. Just made a neat "bulk"

                  During the Cold War, the fleets of the two great countries were afraid to look askance at one another. Not to mention the use of weapons or some serious provocations. They did disgusting things, but only behind their backs, in a tymara: they stole buoys, wreckage of aircraft and submarines, listened to cables. But not more
                  1. Pajamas
                    Pajamas 20 November 2013 00: 42
                    +2
                    not logical, you write

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    During the Cold War, the fleets of the two great countries were afraid to look askance at one another. Not to mention the use of weapons or some serious provocations. They did disgusting things, but only behind their backs, in a tymara: they stole buoys, wreckage of aircraft and submarines, listened to cables. But not more

                    and at the same time speak
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Amer’s ships violated the USSR border - 12 miles from the coast of Crimea

                    do not find the logical conclusion strange, to enter two territorial waters of the country with two warships and which you can’t even look at.
                  2. sasska
                    sasska 20 November 2013 01: 24
                    +1
                    "On March 13, 1986, the American cruiser Yorktown and the destroyer Caron provocatively went 6 miles into our territorial waters on the Black Sea near the southern coast of Crimea. At the same time, all radio-technical means of reconnaissance worked on the ships. "
                2. pl675
                  pl675 18 November 2013 17: 51
                  +2
                  SWEET_SIXTEEN has already corrected you -
                  the maneuver is called "bulk".
                  and it happened on the approach of the Americans to our waters, that is, the course to the Crimea.
                  and then the commander received an order "to stop without using weapons"!
                  but how?
                  bulk.
                  the maneuver was performed expertly. given the difference in displacement, the Americans repaired all feed.
                3. sasska
                  sasska 20 November 2013 01: 21
                  +1
                  it was not a ram, but a "bulk"

                  more details http://www.navy.su/daybyday/february/12/
                  1. Alex 241
                    Alex 241 20 November 2013 01: 24
                    +1
                    .........................................
            3. Setrac
              Setrac 19 November 2013 21: 38
              +1
              Quote: Delta
              I will say more - not only of this country. For some reason, Russia stiffened in response to the advance of the AUGs to the shores of Syria. Why? AUGs are, after all, a bunch of useless, vulnerable troughs.

              You’re ironic in vain, Russia also did not send the Death Star to the Mediterranean Sea, nevertheless, the Americans lost.
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 22 November 2013 22: 11
        0
        Quote: silver_roman
        In addition, it is necessary to create an economic bridgehead for the maintenance of such compounds.

        You can rest assured that with the correct use of the AUGs they will very quickly create an economic bridgehead, and not only for yourself! yes
        1. Shur
          Shur 25 November 2013 00: 30
          +1
          Yah. Here China is an economically powerful country and it may be 15 years from now and will send. There will be something to send. Our engineering industry is cringing. You won't get far on oil pipes. The Americans are colonizers and this is their natural tool. Their economy is guaranteed by military power. The strategy is the same as that of the WB. But they have the same economy, but we still have a comprador economy with a bunch of oligarchs. GDP and others like it have not even scratched the issue of new industrializations, let alone the economy of the new way. You look, against the background of the richest country, the population is stratified and continues to get poor in mass. Prices are rising. Energy carriers, which have become quite expensive in our country in comparison with mining countries. So far we are following the path of Africa, where there is oil, resources, but the population is poor and a handful of rich. Yes, there are all egregious, but soon we will feel a rise in price of the entire infrastructure. We are very dependent on imports, how to fuck. We go further along the path of wild capitalism. Only the raw materials sector will be inflated; there are not even prerequisites for the revival (and not imitation) of mechanical engineering. Political will is needed to break this vicious circle and get the oil addiction down. HER NO! (Watch an interview with Professor Sergei Semenovich Gubanov). What kind of AUG is it .... Even if we can build everything, can they contain it? It will not be backward, at first the economy, and then (or in parallel means to ensure its security). Of course, all this is possible and necessary, but without a healthy economy, this is certainly nonsense.
      3. Dart2027
        Dart2027 23 November 2013 23: 38
        0
        Available on the Severny PKB website - Project 21956 multipurpose ship
    5. Under
      Under 19 November 2013 05: 28
      +1
      Quote: Per se.
      Per se.

      I can’t plus you, I haven’t typed 10 comments yet. You spoke out on Yat! We need a carrier fleet and a point!
  • moremansf
    moremansf 18 November 2013 09: 25
    17
    Here is your answer to the question about Russian AUG - "At the beginning of 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin will be presented with a plan for the development of the Russian Navy for the next 40 years," Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who was there since November 16, told reporters in Severodvinsk. visit on the occasion of the handover of the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier to the Indian Navy. Rogozin added that Russia does not yet need to create aircraft carriers, this is a matter of geopolitics, not the country's defense capability, Interfax reports. From this draw conclusions ...
    1. Ivan_Ivanov
      Ivan_Ivanov 18 November 2013 11: 11
      +9
      I completely agree with Rogozin. Nah ... are we sea naval money-eaters? Indeed, in addition to aircraft carriers, there is also a regular fleet, a submarine fleet, Strategic Missile Forces, the Air Force, ground forces ... Everyone needs to be dressed, shod, fed, paid allowance, armed, resettled, refueled, warmed up ....
      Well, 1-2 aircraft carriers for testing technology, skills, training, gaining experience is of course necessary. Not more. Conditions will change, one can think about aircraft carriers.
      1. Old skeptic
        Old skeptic 18 November 2013 11: 46
        +7
        We need to think not about strike aircraft carriers, but about escort (air defense). With a relatively small air wing, sharpened for the tasks of defense of tactical formations of ships.
        1. Ivan_Ivanov
          Ivan_Ivanov 18 November 2013 11: 52
          +1
          Let the math modeling experts decide which is better, which air defense: a long-range air defense system, or a mini air wing.
          1. Old skeptic
            Old skeptic 18 November 2013 12: 15
            0
            Better combined solution.
            1. Ivan_Ivanov
              Ivan_Ivanov 18 November 2013 12: 58
              0
              I do not have the completeness of the data to make a judgment, which is better in this case.
            2. 123dv
              123dv 18 November 2013 13: 20
              +1
              Yes, let the socialists make a combined decision!
        2. saruman
          saruman 18 November 2013 14: 34
          +3
          Quote: Old Skeptic
          We need to think not about strike aircraft carriers, but about escort (air defense). With a relatively small air wing, sharpened for the tasks of defense of tactical formations of ships.


          So I talked about it last week. Fighting AUGs with other AUGs is like two rams on the bridge. Here whoever has more "mass" and quantity will win. We observed this during WWII, and mainly in the Pacific Ocean. The Americans crushed the Yaps by both "mass" and quantity. Do we want to try?
          For a domestic aircraft carrier, the tasks of "escort" - protection must be defined. But it can also be used to disrupt enemy sea communications. But!!! And here a submarine is more effective, since the appearance of an aircraft carrier in a given area will a priori force enemy convoys to be reinforced with air defense destroyers and their own aircraft carriers (if any). Incidentally, it is very difficult to imagine aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type as escorts.
          1. Santa Fe
            18 November 2013 14: 43
            0
            Quote: saruman
            Incidentally, it is very difficult to imagine Nimitz-class aircraft carriers as escorts.

            But it's easy to imagine a fight between "Nimitz" and "Queen Elizabeth"

            A fat American will tear the British undership like a heating pad. Sense to build a weaker aircraft carrier?
            1. ATATA
              ATATA 18 November 2013 15: 50
              +3
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              But it's easy to imagine a fight between "Nimitz" and "Queen Elizabeth"

              A fat American will tear the British undership like a heating pad. Sense to build a weaker aircraft carrier?

              Based on your logic, you need to build an aircraft carrier larger than the largest, but the question is, when will the largest aircraft carrier be built, will the other side have a desire to build even more?
              The dinosaurs were large, but they were replaced by small mammalian rodents.
            2. saruman
              saruman 18 November 2013 15: 56
              -1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Quote: Saruman By the way, it is very difficult to imagine Nimitz-class aircraft carriers as escort ones. But it is easy to imagine a fight between Nimitz and Queen Elizabeth. Fat American will tear a British sub-ship like a heating pad. What's the point in building a weaker aircraft carrier?


              So I about it just also interpreted. Would you like to wrestle head-on with SyShyA’s aircraft carrier fleet? Flag in hand! Or in the rhea! RCC and torpedoes, submarines and long-range aviation - while our FSE ... And maybe more and not necessary, for the AUG ... And by the way, as the Americans reluctantly used aircraft carriers during WWII in the North Atlantic, saturated with German submarines.
              1. Delta
                Delta 18 November 2013 16: 07
                0
                Quote: saruman
                And by the way, how reluctantly the Americans used the aircraft carriers during WWII in the North Atlantic, saturated with German submarines.


                and what interest was there in the Atlantic for the States, besides escorting convoys? therefore not so intense. Especially after the outbreak of war with Japan. All the main forces were thrown there.
                1. Santa Fe
                  18 November 2013 16: 21
                  +1
                  Quote: Delta
                  And by the way, how reluctantly the Americans used the aircraft carriers during WWII in the North Atlantic, saturated with German submarines.

                  and what interest was there in the Atlantic for the States, besides escorting convoys? therefore not so intense. Especially after the outbreak of war with Japan. All the main forces were thrown there.

                  The Britons tried. Ended badly

                  The first ship to die in World War II was the Koreyges. They were followed by Eagle and Ark Royal (pictured). After this, the Britons withdrew Av from participation in anti-submarine operations.
                  1. Delta
                    Delta 18 November 2013 16: 24
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The first ship to die in World War II was the Koreyges. They were followed by Eagle and Ark Royal (pictured). After this, the Britons withdrew Av from participation in anti-submarine operations.


                    Well, the States tried. In the Atlantic, not one of their aircraft carriers was drowned. And the Japanese drowned. And submarines, you know that. But after that, the Americans did not withdraw their aircraft carriers from the fighting.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      18 November 2013 16: 55
                      +2
                      Quote: Delta
                      Well, the States tried. In the Atlantic, none of their aircraft carrier was drowned

                      Well ... I wouldn't speak so confidently. A German submarine sank Block Island. Although an escort, but nevertheless
                      Quote: Delta
                      And the Japanese drowned. And submarines, you know that

                      Of course. Finished Yorktown. Drowned Wosp. Torpedoed sarah

                      The imperial submarine fleet was once weaker in the 10 than the kriegsmarine (in terms of quantity and quality), which is why such poor results. There was no one to fear
            3. Setrac
              Setrac 19 November 2013 21: 51
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              But it's easy to imagine a fight between "Nimitz" and "Queen Elizabeth"

              A fat American will tear the British undership like a heating pad. Sense to build a weaker aircraft carrier?

              You somehow incorrectly imagine this battle. The battle will be fought at extreme distances and even if it loses, the English aircraft carrier having lost part of the wing and part of the escort will be able to retreat.
          2. Old skeptic
            Old skeptic 19 November 2013 00: 15
            -2
            Two AUGs are really two rams on a bridge.

            But I’m not talking about the AUG, but about the connection of ships, where the main group is NOT an Aircraft Carrier, but 1-2 dispensers, an aircraft carrier is part of an escort along with submarine destroyers.

            In World War II, Americans in the Pacific Ocean had more than a hundred escort aircraft carriers and, precisely, this played a decisive role in the war for the Pacific Ocean.

            Aircraft carrier should be many, but small.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 19 November 2013 22: 01
              0
              Quote: Old Skeptic
              In World War II, Americans in the Pacific Ocean had more than a hundred escort aircraft carriers and, precisely, this played a decisive role in the war for the Pacific Ocean.

              I always thought that the destroyers, of which the United States had several hundred by the end of the war, played a decisive role.
              1. Old skeptic
                Old skeptic 19 November 2013 22: 20
                +1
                The Americans ironed the islands with artillery and groups of several aircraft carriers.
                Naval aviation, fairly dense wool area DB.
                Again, the cover of convoys.
              2. Santa Fe
                20 November 2013 00: 39
                0
                Quote: Setrac
                I always thought that destroyers played a decisive role

                And the Yankees themselves believe that the submarine)))
          3. Misantrop
            Misantrop 19 November 2013 00: 17
            +2
            Quote: saruman
            But!!! And here the submarine is more effective, since the appearance of an aircraft carrier in a given area - a priori, will force the enemy convoys to strengthen air defense destroyers and their own aircraft carriers
            Did not try to stay in the crew of the submarine in conditions of total superiority of the enemy in the air? When he fearlessly can raise his entire anti-submarine armada to the wing ...
    2. Pajamas
      Pajamas 20 November 2013 00: 46
      +1
      Yes indeed if CAM Rogozin, it’s like breaking spears, there’s no fool in Russia even when there was no road for sight.
    3. GSH-18
      GSH-18 22 November 2013 23: 41
      0
      Quote: moremansf
      Rogozin added that Russia does not yet need to create aircraft carriers, this is a matter of geopolitics, and not the country's defense capability, Interfax reports. From here draw conclusions ...

      The conclusion is clear - we will frighten Amer’s AUGs with Rogozin until they are eliminated (as a combat unit laughing ) or not replaceable with a sensible deputy representative of the government. Although, based on considerations that he is also the permanent representative of the Russian Federation to NATO, his statement can be regarded as misinformation! So that foreign "probable partners" do not fidget nervously in the chair for the time being lol At the same time, project documentation for the construction of Russian aircraft carriers is submitted to the Russian government! Like by chance! belay
    4. Shur
      Shur 25 November 2013 00: 39
      0
      Correctly said because he knows which budget has been adopted. Everything rises in price like a snowball in the country and ours and not ours, but what about income? What is so growing for everyone? Geopolitics is not a cheap deal. No matter how long we are projected here, the era of aircraft carriers would not have passed, otherwise we’ll build it, but the nuclear submarines will come with a bunch of shock drones underwater launch :) or something else.
  • moremansf
    moremansf 18 November 2013 09: 28
    +4
    Nevertheless, many thanks to Oleg for this series of articles !!! Very interesting and informative !!!
  • Volodya Sibiryak
    Volodya Sibiryak 18 November 2013 09: 30
    +2
    The article may be overly emotional, but the author and article plus, described above the so-called Asymmetric answer. As they say, for every cunning ass there is a bolt with a left-hand thread. And AUG is building, when the whole planet pays for it, it’s not at all unprofitable.
    1. AVV
      AVV 18 November 2013 11: 12
      +3
      But do we need AUGs to invest such money, and this colossus will go to the bottom, even from 5 cr, in the Soviet Union, all the same, it was more correct to create aircraft-carrying cruisers in the Soviet Union, and they are less expensive and can perform similar tasks they will be able to defend the aircraft carrier !!! So that’s another question ??? The Americans simply climb anywhere in the world, so they need these barges !!! And we have a different policy, and our power is different, cheaper, asymmetric ways we can demonstrate !!!
  • Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 18 November 2013 09: 42
    +2
    His superstructure-island will fall off, decks will swell up from the unbearable heat, everything that can burn will burn, and not a single human being will remain from the crew, but the radioactive charred box will still rise above the water, slightly tilting on the port side.
    The same thing was said about the Titanic. Theory is one thing, but in practice it often climbs out another.
    1. silver_roman
      silver_roman 18 November 2013 14: 18
      +2
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      The same thing was said about the Titanic. Theory is one thing, but in practice it often climbs out another.


      very accurate remark good
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 18 November 2013 09: 50
    +2
    In the modern world, the casting of power is simply necessary. Globolization is her mother. This is impossible without carrier-based aircraft. I am not an expert, it just seems to me that a salvo of two Anteyevs will not leave any chances of being an efficient AUG. But an air cover is always good.
    PS In my opinion, Katukov said "It is better to have 10 tanuov covered from the air than 100 uncovered"
    1. Petrix
      Petrix 18 November 2013 11: 21
      +4
      Quote: kapitan281271
      "It is better to have 10 tanuy covered from the air than 100 uncovered"

      Right. But how many planes and air bases can be built with the same money? When the Air Force will have a sufficient number of modern aircraft, and not units, when all abandoned air bases will be restored, when the industry will be able to ensure the production and updating of the fleet, then you can think about projecting forces far beyond the sea.
      And for current tasks, in non-wartime, a pair of Mistrals with helicopters is enough.

      US carriers are more needed than Russia, like a boat the islanders need more than a car. You need to live by reality. Proves the US economic crisis and they put their AUG on the joke. But without AUG im Khan, the loss of influence in the world, the authority of the dollar will collapse. If there is a war with China or with Russia, they will hide their aircraft carriers away, if there is any with Jamaica, they will put up several AUGs at once.
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 18 November 2013 09: 55
    +7
    For some reason, the author does not say that in the event of a meeting between AUGs and Onyx or Caliber, the warheads should most likely be nuclear. And in this case, one missile could be enough. Or everyone hopes that the conflict in which the two powers will sink each other’s ships will be strictly without nuclear.
  • ed65b
    ed65b 18 November 2013 10: 00
    +8
    Russia is a land power. Nuclear submarines are enough to provide control at sea. We have no one to scare and frighten. We never waged wars overseas. so why do we need this super expensive tool? Show flag? or amuse the pride of the next Serdyukov? 3 boats instead of one aircraft carrier, more preferred.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 18 November 2013 12: 13
      +7
      Quote: ed65b
      Russia is a land power.
      This can only be claimed by someone who (as the head of the country) is exclusively concerned about cutting dough in the controlled territory. What, Russia does not and cannot have interests outside Eurasia? Give the whole planet to the British and Americans, and then moan that they are stronger and spit on Russia with its interests? And those who decide to resist the dictatorship of the Anglo-Americans, send sympathetic telegrams and wishes of good luck? So the same Syria is not located in Agtarktid. How many chances would help her WITHOUT the help of the fleet? Now I would have eaten her IMHO. And would look back in search of another victim of indefatigable appetite ...
      1. ed65b
        ed65b 18 November 2013 21: 04
        0
        You read at your leisure how land powers differ from sea powers, then wake up to argue.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 18 November 2013 21: 27
          +6
          Quote: ed65b
          how land powers differ from sea powers
          Well, yes, there are purely land powers such as Mongolia, which have no maritime borders, no serious interests beyond their borders, no opportunities to ensure these interests, if they suddenly appeared. I do not take dwarf countries or foreign satellites. All the rest have an overland leadership mentality that pushes their countries to third roles in world politics and economics. Yes, Russia is able to survive even with a complete cessation of sea traffic, but, alas, it will not work to remain competitive at the same time. Ukraine is a prime example of such a recent land power. During the collapse of the USSR, it received the most powerful merchant and fishing fleets and managed to "whistle" them in the first few years of independence. I'm not even talking about the economy of this power, and everything is clear ... To declare a "land" country with its own ports on ALL (except for the Indian) oceans ... request For centuries, Russia made its way to the Baltic and the Black Sea, raised the Far East, and without exception, all neighbors struggled to prevent it from doing this FOR WHAT? To see the sea from the coast? If the United States remained a land power, who would have heard of it? What about Britain? Spain was a country to be reckoned with, exactly as long as it had a serious fleet (like Portugal, by the way). And who is interested in their opinion now?
          1. Kars
            Kars 18 November 2013 21: 41
            +1
            Quote: Misantrop
            Ukraine is a prime example of such a recent land power. Received during the collapse of the USSR, the most powerful merchant and fishing fleets and managed to whistle them

            It would be better to give the Baltic Shipping Company an example. And the campaign of the Russian Federation got more, and they whistled more.
            Although probably now the most powerful maritime powers is Liberia, under whose flags wants more ships than under Russian.
            Quote: Misantrop
            To declare the same "land" country, which has its own ports on ALL

            Land, land - although probably for self-affirmation a couple of aircraft carriers would have to be built. The Second World War showed that the fleet would not have played a special role, and if it weren’t for Lend-Lease, it would not have been felt at all.
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 18 November 2013 22: 06
              +3
              Quote: Kars
              World War II showed that the fleet would not play a special role

              Quote: Kars
              The Russian Federation got more, and they whistled more.
              I won’t even argue. Vivid examples of the land type of thinking of the country's leadership request While the Japanese emperors had the same type of thinking, no one had heard of these islands for centuries. They cooked in their own juice, fully supplying themselves and not claiming anything around the perimeter. For centuries, China has done the same. And now, having seized a hefty share of the world market, suddenly the ocean fleet started to rive frantically. There is nowhere to put money there, or is the government crazy?
              1. Kars
                Kars 18 November 2013 22: 14
                +2
                Quote: Misantrop
                I won’t even argue.

                How could it be? Would the active actions of the Soviet fleets surpassing German in the Baltic and Black Seas change something?
                And really, will the Russian Federation not argue with its enlightened fleets? How many Russian aircraft carriers have sold (well, Av Kr)?
                Quote: Misantrop
                Japanese emperors possessed thinking; nobody has heard of these islands for centuries

                Well, yes, especially they didn’t hear in Korea. But in fact, after the WWII, the Japanese navy did not have a significant value. And of course it’s brisk to compare Japan - the island with the Russian Federation mainland))))

                As for China - there is nothing special there, and they spend several times less money - and against the background of the completion of one aircraft carrier (not the same), the land component is simply amazing. Probably gathered on tanks in the USA?
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 18 November 2013 22: 21
                  +4
                  Quote: Kars
                  Would the active actions of the Soviet fleets surpassing German in the Baltic and Black Seas really change something?
                  What fuel would German tanks, motorized infantry and aviation ride on if they defeated the Romanian oil fields in a timely manner? And if the Baltic Fleet blocked German ports with mines, and did not clap a mitt while the Germans did it? Where did the Germans get their armor additives? Or is it such a trifle, which is not worth mentioning?
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 18 November 2013 22: 48
                    +1
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    What fuel would German tanks, motorized infantry and aviation ride on if they defeated the Romanian oil fields in a timely manner?

                    Look at the fuel balance of Germany. You might find out something interesting.
                    And by the way, you should remember how the raid on Constanta ended?
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    And if the Baltic Fleet blocked German ports with mine missiles

                    Well, yes, of course Manstein wouldn’t take any salt, and bridges across the Dvina. And what would happen to the Army Center group in the Minsk direction.
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    Where did the Germans get their armor additives?
                    Where from?
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    Or is it such a trifle, which is not worth mentioning?

                    Of course, a trifle. It would be easier to immediately occupy Finland and Sweden in 1939)))
                    1. Misantrop
                      Misantrop 18 November 2013 23: 12
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      It would be easier immediately to occupy Finland and Sweden in 1939)))
                      Or Germany in 1934 laughing
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 18 November 2013 23: 17
                        +2
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        Or Germany in 1934

                        Well, by airborne assault across the neutral Baltic Sea.
                        Keep a little bit of reality.

                        in fact, they would have taken the Baltic without mines. How many days was Taliinn captured?

                        The only bright moment that the fleet can remember is the Kerch landing and then it’s about ... if it would cost the death of the LC that could provide art support with its 12.
                      2. Misantrop
                        Misantrop 18 November 2013 23: 59
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Keep a little bit of reality.

                        Quote: Kars
                        It would be easier immediately to occupy Finland and Sweden in 1939)))

                        what
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 19 November 2013 12: 02
                        +1
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        Quote: Kars
                        Keep a little bit of reality.

                        Quote: Kars
                        It would be easier immediately to occupy Finland and Sweden in 1939)))

                        what

                        Can you say that there was no war with Finland? And there was no real possibility of its occupation? Unlike your breakthrough to Germany in 1934 when there were no common borders with Germany? Or Poland, too, along the way?
                        laughing
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 23 November 2013 01: 11
        0
        Quote: Misantrop
        For centuries, Russia made its way to the Baltic and the Black Sea, raised the Far East, and without exception, all neighbors struggled to prevent it from doing this FOR WHAT? To see the sea from the coast? If the United States remained a land power, who would have heard of it? What about Britain? Spain was a country to be reckoned with, exactly as long as it had a serious fleet (like Portugal, by the way). And who is interested in their opinion now?

        !!! +++ !!! good
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 18 November 2013 10: 13
    +6
    Do you think in the case of a real regeal conflict in Syria, do we need aircraft carriers. Or put the question differently what is the likely conflict (following the example of the Caribbean) if Russia has 3-4 AUGs in the Mediterranean. I think 0. This is the protection of interests overseas or, as geopolitical interests are now saying. In defending Syria, we are defending Russia and the terrorists have nothing to do with it. Let’s set Syria Persian cheap oil will flow to Europe, the consequences are there is no budget, no Russia. That's what these big targets are for !!!!
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 18 November 2013 11: 11
      +1
      the "Caribbean" was the crisis, not the conflict.
      The presence of what is now there is enough, and this is a fact, for what would not happen, what you described.

      What will the aircraft carrier give there?
      1. ben gun
        ben gun 18 November 2013 11: 40
        +1
        For good, an aircraft carrier, in my opinion, an amateur, gives the most important thing - an AWACS plane. Aircraft AWACS sees everyone within a radius of 300-700 km. Giving information about the world around and what is happening in it, and if necessary providing coordinates and information for guiding the RCC.
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 18 November 2013 18: 34
          +1
          Quote: ben gun
          For good, an aircraft carrier, in my opinion, an amateur, gives the most important thing - an AWACS plane. Aircraft AWACS sees everyone in a radius of 300-700 km.

          540 km maximum is the Hokai E-2, and 400 - 450 km is an airplane, 150 - 250 km of anti-ship missiles ...
          not all, he does not see the submarine even point blank ...
    2. Petrix
      Petrix 18 November 2013 11: 47
      +3
      Quote: kapitan281271
      What do you think, in the event of a real regeal conflict in Syria, do we need aircraft carriers ..... Defending Syria we are defending Russia and the terrorists have nothing to do with it.

      No one is afraid of aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean. Around the coast with missiles and aircraft. And how will our aircraft carrier protect Syria from terrorists? Do terrorists have nothing to do with it? Syria tormented by American aircraft?
      In fact, the presence of air defense systems in Syria scares the Yankers with their AUGs.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 23 November 2013 01: 36
        0
        Quote: Petrix
        No one is afraid of aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean.

        You tell this tale to the Iraqi warriors, the times of the "late" Saddam Hussein! laughing laughing The survivors will laugh at you heartily! laughing
    3. 1c-inform-city
      1c-inform-city 18 November 2013 11: 59
      +4
      In the Mediterranean Sea, our augs will not live long because of the lack of ground bases in our country, unlike our opponents. We can’t even supply them normally in peacetime in this region. And half of the airplanes in the aug are at the nearest ground bases as a reserve.
    4. silver_roman
      silver_roman 18 November 2013 14: 24
      +1
      Syria is geographically in the field of our vision and aviation (I'm not talking about strategists - those are generally ubiquitous bully ) In addition, the Iskanders will also be able to work on potential opponents of Syria. So it’s easier here.
      In fact, AUGs in such a local war are much more vulnerable than in the same Pacific or Atlantic Ocean.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 23 November 2013 01: 39
        0
        Quote: silver_roman
        In fact, AUGs in such a local war are much more vulnerable than in the same Pacific or Atlantic Ocean.

        That, in general, does not prevent the Amers from keeping their 6th operational fleet as part of the aircraft carrier Enterprise in the Mediterranean.
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 18 November 2013 10: 24
    -4
    And we waged wars overseas. When the Russian Mediterranean squadron under the command of F.F. Ushakova could turn the head off to anyone then the Italian campaign of Suvorov took place. Then Napoleon was somehow not upset to cross the Russian border even though he was in the blockade in Egypt. I mean the world was in the empire itself. Frogs left Italy and came to us. Enemies must be destroyed on the approaches to their borders !!!!!!!!!!!!
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 18 November 2013 11: 13
      +4
      Minus for "Russian".
      1. ben gun
        ben gun 18 November 2013 11: 41
        0
        Similarly, minus is only for this word.
        1. Simon
          Simon 18 November 2013 15: 57
          0
          All right! You have to be competent so as not to offend the country in which you live. yes
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 18 November 2013 10: 27
    +4
    Oleg often raises his fabrications to an axiom. He is 100% sure that 90 aircraft will not fit on an aircraft carrier and it is simply impossible to convince him because he does not believe in any arguments. Well, okay. This is not entirely the case regarding this topic. The fact that the entry of anti-ship missiles into the aircraft carrier can disable it is not in dispute in my opinion by anyone. Even the X-35 can do this under good circumstances. The question of whether the RCC can fly to the aircraft carrier remains open. Of course they can, the probability share always remains, albeit not high. It’s like having an accident in aviation, they are fighting it, they are carrying out a bunch of events, but the planes are falling anyway ... Now, in detail:
    It is highly unlikely that the 35-40 F / A-18E could provide a round-the-clock air patrol of four fighters for at least one week.

    Speaking about the patrol time, one needs to imagine in what conditions this is happening. AUG in peacetime or during war. If war, then what this AUG does, escorts a convoy or goes to the enemy’s shore to destroy its naval base. Both events do not require several weeks to complete. During the war, the AUG PLO will be strengthened by additional means, starting from the nuclear submarines, ending with EM and LCS, this is enough for the Americans.
    Flight time RCC "Caliber" - no more than two minutes.

    How far away? On an open source, the speed of the caliber is 0,6-0,8M, i.e. 200-270 m / s., While the anti-ship missile does not develop this speed instantly, turbojet engine acceleration is required. Supersonic b / h is launched in 20 km. to the target, therefore shooting at a maximum range of 220 km. The anti-ship missile system should fly 200 km, which will take from 16,6 minutes to 12,3 minutes, just a "car of time". The fact that Oleg claims that the nuclear submarine can come up to 50 km. to an aircraft carrier, then of course there is a possibility of this, but it is small and even then in peacetime. In wartime, the commander of the nuclear submarine will have, oh, how difficult it is to do this, realizing that after the launch, he and his crew are actually dead. And if there is more than one submarine, then the probability decreases even more. When Oleg (and not he alone) gives an example of a successful rapprochement between the nuclear submarine and the AUG, they somehow forget that the number of failures is greater.
    Now about the cost. The aircraft carrier Enterprise has served the United States for 51 years. During this time, three generations of submarines with the Kyrgyz Republic changed in the USSR / Russia ...
    1. 1c-inform-city
      1c-inform-city 18 November 2013 11: 40
      +1
      Onyx missile has a super sound throughout the entire flight path of 3m (unlike caliber)
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 18 November 2013 11: 57
        -4
        Quote: 1c-inform-city
        Onyx missile has a super sound throughout the entire flight path of 3m (unlike caliber)

        So what? What does Onyx have to do with it? It is about pr.885 on which the RCC Caliber is not on the Onyx / Yakhontov nuclear submarine. If we are talking about supersonic, you can see how far and how Onyx flies
        1. 1c-inform-city
          1c-inform-city 18 November 2013 12: 17
          +4
          You probably do not know that it is Onyx that stands on Yasen in vertical launchers (especially since they are universal Onyx and Caliber). The caliber on Yasen is launched from torpedo tubes. One of the reasons for the delay in accepting the boat was Onyx's unsuccessful firing. export characteristics.
          1. PLO
            PLO 18 November 2013 12: 23
            +1
            One of the reasons for the delay in the adoption of the boat was the unsuccessful shooting by Onyx. And it is not necessary to give export characteristics.

            Onyx Severodvinsk has not yet shot, only with Gauges.
            Onyx shooting planned during the ICG
          2. Nayhas
            Nayhas 18 November 2013 22: 34
            +1
            Quote: 1c-inform-city
            You probably do not know what exactly Onyx stands on Yasen in vertical launchers (especially since they are universal Onyx and Caliber)

            At the expense of "universality" so far only words. Yes, and it was said about the versatility for surface ships, where everything is easier to solve. On Yasen, it will probably also be possible to replace Caliber with Onyx, but how much will be equivalent. Onyx is about 200 mm. thicker Caliber and probably instead of four Calibers it is possible to install one Onyx in the PU. But why? Onyx has no advantages over Caliber.
            1. PLO
              PLO 18 November 2013 22: 45
              +2
              Onyx about 200 mm. Thicker Caliber and probably instead of four Caliber it is possible to install one Onyx in PU. But why? Onyx has no advantages over Caliber.

              Yasen has 8 UVP SM-343 in each of 4 cells with a diameter of 700 mm

              those. Severodvinsk can carry 32 Onyx or Caliber in UVP

              and what is the advantage of Onyx over Caliber?
              Well, probably in the fact that it flies at 400km and a speed of 2-3M in all areas
              Ash trees, among other things, were conceived as a universal replacement for Shchuk and Anteev
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 18 November 2013 22: 54
                0
                Quote: olp
                Yasen has 8 UVP SM-343 in each of 4 cells with a diameter of 700 mm

                Here are just Ash in the TPK 720 mm.
                Quote: olp
                Well, probably in the fact that it flies at 400km and a speed of 2-3M in all areas

                At 300, do not cheat. Only for this at 14 km. climb up you need to see all the famous ship's air defense. And it decreases only when it is 50 km to the target. stays because GOS does not work further. And all modern ship air defense systems are more than 50 km away. work. so that Onyx does not reach Aegis. But Caliber has much more chances, due to the use of a height of 20m. on almost the entire flight area.
                1. PLO
                  PLO 18 November 2013 23: 02
                  +2
                  Here are just Ash in the TPK 720 mm.

                  so then in TPK


                  At 300, do not cheat.

                  400km and even a little more.
                  I do not lie lol


                  Only for this at 14 km. climb up you need to see all the famous ship's air defense. And it decreases only when it is 50 km to the target. stays because GOS does not work further. And all modern ship air defense systems are more than 50 km away. work. so that Onyx does not reach Aegis.

                  32 Onyx with a speed of 2-3M, even if not all will fly
                  Caliber has its own advantages.
                  budget RCC in order not to shoot sparrows from a gun are simply necessary

                  because GOS does not work further.

                  oh come on you)
                  and how the GOS finds out when it turns on if it doesn’t work beyond 50km fellow
            2. Good Ukraine
              Good Ukraine 19 November 2013 02: 49
              0
              Quote: Nayhas
              At the expense of "universality" so far only words. Yes, and it was said about the versatility for surface ships, where everything is easier to solve. On Yasen, it will probably also be possible to replace Caliber with Onyx, but how much will be equivalent. Onyx is about 200 mm. thicker Caliber and probably instead of four Calibers it is possible to install one Onyx in the PU. But why? Onyx has no advantages over Caliber.



              I am surprised by the fundamental reluctance of the "commentators" to comment on what they have not read about. And while foaming at the mouth to prove their ignorance.
              Well, at least read "Wikipedia" and find out what types of missiles can carry the 855 project. Then read there what characteristics these missiles have.
              And if you are too lazy, then at least read the article that you are commenting on.
              There is a picture of the characteristics of the 855 project. So, where there is a large number "32", there is a description of which missiles the project can carry and how many.
              It is very bad when the "hairdresser" comments and comments on the naval component.
        2. PLO
          PLO 18 November 2013 12: 21
          +1
          It is about pr.885 on which RCC Caliber

          Ha.
          on the Severodvinsk nuclear submarine of project 885 Yasen there are 32 air-launched missile launchers and 10 533 mm TA and all of them are capable of launching missiles of the Caliber and Onyx complex
          1. mga04
            mga04 18 November 2013 14: 32
            +3
            Torpedo tubes "Onyxami" do not fire. You know the caliber of the torpedo tube, the caliber of the Onyx is 700mm. And in length it will not fit. But the Caliber family of missiles was originally made for use from TA.
            1. PLO
              PLO 18 November 2013 22: 06
              +1
              about shooting Onyxes from TA really got excited yes
    2. Santa Fe
      18 November 2013 16: 09
      +4
      Quote: Nayhas
      90 cars will not fit on an aircraft carrier. to convince him is simply impossible, for he does not believe in any arguments

      They fit, only you have to load them with a crane. The capacity of the decks of Nimitz, from the monograph of Lambert, is the 123 of the Hornet fighter (if you stand shoulder to shoulder, without gaps, over the entire area of ​​the hangar and flight decks)
      Quote: Nayhas
      to convince him is simply impossible, for he does not believe in any arguments

      you might think you have some reasons for basing 90 cars on deck AB
      Quote: Nayhas
      goes to the shore of the enemy to destroy his naval base

      It is interesting to attack the Indian Navy Goa
      On the other side: two or three regiments of the Su-30MKI (strike - anti-ship missile system Bramos + fighter cover). AWAX - A-50 pair. Against 40 SuperHornets and Dozens of Growlers / Hokaev

      Any AUG will die when meeting in the ground air force
      Quote: Nayhas
      During the war, the AUG PLO will be strengthened by additional means, starting from nuclear submarines, ending with EM and LCS

      I especially liked about LCS. How it feels to be an 3000-ton low-draft boat in open sea areas

      Even in a weak storm, the Perry suffered from bottom slamming. Slap-slap on the water. In such conditions, the sailors were no longer worried about the quality of the GAS work - the main thing is that the sheathing sheets do not stick - all the same, 4500 tons, the impacts are sensitive. LCS will have even more fun
      Quote: Nayhas
      this is enough for the Americans.

      During the Second World War, the British and Amers needed 10 PLO-ships and planes on the 1 boat Kriegsmarine to reduce the score 1: 1
      Quote: Nayhas
      From what distance?

      I pointed out in the article. 50 KM
      Quote: Nayhas
      therefore shooting at maximum range 220km

      we do not need to shoot at a maximum range of 220 km
      Quote: Nayhas
      . In wartime, the submarine commander will have to oh how not just to do this, understanding that after the launch he and his crew are actually dead

      Well can it destroy? Amer's ASROC-VL PLUR fly only on 20 km
      Quote: Nayhas
      Aircraft carrier Enterprise has served the United States 51 year. During this time, three generations of submarines with the Kyrgyz Republic changed in the USSR / Russia ...

      And how many generations of aviation have changed on the deck of the Enterprise?
      And how many SRA, COH, and RCOH did Enter take during this time?

      The layout of aircraft in Nimice. Try stuffing 80-90 machines here. be surprised.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 18 November 2013 17: 32
        +1
        "It is interesting to attack the Indian naval base Goa
        On the other side: two or three regiments Su-30MKI (strike - anti-ship missiles Brahmos + cover fighters) "(c)

        Oleg, Oleg, where did you go ?! Brahmos on Su ?, two = three regiments? Yeah You overworked
        1. Santa Fe
          18 November 2013 17: 44
          +2
          Quote: Tlauicol
          two = three regiments?

          As part of the Indian Air Force 120 + Su-30
          And now 120 Rafaley will appear
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Brahmos on Su?

          The purchase of over 200 air-launched BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles for the IAF was cleared by Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) on 19 October 2012, at the cost of INR6000 crore (US $ 918 million). This would include funds for the integration and testing of the BrahMos on Su-30MKI of the IAF. As per this plan, the first test of the air-launched version of the missile was to be conducted by December 2012. Two Su-30MKI of the IAF would be modified by the HAL at its Nashik facility where they will also be integrated with the missile's aerial launcher. The trial is now expected to happen in early 2014
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 18 November 2013 18: 06
            +1
            Oleg, are you showing me two or three regiments of Su with Bramos now? Or an air launch?
            PS The layout is similar, but I will put you a minus, do not be offended
          2. Nayhas
            Nayhas 18 November 2013 22: 48
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            As part of the Indian Air Force 120 + Su-30

            The question is simple, what is the probability of a war against India now?
            And Oleg, I would like in the topic about Aegis, I think that the topic is not closed. This is my opinion expressed below
            "... in general, an EM type Burke, as an aid to AN / SPY-1, has a radar for detecting surface and low-flying targets AN / SPS-67. But this is also not so important, because modern domestic ships are not used for detection of NLC additional radars of the S band, they have enough for this three-coordinate radars with HEADLIGHTS such as Frigat-M2EM, Positive-ME1.2, Polyment-Redut and Furke (albeit a kosyachnaya, but they counted on it). head superior to the radar with HEADLIGHTS AN / SPY-1 in my opinion is stupid, as well as to argue that Aegis cannot intercept the NLC. "
            In the last article, for some reason, you began to refer to the Dual Band Radar. I do not quite understand what this has to do with it? Well, they want in the United States to create a universal radar in order to reduce the number of radars to one, and the flag in their hands. This does not deny Aegis's ability to detect low-flying targets. Same thing with AMDR.
            1. Santa Fe
              19 November 2013 01: 26
              0
              Quote: Nayhas
              In the last article, for some reason, you began to refer to the Dual Band Radar.

              The Yankees, having worn out with the "universal" SPY-1, turned to the experience of other countries

              DBR is nothing more than a system of two radars (6 AFAR). Three gratings are a centimeter AN / SPY-3 for NLC search (as well as search, navigation, SLA ...)
              The other three are surveillance radar. Two radars - two ranges - for each of the tasks

              Everything, like Daring or Peter the Great


              On Lockup DBR is filmed due to budget cuts. Only SPY-3 left. Therefore, Zamvolt, with all its steepness, is not an air defense ship and is not intended to destroy targets at long distances. Anti-aircraft ammunition - exclusively ESSM
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 19 November 2013 11: 44
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The Yankees, having worn out with the "universal" SPY-1, turned to the experience of other countries

                Not true. In addition to AN / SPY-1, the Ticonderoga is equipped with AN / SPS-49 air target detection radar, AN / SPS-73 surface target radar, and AN / SPS-64 navigation radar.
                On Berks, in addition to SPY-1, radar detection of surface and low-flying targets AN / SPS-67, navigation radar AN / SPS-64.
                AN / SPY-1 is not a universal radar designed to replace anything and everything.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                DBR is nothing more than a system of two radars (6 AFAR). Three gratings are a centimeter AN / SPY-3 for NLC search (as well as search, navigation, SLA ...)
                The other three are surveillance radar. Two radars - two ranges - for each of the tasks
                Everything, like Daring or Peter the Great

                Well, you finally can ... It turns out that a collection of all kinds of radars that "tame" Peter the Great is nothing more than Dual Band Radars, pancake opening ...

                Dual Band Radars is a completely new concept of electronic equipment designed to increase the ability to detect targets both above water (from the periscopes of submarines) and in the air (b / h ICBMs)one Radar with multiple AFAR. In theory, one radar instead of a navigation one, surface target radar and air target detection radar, i.e. at least THREE.
                And on Peter the Great and on the Berks this was not. At Daring, too, there are navigational radars, radar for detecting surface targets and two radars with AFAR.

                But again, this is not the point. But the fact that BIUS Aegis, combining all the radars, works quite normally for all types of purposes, and Peter the Great has no advantages in detecting NLCs.
                PS: as an example, yesterday's article "Binoculars from the commander-in-chief. Prize-winning anti-aircraft missile firing of the 175th brigade of missile ships of the Pacific Fleet in 1989" in which the EM pr.956 without Tackle successfully coped with the NLC on one "Frigate"
                1. Santa Fe
                  19 November 2013 20: 00
                  0
                  So here we have a discrepancy in terms.
                  By saying "universal radar" I did not mean its many functions (detection, OMS, navigation) - in the previous comment I specially marked this in brackets. In this case, this is not about that.

                  The "versatility" of the SPY-1 is that the Yankees tried to combine two radars in it for different tasks (volume search / horizon search). Get S-band radar to look for NLC. It didn’t work out. The next time I had to do DBR with two groups of three AFARs operating in different ranges
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  Dual Band Radars is a completely new concept of electronic equipment designed to increase the ability to detect targets both above the water (from the periscopes of submarines) and in the air (b / h ICBMs) of one radar with several AFARs

                  In fact, an antenna is a key element of any radar.

                  DBR in fact uses 6 AFARs operating in different ranges (S / X). In fact, these are two radars with one computer center.

                  Two radars to detect different types of targets. Like any Daring or Peter the Great
                  I hope it’s now clearer
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  yesterday's article "Binoculars from the commander-in-chief. Prize-winning anti-aircraft missile firing of the 175th brigade of missile ships of the Pacific Fleet in 1989" in which the EM pr.956 without Tackle successfully coped with the NLC on one "Frigate"

                  It is clearly stated there. The height of the target’s flight is 230 meters. Task for radar detection
        2. ATATA
          ATATA 18 November 2013 17: 45
          0
          Quote: Tlauicol
          ! Brahmos on Su?

          Take the trouble to search for information before writing your thoughts.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 18 November 2013 18: 08
            +1
            And you, uv. ATATA, don’t even look for it - you won’t find it earlier than 2015 (is it if the promises are fulfilled, otherwise they promised already at 9m, 11m, 12m, and 13m ... to continue?)
      2. egor 1712
        egor 1712 18 November 2013 17: 53
        0
        I wanted to ask you. The article contains information about the cruise missile that will be installed on the project 885 "Ash" 3M14? Are you surprised by the distance of more than 1000 km? Is it anti -arab or land-based?
      3. Nayhas
        Nayhas 18 November 2013 22: 17
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        It is interesting to attack the Indian Navy Goa
        On the other side: two or three regiments of the Su-30MKI (strike - anti-ship missile system Bramos + fighter cover). AWAX - A-50 pair. Against 40 SuperHornets and Dozens of Growlers / Hokaev

        And why exactly to India? Actually, they are allies ... Well, all right, the preliminary processing by Tomahawks with nuclear submarines and Berkov with Tiks, air cover carries out 2-3 AUGs, work from a range of 1000 km. The United States can simultaneously display from 3 to 5 aircraft carriers.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        During the Second World War, the British and Amers needed 10 PLO-ships and planes on the 1 boat Kriegsmarine to reduce the score 1: 1

        And what does this have to date? Let's bring 1MB as a parallel.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        I pointed out in the article. 50 KM

        And why exactly 50km? Why not 100 meters? Well, so for sure? What is the reason for such a range apart from your desire?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Well can it destroy? Amer's ASROC-VL PLUR fly only on 20 km

        Those. anti-submarine helicopter as an anti-submarine vehicle you do not perceive. Oleg, in general, Acrok Asrok has other anti-submarine weapons. How much time does a nuclear submarine need. 885 to launch all 32 RCC Caliber?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And how many generations of aviation have changed on the deck of the Enterprise?
        And how many SRA, COH, and RCOH did Enter take during this time?

        Three. And there were quite a few repairs, since there was something to repair. But the same applies to nuclear submarines. How many anti-ship missiles had to be invented and produced during this time? How many repairs and refueling of core areas? How much money has been spent on the disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines? How much did it take to develop new submarines and build them? Many, many, not even count.
        1. Santa Fe
          19 November 2013 02: 05
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          And why exactly to India

          And who else?
          Model an attack on Iran. Or China
          The result will be the same

          You can, of course, attack the impoverished Mozambique, but AUG is clearly out of place here
          Quote: Nayhas
          And what does this have to date?

          Both sides have evolved. The ratio should remain the same.
          Quote: Nayhas
          And why exactly 50km?

          circle area with a radius of 50 km ~ 8000 sq. km
          How much is able to examine the MH-60R in an hour?))
          Quote: Nayhas
          Those. anti-submarine helicopter as an anti-submarine vehicle you do not perceive.

          Do you not take into account IDAS and similar systems? But in vain. They are already putting on the German Type212

          Try to approach the boat with such a weapon on the Romeo
          Quote: Nayhas
          How much time does a nuclear submarine need. 885 to launch all 32 RCC Caliber?

          if you take an interval of 5 seconds. - shoots the first 16 in 1,5 minutes
          during this time the Romeo helicopter will fly 6 km
          Quote: Nayhas
          Three.

          And if taking into account accidents))
          Quote: Nayhas
          But the same goes for nuclear submarines.

          No. Their life cycle is incomparably cheaper.

          The annual operating cost for any of these subs is approximately $ 21 million. The typical service life of a nuclear sub is about 30 years. Refueling and modernizing at the half-life point costs about $ 200 million. Near the end of the service life, another refueling and extensive overhaul for about $ 410 million will extend the life another 12 years, for a total service life of 42 years. This totals to about $ 3.6 billion in constant dollars over the lifetime of a Seawolf class sub.
          If you include construction (3 billion), utilization (0,5 billion) and crew costs ~ 0,4 billion here, it turns out that the life cycle of the coolest submarine in the world is 7,5 billion (against 30 -40 at the niece; 60-80 with an air wing)
          Quote: Nayhas
          How much did it take to develop new submarines and build them? Many, many, not even count.

          You can’t even count. The budget of the Navy of the USSR was many times less
          1. angolaforever
            angolaforever 19 November 2013 15: 45
            +2
            Doesn’t the submarine attached by the AUG detect and destroy our submarines when they try to launch?
            1. Santa Fe
              19 November 2013 20: 02
              0
              Quote: angolaforever
              Doesn’t the submarine attached by the AUG detect and destroy our submarines when they try to launch?

              With 50 km? What is interesting
              1. lucidlook
                lucidlook 25 November 2013 19: 41
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                With 50 km? What is interesting

                Mark 48 at least. Well, and if it really squeezes, the Americans can shoot at a suspicious area with nuclear ASROCs from ships, they will become.
          2. angolaforever
            angolaforever 19 November 2013 15: 46
            +2
            Doesn’t the submarine attached by the AUG detect and destroy our submarines when they try to launch?
    3. Botanologist
      Botanologist 18 November 2013 17: 22
      0
      Quote: Nayhas
      Supersonic b / h is launched in 20 km. to the target, therefore shooting at a maximum range of 220 km. The anti-ship missile system should fly 200 km, which will take from 16,6 minutes to 12,3 minutes, just a "car of time".


      And what will you do with this time car? Even if the AWACS aircraft reports a salvo, rockets will appear beyond 30 km on the radio horizon. to AUG. Further, in the last article, we calculated everything wink . A salvo from 12-16 anti-ship missiles is enough for the eyes to take off planes from the aircraft carrier to look for a new airfield soldier
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 19 November 2013 14: 56
        +1
        Quote: Botanologist
        And what will you do with this time car? Even if the AWACS aircraft reports a salvo, rockets will appear beyond 30 km on the radio horizon. to AUG. Further, in the last article, we calculated everything

        Yes, there is nothing terrible. If aviation does not have time to intercept, then the SM-6 on the guidance of the E-2D beyond the radio horizon. Already worked out.
        1. lucidlook
          lucidlook 24 November 2013 14: 07
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          Yes, there is nothing terrible. If aviation does not have time to intercept, then the SM-6 on the guidance of the E-2D beyond the radio horizon. Already worked out.

          Already tested the interception of high-speed low-flying maneuverable targets using SM-6? WHEN???

          Please note that it will be enough for the leading rocket to detect the AUG only once from a height of 15 km (the radio horizon is about 450 km), so that the entire order of "Granites" can make out who, how and where to hit. And they will no longer have to climb to such a height. And how to shoot them down at heights of about 25 meters? Phalanxes? wink
      2. Pajamas
        Pajamas 20 November 2013 01: 19
        +1
        Quote: Botanologist
        And what will you do with this time car? Even if the AWACS aircraft reports a salvo, missiles will appear over 30 km on the radio horizon. to AUG. Further, in the last article, we all cheated on wink. A salvo of 12-16 anti-ship missiles is enough for the eyes to take off planes from an aircraft carrier to look for a new soldier airfield

        It would be necessary for the Americans to report that there are 2 Aircraft carriers for each Ash-tree, and then until it returns to the base. A total of 5 Ashes guaranteed destruction of the US Navy. Amen.
    4. yur
      yur 18 November 2013 20: 36
      0
      Well, that's wonderful! Each new generation of submarines is more and more perfect.
    5. GSH-18
      GSH-18 23 November 2013 01: 45
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      Now about the cost. The aircraft carrier Enterprise has served the United States for 51 years. During this time, three generations of submarines with the Kyrgyz Republic changed in the USSR / Russia ...

      Strongly plus! yes
      It can also be added that it will be rather impossible than very difficult to approach a nuclear submarine to an aircraft carrier at a salvo range. Since even in peacetime, only a few commanders of our plARK received the Star of the Hero of the Russian Federation for such a maneuver! What to say about the military situation ?? Will they rush their breasts at the embrasure ?? How long is it possible? Or is it our national style "asymmetric response"? belay
  • Cormorants
    Cormorants 18 November 2013 10: 35
    +1
    I agree, we don’t need many AUGs, but one for each fleet would not be in the way, just in case, although now it’s not the Soviet Union that would have financed so many projects.
    1. silver_roman
      silver_roman 18 November 2013 14: 27
      +1
      Well, for example, on the black and Baltic sea, the presence of AUG is a controversial phenomenon. it will be crowded there!
  • Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 18 November 2013 10: 38
    +6
    I recognize Oleg. As always, on your favorite "anti-aircraft" skate ... wink This is already beginning to slowly resemble the textbook "Carthage must be destroyed" ... laughing laughing laughing
    But, be that as it may, the aircraft carriers were, are and will be in the fleets. And moreover, a very, very long time. For an indefinitely long time ... And this despite any articles, essays and stories ...
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 18 November 2013 10: 52
    +2
    In the sequel.
    In the process of the previous discussion, regarding the ability of Aegis to intercept NLCs, I pointed out to Oleg that actually, an Burke type EM as an aid to AN / SPY-1 had an AN / SPS-67 radar for detecting surface and low-flying targets. But this is also not so important because modern domestic ships do not use additional S-band radars to detect NLCs, they only need three-coordinate radars with headlamps of the Frigate-M2EM, Positive-ME1.2, Poliment-Redut and Furke types (though they were counted). It is foolish to think that our radars with headlamps are superior to radars with headlamps AN / SPY-1 in my opinion, as well as to say that Aegis cannot intercept NLCs.
    About Aegis interception of supersonic anti-ship missiles:
    TUCSON, Ariz., May 14, 2013 / PRNewswire / - Raytheon Company's (NYSE: RTN) Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) destroyed a high-diving, supersonic threat during a recent firing from the US Navy's Self-Defense Test Ship.
    If in our opinion: "An upgraded shipborne anti-aircraft missile ESSM (Evolved SeaSparrow Missile), developed by Raytheon, during the recent tests of the self-defense system of one of the US Navy ships hit a supersonic target in the dive site."
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 November 2013 11: 22
      +4
      Quote: Nayhas
      Raytheon hit a supersonic target in the dive site during a recent self-defense test on a US Navy ship. "

      The dive site is never a low-flying target. We have the same "termite" that is ever-memorable rushing to itself at an altitude of almost half a kilometer, and having noticed the target, it begins to dive at it. And what, we now write it in low-flying?
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 23 November 2013 02: 15
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The dive site is never a low-flying target. We have the same "termite" that is ever-memorable rushing to itself at an altitude of almost half a kilometer, and having noticed the target, it begins to dive at it. And what, we now write it in low-flying?

        Most likely, this means the final section of the trajectory, when the anti-ship missile system makes a "slide" to hit the superstructure or deck along a downward trajectory.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 November 2013 23: 23
          +2
          Quote: GSH-18
          Most likely it means the final section of the trajectory when the anti-ship missile system makes a "slide"

          It is completely excluded. No target will be sent so to dive on the ship
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 24 November 2013 23: 57
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            It is completely excluded. No target will be sent so to dive on the ship

            lol Apparently this happened ...
            1. rudolff
              rudolff 25 November 2013 00: 15
              +1
              Something similar was to the Pacific Fleet in '87, when the target missile destroyed the MRS Monsoon. Killed 39 sailors.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 November 2013 15: 46
              +1
              So this mistake was clearly :)
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 18 November 2013 12: 20
      +5
      Quote: Nayhas
      hit a supersonic target in the dive site
      On this site, you must not DESTROY the target, but DESTROY it completely. Or cool to change its trajectory. Otherwise, this pile of explosive trash will still fall to where it was aiming. And it will only do much less harm than not damaged at all
    3. Botanologist
      Botanologist 18 November 2013 17: 32
      +6
      Quote: Nayhas
      About interception of Aegis supersonic anti-ship missiles


      you confuse soft with warm. Aegis is actually a "long arm" of air defense, with a claim to missile defense. What kind of missile is "in the dive site"? Yes, an anti-missile at a distance of 1 km. will not discard the boosters of the first stage fool , and the homing head only turns on when you start the third stage, and you are going to let it go on the maneuvering target.
  • ed65b
    ed65b 18 November 2013 10: 57
    +5
    No one says that absolutely not. The question is, do we need these tools in modern economic conditions and a dilapidated army? The whole history of Russia proves that the adversary always came to us by land. Can we first restore ground power, and then think about AUG?
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 18 November 2013 12: 23
      +3
      Quote: ed65b
      Do we need these tools in modern economic conditions and a dilapidated army?
      If the accounts of rulers and legislators were in such a state, one could agree with this. And now those - all in chocolate. And it was not the external crisis that caused the economy and the army in these conditions ... request
      1. ed65b
        ed65b 18 November 2013 21: 05
        -1
        You are from another opera, dear. Read carefully.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 18 November 2013 21: 36
          +2
          Quote: ed65b
          You are from another opera, dear. Read carefully.

          What exactly to read? When a ruler becomes poorer TOGETHER with his country, this is a difficult economic situation. But when a country becomes poorer INSTEAD of its leaders, it is already called somewhat differently. Only with the reserves of Mrs. Vasilyeva's "cheek pouches" can a modern combat ship be built and maintained. And how many "Vasilievs" like that are rubbing around the leadership now? Or are their leaders poorer than their subordinates? lol What other state can the economy and the army be at such a speed of enrichment of leadership?
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 19 November 2013 11: 28
      +2
      Quote: ed65b
      The whole history of Russia proves that the adversary always came to us by land.
      Whoever turns out to be the next concrete "foe" nowadays cannot be reached by land to reach his inspirer and sponsor. And in the absence of means of restoring order THERE (not total destruction, it is easier with this, namely, putting things in order), in any case, Russia remains in the obviously losing role of the defender request
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 18 November 2013 10: 59
    0
    "(c) -" Desert Storm "- 2600 combat aircraft and combat support aircraft. 70 sorties. The contribution of carrier-based aircraft (000 AUG) - 6%;

    - Yugoslavia - 1000 units of aircraft. 35 sorties. The contribution of carrier-based aircraft is 000%. "

    And if you count the percentage of the US Air Force? Only American aircraft carriers operated. In the "Desert" 1500 US aircraft, in Yugoslavia approx. 500 - the percentage will increase significantly, even if the departures of transport aviation are considered plus coastal aviation, then aircraft carriers will do at least a third of the work,
    1. Santa Fe
      18 November 2013 14: 18
      -1
      Quote: Tlauicol
      And if you calculate the percentage of the US Air Force?

      It will give little.

      83 aircraft identified the British Air Force, 37 - French Air Force. Several aircraft were allocated by Germany, Italy, Belgium, Qatar.
      Saudi Air Force included the 89 of the outdated F-5 and 71 fighters. The F-15 fighter.


      The US Air Force pulled the entire operation
      Quote: Tlauicol
      even if the departures of transport aviation are considered plus coastal aviation, the aircraft carriers will do at least a third of the work,

      Well then, it’s worth considering the sorties helicopters "Apache"that over the first night four corridors were laid in the air defense system of Iraq

      - At the same time, we will take into account the difference in the combat load of the F-111 and the deck Hornet
      - the difference in the shock capabilities of deck A-7 and land A-10 "Thunderbolt"
      - the difference in the detection capabilities of the E-3 Sentry and the E-2 Hawkeye
      - we will take into account that carrier-based aviation was refueled by air force tankers (otherwise, it would not have flown from the Red Sea)


      Navy aircraft refueling from a stratotanker, Operation Desert Storm

      As a result, 6 AUG (the seventh - Forrestal, came a little later) flew 12 flights out of 000 flights of the Coalition. That's the whole cost of talking about "conquerors" and "projecting power anywhere in the world." They stayed idle for six months, waited until all the Air Force of the Coalition gathered
      Quote: Tlauicol
      in Yugoslavia approx. Xnumx

      In Yugoslavia, "T. Roosevelt" came only on the 12th day of the war

      Hornets of the United States Marine Corps at Sheikh Isa Air Force Base, Bahrain, Persian Gulf, 1991
      1. Delta
        Delta 18 November 2013 15: 58
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        At the same time, we will take into account the difference in the combat load of the F-111 and the deck Hornet
        - the difference in the shock capabilities of deck A-7 and land A-10 "Thunderbolt"


        and to compare a heavy tank with a light one will be just as correct? especially if you recall their different purposes

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        They have been inactive for six months, waiting for all the Coalition Air Force to gather


        Oleg, the fact that they "stood and waited for everyone" and even more so - "were afraid" - this is your speculation. The reasons for this "standing on the waters" were once voiced by representatives of the US Defense Ministry or the command of the Coalition forces?
        1. Santa Fe
          18 November 2013 16: 26
          +1
          Quote: Delta
          and to compare a heavy tank with a light one will be just as correct? especially if you recall their different purposes

          The purpose was one - hit, destroy the war machine of Iraq. Deckers proved to be weaklings

          by the way, light tanks quickly disappeared from the battlefield.
          Quote: Delta
          once voiced by representatives of the United States Department of Defense or the command of the Coalition forces?

          US troop transfer begins in August 1990
          UNO directive was in November
          The war began on January 17 next year

          According to the logic of things, it was necessary to strike back as soon as possible, to complicate the deployment. not give Iraqis a chance to gain a foothold in Kuwait
          How much did they stand and wait - obviously from the numbers. They alone would not do anything. They washed their face with blood, but did not stop the advance for a minute
          1. Delta
            Delta 18 November 2013 16: 32
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            There was only one purpose - to strike, destroy the military power of Iraq


            correctly. And everyone did it his own way. Why don’t you blame transport helicopters for not destroying a single object?)) Hornet is a light attack aircraft. And blame him for the fact that he will never become F-111 .....

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            by the way, light tanks quickly disappeared from the battlefield.


            not so fast. Everything has its own era. Aircraft carriers will also probably leave in due time. But until that time has come

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            According to the logic of things, it was necessary to strike back as soon as possible, to complicate the deployment. not give Iraqis a chance to gain a foothold in Kuwait
            How much did they stand and wait - obviously from the numbers. They alone would not do anything.



            Oleg, this is your logic and reasoning. Why the command of the Coalition so decided was not officially announced. And then - with what fright throw yourself with small forces, if you can do it with more forces? nothing was threatened by the Coalition member countries, so they could wait to avoid big losses. This is the logic of things
            1. Santa Fe
              18 November 2013 17: 10
              -1
              Quote: Delta
              Hornet - light attack aircraft. And blame him for the fact that he will never become F-111 .....

              Well done, deck clowns do not have their own counterpart F-111
              As there are no analogues F-22, A-10, F-15C, F-15E, E-8 JSTARS, RC-135W, U-2 ...

              There are only light stormtroopers and cheap show-offs.
              Quote: Delta
              not so fast.

              but how many people were killed — their own crews. until we realized at all levels that a light tank is nonsense. Same as Soviet-style BMP and armored personnel carrier
              Quote: Delta
              And then - with what fright throw yourself with small forces, if you can do it with more forces?

              What are we talking about. All the tales of "quick response" and "power projection" are nothing more than fairy tales.
              All operations are always carried out with feeling, properly, with separation. Otherwise - Dieppe beach and Grozny-95
              Quote: Delta
              nothing threatened the Coalition member countries

              nitsche yourself

              Saddam there threatened to throw the whole region with Skadami:
              3300 apartments and other buildings in Israel were damaged or destroyed. 4 people became victims of rocket attacks in Israel, another 300 were injured. Only one attack had a significant result - the rocket hit the American barracks in the city of Dharam, killing 28 American soldiers and injuring two hundred more

              There was no doubt that Saddam was frostbitten - what is the cost of the invasion of Kuwait and the shelling of the frigate "Stark"
              1. Delta
                Delta 18 November 2013 17: 14
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Saddam there threatened to throw the whole region with Skadami:


                I meant the territory of the States, Europe and the inhabitants of these territories. Israel, as you say, doesn’t count). Moreover, with such a scanty result.
                1. Santa Fe
                  18 November 2013 17: 47
                  -1
                  Quote: Delta
                  I meant the territory of the States

                  But nothing that the use of Scuds and chemistry could impede the deployment of troops
                  (it’s no coincidence that the Paris Weather Bureau stopped publishing weather reports in the Persian Gulf region, believing that Saddam would do this)
                  1. Delta
                    Delta 18 November 2013 17: 53
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    But nothing that the use of Scuds and chemistry could impede the deployment of troops


                    and where is the territory of the States and Europe? where is the threat to their population?
                    1. Santa Fe
                      18 November 2013 18: 01
                      -1
                      Quote: Delta
                      and where is the territory of the States and Europe?

                      here is the territory of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain
                      where MILLION Coalition soldiers from 44 countries are deployed
                      1. Delta
                        Delta 18 November 2013 18: 21
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        here is the territory of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain
                        where MILLION Coalition soldiers from 44 countries are deployed


                        recall my comment above:
                        Quote: Delta
                        I meant the territory of the States, Europe and the inhabitants of these territories.


                        was something threatening them? it’s clear that there is always a threat to expeditionary forces
                      2. Santa Fe
                        18 November 2013 18: 30
                        -1
                        Quote: Delta
                        then there is always a threat to expeditionary forces

                        And you need to get rid of it as soon as possible

                        Let them fly. will quickly kill all the Skuds, Iraqi aviation and air defense, if it interferes
                  2. ATATA
                    ATATA 18 November 2013 19: 01
                    -1
                    Quote: Delta
                    and where is the territory of the States and Europe? where is the threat to their population?

                    There are ballistic missiles for this.
                    1. Delta
                      Delta 18 November 2013 19: 13
                      +1
                      Quote: ATATA
                      There are ballistic missiles for this.


                      if you follow the discussion, you probably could have noticed this:

                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Saddam there threatened to throw the whole region with Skadami:


                      but this was the answer to this:

                      Quote: Delta
                      with what fright do you throw yourself with small forces, if you can do it with more forces? nothing was threatened by the Coalition member countries, so they could wait to avoid big losses
                    2. ATATA
                      ATATA 19 November 2013 01: 20
                      0
                      Saddam had no intercontinental missiles with nuclear multiple warheads.
                    3. Delta
                      Delta 19 November 2013 03: 24
                      +1
                      Quote: ATATA
                      Saddam had no intercontinental missiles with nuclear multiple warheads.



                      :) You did not understand. Let's drive through
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 18 November 2013 16: 00
    +1
    and that, without Roosevelt, the mighty Air Force could not cope? :)) Apparently not, since they increased their numbers by 2,5 times from the original
    1. Santa Fe
      18 November 2013 16: 29
      -1
      Quote: Tlauicol
      and that, without Roosevelt, the mighty Air Force could not cope? :)) Apparently not, since they increased their numbers by 2,5 times from the original

      But what does Roosevelt have to do with it?

      Roosevelt’s appearance did not affect anything; its significance turned out to be symbolic. Despite the fact that the 71 airplane and 8 turntables, the Yankees could safely place at bases in Italy
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 18 November 2013 16: 48
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Despite the fact that 71 aircraft and 8 turntables, the Yankees could safely place at bases in Italy
        Do you think the US command did not know about this? wink
        1. Santa Fe
          18 November 2013 17: 48
          -1
          Quote: Misantrop
          Do you think the US command did not know about this?

          It was necessary to apply AB. Confirm, so to speak, its necessity.
          The layman will not count the number of sorties
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 18 November 2013 18: 15
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It was necessary to apply AB. Confirm, so to speak, its necessity.
            And why then there are not gathered in a crowd ALL the aircraft carriers on the move? "Confirmation" would be even cooler wassat
            1. Santa Fe
              18 November 2013 18: 31
              +1
              Quote: Misantrop
              And why then there are not gathered in a crowd ALL the aircraft carriers on the move? "Confirmation" would be even cooler

              What are you! What are you! Bring them out to sea - Pentagon annual budget
              One is enough for a demonstration. On the 12th day of the war
  • iwind
    iwind 18 November 2013 11: 02
    +4
    OOO Again this is the eternal theme of the carrier ....
    But that’s why it’s strange that they want to be in the geopolitical arena, and most importantly, they want to build in the oceans or already have an aircraft carrier. Whether they are stupidwhether the aircraft carrier is not so useless.
    Yes, it’s very curious why Oleg Kaptsov has everything to become in a year and a half, completely reversed the polarity from + to -......
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 18 November 2013 11: 07
      +3
      Quote: iwind
      But that’s why it’s strange that they want to be in the geopolitical arena, and most importantly, they want to build in the oceans or already have aircraft carriers.

      Because aircraft carriers increase the stability of the Navy by an order of magnitude, increase the radius of action, situational awareness, and much more.
      1. Petrix
        Petrix 18 November 2013 12: 21
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        Because aircraft carriers increase the stability of the Navy by an order of magnitude, increase the radius of action, situational awareness, and much more.

        Increase, but at what cost? The whole debate about expediency. An aircraft carrier is good, like any high-tech project. But the goals are different for Russia and the United States. USA - attack, Russia - defense. This is currently geopolitics. Therefore, we will build aircraft carriers when we repel an attack to develop a counterattack, if by that time they would not become obsolete as battleships and battleships in due time.
    2. Santa Fe
      18 November 2013 14: 51
      +1
      Quote: iwind
      Yes, it’s very curious why Oleg Kaptsov has everything to become in a year and a half, completely reversed the polarity from + to -......

      - received data on "Desert Storm" (the ratio of the number of sorties)
      - acquaintance with Hendrix’s monograph (US Navy caperang, many of the ideas I voiced belong to him)
      - some comments about the use of AB in World War II, the Falklands, etc.

      It turned out that deck clowns are useless in local wars. The last hope remained - AUGs are a means to naval warfare. Hope dissipated, I barely saw this:

      Map of US military bases. What then mean 10 pelvis with nonsamoletics? (of which five are usually under repair)
      1. Delta
        Delta 18 November 2013 16: 12
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Map of US military bases. What then means 10 pelvis with nonsamoletics?


        and here again the question arises, to which you, the day before yesterday, did not clearly answer: you yourself recognized the practicality of the Americans, but at the same time you insist that an aircraft carrier is a useless and even harmful thing. For the budget. Somehow does not fit
        1. Santa Fe
          18 November 2013 16: 34
          -1
          Quote: Delta
          You yourself recognized the practicality of Americans, but at the same time you insisted that an aircraft carrier is a useless and even harmful thing. For the budget. Somehow does not fit

          Well I already answered in that comment. The Yankees, like everyone, have their own successes and miscalculations. For various reasons.

          The fact that Av is an obvious miscalculation is evident from the figures and facts from military use
  • My address
    My address 18 November 2013 11: 29
    +3
    The author is in many ways right.

    Plus I will add as a producer.
    Aircraft carrier is a huge modern workshop with a bunch of communications. Moreover, located nearby and mutually hazardous (fuel lines, steam, compressed air, electric cables). It is not possible to carry communications and protect armor, and not increase the displacement by one and a half to two times.
    In the workshop, after a local fire, or something like that, for good you need to stop everything within a radius of 50 meters. Carry out an audit and only after putting in order start up the equipment. This takes, at best, from 10 hours. Failure to take preventive measures can result in a major accident. But in the workshop it would never occur to anyone to lead a power cable even next to equipment cooling water; there is the possibility of spreading communications.
    So getting one KR into the center of an aircraft carrier will put him out of action for a day. Even if the warhead is in 20 kg of TNT. I believe that the aircraft carrier is very fire hazard.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 18 November 2013 11: 31
    +1
    What the dispute is about is not very clear. Hypothetically, in theory, yes, the aircraft carrier is drowned by a submarine using standard weapons. In practice, apparently not. Let's imagine the beginning of the database. At the start, all the necessary forces must be deployed in positions. Do they have these necessary forces? Let's say there are 3 submarines for 1 AUG, there are 15 submarines in operational readiness, and how many are in general combat-ready? Otherwise it will be like this. Breaking through the veil of the enemy submarine at the exit from the base, entering the specified area. Obtaining target designation according to intelligence data where to go to intercept. Transition. Target attack. Breaking through the veil of enemy submarines, will it pass without losses? Will SPs be pursued at the transition to the duty point? Will they be able to get a command center, and will it be, will the necessary reconnaissance means, nodes and communication points remain by that time? Will you fight the submarines while moving to intercept? Is the PLO of the AUG compound being carried out, what will be the losses at all stages, how many boats will reach the target? Let's say if 3 out of 5 aircraft carriers are sunk, it is a success or failure. But the fun begins later. Aircraft carriers are a weapon of domination at sea, and domination on land is achieved by ground operations and amphibious assault forces, plus their supply of means of warfare by sea. We have exchanged most (if not all) of our submarines in the fight against the AUG, and now what are we going to wage an unlimited submarine war with? And the "Varshavyanki" attacking the aircraft carrier is generally beyond the bounds, if only the aircraft carrier will go along the coast with a 10-key course and accidentally run into it.
    1. Petrix
      Petrix 18 November 2013 12: 53
      +5
      Quote: chunga-changa
      We exchanged most (if not all) of our submarines in the fight against AUG and now what are we going to conduct an unlimited submarine warfare with?

      It may well be that the aircraft carriers advertise that the enemy put all their forces into sinking (or a symmetrical response). As Japan, in due time, fettered troops in the Far East during the Second World War. How does the USA conquer Russia? If you do not take into account nuclear war, then the allied ground forces will fight. It is impossible to land a sufficient amount of American troops on the shore (millions of soldiers are needed throughout Russia).
      There is still a reliable option - to finish economically. The construction of aircraft carriers in Russia in the hands of the Americans.
      The third option, also running - internal separatism. Here, aircraft carriers are also not needed.

      There is no need to fight for resources on some islands of Russia; there are enough of them. Helping allies in Latin America with hot spots near their borders is stupid.

      Let them build their aircraft carriers, they need a lot of aircraft carriers to surround Russia from the sea. It is easier for Russia to increase the number of missiles in a salvo when basing carriers on the shore. They need to climb to us, and Russia is self-sufficient. Better to spend these billions on the development of the space, economic or anti-terrorist directions.
  • andrey777
    andrey777 18 November 2013 11: 47
    +1
    A very large and expensive target.
  • My address
    My address 18 November 2013 12: 30
    -2
    Dear forum users! hi

    Many of you have seen in nature or on the set how the ATGM works. In the 70s, I saw how then the new "Fagot" pierced up to 500 mm and "mowed" the grass for tens of meters behind the target. good
    If a dozen modern tandem ATGMs enter the aircraft carrier’s side, the cranes will come quickly. Not the first, so another tenth solarium will find. And how to bring them to the side of a floating airfield, full of diesel fuel, you can think of. And cheap and cheerful. No Volcano Phalanx will help. This is not treated. wassat
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 18 November 2013 12: 41
    +6
    Oleg loves to build on our former power, or on the ephemeral power of our foggy future. That's only 11 AB in the United States and now, and the PLO and missile defense fleet is being improved every day. What about us? To date ? 3-4 combat-ready Batons for two oceans, and raw Ash, which so far after each exit eliminates the flaws. For him now it’s not up to AUG to sneak up, but simply to leave the base and return undetected is already success. He seemed to shoot back with a caliber, but Onyx tried twice - unsuccessfully. Well, we will accept one without basic weapons. Is that enough for the US Navy? Hardly.
    Oleg solves the problem with TsU: they say, we put up a screen at European ports (how many boats do we have?). Yeah, with the full connivance of the PLO of the Europeans themselves and the United States. Such a meager chance that AUG without suspecting anything, will run into a couple of our rare boats and get hit is possible only if we follow the example of the Nazis - i.e. attack yourself in peacetime. True to the next. day we have to fight with the whole world.
    Starting missiles point blank, with 30km? But what is the rate of fire of the PU? then a simultaneous mass attack will simply lose its meaning - the missiles simply will not have time to line up for this and will go one after another. And they will be shot down in turn.
    EW is not taken into account at all, but it will be. The truth is only with the Yankees - our planes will not hang with impunity over Europe without their bases or their own aircraft carriers!
    in short: "it was smooth on paper .."
    1. PLO
      PLO 18 November 2013 12: 48
      +1
      For him, now it’s not up to AUG to sneak up, but simply to leave the base and return unnoticed is already a success

      hmm .. same stump side view negative

      He seemed to shoot back with a caliber, but Onyx tried twice - unsuccessfully.

      He hasn’t shot onyx yet
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 18 November 2013 13: 05
        -1
        December11, November12 - of course I didn’t shoot, because it didn’t work out.
        1. PLO
          PLO 18 November 2013 17: 38
          0
          December11, November12 - of course I didn’t shoot, because it didn’t work out.
          c
          where did you get the idea that they shot onyx, and not caliber?
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 18 November 2013 18: 16
            0
            http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/Severodvinsk_2011_01.html
          2. tlauicol
            tlauicol 18 November 2013 18: 18
            0
            http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/Severodvinsk_2011_01.html
            1. PLO
              PLO 18 November 2013 18: 37
              0
              this is just a collection of quotes from the media. plus news about Onyx for authorship of the news and for 2013, i.e. actually the value is information below zero

              better read this forum
              http://forums.airbase.ru/2004/08/t70309,48--podvodnye-lodki-proekta-885.html

              information from May 2013 that Onyx shooting is possible in August 2013
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 18 November 2013 18: 51
                0
                if you read, you would know about the planned firing in August (which Onyx did not take place again)
                1. PLO
                  PLO 18 November 2013 19: 06
                  0
                  I read everything on the search for the word Onyx, I did not find anything like it
                  I think you will not be difficult to lay out a quote?
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 18 November 2013 19: 18
                    0
                    01.05.2013
                    The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy and the Sevmash Production Association will test the new 2013 Yasen multipurpose nuclear submarine Severodvinsk at the end of August 885 for the possibility of launching the P-800 Onyx anti-ship supersonic cruise missiles. According to the Izvestia newspaper, the missile will be launched using the SM-343 universal naval firing system with vertical launch mines.
                    A newspaper source in the Russian Navy said that the fate of the new submarines, the specifications of which indicate that they should be armed with Caliber and Onyx missiles, will depend on the tests. Onyx is currently the only fully-made missile that meets the requirements of the Navy. In the future, P-800 missiles will be used to attack ground and sea targets; For this, it is necessary to change the homing head on it.
                    The first test launches of missiles from Severodvinsk took place in December 2011. Then the submarine launched a caliber missile launch, but failed to launch the Onyx missiles. In November 2012, the Caliber rockets were successfully launched on ground targets, but the firing complex was again not ready to launch the P-800.
                    1. PLO
                      PLO 18 November 2013 19: 20
                      0
                      and?
                      where is the information here on Onix's unsuccessful launches in August?

                      but the launch of the Onyx missiles failed.

                      news .. how much is in this word
                      would have succeeded if they hadn’t been shot at all
                      1. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 18 November 2013 19: 36
                        0
                        Did I say that they shot in August? This commander in chief promised - And ???
                        I wrote that at 11 and 12 they tried, both times unsuccessfully. promises went on as soon as so right away. And nothing has changed
                      2. PLO
                        PLO 18 November 2013 19: 57
                        0
                        I wrote that at 11 and 12 they tried, both times unsuccessfully

                        but I say that they didn’t shoot Onyx at all, so talking about unsuccessful attempts is pointless
                        They promised to shoot only in August and there is no information on the results yet.
                      3. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 18 November 2013 20: 03
                        0
                        of course did not shoot

                        start over :

                        "December11, November12 - of course I didn't shoot, because it didn't work out"

                        but infa about the successful launch by Caliber from the boat and the launch of Onyx from the Bastion immediately appeared. stop persisting already
                      4. PLO
                        PLO 18 November 2013 20: 14
                        0
                        but infa about the successful launch by Caliber from the boat and the launch of Onyx from the Bastion immediately appeared. stop persisting already

                        test information is such a thing that it appears it is not guaranteed, and is not guaranteed reliably
                        and this is not perseverance, the source cited by me is much more reliable
                      5. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 19 November 2013 05: 01
                        0
                        and what is your source - one of my favorites, by the way - refutes my words? They tried - it didn’t work out twice, in general the launches did not take place, they promised in August - they are silent. So the November firing without Onyx took place. The Maritime Forum was perplexed only yesterday.
                        Total: DEPL with Caliber we have ZERO! DEPL with Onyx - zero! Premier League Onyx - Zero! Submarine with Caliber - almost one (not yet accepted)
                        What kind of aircraft carriers do you guys have?
                      6. PLO
                        PLO 19 November 2013 09: 20
                        +1
                        Yes, it refutes it.
                        try reviewing again.
                        say Severodvinsk shot Onyx for the first time on November 6, successfully.
                        the difference between an unsuccessful attempt and its absence is fundamental, and there were no attempts to launch Onyx in fact, if you still haven’t understood it, try to read it again
                      7. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 19 November 2013 09: 50
                        0
                        Whoa, stop! no sophistry!
                        If they weren’t going to shoot at all, then it’s understandable (only from this Onyx will not get into service). And after all, they tried twice - and could not start - is this not an unsuccessful attempt, in your opinion? then what?
                        and they say about the successful attempt to shoot Caliber, and not Onyx November 6th. and even the link cited http://www.itar-tass.com/arhiv/646267. total two unsuccessful attempts December11, November12
                        Do you yourself read what you refer to and what do you trust?
                      8. PLO
                        PLO 19 November 2013 10: 47
                        0
                        If they weren’t going to shoot at all, then it’s understandable (only from this Onyx will not get into service). And after all, they tried twice - and could not start - is this not an unsuccessful attempt, in your opinion? then what?

                        you are involved in sophistry
                        An unsuccessful launch is when a rocket is loaded into a silo, a button is pressed, and instead of flying as it should, it either does not fly or does not fly as it should.
                        this was not
                        accordingly, talking about the unsuccessful launches of Onyx is pointless

                        and they say about the successful attempt to shoot Caliber, and not Onyx November 6th. and even the link cited http://www.itar-tass.com/arhiv/646267. total two unsuccessful attempts December11, November12
                        Do you yourself read what you refer to and what do you trust?

                        Well, why do you need me a link to the news for November 7 2012 years give.
                        read carefully what you post
                        about successful launches Caliber has been known for a long time.
                        and itar tass a more reliable source compared to the yellow news about Onyx did not even stutter, because there were no launches
                      9. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 19 November 2013 16: 23
                        0
                        It happened! Onyx launched from Severodvinsk. By the way, about an unsuccessful attempt, it is also said, you are my stubborn one. But still, the news is good!

                        http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/43743/
                      10. PLO
                        PLO 19 November 2013 18: 23
                        0
                        It happened! Onyx launched from Severodvinsk. By the way, about an unsuccessful attempt, it is also said, you are my stubborn one. But still, the news is good!

                        hmm .. a giraffe compared to you is just the top of quick wits
                        the fact that there was a successful launch on November 6 I wrote to you in the morning, this information appeared at the air base yesterday, as well as the fact that it was the first launch from Severodvinsk, and before there were no attempts at all.

                        your link to the news will not help you

                        We tried to launch Onyx from the first Ashen in 2010, but due to technical problems with the weapons complex and universal launcher, this did not work out, an officer of the Navy’s command and control unit familiar with the situation told the publication.

                        "an officer familiar with the situation" exists only in the head of their main storyteller after violent libations
                        the fact that they reprint this nonsense with enviable persistence will not make it true lol
                      11. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 19 November 2013 18: 46
                        0
                        Are you probably a prophet? The news appeared today, including and on the Marine forum. And yesterday you erroneously discussed an article there a year ago
                        and refrain from insults
                      12. PLO
                        PLO 19 November 2013 18: 49
                        0
                        Are you probably a prophet? The news appeared today, including and on the Marine forum. And yesterday you erroneously discussed an article there a year ago
                        and refrain from insults


                        Are you sure you can read?
                        what's this?
                        November 18, 2013 20.56

                        http://forums.airbase.ru/2004/08/t70309,52--podvodnye-lodki-proekta-885.html#p32
                        94327

                        so far I can say that you are really the target audience of news
                      13. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 19 November 2013 19: 34
                        0
                        Belomor # 18.11.2013/20/56 18.11.2013:20 @ Scar # 25/XNUMX/XNUMX XNUMX:XNUMX






                        Belomor


                        November 6th yet. - It ?

                        I just could not even imagine such a source of information in a nightmare. and you, too, apparently -
                        I would not want to catch you by the hand, but did you prove here yesterday and this morning that there were no launches? (10:47 last)
                      14. PLO
                        PLO 19 November 2013 19: 44
                        0
                        this is this
                        and this source of information hinted about the successful launch of Onyx on November 8, and yesterday it was confirmed
                        so I have hundreds of times more reasons to trust him than you and shitty news


                        I would not want to catch you by the hand, but did you prove here yesterday and this morning that there were no launches?

                        you can’t catch my hand with all your desire,
                        I argued that until August of this year there were no real attempts to shoot Onyx
                        (10:47 last)

                        and you noticed the post at 9.20 where did I inform you about the launch on November 6?
                        In a subsequent post, I again reported that before this there were no launches
              2. Good Ukraine
                Good Ukraine 20 November 2013 03: 51
                0
                Quote: Tlauicol
                By the way, and about an unsuccessful attempt, it is also said, you are my stubborn

                You yourself write "unsuccessful attempt".
                I hope you distinguish a failed attempt from a failed launch?
                Below is the text of the message. Specify specifically - where is it said about unsuccessful launches of "Onyx"?

                Severodvinsk fired at the long-awaited Onyx
                Shipbuilders took three years of testing to fulfill the requirements of sailors. As the Military Industrial Courier correspondent told the High Command of the Russian Navy, during state tests on November 6 this year, the newest nuclear submarine of the Yasen project 885 Severodvinsk for the first time launched the Onyx supersonic anti-ship missile. Repeated firing is scheduled for the next two to three days.
                “We tried to launch Onyx from the first Ash tree back in 2010, but due to technical problems with the weapon system and universal launcher, this did not work out,” an officer of the Navy’s commander-in-chief familiar with the situation told the publication.
                According to him, the military refused to accept "Severodvinsk" if "Onyx" is not included in its armament set.
                “Now the tests have been successful, all systems have worked normally,” the source said.

  • The comment was deleted.
  • Petrix
    Petrix 18 November 2013 13: 12
    0
    Quote: Tlauicol
    That's only 11 AB in the United States and now, and the PLO and missile defense fleet is being improved every day. What about us?

    So what is also to close the production of submarines, to cut the existing backlogs, to suspend the work of various design bureaus and to devote all efforts to creating an aircraft carrier? And it will be even more beautiful - there are no submarines and cover ships, a crude aircraft carrier with an indefinite application strategy, an eternal search for funds for its maintenance.
    Quote: Tlauicol
    Oleg solves the problem with TsU: they say, put up a barrier at European ports (how many boats do we have?)

    That's right. There are few boats, and they need to be built and built. What are the aircraft carriers?

    Quote: Tlauicol
    The truth is only with the Yankees - our planes will not hang with impunity over Europe without their bases or their own aircraft carriers!

    Why do ours hang over not our territory. First, the territory expands and "hangs" over the allied countries. Let the Yankees hang over the Urals, for example. Even over Syria, and even then they can not.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 18 November 2013 16: 30
      0
      Did I offer to build aircraft carriers? Pfffff .. we are building corvettes with sin in half.
      I suggest descending from heaven to earth and not threatening frail little hands - after all, they begin to laugh at us
  • Santa Fe
    18 November 2013 14: 32
    0
    Quote: Tlauicol
    Oleg solves the problem with TsU: they say, we’ll put up a screen at European ports

    Space.

    MCRC is outdated. We need satellites with passive data collection systems (RTR, aerial reconnaissance - visible range, IR). Russian "Liana". Chinese analogue MKRTS for "Dongfeng-21", American NOSS (Wall Cloud)

    Despite all the objections and fantasies about the high secrecy and invulnerability of the AUG (Pearl Harbor!), The modern AUG with its AN / SPY-1, drive systems and radio communication with the Aviation "glows" like a Christmas tree. I'm not even talking about the wake of the aircraft carrier, which is kept in the ocean for several days.


    BOD wake



    Wake of the yacht. Now figure out which cable will reach for 100 000 ton AB and as it is seen from space



    Radar image of the situation in the Strait of Gibraltar. Active Radar Satellite


    American satellites of the Naval Ocean Surveillance System (NOSS), 2011 (photo looks like "Iridium outbreak")
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 18 November 2013 16: 13
      +1
      Of course space! who is against it!
      only this again: an auto-quote "from our former power, or from the ephemeral power of our foggy future." Dreams are shorter
      but for now it remains only for a certain number of years to talk about the "weakness" of the Americans

      You, Oleg, about the power of the Indians, for example, also painted beautifully - you "stuffed" them Brahmos into submarines and under the wings - only THIS IS NOTHING, and when it will be is unknown. We cannot accept the submarine Onyx ourselves, let alone the air one ... Neither Onyx, nor Yakhont, nor Brahmos have dropped a single model, and already the Indian squadrons are "arming"
      1. Santa Fe
        18 November 2013 16: 39
        0
        Quote: Tlauicol
        end of quote. Dreams are shorter

        In something you are right. Hypothetical dispute: funds are available, for example 22 trillion. GOZ - how to spend it more efficiently. Initially, it is understood that the country's defense industry is weaker than the US defense industry
        Quote: Tlauicol
        Only NOTHING FOR THIS

        "Sindurakshak" killed in Mumbai was carrying a set of anti-ship missiles Club (Caliber)
        Indian Warsaw women have long been armed with this complex
        Quote: Tlauicol
        but for now it remains only for a certain number of years to talk about the "weakness" of the Americans

        Yankees have worse.
        They have no prospects to apply all this military junk. Despite the fact that military junk eats billions daily
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 18 November 2013 17: 44
          0
          Hooray ! I'm right about something!

          You answer me about Brahmosa. You are there above two or three regiments of the Air Force have already armed them.

          You can also talk about Caliber ... For example, how many of our diesel-electric submarines carry Caliber? AND ? For garlic? Indians with Vietnam or something will fight for us?
          Counting billions of others - Moveton
          1. Santa Fe
            18 November 2013 18: 04
            -1
            Quote: Tlauicol
            You are there above two or three regiments of the Air Force have already armed them.

            just a regiment, the rest are cover
            Quote: Tlauicol
            For example, how many of our diesel submarines are Caliber? BUT ? For garlic?

            for 2013 year? with GDP and kremlezhulik?
            certainly not a single
            Quote: Tlauicol
            Indians with Vietnam or something will fight for us?
            Counting billions of others - Moveton

            Quote:
            Hypothetical dispute: funds are available, for example 22 trillion. GOZ - how to spend it more efficiently. Initially, it is understood that the country's defense industry is weaker than the US defense industry
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 18 November 2013 18: 37
              +1
              Honest answer drinks Right: NONE. and no regiment. not even a single plane

              So you have a hypothetical attack on AUG
              1. Santa Fe
                18 November 2013 18: 51
                0
                Quote: Tlauicol
                So you have a hypothetical attack on AUG

                And the Yankees - the real standing of the AUGs in Norfolk
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 18 November 2013 19: 06
                  0
                  and with whom to fight? we are Paz.
                  they will wait another five years for the Chinese in Norfolk, and they will move to San Diego :))
                  1. Santa Fe
                    18 November 2013 19: 11
                    0
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    they will wait another five years for the Chinese in Norfolk, and they will move to San Diego :))

                    if by then the sequestration will not force to reduce their number to 6-8
                    1. tlauicol
                      tlauicol 18 November 2013 19: 24
                      0
                      we will see. while the stupid Yankees decided to build a new series of aircraft carriers (probably not completely lost faith in us)
                    2. Santa Fe
                      18 November 2013 19: 32
                      0
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      stupid Yankees decided to build a new series of aircraft carriers

                      With this, you can build a spaceship
                    3. tlauicol
                      tlauicol 18 November 2013 20: 07
                      0
                      But what about sequestration?
                    4. Santa Fe
                      19 November 2013 20: 04
                      0
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      But what about sequestration?

                      I think the Yankees just write off the debt. And everything will be as before
  • air wolf
    air wolf 18 November 2013 15: 34
    +2
    Yes, everything will be fine, and ash trees will be stamped, etc. There would only be an adequate head of state. Not some iPhone boy.
  • yur
    yur 18 November 2013 21: 10
    +1
    Sorry, but with all my pessimism, the war with the United States is unlikely to start in the next 2-3 hours. But in order that the situation described by you would not happen and the rearmament program is adopted.
  • Mikola
    Mikola 18 November 2013 13: 10
    +5
    It already looks like the author’s tantrum. ignoring facts against the author’s fantasies has already been proven more than once. Probably China, India, Brazil, Europe, which are constantly developing their AUG, the author refers to fools. But I am inclined to believe that Kaptsov’s hysteria is of a custom character. The leadership of the Russian military-industrial complex has a subflot lobby, which orders such articles so as not to share orders and money.
    1. Petrix
      Petrix 18 November 2013 13: 52
      +1
      Quote: Mikola
      China, India, Brazil, Europe, which are constantly developing their ACG

      They all need resources that lie outside their territories and look at the percentage of the coast and land borders. AUG for Russia is not bad, but you can tolerate it, but for these countries it is vital. There is a difference.
      Or in Arkhangelsk to drive convertibles? Well, not fools, they go to them in Sicily.
  • antonio
    antonio 18 November 2013 13: 51
    +4
    Again virtual wars, just WORLD OF TANK, for aircraft carriers! Superboats crash damn aircraft carriers one-two! Doesn't look like anything ..? But the film "Tractor Drivers" of the 30s is worth remembering.
  • MG42
    MG42 18 November 2013 13: 55
    +4
    Yes, continuation .. on the last thread of the author quite a few times the members of the forum corrected to put it mildly .. Since the speech in this part, incl. about USS Nimitz, you should probably watch a good video about this particular aircraft carrier >>
    The American aircraft carrier "Nimitz" is a very powerful warship, with 75 supersonic fighters on board. It was used as a deterrent, in addition, "Nimitz" has repeatedly participated in armed conflicts. She was transferred to the Navy in 1975 and became the first of ten aircraft carriers of its class. The current re-equipment of the ship, which cost $ 260 million, has returned it to the top.
    1. ATATA
      ATATA 18 November 2013 15: 58
      0
      Quote: MG42
      The American aircraft carrier "Nimitz" is a very powerful warship

      And why, this power, has not yet crushed Syria?
      Did Russia help? Good! But we do not have aircraft carriers.
      1. MG42
        MG42 18 November 2013 16: 20
        +4
        Quote: ATATA

        And why, this power, has not yet crushed Syria?

        It's a strange question, what was the political will for this >> there was a pause for the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria, this is a well-known fact, Nimitz took part in all phases of the operation in Iraq and not only there ... the combat experience was decent ..
        Everything else is measured mpx who is longer .. laughing
        It is necessary to consider more broadly why the American AUG is only against Russia, not at all >>> they move all over the globe where there are seas and oceans, and at the moment we need an American club as a world policeman ..
        The last time we recall the confrontation between Japan and China in the struggle for the disputed island, the United States then drove the AUG as an arbiter on the side of Japan and China retreated ..
        1. ATATA
          ATATA 18 November 2013 17: 02
          -3
          Quote: MG42
          A strange question, but what was the political will for that?

          This answer can justify anything.
          If I have indestructible power, then I always have the will to use it.
          1. Delta
            Delta 18 November 2013 17: 06
            +3
            Quote: ATATA
            If I have indestructible power, then I always have the will to use it.


            I go with a gun. I do not apply it. Why?
            1. ATATA
              ATATA 18 November 2013 17: 11
              -1
              Quote: Delta
              I go with a gun. I do not apply it. Why?

              Because if you do not justify it, you will be put on the wanted list, and then you will go to jail.
              And your example is not successful.
          2. MG42
            MG42 18 November 2013 17: 33
            +3
            After all, besides AUG USS Nimitz (CVN-68) there was also AUG USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)? there was still a lot of manpower and resources on land bases but there was no Obama go-ahead and the US Congress to conduct the operation.
            I’m saying a mobile projection of force around the globe where there are seas and oceans, the author narrowly considers against Russia, but Russia is not the USSR in geopolitics then there was a multipolar world, thanks to which there was a Warsaw Pact, Aug against Russia there the whole war will come down to the use of nuclear weapons. .
            Well-coordinated self-sufficient combat units, like the "Roman legions" in their time, can also unite in AUS in wartime ..
            1. MG42
              MG42 18 November 2013 17: 51
              +3
              P / S Russia and the military doctrine differs from the United States, hence Rogozin’s position on aircraft carriers in a different topic, and of course there is no printing press to rivet bucks ..
    2. lucidlook
      lucidlook 22 November 2013 00: 04
      0
      Quote: MG42
      on board of which 75 supersonic fighters are based.

      Please provide an example of the configuration of an air wing of any of the operating Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, which would have 75 supersonic fighters... I don’t remember a single one, but maybe my memory lets me down, suggesting that at best there were 48 of them, and during operations like "Desert Storm" there were 36!

      Well, and if we decided to watch spectacular videos about aircraft carriers here, here are my 5 kopecks. There is also about the Tu-22M3:

  • Walking
    Walking 18 November 2013 14: 04
    +4
    Maybe we just have to bring such a John McCain on every aircraft carrier, so that if something happens he launches a rocket in the hangar or drops a bomb wink and we will give him the title of Hero laughing
  • dnh70
    dnh70 18 November 2013 14: 06
    0
    useful article
  • shinobi
    shinobi 18 November 2013 14: 28
    0
    Since the mid-70s, our submarine fleet has been armed with a "Kit" torpedo, which was specially created to extinguish aircraft carriers. They can be fired from depths of up to 430 meters (try to get a boat at this depth first) from distances of 50-100 km, depending on the model. This device has one feature that is very unpleasant for large ships, it is guided along the wake, among other things. One hit breaks the cruiser in half. It was not even a question to shoot them with weapons.
    1. air wolf
      air wolf 18 November 2013 15: 31
      0
      They removed the torpedo data at the behest of the "striped friend", such as because of hydrogen peroxide, some kind of nonsense. Where is the General Staff looking?
      1. Delta
        Delta 18 November 2013 15: 45
        +1
        Quote: air wolf
        They removed the torpedo data at the direction of the "striped friend", such as because of hydrogen peroxide


        and the rest of the world refused them also because of striped friends?
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 18 November 2013 16: 32
          0
          Scandinavians successfully use peroxide.
    2. Walker1975
      Walker1975 18 November 2013 16: 03
      +1
      And how many submarines with these torpedoes are in combat readiness?
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 18 November 2013 17: 47
        0
        all Scandinavian + surface ships. just "Made In Mind". They break ships no worse than the American Mk48
  • Rinat 1
    Rinat 1 18 November 2013 14: 57
    +1
    Good article. I would like to read the opinion of experts.
  • Diesel
    Diesel 18 November 2013 15: 36
    -1
    Just remember the era of dreadnoughts, battleships, now the era of aircraft carriers, she did not have long to live)
  • erofich
    erofich 18 November 2013 15: 47
    0
    It is not clear why everyone pulls the blanket over themselves. Life has always shown that a compromise must be sought.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 18 November 2013 16: 17
    +1
    the article smiled, Oleg just so masterfully juggles everything that you wonder, and in combination with literary talent it does) Guys, you see everything is compared, why doesn’t anyone want to compare?
    Oleg brought, probably without suspecting it, a bunch of facts about the GREAT combat survivability of aircraft carriers, to withstand such explosions and damage, well, which ship is still capable of this? In the article, a bunch of examples, for example, in 1969, from NURS 127 detonated 9 bombs of 400 kg each, a disaster, but after a few hours the aircraft carrier continued to receive and send aircraft. Aircraft carrier is a big and tenacious ship! Well, let's compare which ships are better in this regard? Why doesn’t the author talk about the consequences of getting missiles into cruisers, destroyers?) Doesn’t tell about the number of victims on the submarine and from what sneeze (normal closure) the boats sank with dozens of victims? Where is the weakness of an aircraft carrier? Everyone has crashes and what, from this we conclude that the ship is not needed? So it is necessary to cut the entire fleet then, and be the first to withdraw from the Navy the nuclear submarines, as the largest collectors of human lives and the dough of the state.

    About universality in general, it’s even funny to compare because an aircraft carrier knows everything that an aircraft can do — its weapons, and the capabilities of aviation are well known to everyone. There are no nuclear submarines even nearby.

    Soviet naval commanders ordered missiles with fantastic characteristics of speed, intelligence and range, as well as a warhead per tonne because they understood the situation much better than we do, and here we are told how diesel-electric submarines will shoot AUGs from 50 km) Any serious simulation of such a situation in a real war, causes such a cloud of questions ...
    It is also known that the Soviet Navy constantly and urgently required the introduction of aircraft carriers! (well, illiterate people, Oleg did not read what to take from them))

    Tired of scribbling, Oleg just doesn’t want to understand (although he probably understands, but doesn’t recognize) that the Americans now have NO adversary! Hence the composition of the wing, hence the imprisonment of the fleet for strike missions along the coast, and hence the reluctance to fly from aircraft carriers, when there are excellent concrete runways around the world! Well, which one would do otherwise ?? Oleg has a desire to fly from the shore, a sign of the weakness of an aircraft carrier)

    PS And yet) So to have a cruiser of 30 thousand tons of displacement is the norm and quite cheap, to have boats of cyclopean sizes is the norm, but to have aircraft carriers to cover this good and high-quality multiple amplification is expensive and insane) As the hero of the film "White Guard "-" it's like a brother without pants and in a shako ")
    1. Delta
      Delta 18 November 2013 16: 22
      +3
      Quote: barbiturate
      to have boats of a cyclopean size - the norm, but to have aircraft carriers, to cover this good and quality multiple reinforcement - is expensive and crazy


      it’s just that now many people think that a cover for submarines is not required at all

      Quote: barbiturate
      He will not tell about the number of victims on the submarine, and from what sneeze (normal closure) did the boat sink with dozens of victims?


      at the same time, the same Kaptsov more than once here declared accident rate precisely on domestic submarines. And it is in comparison with the American nuclear submarines
      1. Santa Fe
        18 November 2013 17: 14
        0
        Quote: Delta
        at the same time, the same Kaptsov more than once here declared accident rate precisely on domestic submarines. And it is in comparison with the American nuclear submarines

        Do you think the domestic aircraft carrier will be smaller in comparison with the American?

        I would like to publish a funny report on Kuznetsov's campaign in 1996 in the Mediterranean. Yes, there are doubts that they will publish such a "crap"
        1. Delta
          Delta 18 November 2013 17: 26
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Do you think the domestic aircraft carrier will be smaller in comparison with the American?


          No, I do not think so. Is this a reason to abandon some kind of technology? so you can refuse from submarines, on the grounds that the accident rate is high, and given that it is higher than that of the Americans, all the more so.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 18 November 2013 17: 29
            +2
            Quote: Delta
            so you can refuse from submarines, on the grounds that the accident rate is high,
            There is a reason even more often used - that Russia is a land power, and what for such a nuclear submarine? lol
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. ATATA
              ATATA 18 November 2013 17: 34
              0
              Quote: Misantrop
              There is a reason even more often used - that Russia is a land power, and what for such a nuclear submarine?

              And in order to shoot at the adversary with a ballistic missile.
          2. Santa Fe
            18 November 2013 17: 58
            0
            Quote: Delta
            Is this a reason to abandon some kind of technology?

            Yes, if some kind of equipment is unreliable, its operation is prohibited. example - supersonic civilian airliners

            But this is of little relevance to Nimitz. There the main problem is the need for the existence of such a technique. what tasks is this waffle created for
            1. Delta
              Delta 18 November 2013 18: 14
              +3
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Yes, if some kind of equipment is unreliable, its operation is prohibited. example - supersonic civilian airliners


              thus, looking a little higher, at my comment, we conclude that submarines are extremely dangerous things)) will we ban? By the way, the Concordes flew long enough. And the refusal from them was caused mainly by the fact that the Concorde spent much more fuel to transport one passenger than modern subsonic airliners. In addition, the protracted development of the Concorde, a very high coefficient of novelty, led to the fact that the joint Anglo-French program went far beyond budget, total costs amounted to almost a billion pounds. The price of airliners, accordingly, also grew steadily. In addition, it turned out that airlines underestimated the scale of costs required to maintain a fleet of supersonic airliners and keep it airworthy. And only one crashed. Where is the insecurity?
              1. Santa Fe
                18 November 2013 18: 34
                0
                Quote: Delta
                in my comment, we conclude that submarines are extremely dangerous things

                But boats are not "extremely dangerous things"

                what then is the conversation about?
                Quote: Delta
                By the way, the Concordes flew long enough.

                Don't like Concords - look at the Valkyrie story. Supersonic (hypersonic) devices were not at work. Too complicated, unsafe and expensive
                1. Delta
                  Delta 18 November 2013 18: 43
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  But boats are not "extremely dangerous things"


                  Oh really? the States were delighted when K-219 with two reactors and 15 missiles was burning near them. Well and most importantly - the death toll on the submarine. Risk ratio
                  1. Santa Fe
                    18 November 2013 18: 57
                    0
                    Quote: Delta
                    Oh really? the States were delighted when K-219 with two reactors and 15 missiles was burning near them. Well and most importantly - the death toll on the submarine. Risk ratio

                    So let's decide: coefficient. risk of the us fleet or our
                    Amers practically had no major accidents on submarines

                    The Russians had a lot of things - the collision of a steam locomotive with a steamboat (Ulyanovsk, the end of the 80s), Chernobyl, explosions of high-rise buildings, here, recently, a Boeing in Kazan fell ... I wonder how we are still alive
                    1. Delta
                      Delta 18 November 2013 19: 07
                      +1
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      So let's decide: coefficient. risk of the us fleet or our


                      yes both. "Thresher" and "Scorpio" do not count? Well, yes, only two and a long time ago, but there were. And the whole crew at once. Often aircraft carriers with their entire crew sank? You mean a steam locomotive with a motor ship for what? to once again confirm the danger of any technique? if for this, then I’m not claiming such a terrible machine, with a clockwork self-destruction mechanism, like an aircraft carrier.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        18 November 2013 19: 17
                        0
                        Quote: Delta
                        yes both. "Thresher" and "Scorpio" do not count?

                        out of 200 amers boats? Somehow not particularly impressive
                        Quote: Delta
                        Often drowned aircraft carriers with the entire crew

                        The largest loss of the U.S. Navy in terms of the number of victims is considered Forestall
                        Quote: Delta
                        Often drowned aircraft carriers with the entire crew?

                        During the war years? Regularly. Taiho, for example. 1600 people in tartarara

                        Nowadays? despite the fact that there are only 10 of them, they are ruining people constantly. AND the main thing is that the victims are completely useless

                        Enterprise, 1998. Burning is not childish
                      2. Delta
                        Delta 18 November 2013 19: 30
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Regularly. Taiho, for example. 1600 people in tartarara


                        but not all the same. The crew there was 2150. It is not a matter of the number of people, but the percentage of deaths.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        out of 200 amers boats? Somehow not particularly impressive


                        do you speak in principle or in comparison with the submarines of the USSR and Russia? if in comparison, then we have even more, but we can also say that it is not impressive against the background of the released ones. However, this is in peacetime, as well as on aircraft carriers. Ban submarines! They are dangerous. In addition, if we are talking about accident rate and casualties on aircraft carriers, then do not forget that not one of them drowned in that very peaceful time and spoiled the world's oceans with nuclear reactors, missiles and torpedoes. Will we compare further?
                      3. Santa Fe
                        18 November 2013 19: 38
                        0
                        Quote: Delta
                        It is not a matter of the number of people, but the percentage of deaths.

                        Or maybe in the number of serious accidents and disasters for each class of ships (% in relation to the number of built)
                        Quote: Delta
                        if in comparison, then at least we have more, but we can also say that against the background of the released ones it’s not impressive

                        naturally. Against the general background, the difference in accident rate with US submarines is not large
                        Quote: Delta
                        Ban submarines! They are dangerous

                        But they are safe. That's the catch
                        Quote: Delta
                        In addition, if we are talking about accidents and casualties on aircraft carriers, then do not forget that not one of them drowned in that very peaceful time and spoiled the world's oceans with nuclear reactors,

                        Well, first of all, he messed up. De Gaulle, on a trip to the Arabian Sea, the whole crew received 5-fold radiation doses

                        Secondly, there were only 12 nuclear
  • Santa Fe
    18 November 2013 17: 23
    0
    Quote: barbiturate
    GREAT combat survivability of aircraft carriers, withstand such explosions and damage, well, which ship is still capable of

    did he stand it?
    he was completely burned out and completely lost his combat readiness. If this happened in wartime - it would have finished off their destroyers immediately
    Quote: barbiturate
    but a few hours later aircraft carrier continued to receive and send aircraft

    Photos can be looked))))

    With a punched deck and a burned-out room for aerofinisher and an optical landing system.
    Quote: barbiturate
    Why does the author not talk about the consequences of missiles getting into cruisers, destroyers?

    In modern? So they were initially calculated as disposable. In case of the Great Vigorous War.
    Quote: barbiturate
    He will not tell about the number of victims on the submarine, and from what sneeze (normal closure) did the boat sink with dozens of victims?

    And barbiturate will not tell us about the number of such disasters in the history of the US Navy
    Taking into account the number of built submarines (10 nimts against 62 moose and 18 ohio + 3 sivulfa, 8 Virginia and experimental Lipscomb. All of one period)
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 18 November 2013 17: 34
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      And barbiturate will not tell us about the number of such disasters in the history of the US Navy
      Taking into account the number of built submarines (10 nimts against 62 moose and 18 ohio + 3 sivulfa, 8 Virginia and experimental Lipscomb. All of one period)

      IMHO if the USSR had its own "Admiral Rikover" with the same penetrating ability to support nuclear submarines, train and select crews, ensure their working and rest conditions, the USSR would only read about accidents on board nuclear submarines in the foreign press. Here the commandments and lessons of Rickover in the USA will be forgotten, then we will see how many accidents THEM will have ...
      1. Santa Fe
        18 November 2013 18: 08
        0
        Quote: Misantrop
        IMHO if the USSR had its own "Admiral Rikover"

        The history of the American nuclear fleet began in 1906, when the family of emigrants from the Russian Empire - Abraham, Rachel and their six-year-old son, Chaim, entered the Immigration Service hall of Ellis Island (New York). The male was not a miss - when he grew up, he entered the Naval Academy and became a four-star admiral of the US Navy. In total, Hyman Rickover served in the Navy for 63 years.
    2. barbiturate
      barbiturate 18 November 2013 18: 06
      +1
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      didn’t he stand it? he burned out through and through and completely lost his combat readiness. If this happened in wartime - it would have finished off their destroyers immediately

      is not it so? Are you talking about Forrestal? fight with fire -13 hours, recovery -8 months, while this disaster is considered the worst after WWII occurred with an aircraft carrier. A burned-out ship is sent for scrapping, there is restoration in 2/3 years. In wartime, you don’t know how it would be.

      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      You can take a look at the photo)))) With a broken deck and a burned-out aerofinisher room and an optical landing system.

      The photo just shows that the hole in the deck will not interfere with the landing of the plane, after you remove the rubbish and bow catapults on the deck in perfect order, where did you see the burned-out aerofinisher premises in the photo?) Vanguete?) A pilot can land a plane without looking on mitball optical landing system

      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      In modern? So they were initially calculated as disposable. In case of the Great Vigorous War.


      What are you saying?) Now they are generally disposable, which means the aircraft carrier is at least worth something, and the rest of the ships are generally disposable trash, originally explained) Then why were they built? built on the occasion of the Great Nuclear War?) but it didn’t happen, that’s what they insulted)


      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      And barbiturate will not tell us about the number of similar disasters in the history of the US Navy, taking into account the number of built submarines (10 natives against 62 moose and 18 ohio + 3 sivulfa, 8 virginia and experimental lipskomb. All of one period)


      no, I won’t tell, no one has full numbers, but I’m sure that if you take objective numbers in peacetime, then the numbers will be quite comparable. For complete objectivity, acknowledge Oleg that the same Forrestal suffered damage during the conduct of active hostilities against Vietnam. It’s also clear that flying from an aircraft carrier is difficult and the technical risk is great, people and equipment are working on the edge, and anyone understands that it’s better to fly from a concrete runway, but it’s not always at hand, but you need to fly
      1. Santa Fe
        18 November 2013 18: 45
        +1
        Quote: barbiturate
        In wartime, you don’t know how it would be.

        He lost speed for 4 hours.
        Such things in battle do not forgive
        Quote: barbiturate
        recovery -8 months

        This is the Yankees.
        They are building a new Nimitz in 5 years
        Quote: barbiturate
        Where did you see the burned-out aerofinisher premises in the photo?

        they were under the upper deck. In the midst of disaster
        Quote: barbiturate
        Now they are generally disposable, which means the aircraft carrier is worth something

        of course something is worth
        restoration cost Forrestal - $ 75 million
        for comparison, the cost of building the cruiser "Legi" - 49 million dollars in 1960s prices



        Quote: barbiturate
        no, I won’t tell, no one has full numbers

        Then I will remind you
        2 losses for those. the reasons are Thresher and Scorpio.
        2 losses for navigational reasons: Baton Rouge and Nathaniel Green (these returned to the base without casualties, but were written off)

        from 200+ boats !!!
        1. barbiturate
          barbiturate 18 November 2013 19: 02
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          He lost his turn for 4 hours. Such things in battle do not forgive.


          Oleg, you are supposed to be kidding?)) In battle! to finish your own! no one will spend time on the ship, it’s fantastic and even unscientific) If the ship stayed afloat after the battle and the crew did not leave the ship and fights for survivability, moreover very successfully !, who will give the order to finish off the ship saved by the crew, which is steadily kept afloat? )

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          This is the Yankees. They are building a new Nimitz in 5 years.

          all the more they plus, know how


          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          they were under the upper deck. In the midst of disaster

          Again, if you are talking about Forrestal, then yes, the ship was dysfunctional and came to the port for repair for 8 months, if I already talked about Enterprise, a few hours and the ship received and let out airplanes, and there are accidents for everyone.


          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          of course something worth the cost of rebuilding Forrestal - $ 75 million by comparison, the cost of building the cruiser "Legi" - $ 49 million in 1960s prices


          I agree, we must also add the phrase to the cost figures - "with incomparable combat effectiveness and usefulness to the fleet")

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Then I will remind you2 losses for those. the reasons are Thresher and Scorpio. 2 losses for navigational reasons: Baton Rouge and Nathaniel Green (these returned to the base without casualties, but were decommissioned) from 200+ boats !!!


          Well, I remember these numbers very well (amers do not have so many big disasters in the fleet), I talked about the loss of people on boats in fires, etc.
          1. Santa Fe
            18 November 2013 19: 26
            0
            Quote: barbiturate
            If the ship remained afloat after the battle and the crew did not leave the ship and fights for survivability, moreover, very successfully !, then who will give the order to finish off the ship saved by the crew, which is steadily kept afloat

            The same people who gave the order to finish off Hornet and Wosp
            Quote: barbiturate
            if about Enterprise, then I already said, for several hours, and the ship received and released aircraft

            Take the trouble to find confirmation of this heresy
            Quote: barbiturate
            I agree, we must also add the phrase to the cost figures - "with incomparable combat effectiveness and usefulness to the fleet")

            Then you should calculate the cost of his wing. As well as the operation of such a system
            Quote: barbiturate
            I talked about the loss of people on boats in fires, etc.

            And what? Do you think on AB die less?
            Despite the fact that there were 200 boats. And AB only 10-20
            1. barbiturate
              barbiturate 18 November 2013 21: 13
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The same people who gave the order to finish off Hornet and Wosp


              this does not mean at all that they will make the same decision under other circumstances)
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Take the trouble to find confirmation of this heresy

              Well, for example, especially for you, I found the article Take-off Deck in the Journal of Equipment and Armament for 1998, number 5-6, it was still somewhere, now I can’t remember, I’ll go to sleep)
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Then you should calculate the cost of his wing. As well as the operation of such a system

              Do you think the Americans did not count? For some reason, the boats, after the collisions, they copied, they also counted)

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              And what? Do you think that AB dies less? Despite the fact that there were 200 boats. And AB only 10-20

              no, so I’m thinking, you have to pay for everything)
              I’ll go to sleep already the first hour of the night)
    3. tlauicol
      tlauicol 18 November 2013 18: 31
      +1
      Why finish off? Enterprise repair went on its own. Repair took 6 weeks. and this is BEFORE introducing Niagara Falls
      1. Santa Fe
        18 November 2013 19: 02
        -1
        Quote: Tlauicol
        Why finish off?

        Why did they finish off the Hornet? He lost track in the war zone.
        Why did they finish Whosp? loss of course in a war zone
        Quote: Tlauicol
        Enterprise repair went on its own.

        Well, this is just a Zuni racket)))
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 18 November 2013 19: 28
          +1
          The Enterprise is also in the war zone, and the move is not lost

          Stop Enterprise! or Nimitz or Ford! well, at least someone!
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Santa Fe
            18 November 2013 19: 43
            +1
            Quote: Tlauicol
            The Enterprise is also in the war zone, and the move is not lost

            Not lost, then well done


            And here is Franklin at Okinawa. Lost everything. Honor, buoyancy, stability, stroke, operational efficiency, 80 wing aircraft. The crew prepared for the evacuation. Saved only by the absence of attacks by Japanese aircraft (already by then wiped out) - the ship, it was decided to tow to Pearl Harbolr. By the way, just the result of the fall of 2 kamikazes
            1. Delta
              Delta 18 November 2013 20: 01
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              And here is Franklin at Okinawa. Lost everything. Honor, buoyancy, stability, stroke, operational efficiency, 80 wing aircraft. The crew prepared for the evacuation. Saved only by the absence of attacks by Japanese aircraft (already by then wiped out) - the ship, it was decided to tow to Pearl Harbolr. By the way, just the result of the fall of 2 kamikazes


              Oleg, who positioned the aircraft carriers as unsinkable? this is a ship, no more. No one is surprised that the destroyer could have gone from the kamikaze attacks, and for some reason the aircraft carrier had to remain intact?
            2. tlauicol
              tlauicol 18 November 2013 20: 10
              0
              Stop Enterprise! or Nimitz! or Ford!
        2. barbiturate
          barbiturate 18 November 2013 21: 02
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Why did they finish off the Hornet? He lost track in the war zone. Why did they finish off Wosp? loss of course in a war zone


          Loss of progress - some kind of breakdown, these aircraft carriers had combat damage

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Well, this is just a Zuni racket)))


          there was a short circuit on Komsomolets ... the aircraft carrier survived and went for repairs - 3 months !! Total. You are here telling us almost about his death)
          Here are the most serious accidents on aircraft carriers: Forrestal - 8 months in repair, Enterprise - 3 months with several tons blown up on their decks !!! bombs and thousands of liters of kerosene, while the Enterprise retained to a large extent combat efficiency and a few hours later operated on its planes.
          1. Santa Fe
            18 November 2013 21: 32
            0
            Quote: barbiturate
            these aircraft carriers had combat damage

            Which led to a loss of course
            Quote: barbiturate
            on Komsomolets there was a small circuit.

            on Kosmosolts there were Russian conscripts who were more dangerous than all the bombs and kerosene combined
            1. Delta
              Delta 18 November 2013 23: 25
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              on Kosmosolts there were Russian conscripts who were more dangerous than all the bombs and kerosene combined


              so maybe it’s not what to build, but who will build and operate?
              1. Santa Fe
                19 November 2013 02: 15
                -1
                Quote: Delta
                so maybe it’s not what to build, but who will build and operate?

                Here's a living example for you - US Navy
                there are practically no accidents in the submarine fleet. Despite the fact that there are many dozens of boats (and 200+ were in operation since the middle of the century)

                And then - 10 Nimitsev + Enter + 8 shock Kitty Hawks and Forrestols. And a bunch of fierce accidents. Despite the fact that they try to go to sea less often and almost do not participate in hostilities.

                But we have gone far from the topic. The trick is that all these sacrifices are in vain and by and large meaningless
          2. Misantrop
            Misantrop 18 November 2013 23: 37
            +3
            Quote: barbiturate
            on Komsomolets there was a small circuit ...
            ... in cable rudders (non-disconnectable section). And the crew who saw this ship for the first time in their lives. In this situation, the Americans would have no chance of surviving ...
        3. barbiturate
          barbiturate 19 November 2013 17: 19
          +1
          Oleg, well, to be honest, the ship is finished off not after losing the course, but after the crew refused to fight for the ship’s survivability anymore and left it, this is a signal to finish off if the enemy is near and you need to prevent a possible capture, all the same it seems to me , so it’s more correct to explain finishing your own ship
  • Tourist Breakfast
    Tourist Breakfast 18 November 2013 16: 57
    0
    Author:
    Floating aerodromes have extremely low resistance to combat damage. Crowded aircraft, filled tanks and ammunition - all these fire-hazardous pieces are neatly placed on the upper (flight) deck, where they are devoid of any constructive protection. The smallest splinter, spark - and the fiery hell begins.

    It is not clear why the author is sure that during the fighting, the flight deck of an aircraft carrier will also be clogged with ammunition, fuel and aircraft. Most likely the duty air group will be in the air, and the rest of the aircraft and ammunition in the hangars.
    1. ATATA
      ATATA 18 November 2013 17: 08
      +1
      Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
      It is not clear why the author is sure that during the fighting, the flight deck of an aircraft carrier will also be clogged with ammunition, fuel and aircraft.

      And she does not need to be clogged with ammunition.
      It is enough to burst on it with one caliber and there are no all decks for takeoff.
      ps And not just there is no deck, in fact there is no longer an aircraft carrier, because it does not fulfill its tasks.
      1. barbiturate
        barbiturate 18 November 2013 17: 40
        0
        who told you this?) the armored decks of aircraft carriers were famous in WWII for their ability to take a blow, what caliber will you do? Aircraft carriers are also considered to be very strong and tenacious targets and it was not supposed to make them incapable of fighting at all. I said above, for example, that after a burst of 9 kg of bombs on the deck and a pile of fuel spilled on the deck of the aircraft carrier "Enterprise", in a few hours, he received and lifted aircraft.
        At the same time, tell us about more reliable ships, which ones do you think? And which ships do NOT lose their combat capability from being hit by "one caliber"?) Tell us how they will continue to perform the task when hit by a submarine torpedo or maybe a destroyer? Fortunately, there are a lot of examples, and in these examples we see that only the aircraft carrier holds the blow, the rest either sink or barely reach the port and with another ship, on their backs, to their homeland.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 November 2013 18: 24
          0
          Quote: barbiturate
          aircraft carrier armored decks still in WWII famous for their ability to keep punchWhat caliber will you do?

          why lie

          the consequences of hitting a German 500 kg bomb on the armored flight deck of AB "Indomiteble", August 12, 1942
          Aircraft carrier treated for six months in the USA

          The thickness of the deck of Indomiteable is 89 mm. For comparison: the thickness of the deck of John F. Kennedy is 45 mm.
          1. barbiturate
            barbiturate 18 November 2013 18: 33
            +1
            never lied, the decks of the Japanese were not armored, and it came back to them, and then a half-ton bomb hit what? Did the aircraft carrier die? Of course, the hit will not pass without a trace, but there can be no question of any death
            But about the armor protection:
            The structural protection of the aircraft carrier "Nimitz" includes surface and airborne underwater. The first consists of armored decks (flight, hangar and third), as well as armored longitudinal hangar bulkheads, the second - of longitudinal and transverse bulkheads. The compartments they form are alternately filled with water, fuel or porous filler.

            On-board underwater protection covers areas of reactor compartments, ammunition cellars and aviation fuel storage facilities. She reaches the third deck and protects the ship from the side from contact explosions of torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and artillery shells. From the bottom, the aircraft carrier is protected by an unsinkable armored flooring and armored transverse bulkheads.

            So 3! armored decks
            1. Santa Fe
              18 November 2013 19: 05
              0
              Quote: barbiturate
              never lied, the decks of the Japanese were not armored, and it came back to them, and then a half-ton bomb hit what? Did the aircraft carrier die?

              Completely lost combat effectiveness.
              No "armored deck" saved
              Quote: barbiturate
              So 3! armored decks

              Their thickness is 40-50 millimeters. Consider them not
              1. barbiturate
                barbiturate 18 November 2013 20: 36
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Has completely lost its combat effectiveness. No "armored deck" saved


                Even if this is so (what I doubt is because without a piece of the deck an aircraft carrier could fly planes, difficulties with receiving without a corner deck), then repair and back in service, what’s the mess? the ship was damaged in battle, repaired and into battle, there was no talk of any death)

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Their thickness is 40-50 millimeters. Consider them not


                but I won’t think so) three armored decks will extinguish a very serious hit and undermining granite warhead, let’s say, it will not go further than the armored decks. The Americans have the largest experience in the combat use of aircraft carriers in the world and defended it not badly constructively. On the contrary, having read about its protection more specifically, appreciating the efforts of American structural engineers to armor and protect the ship, anti-torpedo protection, etc., I realized that I was wrong and the aircraft carrier was better protected than I thought.
                By the way, the Americans (according to the open press) believe that in order to incapacitate an aircraft carrier, but not critical, 7-12 Soviet anti-ship missiles are needed, and for destruction it is 20. Seeing the results after a couple of major accidents, I think they are 120% right and realists for the same percentage.
      2. tlauicol
        tlauicol 18 November 2013 17: 51
        +1
        Teach Caliber to do a slide?
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 18 November 2013 17: 40
      +1
      Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
      Most likely the duty air group will be in the air, and the rest of the aircraft and ammunition in the hangars.
      And the shift group in full combat readiness is in the bosom of the head officer. Reserve - in the pocket of the assistant. But the whole crowd of specialists providing this rather big group of equipment is in the boatswain’s string bag laughing
    3. Santa Fe
      18 November 2013 17: 53
      +1
      Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
      Most likely the duty air group will be in the air, and the rest of the aircraft and ammunition in the hangars.

      Can. But then the air group will be - 30 aircraft. No longer fit in the hangar
      1. barbiturate
        barbiturate 18 November 2013 18: 09
        -1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Can. But then the air group will be - 30 aircraft. No longer fit in the hangar


        Tale, but why do you do Oleg)
        1. Santa Fe
          18 November 2013 19: 28
          -1
          Quote: barbiturate
          Tale, but why do you do Oleg)
          1. barbiturate
            barbiturate 18 November 2013 20: 21
            +1
            Oleg, there was already such a topic, there Andrei from Chelyabinsk argued with you in an argument, everything was shown and proved there about the capacity of the hangar and the types of aircraft that go into it (although no one will keep the planes in the hangar of course). By God, it’s not a desire to prove once again what has already been shown and proven. Of course, not 50-60 will get into them, but with Tomcat they got on 36 + 10 helicopters, not 30 anymore)
            You remember the topic of August 2, but call the number 30) I think modern planes will get in at least 40ka + helicopters
      2. Tourist Breakfast
        Tourist Breakfast 19 November 2013 17: 32
        0
        Can. But then the air group will be - 30 aircraft. No longer fit in the hangar

        Be that as it may, I hope you realize that during the battle the flight deck will not be clogged with aircraft, ammunition and fuel, as you say in the article?
  • e3tozy
    e3tozy 18 November 2013 17: 01
    +1
    Quote: Petrix
    Russia is facing radical terrorists, nationalist-separatist movements. And you still hang on the neck of the country the construction of aircraft carriers for some geopolitical interests across the ocean. It is in the interests of the Americans to divert Russia's resources from truly important tasks.

    Greetings to all! If you look at everything without emotion, it turns out that we really need aircraft carriers. In the Pacific Ocean, in addition to the power of the United States, the power of the Chinese Navy is growing by leaps and bounds (and they have plans to build more than one aircraft carrier), and India is not weak at arms. In the Pacific, North and Black Seas, we definitely need AUGs so that our submarines are not locked in their bases by their AUGs. And without ACG, in order to confront the states and China at sea, we need at least fifty of the latest destroyers with dozens of cells for cruise missiles with a range of 1500-2000 km, and several dozen new multi-purpose submarines, which is also far from cheap. And what will cover the helicopter carriers from the foil? Any grouping of the Navy without AUG is obviously in a more difficult position than with it.
    1. Petrix
      Petrix 19 November 2013 11: 46
      0
      Quote: e3tozy
      Any grouping of the Navy without AUG is obviously in a more difficult position than with it.

      This is how to look. AUG is strong, but fetters ships in the warrant and requires good supply during active operations, and the cost of technical failure of an aircraft carrier is very high.

      Today, Russia does not need to conquer operational space. The defense along the coast is acute. For the USA, China, and India, on the contrary, operational space is needed, because their supply and turnover are basic by sea. In Russia, land borders make it possible to build pipelines and railroad goods turnover.

      Carriers are good, but this is not a top priority for Russia. You can’t rush and recklessly imitate other countries. Everyone has different conditions. Need to develop your trump cards. Build icebreakers, develop space and coastal defense. And in order to expand its influence on the planet, it is necessary to incline other countries into the ALLIES that have a strong fleet with an aircraft-bearing bias.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 18 November 2013 17: 01
    +2
    Quote: Delta
    it’s just that now many people think that a cover for submarines is not required at all

    here, in Soviet times, sailors understood that this was due to our greater limited means and a slight lag in development at sea due to many objective factors, but now it’s not clear what they’re thinking about ...))


    Quote: Delta
    at the same time, the same Kaptsov more than once here declared accident rate precisely on domestic submarines. And it is in comparison with the American nuclear submarines

    Yes, the Americans burn no less than ours, they just have a better battle for survivability and fire extinguishing systems of the 60s, and if we talk about aircraft carriers and their low combat survivability, it should be pointed out that other types of ships are then just suicide bombers, especially a submarine, you won’t even jump overboard there - a mass grave and each one has only one torpedo (rocket)
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 18 November 2013 17: 43
      +2
      Quote: barbiturate
      Yes, the Americans burn no less than ours, they just have a better fight for survivability and fire extinguishing systems of the 60s
      They MUCH better placed on the selection of crews and ensuring their mode of work and rest. Well, secrecy is also on top
    2. Santa Fe
      18 November 2013 17: 54
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      Yes, the Americans burn no less than ours, they just have a better battle for survivability and systems

      All are burning.
      The indicator is a major accident with great damage and the number of victims. The Yankees such cases are much less

      Despite the fact that two hundred boats were built
  • scientist
    scientist 18 November 2013 18: 35
    +5
    When Nikolsky only published his article, I immediately had doubts about the correctness of such conclusions, tried to justify but for some reason they blundered. But as they say, truth is more expensive.
    Write about how modern air defense systems can easily drop missiles at low and very low altitudes, at speeds of 2,5M, and even aviation can only be involved in a person who has never shot at a firing range and did not direct air defense aircraft. Even provided that you know the exact time and direction of the target’s approach, the rocket is in preparation beforehand, as is usually the case at the training ground, there are still a lot of serious technical problems associated with guidance modes, because the ESR of RCCs is hundreds of times less than reflections from the surface.
    Personally, I have never heard that one of the ZRVshnikov and pilots would shoot down targets at the MV and PMV with speeds of more than 1M.
    The only real way out for an aircraft carrier when attacking an anti-ship missile system is to set up leading interference. Hope is small, but more than the likelihood of the destruction of ship’s air defense missiles from 2,5M to PMV
  • saag
    saag 18 November 2013 20: 18
    +1
    Quote: e3tozy
    Black seas we definitely need aug

    Where will this most notorious AUG be based? If we assume that it appeared there, it will be like "Moscow" to stand on the base, because the existing coastal aviation can perform all its tasks much better, and most importantly it is cheaper. Even the second world showed. that aviation is much more effective at sea. Northern Fleet, can you tell me for an hour why did you start returning aviation to old airfields?
  • voliador
    voliador 18 November 2013 20: 21
    +1
    In order to build an aircraft carrier, we now simply do not have money. And then there will be no frames.
  • Selevc
    Selevc 18 November 2013 22: 19
    +2
    I post a curious info (for fans of Aircraft Carriers and AUG) about the real use of Aircraft Carriers in serious battles: