Military Review

One in the ocean is not a warrior

173
This material is a response to the article by Oleg Kaptsov "Blow out of the water. The continuation of the disaster". In its quest to prove that ACG is an ineffective organization fleet, O. Kaptsov raised a number of questions, but, alas, gave them answers from the category of fantasy.


O. Kaptsov writes a lot, shows pictures of what can happen to an aircraft carrier if an anti-ship missile hits it. This, of course, is interesting, but here only “if” interferes.

The author writes: "Floating airfields have extremely low resistance to combat damage."

Why would such a conclusion from scratch? Where at least one American aircraft carrier damaged by the enemy in combat conditions after World War II? They are not.

Aircraft carriers such as "Kitty Hawk" participated in combat operations in Vietnam.
Carriers of the Nimitz type participated in the Desert Storm combat operations on 1991, on 1999 against Serbia, and on Iraq (2003). Combat damage from enemy missiles, kamikazes, terrorists, etc. - no.

The author writes: "The situation with the Onyx warhead blast on the hangar deck looks no less terrible; a rocket can penetrate the board or fly through the openings of the aircraft lifts." Yes, it probably can, and maybe can not.


"Ooh! The storm of the seas"


First, the P-800 “Onyx” carriers in the Russian fleet are small rocket ships (“boats”) of the 1234.7 “Gadfly” project in the amount of 1 (single) boat. Another 10 boats outdated project 1234 "Gadfly" armed subsonic P-120 Malachite. Cruising range at maximum speed - 415 nautical miles.

Like this one the boat will chase the AUG (Carrier strike group), and even more so when the fuel runs out (joke), I do not know. Apparently, at the oars, which is also interesting. Moreover, boats are based in the Far East.The rest are cut, disassembled, decommissioned, scrapped and excluded from the Russian Navy, the state of the remaining can only be guessed.

On the 2013 year, these boats remained only in service with the Russian and Algerian Navy (Algeria, too, is the storm of the seas): Libyan naval forces with Ovod boats were destroyed during the NATO military operation in the summer of 2011, in 5 minutes. No, not for 5, for 10 minutes?; Indian ships of this project were withdrawn from the Indian Navy in 1999 — 2004.

Secondly, the Nimitz type aircraft carrier has its own missile defense, which consists of:
2-x installations RIM-7 Sea Sparrow to protect against anti-ship missiles. The speed of interceptor missiles 4256 km / h, the range of destruction of the target 19 km. Since its adoption, the system has undergone a deep modernization and is intended, inter alia, to hit supersonic low-flying / maneuvering targets;
2-x installations RIM-116 (RAM), the range of defeat the target 9 km, the speed of interceptor missiles 2 mach +.

Everyone knows that aircraft carrier one does not go, and he walks at least accompanied by 2-5 destroyers of the “Arly Burke” class, that is, the Onyx must be overcome in order to launch missile defense escort ships. We don’t take into account actions on advancing destroyers with their automated system Aegis and aviation aircraft carrier. Is it capable of a Russian morally obsolete "boat"? Of course not.

The author writes: "The carrier and wing are separate."
No, it is not, they exist together, otherwise it will not be an aircraft carrier, but the Russian "aircraft carrier" Admiral Kuznetsov.

Further, the author reports: "If you pile up 80-90 machines, they tightly block decks, elevators, catapults, etc.".

If the author is referring to the word "machines" multi-ton dump trucks, then yes, they will block everything. But if “cars” are airplanes, then no, since the American aircraft carrier was designed and intended for use in combat conditions up to 90 aircraft of various classes.

The author points out further: "on board the Nimitz, depending on the situation, etc., there is no more than 50-60 aircraft".

That's the way it is, but not so. On board the Nimitz there are as many airplanes as necessary for the assigned tasks, and if necessary, all 90 will be located.

Author: "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".

This is from the series that, they say, it is unlikely that the Americans landed on the moon, but they landed there. If necessary, the AUG wing will provide a round-the-clock patrol, including DRLO aircraft.

Author: "Despite all skeptic objections, there is a lot of reliable evidence of a PLO AUG breakout with submarines from different countries. The Calibrov underwater carriers have high chances of approaching the AUG on 50 km, and then shooting it" point-blank. "

In principle, in peacetime, such "breakthroughs" occur every day, for example, in the Mediterranean Sea or the Persian Gulf by various ships: bulk carriers, tankers, sailboats, "Abramovich's yachts, even, they say, Su-27 flew by). But they are not even dreaming about combat conditions, and even more about shootings at close range. Although if the kamikaze crew is on a boat or in an airplane, they may take the risk.

Author: "Low-flying anti-ship missiles are extremely difficult-to-find 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 response time of the fighters - they need to turn around and take the necessary position in space, detect and take on low-flying anti-ship missiles. Finally, AIM-120 missiles need time to reach the target, which by that moment can already detach the warhead and go to Sound (2,9 M) ".

Why “AIM-120 with F / A-18” is not entirely clear, but oh well.
Let me remind you once again, the US aircraft carrier, one does not go, and he goes into the carrier strike group (CSG), namely: an aircraft carrier, 1-2 cruiser URO "Ticonderoga", 3-4 destroyer URO "Arleigh Burke", 1-2 submarine " Los Angeles".


There are no chances for the "thunderstorm of the seas" against this armada


Or goes to the aircraft carrier connection: 2-4 aircraft carrier, 2-4 URO cruiser, 15-30 URO destroyers and frigates, 2-4-6 APL.

Such compounds have the ability to strike up to 1800 km. The defense of the aircraft carrier is built in several echelons. May be enhanced by anti-aircraft carrier strike groups, coastal aircraft. The total depth of the anti-submarine defense of an aircraft carrier is approximately 200 nautical miles (370 km) and more, air defense is approximately 300 nautical miles (550 km).
Cruisers and destroyers are armed with the Aegis system. This is a ship's multifunctional combat information and control system, which is an integrated network of ship means of lighting the situation, means of destruction.

The main element of the system is the radar AN / SPY-1. The system is capable of automatically searching, detecting, tracking 250 — 300 targets and targeting the most threatening of them before 18 SAM (SM-2, SM-3. ESSM, including artillery). The decision to defeat the targets threatening the ship can be made automatically.


Pay attention to the monitor (photo), 1 ship - and under control: Japan, Korea and part of China


Back in the Soviet Union, it was concluded that the effectiveness of the AUG shipboard air defense increased significantly with the appearance of Aegis. A full onboard volley of a 949A submarine (X-NUMX of P-24 Granite missiles) does not guarantee a breakthrough of AUG anti-aircraft systems even at the level of the presence of only one TiconderoG cruiser and no patrol fighters. One such cruiser has 700 defensive lines and can effectively repel an attack of 3-19 missiles. The presence of effective means of EW allows you to dramatically increase this parameter, since there is a high probability of removing the missile to interferences.

Submarines 949A Antey. From 11 built - 1 for recycling, 1 in sludge, 1 in reserve, 4 in repair, 1 sank.

And we already know that the aircraft carrier also has its own missile defense system.
.


PS In the United States, successful tests were carried out on the vertical launch of new anti-ship missiles LRASM (long-range 800 km). The new missile represents the development of the stealth concept of stealth. The rocket independently searches for targets in a given area, identifies the target even in a difficult jamming environment and independently coordinates the attack plan. Launched into the intended search area, the rocket can be in the air for a long time, until it finds a ship similar to its characteristics — and only then attacks it.



Isoroku Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
All we did was awaken the sleeping giant and filled it with terrible determination.
Of the 22 ships that took part in the attack, only one survived by the end of the war.
Author:
173 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. lotar
    lotar 25 November 2013 07: 57
    44
    Honestly, the impression was that the authors of these articles are measured by pi-mi. That one, that the other are experts on ACG of the potential adversary and our armed forces. In my opinion, all these estimates are not worth a penny, since the course of any military conflict depends from many factors. And to consider as id-mi both of these means to pre-sign their own unprofessionalism. These or other systems are created for specific tasks, and the fact that some combat systems cannot, others specially designed for this nor are they known to the public, as they are secret.
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 25 November 2013 08: 56
      30
      I read with interest, the only thing I can’t understand what does our cruiser hit by a new anti-ship missile have to do with it? Since we are talking about floating airfields!
      I agree with the author, getting an aircraft carrier in the warrant is not to play in the HUDE WATER simulator.
      1. Excalibur
        Excalibur 25 November 2013 10: 33
        -37 qualifying.
        Granit has no chance ...

        Official video presentation from Lockheed Martin.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 25 November 2013 10: 43
          11
          Quote: Excalibur
          Official video presentation from Lockheed Martin.

          This is an advertisement for the new AMDR radar, as far as I remember, funding for this topic was stopped.
          1. Excalibur
            Excalibur 25 November 2013 11: 24
            -16 qualifying.
            Quote: Nayhas
            This is an advertisement for the new AMDR radar, as far as I remember, funding for this topic was stopped.

            Not everything is so clear ...
            AMDR: Raytheon Wins EMD Competition for the USA's Next Dual-Band Radar
            Oct 22-23 / 13: Protest. Lockheed Martin filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), arguing that they “submitted a technically compliant solution at a very affordable price. We do not believe the merits of our offering were properly considered during the evaluation process. ” Lawmakers from New Jersey, where Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Sensors is located, had sent a letter to the Navy Secretary a few days ago criticizing the award to Raytheon. The Navy subsequently issues a stop-work order, while the GAO has until the end of January 2014 to give its verdict.
            http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/amdr-competition-the-usas-next-dual-band-rad
            ar-05682 /
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 25 November 2013 13: 34
              +6
              Quote: Excalibur
              Not everything is so clear ...

              I understand that with proper funding, the heads in LM and Rayton will be able to create both AMDR and even DBR, but in fact they are not yet, so it’s not worth mentioning.
        2. vvp2412
          vvp2412 25 November 2013 11: 18
          16
          The Americans conducted exercises here on the Aegis air defense system last week. So what?! A subsonic rocket flew into the hull of the ship, let's make a hole in it! :)

          "Aegis" could not cope even with a subsonic target in polygon conditions!

          What are you talking about !? Granite has no chance !? I want to laugh at such pictures after such exercises! :)
          1. Excalibur
            Excalibur 25 November 2013 11: 37
            +9
            Quote: vvp2412
            "Aegis" could not cope even with a subsonic target in polygon conditions!

            "Shell" during the exercise was unable to shoot down a drone (presumably E95M) with anti-aircraft guns.
            E95M Aerial Target - mimics subsonic type maneuvering targets cruise missile.
            http://www.enics.ru/bla?product_id=22
            Watch the video 24: 15-26: 03
            1. klop_mutant
              klop_mutant 25 November 2013 11: 59
              10
              The patamushta of the Shell armor is for the near zone, its main weaponry is rocket.
            2. andrey-ivanov
              andrey-ivanov 25 November 2013 14: 37
              10
              "Shell" is generally an advertised thing, but in fact it is quite complex. The cannons he had, in theory, to finish shooting targets that, for some reason, were not hit by missiles. Its main drawback is the missile, which has significant limitations on the destruction of low-altitude maneuvering targets. The opinion is not even mine - there is a good friend who serves (for now) in an air defense regiment deployed in the Far East region. They have "shells" as a means of covering the deployment sites of the main S-300 complex. According to him, he would prefer to see the Thor air defense missile system in place of the "Shell". After the modernization, he would not have had a price. He himself served on it before being transferred to this unit.
              1. indiggo
                indiggo 25 November 2013 16: 31
                +2
                you are a little wrong. The main objective of the gun is the ability to repulse during the relocation of the column, although the function has reached the targets really present.
            3. vvp2412
              vvp2412 25 November 2013 18: 33
              +4
              Firstly, you were answered below regarding automatic guns.
              Secondly, I didn’t write anywhere that the S1 Shell can shoot down anything!

              And the author of the article proves with foam at the mouth that at least one missile will reach the aircraft carrier!
        3. klop_mutant
          klop_mutant 25 November 2013 11: 57
          15
          Poor rocket, it is showered with anti-missile commercials.
        4. Geisenberg
          Geisenberg 25 November 2013 13: 26
          +6
          Quote: Excalibur
          Granit has no chance ...


          No at Granite, at Basalt. Finally, no one has canceled the nuclear warhead.
        5. viruskvartirus
          viruskvartirus 25 November 2013 13: 34
          13
          Well, if you consider THIS then all the same there is laughing http://army-news.ru/2013/11/ispytaniya-sistemy-idzhis-vmf-ssha-provalilis/
          1. vvp2412
            vvp2412 25 November 2013 18: 34
            +2
            So I wrote about this hole.
            The Aegis system failed to hit the subsonic missile!
        6. Army1
          Army1 25 November 2013 19: 47
          +4
          Quote: Excalibur
          Granit has no chance ...

          Official video presentation from Lockheed Martin.

          Why are you all judging by video?
          Ticonderoga has no chance
        7. poquello
          poquello 25 November 2013 19: 55
          +4
          Quote: Excalibur
          Granit has no chance ...
          Official video presentation from Lockheed Martin.

          rzhunimaga lokhid martin has granite
        8. Taoist
          Taoist 26 November 2013 13: 54
          +2
          Well, for starters, this video presentation is not "Granite" but an aviation version of "Mosquito".
          Secondly, for some reason, it does not maneuver (although it is precisely the ability for active anti-aircraft maneuver at 2M speeds that makes this anti-aircraft missile especially effective) .Third, not a single case is known when anti-aircraft missiles (even very outdated ones) were hit with 100% efficiency - the laws of the presence of a radio horizon the reaction of the system has not been canceled. Even on ballistic non-maneuvering targets, the hit probability is far from one. (Let's remember the old "Scuds" and the newest "Patriots" in Iraq - they intercepted at best 1 missile out of three)
          Well, and most importantly - watch less "commercials" - everything is always good there. But in real life, Tide does not always wash all stains ... ;-))
      2. Good Ukraine
        Good Ukraine 25 November 2013 16: 51
        28
        hi
        Dear visitors and readers of the site. For several days there has been a provocative debate about: "What is better to have an AUG or multi-purpose submarines." I want to draw your attention to the fact that people who are using this site’s administration to try to reduce your rating are specially involved in this debate. Moreover, those who adequately respond to such as Excalibur (1) fall under sanctions. So a few days ago I received a message from the site administration that my rating was downgraded by 50% with an explanation
        h) A targeted methodical downgrade of the opponent’s rating is prohibited on the site, i.e. multiple minus comments of one user. Such actions are easily traceable by site administrators. Intruder rating will be lowered by 50%.
        I minus the Excalibur visitor 13 times.
        These sanctions themselves are ridiculous, especially compared to my real military rank. To my question, explain “What does the concept of multiple minus one user mean? How many times? ” I have not received a response. And I tried to figure it out myself. In the article Teachings in the Air: a fighter flies to Moscow, to Rostov - bombers I minus the Excalibur visitor 13 times out of 35 of his comments.
        I think that the administration specifically provokes such actions. Otherwise, how to clarify that the administration does not punish those who write 35 comments in one article with almost the same text, but punishes those who show their attitude to such “scribblers”. If you see the comments of this visitor, then you will perfectly understand that such a visitor either has mental problems, or “shit”. The only question is - WHOSE ?. Either from the Pentagon or from the administration.
        You can say that I am biased about the Russian visitor. Yes, I am a patriot. And proud of it. And I am a visitor to a Russian-language site.
        Dear readers, please rate my comment. And please do not comment or minus Excalibur, he’s a “provocateur” here. Just don't notice it. Although it is very difficult. lol
        Dear administration, please give a detailed explanation of what it means: "multiple minus" in relation to the written comments of one visitor in one article.
        1. igor67
          igor67 25 November 2013 17: 30
          +5
          Quote: Good Ukraine
          hi
          Dear visitors and readers of the site. For several days there has been a provocative debate about: "What is better to have an AUG or multi-purpose submarines." I want to draw your attention to the fact that people who are using this site’s administration to try to reduce your rating are specially involved in this debate. Moreover, those who adequately respond to such as Excalibur (1) fall under sanctions. So a few days ago I received a message from the site administration that my rating was downgraded by 50% with an explanation
          h) A targeted methodical downgrade of the opponent’s rating is prohibited on the site, i.e. multiple minus comments of one user. Such actions are easily traceable by site administrators. Intruder rating will be lowered by 50%.
          I minus the Excalibur visitor 13 times.
          These sanctions themselves are ridiculous, especially compared to my real military rank. To my question, explain “What does the concept of multiple minus one user mean? How many times? ” I have not received a response. And I tried to figure it out myself. In the article Teachings in the Air: a fighter flies to Moscow, to Rostov - bombers I minus the Excalibur visitor 13 times out of 35 of his comments.
          I think that the administration specifically provokes such actions. Otherwise, how to clarify that the administration does not punish those who write 35 comments in one article with almost the same text, but punishes those who show their attitude to such “scribblers”. If you see the comments of this visitor, then you will perfectly understand that such a visitor either has mental problems, or “shit”. The only question is - WHOSE ?. Either from the Pentagon or from the administration.
          You can say that I am biased about the Russian visitor. Yes, I am a patriot. And proud of it. And I am a visitor to a Russian-language site.
          Dear readers, please rate my comment. And please do not comment or minus Excalibur, he’s a “provocateur” here. Just don't notice it. Although it is very difficult. lol
          Dear administration, please give a detailed explanation of what it means: "multiple minus" in relation to the written comments of one visitor in one article.

          You are wrong, even if you do not agree with the subscriber or consider him a troll and write like that, but don’t stupidly minus what is forbidden by the rules of the site, the site exists to discuss opinions even if they are polar to yours And another forum member with a nickname . Excalibur I will put a minus for the comment above, since it is submitted in English, which contradicts the rules of the site,
          1. Pashhenko Nikolay
            Pashhenko Nikolay 25 November 2013 18: 34
            13
            And no one is stupidly minus. Pros and cons are the attitude of readers to this or that comment. For this they are invented. Or should I write a differam every time I like the comment?
          2. Good Ukraine
            Good Ukraine 25 November 2013 18: 44
            +8
            hi
            Quote: igor67
            You are wrong, even if you do not agree with the subscriber or consider him to be a troll, write so and not stupidly minus, which is prohibited by the rules of the site

            Nobody stupidly minus anyone. I responded with my comments and expressed my appreciation. Or maybe the site is forbidden to express their opinion?
            I will repeat again. I put 13 cons on 35 comments in one article.
            If I put a minus on 80-100% of the comments or start looking for his comments in other articles, then this is one question, but this was nothing.
            But so far no one has answered. "What does it mean" multiple minus ""? Where is this border ?. It's just that you can "stick" anyone under this concept. If you put three minuses on three articles - is it multiple or not? or 10 cons for 100 articles? Where is the border? Or maybe it's better to lower the rating for those who write nonsense stupidly?
            In this case, they do not just shut up their mouths, but are prohibited from expressing their attitude to obvious provocateurs.
            The question arises _ "Why is this done and who benefits from it?"
            It’s just that in my early comments I quoted an excerpt from a published article on this site where the name of the Americans was written in the form in which they are usually called. What do you think? - The administration did not allow me to make this quote.
            Why?. You can mean in the article, but not in the comments.
            So in this case. You can write nonsense 35 times, but you cannot express your opinion on this nonsense.
            So I say this is a biased attitude.
            If not, justify specifically.
        2. Cynic
          Cynic 25 November 2013 18: 52
          +3
          Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
          those who adequately respond to such as

          Sorry, but
          Writing complaints or answering them is the lot of weak people.

          Understand correctly, do not give pleasure to your opponents or cause confusion among those whom you consider them.
          hi
          1. Good Ukraine
            Good Ukraine 25 November 2013 19: 41
            +1
            drinks
            Quote: Cynic
            Understand correctly, do not give pleasure to your opponents


            Apparently they misunderstood me. I'm not complaining to anyone. At least because I don’t take these ratings seriously. Even that "smiled" at me.
            I asked the administration like this: "Where is the border of the concept of" multiple minus signs "? Just a clear understanding of this issue must be.
            And I don’t understand the fear of the administration to clearly answer this question.
            Or maybe the administration is also registered in the Pentagon? hi
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 25 November 2013 20: 04
              0
              Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
              I am not complaining to anyone.

              But it looks that way.
              Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
              "Where is the border of the concept of" multiple minus "

              h) A purposeful methodical reduction of the opponent’s rating, i.e. multiple minus one user’s comments.

              As far as I remember, the site’s software blocks, for a certain time, putting down cons in a row to one user. If you ignore it, resuming minus, after the break, then I think this is multiple minus.
              You know, it also annoyed me at first, but then I came to the decision _
              Why stop a person from twisting a rope on which they hang him?
              laughing
              1. Apollo
                Apollo 25 November 2013 20: 05
                +1
                Quote: Cynic
                If you ignore this by resuming minus after a break, then I think this is multiple minus.


                You are mistaken, three or more minuses in one topic, to the same visitor.
                1. Cynic
                  Cynic 25 November 2013 20: 14
                  +4
                  Quote: Apollon
                  , three or more minuses in one topic, to the same visitor.

                  Hmm, stern and short-sighted.
                  1. Good Ukraine
                    Good Ukraine 25 November 2013 20: 30
                    +1
                    Quote: Cynic
                    Yeah, stern and short-sighted

                    I spoke about this.
                    1. No one really knows the rules. And this enables the administration to interpret this paragraph as you like.
                    2. You can write 30-50 comments in one article, but you can’t express your attitude to such comments. - Why? It is precisely this attitude that leads to the creation of completely delusional comments.
                    1. Cynic
                      Cynic 25 November 2013 21: 08
                      +1
                      Quote: Dobryak Ukraine
                      . You can write 30-50 comments in one article, but you can’t express your attitude to such comments. - Why?

                      So I understand that the administration of the site encourages people to express comments, not - and +, but more specifically _ by writing comments.
                      I see no other meaning in this severity.
                      hi
                      1. Good Ukraine
                        Good Ukraine 26 November 2013 00: 32
                        +1
                        hi
                        Quote: Cynic
                        So I understand that the administration of the site encourages people to express comments, not - and +, but more specifically _ by writing comments. I see no other meaning in this severity.

                        God be with them, colleague!
                        Whatever the child would have fun !!!
                        It is much more interesting for me to communicate and read the comments of sane people, adequately responding to the situation.
                        And all sorts of snails and rabbits, let them remain on the conscience of the administration.

                        And about "freedom of speech" I will say this. - They gave the opportunity to speak, let people speak. They gave the opportunity to express an opinion to the comments, well, don't shut your mouth.
                        Or is freedom of opinion prohibited already? And then somehow it turns out quite American drinks
                      2. poquello
                        poquello 26 November 2013 00: 41
                        +4
                        I agree with you, but I’m sick of the pros.
                      3. Good Ukraine
                        Good Ukraine 26 November 2013 01: 48
                        0
                        drinks
                        Quote: poquello
                        I agree with you, but I’m sick of the pros.


                        If this is my opinion, I haven’t laughed like that yet !!! good
    2. smart ass
      smart ass 27 November 2013 08: 22
      0
      An adult, and do garbage (sorry for my English). Minuski poke ...)
  2. Max_Bauder
    Max_Bauder 25 November 2013 16: 56
    -1
    Max_Bauder (1)  Today, 16:46 ↑ New

    As for the article, I think the following,

    we will take into account initially that all this is an empty idle talk, fantasies, so to speak, because such a collision did not occur in life, on this basis I can assume

    if such an aug approaches 1000 miles to the coast of Iran, for example, then a volley of all ground missiles with nuclear warheads toward aug, leaves nothing alive within a radius of 20 km from the place of impact, there is an explosion wave, and an electromagnetic pulse and nuclear radiation, i.e. all the components of a nuclear bomb, it’s not yet clear which bomb Iran can launch — proton or neutron, or maybe hydrogen. If I’m not mistaken, the neutron is 40 times more powerful than the one that was dropped into Hiroshima. Augu end love =) It's like a crocodile against a tiger. =)


    Forgot to add
    all wars are fought on earth, even in World War II the Germans fought at sea so that strategic cargo was not delivered to the EARTH of Great Britain, Africa, etc.
    That is, to catch aug or any other type of naval armada, just sit there waiting for him on the ground when he comes to the distance of the shot and that's it! China, Iran, the DPRK, all potential enemies of the United States have a seashore, which means they can easily launch long-range missiles directly from the shore without violating the borders of neighboring states.
  • Canep
    Canep 25 November 2013 09: 28
    47
    When our troops entered Afghanistan, then the marshals of the Soviet Union thought that the speed of the mechanized columns depends on the specific power of the engines of the tanks, the training of the personnel and the coordination of the crews, but it turned out that the speed of the column was determined by the shuffling gait of the sapper and his dog.
    So here we are measured by peep-peers who are longer, faster than stealth, but in reality it may turn out so that, in principle, life is arranged differently.
    The purpose of the AUG is to demonstrate the flag in peacetime, and provide support for the fleet (and ground forces) by aviation at the overseas theater of operations. Question to all forum users: Are we going to land in America or Australia?
    If so, aircraft carriers are needed.
    As for the nuclear submarines, their purpose in peacetime is to patrol the oceans and provide the underwater components of nuclear deterrence, in wartime, to disrupt the enemy’s sea and ocean communications, and launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. Now let everyone answer which of the tasks is more important: landing in America or defense of the country?
    And the defenders of the aircraft carriers say:
    Firstly, the carriers of the P-800 "Onyx" in the Russian fleet are small missile ships ("boats") of Project 1234.7 "Ovod" in the amount of 1 (one) boat. Another 10 boats of the outdated project 1234 "Gadfly" are armed with subsonic P-120 "Malachite". Range at maximum speed - 415 nautical miles.
    That is, they project the current actual state of the fleet onto the general concept of its development. It looks like this: "Why do we need" Onyxes "because for them there is only one ship and the one with a small radius of action, into its furnace, you need to build more AUG, and chase the enemy AUG across all oceans." Forgetting that this ship already exists and it costs a penny and to protect against the actions of American AUG in our waters it is enough (even one with a successful confluence). And the money saved can be used to build schools, kindergartens, hospitals and housing for those on the waiting list. Sorry that it was so long.
    1. APES
      APES 25 November 2013 10: 01
      +9
      Quote: Canep
      We are going to land in America


      there is a suggestion - let's start with England (the tunnel has already been built)
      1. vvp2412
        vvp2412 25 November 2013 11: 21
        11
        Let the Germans better fight back on the Angosaxians with our tacit consent! :)
    2. Canep
      Canep 25 November 2013 10: 42
      +8
      Or goes to the aircraft carrier connection: 2-4 aircraft carrier, 2-4 URO cruiser, 15-30 URO destroyers and frigates, 2-4-6 APL.
      With such an armada, no one will break through its missile defense or air defense. The clever commander will smack the 2-3rd ICBM with a dozen warheads each, boil the ocean within a radius of 100 nautical miles and goodbye AUG. Those ships that survive will not pose any threat due to a complete failure of the electronics, with the exception of nuclear submarines - under water, the electromagnetic pulse quickly weakens.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 25 November 2013 10: 48
        +4
        Quote: Canep
        The clever commander will smack the 2-3rd ICBM with a dozen warheads each, boil the ocean within a radius of 100 nautical miles and goodbye AUG.

        An intelligent general will never be wasted by such an economy. Firing ICBMs on the AUG is complete idiocy. For the time when the information about the location of the AOG arrives at the Strategic Missile Forces, while this information is uploaded to the ICBM, while this ICBM reaches the desired square, the AUG will not be there. A clever commander, if he launches an ICBM, then at least in the places of basing, and even better in the command centers of the enemy, having previously descended into a warm bunker with blackjack and simple ...
        1. Canep
          Canep 25 November 2013 12: 24
          11
          Quote: Nayhas
          For the time when the information about the location of the AOG arrives at the Strategic Missile Forces, while this information is uploaded to the ICBM, while this ICBM reaches the desired square, the AUG will not be there.
          According to your information, in bags of 50 kg, Ravshan and Jumshut are loaded into ICBMs with smoke breaks for half an hour? The location of the AUG is constantly monitored by all means of reconnaissance, this is not a nuclear submarine that cannot be seen or heard. Enter coordinates - five minutes. Next start. After about 10 minutes, the Americans will figure out where the gift is flying, before arrival - 20 minutes maximum. And then the reaction time of the AUG. How far will an aircraft carrier go in 20 minutes? Maximum 10 miles. Now our strategists have the task of "incredible complexity" to pack 10 nuclear charges into 20-mile-diameter mugs. Question to you, is it real? And if so, then one more question after the explosion of 10 charges of 200kt each, what will be the radius of continuous destruction? In my opinion, the bottom of the ocean will open at the epicenter, tk. the water will simply evaporate. A wave of 100 meters high will subside to 10 meters in 100-200 miles. Where will we look for AUG after such a show?
          1. papik09
            papik09 26 November 2013 05: 00
            +5
            Well, sir, don’t be such a barbarian, nuclear b / heads on AUG,"10 nuclear charges in mugs 20 miles in diameter"... This, of course, is cool, and not "sorry" to you after that any marine life? Including their nuclear submarines? After all, they, too, will "stretch" the muzzle of the face along the ocean floor. Not, but finally, the show will be just abnormal drinks
            1. Max_Bauder
              Max_Bauder 26 November 2013 16: 00
              +1
              Well, and they wanted coolies =) that Iran (DPRK, China) lost in a "fair" fight against which other troops were not enough ?! =)

              it's like walking home in the evening, a gopnik comes out from around the corner with a knife rushing at you, you pull out a pistol, and suddenly he: "well, what are you bro, also not fair" = D
          2. Max_Bauder
            Max_Bauder 26 November 2013 15: 54
            0
            Described how I could not, bravo! =)
      2. rolik2
        rolik2 25 November 2013 10: 55
        +8
        Quote: Canep
        A smart commander is a shmnal 2-3rd ICBM with a dozen warheads on each

        And he will receive the same amount in return. As a result, the burned-out land that was not suitable for life, billions of dead - is this your "smart" commander?
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 25 November 2013 10: 59
          +5
          Quote: rolik2
          And he will receive the same amount in return. As a result, the burned-out land that was not suitable for life, billions of dead - is this your "smart" commander?

          Well, if a nuclear strike is blasted at the AUG, then will there be nothing in return?
          1. Canep
            Canep 25 November 2013 12: 03
            10
            Quote: Nayhas
            Well, if a nuclear strike is blasted at the AUG, then will there be nothing in return?

            In my opinion, you mean NOT NUCLEAR. Of course, Americans are gentlemen and if we destroy an aircraft carrier with a usual charge they will not use nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Code of honor! their mother. Yes, for one of their peacekeepers, they will roll that country into glass that dares to even scratch it.
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 25 November 2013 13: 30
              +2
              Quote: Canep
              Smart commander Shmnal 2-3rd ICBM with a dozen warheads

              This I quote from you. There is not a single ICBM in the world without nuclear warheads because there is no point. The enemy will not figure out what kind of ICBM you launched with a conventional b / h or nuclear, no one will send requests with the text "are you driving us into the Stone Age, or just sink an aircraft carrier?" Perhaps you had a Chinese MRBM DF-21? So their range is not intercontinental, and the issue of detecting targets of the GOS b / h is far from clear.
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 25 November 2013 19: 42
            0
            Quote: Nayhas
            Well, if a nuclear strike is blasted at the AUG, then will there be nothing in return?

            The Anglo-Saxons wrote such a maritime law, according to which the ship is the territory of the state. I think this is not correct, this item should be removed from the law of the sea.
      3. Delta
        Delta 25 November 2013 12: 24
        +8
        Quote: Canep
        A smart commander is a shmnal 2-3rd ICBM with a dozen warheads on each


        smart ICBM will not let go.

        Quote: Canep
        boil the ocean within a radius of 100 nautical miles and goodbye AUG. Those ships that survive will not pose any threat due to a complete failure of the electronics, with the exception of nuclear submarines - under water, the electromagnetic pulse quickly weakens.


        no one will survive. A nuclear submarine will last a couple of months. You’ll have to come up further, and from the planet there are only firebrands and a nuclear winter. An article about aircraft carriers, not nuclear weapons. For some reason, during the Vietnam War, no nuclear weapons were used. As during the war with Iraq. But the aircraft carriers did their job.
        1. Canep
          Canep 25 November 2013 12: 45
          +1
          Quote: Delta
          . But the aircraft carriers did their job.

          Greetings Vyacheslav. And what tell they did the work there. Defended America from the invasion of the barbarians? Or delivered humanitarian aid to the natives, or conducted a rescue operation? In fact, they stupidly invaded a foreign country with weapons in their hands. That is, they committed a criminal offense. Do you offer to do the same?
          1. Delta
            Delta 25 November 2013 13: 03
            +2
            Quote: Canep
            And what tell they did the work there. Defended America from the invasion of the barbarians? Or delivered humanitarian aid to the natives, or conducted a rescue operation? In fact, they stupidly invaded a foreign country with weapons in their hands. That is, they committed a criminal offense. Do you offer to do the same?


            Greetings to you too. Yes, we know what they did there. But no matter how we view it, they see it as a projection of force. Yes, they are stupidly taking over the planet like locusts. And tell me, did not Russia and the USSR seize anything? did the existing borders just get her? now they like to cite talented Russian generals as an example, but they do not remember that they also expanded the borders of their state. Otherwise, Russia would be the size of Liechtenstein now. And the States are slowly but surely promoting their will, their policies. They adopted the "Dulles plan", realizing that a simple war could not break the Russians. The Union was destroyed, the Warsaw Pact countries are already NATO, Ukraine and others are next. Like this. And if Russia thinks that it will be able to lie down on the stove and meet the enemy already on its territory, then it will bitterly regret that it did not pursue the same policy as the United States. By the way, the USSR almost did not lag behind the States in this. He intervened, attended, fought. Therefore, he was strong and feared him. When they say that we, they say, will rivet the submarine and blow it out on that - it's ridiculous. Yes, it is difficult to build even one aircraft carrier. But, as Nikolsky said in his recent article, let us build it for 10 years. But this period is needed for the development, construction, design of any type of weapon that has not yet been mastered by the country. But sooner or later it must be mastered. Who knows how and where to fight
            1. Canep
              Canep 25 November 2013 13: 16
              +4
              Quote: Delta
              Who knows how and where to fight

              No one knows. But it can be assumed. All Russia's allies are located in Eurasia. To protect them, an aircraft carrier is not needed (not to have it in the Caspian), everything is shot from ground bases. Over the ocean, we have only one sworn partner with whom we can begin to fight. And here it will not do without nuclear stabbing, and when it comes to seizing the territory, in the best case it turns out that there is nothing to capture, and in the worst there is no one. And that by the time of the invasion of the aircraft carriers none of the parties would have it most likely.
              1. Delta
                Delta 25 November 2013 13: 26
                +3
                Quote: Canep
                Over the ocean, we have only one sworn partner with whom we can begin to fight. And here it will not do without nuclear stabbing, and when it comes to seizing the territory, in the best case it turns out that there is nothing to capture, and in the worst there is no one


                we have fought with this "friend" more than once. Only not officially, but in fact (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea). And the confrontation will be as long as Russia can put at least something on the battlefield. And the battlefield UNTIL (fortunately) is not on the territory of Russia
                1. Canep
                  Canep 25 November 2013 13: 37
                  0
                  Quote: Delta
                  And the confrontation will be as long as Russia can at least put something on the battlefield.

                  Or the Americans will not run out of resources.
                  1. Delta
                    Delta 25 November 2013 14: 15
                    +1
                    Quote: Canep
                    Quote: Delta
                    And the confrontation will be as long as Russia can at least put something on the battlefield.

                    Or the Americans will not run out of resources.


                    Farsighted politicians and the military can not be hoped for
                    1. Canep
                      Canep 25 November 2013 15: 20
                      0
                      And pragmatic politicians need to put the idea of ​​building an AUG for long-term storage until the need for an aircraft carrier looms on the horizon, and there are prospects for creating an infrastructure (supply base). But throwing it away is not worth it.
            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 25 November 2013 16: 14
              0
              It is necessary to capture what is closer, and not something there in Africa. In general, the borders of Russia in the minimum form are the Russian Federation, Belarus, Ukraine without the Galician infection. In the maximum of the USSR, no other major changes are expected, but we definitely will not be able to add New Zealand to the 50 in the coming years, although we would like to have a clean climate there.
          2. papik09
            papik09 26 November 2013 05: 03
            0
            I agree 100%. "In fact, they stupidly invaded a foreign country with weapons in their hands. That is, they committed a criminal offense. "For such things, you need to beat off your hands, preferably with your head. am
      4. doktor_alex
        doktor_alex 25 November 2013 13: 06
        +5
        There is also such a damaging factor as a shock wave, and the water is not compressible, in the nuclear submarine most likely everyone who was there can be wiped with a cloth and squeezed out in a bucket.
      5. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 25 November 2013 22: 07
        0
        Quote: Canep
        A smart commander is a shmnal 2-3rd ICBM with a dozen warheads on each

        In response, will receive a hundred
        You are so naive. Why didn’t Vietnam, Iraq, Libya even attempt to hit the aircraft carrier? Why was the Caribbean crisis resolved peacefully?
        Why didn't the amerovskaya nuclear submarine sink for Kursk? Think at your leisure
        Seriously speaking, until we are ready for a nuclear-free conflict
        Ideally, the attack on the AUG should be a combined method - launching torpedoes, missiles from submarines and aircraft. And in as many as possible. Then something will fly
        1. Assistant
          Assistant 25 November 2013 23: 43
          0
          Why didn’t Vietnam, Iraq, Libya even attempt to hit the aircraft carrier?


          And by the way, why did the Vietnamese (by the Vietnamese, I mean Wang Yu Shin and Li Si Tse) not try to damage the American aircraft carrier?
          1. poquello
            poquello 26 November 2013 00: 33
            +2
            Quote: Assistant
            Why didn’t Vietnam, Iraq, Libya even attempt to hit the aircraft carrier?


            And by the way, why did the Vietnamese (by the Vietnamese, I mean Wang Yu Shin and Li Si Tse) not try to damage the American aircraft carrier?

            I heard that they tried to avoid not only direct clashes, but also indirect ones. Both Americans and ours, because that spark will flare up.
      6. Max_Bauder
        Max_Bauder 26 November 2013 15: 53
        0
        I am very glad that I was not the only one to think of this =)
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 25 November 2013 13: 25
    +5
    Quote: lotar
    Honestly, the impression was that the authors of these articles are measured by pi-mi ...


    The author is simply an idiom ... banal, petty paper of a maraca. For such articles thirty should be issued, but he is trying for nothing. They chewed him what and how and why it wasn’t so;
    1. bif
      bif 25 November 2013 18: 48
      +2
      Quote: Geisenberg
      paper maraca

      1. Not a single author’s kalaka is supported by either reference or facts.
      2. The described situations are distorted, knowledge of the current state of the fleet and performance characteristics of the equipment is erroneous.
      3. Therefore, the conclusions are not worth the time spent reading this Opus.
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 25 November 2013 20: 02
        +2
        Quote: bif
        .None of the author’s kalaka is confirmed by either reference or facts.

        Well, why, here it is a fact-
        Why would such a conclusion from scratch? Where at least one American aircraft carrier damaged by the enemy in combat conditions after World War II? They are not.
        The fact is simply that after the war, pendos never encountered a real adversary. They deliberately chose the weak. And the author is really a wahlak, a bright representative of the fifth column. hi
  • sub307
    sub307 25 November 2013 14: 18
    +6
    Yes, it seems that the "experts" here have "read" each with their own arguments.
    Our Navy at the moment "chasing" the world for US AUGs - somehow it will not work out very well. Now he is facing not such large-scale, but no less difficult "feats":
    - "oklematsya" after any "restructuring, alterations" and "reformation, deformation";
    - to finally decide clearly on the "doctrine", from now on "acquire" a ship composition at the appropriate quantitative and qualitative levels + a modern basing system + a system of manning and combat training;
    Well, move on: to develop operations against the AUG and others, if the next "reformers-perestroika" do not "appear" on the horizon.
    1. Good Ukraine
      Good Ukraine 25 November 2013 20: 18
      +1
      hi
      Quote: sub307
      - "get better" after any "restructuring, alterations" and "reformation, deformations"; - finally decide clearly on the "doctrine", from now on "acquire" a ship composition at the appropriate quantitative and qualitative levels + a modern basing system + a system of manning and combat training;


      Go in order. Corvette, Frigate, Helicopter carrier, Destroyer. In parallel with all this submarines of various classes. And only then, when the escort is ready, you can build an aircraft carrier.
  • Vadivak
    Vadivak 25 November 2013 16: 03
    +5
    Quote: lotar
    Firstly, the carriers of the P-800 "Onyx" in the Russian fleet are small missile ships ("boats") of Project 1234.7 "Ovod" in the amount of 1 (one) boat. How will this one boat chase the AUG


    But what about submarines and planes?

    One of the first carriers of the P-800 complex was the multi-purpose nuclear submarine of Project 885 Ash (according to the NATO classification Granay), which belongs to the fourth generation of submarines. On the boat, the Onyx anti-ship missiles are located in eight vertical silo launchers SM-346 (two rows of 4 launchers each), manufactured by the Obukhov plant, with an internal diameter of mines of 2 m and a height of 10 m, including four transport and launch containers of SM-324 . The TPK is mounted in the mines by means of the depreciated platform located at the top of the container, three tiers of elements of the depreciation system and a locking device. The electrical connector for communication with on-board ship preparation and launch equipment is located at the lower end of the transport and launch container. Each TPK is airtight and provides storage of the rocket in a high degree of readiness from its manufacture until the moment of combat use, as well as high operational reliability and condition control without removal from the container. It does not require the supply of working liquids or gases, as well as special microclimate conditions both in storage and on board the nuclear submarine. The total ammunition of the anti-ship missiles of the P-800 complex on project 885 is 32 missiles.


    The aviation version of the anti-ship missiles is designed to arm the MiG-29, Su-30, Su-32, Su-33, Tu-142 aircraft.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • velikoros-xnumx
    velikoros-xnumx 25 November 2013 16: 43
    0
    Quote: lotar
    Honestly, the impression was that the authors of these articles are measured by pi

    I have a similar impression. Both of these positions represent opposite extremes, and truth is always known in the middle. Opinion of the amateur (you can not demand any arguments and figures) - ACG is not so invulnerable, but not as omnipotent as some advocates of true democracy, including the author, present them.
  • Max_Bauder
    Max_Bauder 25 November 2013 16: 46
    0
    As for the article, I think the following,

    we will take into account initially that all this is an empty idle talk, fantasies, so to speak, because such a collision did not occur in life, on this basis I can assume

    if such an aug approaches 1000 miles to the coast of Iran, for example, then a volley of all ground missiles with nuclear warheads toward aug, leaves nothing alive within a radius of 20 km from the place of impact, there is an explosion wave, and an electromagnetic pulse and nuclear radiation, i.e. all the components of a nuclear bomb, it’s not yet clear which bomb Iran can launch — proton or neutron, or maybe hydrogen. If I’m not mistaken, the neutron is 40 times more powerful than the one that was dropped into Hiroshima. Augu end love =) It's like a crocodile against a tiger. =)
  • Alekseev
    Alekseev 25 November 2013 19: 10
    +2
    Quote: lotar
    authors of these articles are measured by pi

    Absolutely accurate definition! good
    The horse understands that in order to defeat an aircraft carrier as part of the AOG, it is necessary to create an adequate compound The Navy, consisting of several submarines with anti-ship missiles on board, at least an MPA regiment and support forces.
    All this has never been a secret to anyone. Why do authors "measure pee-pee"? Unclear... request
  • Army1
    Army1 25 November 2013 20: 24
    +1
    The principle of operation of air defense missile defense ships with the Aegis system
    For each launched anti-aircraft missile, the radar, with an interval of a few seconds, determines the trajectory parameters and, if necessary, reprograms the autopilot, directing the missile toward the target along the most optimal trajectory. Radio command rocket control occurs only on the starting and marching sections of the trajectory. At the final site (a few seconds before meeting the target), the rocket is put into semi-active homing mode using special backlight radars.

    Missile launch moments are calculated by the control system in such a way that the number of missiles currently on the final section of the trajectory does not exceed the number of target illumination radars on the ship (4 on Ticonderoga cruisers, 3 on Arly Burk type destroyers). Using the described algorithm allows you to simultaneously fire several dozen targets (up to 20 targets for the cruiser type "Ticonderoga").

    On ships that do not have the Aegis system, rocket control from the moment of launch was carried out by a dedicated guidance radar, so the number of simultaneously fired targets did not exceed the number of guidance radars.

    A ship can simultaneously bullet 20 anti-aircraft missiles, !!! but at the same time destroy !!! 4 - Ticonderoga, 3 - ArlyBerk.
    About the article, of course, pip @@ measurement, and this is about a blow from under the water, Basalt was also replaced by Volcano P 1000. There were more than one case of the ACG breakthrough, and during the Cold War, when the Americans kept their eyes open, relax there was no time.
    And again, the ESR of RCC is small, at what distance will it be detected? The big question.
    And on the site there are really incomprehensible personalities that are not clear why what is it here ??? I suggest just ignoring them.
  • akreworpa
    akreworpa 25 November 2013 07: 59
    15
    Full cretinism. And here ships pr.1234. No one disputes that we now lack a nuclear submarine. Kaptsov wrote that they need to be built more and I completely agree.
    1. ivshubarin
      ivshubarin 25 November 2013 08: 28
      22
      Build a submarine killer AUG more, in our situation it is cheaper than dreaming of an aircraft carrier
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 25 November 2013 09: 26
        +2
        Quote: ivshubarin
        Build a submarine killer AUG more, in our situation it is cheaper than dreaming of an aircraft carrier

        There is no arguing.
      2. Revolver
        Revolver 25 November 2013 11: 00
        +8
        Quote: ivshubarin
        Build a submarine killer AUG more, in our situation it is cheaper than dreaming of an aircraft carrier
        Dreaming about an aircraft carrier is just cheaper than building a submarine. Even cheaper than a rubber boat to buy, because it’s free.
        laughing
      3. AVV
        AVV 25 November 2013 11: 22
        +1
        For the protection of the Russian borders, non-nuclear submarines, such as "Lada", are best of all, they are much cheaper at a price, even nuclear submarines equipped with Klabs and Onyxes, there are several dozen of them, this is an asymmetric response to AUG!
        1. Goodvin55
          Goodvin55 25 November 2013 12: 57
          +3
          The problem is that the Lada-class submarine is outdated due to its power plant, and it’s stupid to build it until they create (buy) a normal power plant.
      4. klop_mutant
        klop_mutant 25 November 2013 12: 01
        +1
        Moreover, aircraft carriers somehow do not really win wars, even against banana republics.
  • vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 25 November 2013 08: 13
    11
    Honestly tired of disputes about aircraft carriers, the point is not what kind of ships are cool or so-so. The bottom line is whether Russia needs them, and especially now, and in the near future. As for their invulnerability, in general, fairy tales are composed. With a full-scale war using all means, it is possible and not so difficult to destroy a group. everything else follows from the cost of production and maintenance.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 25 November 2013 08: 22
      +5
      Quote: vladsolo56
      With a full-scale war using all means, it is possible and not so difficult to destroy a group. everything else follows from the cost of production and maintenance.

      Yes, it’s just ... For the military, one discovery of the AUG is a headache, and you talk about destruction so easily ... On this resource, not one article was already about how it was not easy according to the recollections of the participants in the events.
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 25 November 2013 08: 32
        12
        this is your personal opinion, in the USSR they always knew ulb at the moment there is one or another American aircraft carrier, so you should not believe everything that the "specialists" are talking about
        1. ivshubarin
          ivshubarin 25 November 2013 09: 57
          0
          Now you can track anything from space
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 25 November 2013 10: 08
            +5
            Quote: ivshubarin
            Now you can track anything from space

            Well, of course. And why then do "Open Sky" planes fly? Why waste kerosene, serve enemy aircraft at their airfields? Probably because the usual cloudiness prevents you from seeing what you want to see? Are you aware that practically all our reconnaissance satellites are optical-electronic reconnaissance and only "Lotos-S" electronic intelligence?
            1. ivshubarin
              ivshubarin 25 November 2013 10: 14
              +2
              Aircraft carrier is not a needle and does not move at the speed of light
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 25 November 2013 10: 40
                +2
                Quote: ivshubarin
                Aircraft carrier is not a needle and does not move at the speed of light

                Duc and Okiyan is not empty, many people walk around the acre of an aircraft carrier, and by size it is far from the largest ... And at the sea, cloudiness is an ordinary phenomenon, as you will see through the clouds then?
                1. Petrix
                  Petrix 25 November 2013 11: 29
                  +2
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  how do you see through the clouds then?

                  Therefore, multichannel intelligence is underway. Space, aviation, ground-based radars, underwater acoustics, multi-level reconnaissance at enemy headquarters.
                  It’s hard not to notice the AUG. A bunch of ships and planes constantly monitor air and water. The operation of radars and active sonars is visible much further than the radars themselves see.
                  1. Nayhas
                    Nayhas 25 November 2013 14: 01
                    +2
                    Quote: Petrix
                    Therefore, multichannel intelligence is underway.

                    Well, when there are so many channels ...
                    Quote: Petrix
                    Space

                    Reconnaissance satellites in Russia are optoelectronic, i.e. depending on weather conditions.
                    Quote: Petrix
                    aviation

                    Russia has no naval scouts left
                    Quote: Petrix
                    ground radars

                    Not everywhere is their range limited by the radio horizon. Over-the-horizon radars will not distinguish an aircraft carrier from a tanker or container ship.
                    Quote: Petrix
                    underwater acoustics

                    Russia does not have a sonar system like SOSUS, and there are very few available nuclear submarines for conducting acoustic reconnaissance.
                    Quote: Petrix
                    multi-level intelligence at enemy headquarters.

                    ? are you sure about this
                    Quote: Petrix
                    It’s hard not to notice the AUG.

                    Well, in words, yes. Yours is true. But retired Rear Admiral Vladimir Anisimovich KAREV somehow disagrees with you. He really had to organize the search for the US AUG in the presence of both space and aviation and many nuclear submarines. The article "FleetEx-82 Naval Exercise of the US Pacific Fleet (September 82)"
                  2. Nayhas
                    Nayhas 25 November 2013 14: 03
                    +1
                    Quote: Petrix
                    Therefore, multichannel intelligence is underway.

                    Well, when there are so many channels ...
                    Quote: Petrix
                    Space

                    Reconnaissance satellites in Russia are optoelectronic, i.e. depending on weather conditions.
                    Quote: Petrix
                    aviation

                    Russia has no naval scouts left
                    Quote: Petrix
                    ground radars

                    Not everywhere is their range limited by the radio horizon. Over-the-horizon radars will not distinguish an aircraft carrier from a tanker or container ship.
                    Quote: Petrix
                    underwater acoustics

                    Russia does not have a sonar system like SOSUS, and there are very few available nuclear submarines for conducting acoustic reconnaissance.
                    Quote: Petrix
                    multi-level intelligence at enemy headquarters.

                    ? are you sure about this
                    Quote: Petrix
                    It’s hard not to notice the AUG.

                    Well, in words, yes. Yours is true. But retired Rear Admiral Vladimir Anisimovich KAREV somehow disagrees with you. He really had to organize the search for the US AUG in the presence of both space and aviation and many nuclear submarines. The article "FleetEx-82 Naval Exercise of the US Pacific Fleet (September 82)"
        2. Delta
          Delta 25 November 2013 12: 42
          +5
          Quote: vladsolo56
          in the USSR always knew ulb at the moment there is one or another aircraft carrier of America


          and you read how in the 82nd (peak of the Cold War ") they lost near our coast AUG http://topwar.ru/35145-voenno-morskie-ucheniya-tof-ssha-fliteks-82-fleetex-82-se
          ntyabr-1982-g.html

          this is not my opinion, this is written by a participant in the events, Rear Admiral
          1. papik09
            papik09 26 November 2013 05: 26
            0
            And there’s no article on your link recourse
            1. Silhouette
              Silhouette 26 November 2013 11: 55
              0
              link in place. I inserted my 5 cents.
        3. Goodvin55
          Goodvin55 25 November 2013 13: 02
          -2
          And the Americans know where our boats are on alert. And the cost of production and maintenance of any ship in our country will be large due to kickbacks and the lack of a normal basing system.
      2. saruman
        saruman 25 November 2013 12: 16
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        For the military, one discovery of AUG is a headache, and you talk about destruction with such ease.


        And first you look at the sea borders of Russia. Is it like American AUGs that can quietly slip into the zone of effective use of naval aviation for ground targets in Russia? Will the American admirals give up their AUGs to enter the Black, Baltic, Barents or Okhotsk Sea? In all indicated water areas, AUGs are useless scumbags, in addition, for the United States it is easier to use the base airfields of foreign and its own (Alaska) air force bases and also allies (see maps). And chasing after AUGs in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans - do we need it?
  • saag
    saag 25 November 2013 08: 19
    +8
    Indeed, every article is an extreme, it is not possible, or vice versa, it is possible at the very "cant"
    "... The new missile is an evolution of the stealth concept." it is perfectly visible in the meter range
    "... A full onboard salvo of submarine 949A (24 P-700 Granit missiles) does not guarantee a breakthrough in the AUG air defense even at the level of the presence in it of only one cruiser URO" Ticonderogi "
    And at the exercises, the Americans themselves denied them with a subsonic target :-) In general, as Agent Fox Mulder said: "The truth is somewhere nearby" :-)
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 25 November 2013 08: 43
    10
    Why would such a conclusion from scratch? Where at least one American aircraft carrier damaged by the enemy in combat conditions after World War II? They are not.


    And at least once did the aircraft carriers encounter a serious adversary?

    First, the carriers of the P-800 "Onyx" in the Russian fleet are small missile ships ("boats") of the project 1234.7 "Ovod" in the amount of 1 (one) boat.


    Amazingly, AUG may not be afraid, because the Russian Federation has one boat. For your reference "Onyx" there is also an Indian version called "Brahmos". And what is easier, to build an AUG, or 100500 boats, or even cruisers of the Atlant type? "Onyx" is not "Onyx", and in the USSR they have created a decent amount of supersonic anti-ship missiles. And here the trick is that the aircraft carrier in World War II could not be hit further than 20-30 km, and its aircraft cost a penny and was vulnerable only at a distance of 2-3 km from the target, nothing like floating batteries of air defense missile systems with ranges exceeding the range of pathetic missiles air-to-ship simply wasn't there.

    In principle, in peacetime, such "breakthroughs" occur every day, for example, in the Mediterranean Sea or the Persian Gulf by various ships: bulk carriers, tankers, sailboats, "Abramovich's yachts, even, they say, Su-27 flew by). But they are not even dreaming about combat conditions, and even more about shootings at close range. Although if the kamikaze crew is on a boat or in an airplane, they may take the risk.


    One moment is completely forgotten, the AOG is stretched out in space, and the attacked security ship can only be covered by aircraft from the carrier, otherwise forget about the attacks on 1800 km, by the way, the F / A-18E will simply not reach such a distance unless it is a kamikaze.

    One such cruiser has 3 line of defense and can effectively repel the attack of 19-25 missiles.


    Already intercepted. What is "Granite", a subsonic drone. However, the question was examined before that.
    In general, there is one very unpleasant nuance, nothing can be guaranteed in the war, any missiles will still break through all levels of air defense.

    In the United States, successful tests were carried out on the vertical launch of new anti-ship missiles LRASM (long range 800 km) The new missile represents the development of the stealth concept of stealth. The missile independently searches for a target in a given area, identifies the target even in a difficult jamming environment and independently coordinates the attack plan. Launched in the proposed search area, the rocket can be in the air for a long time until it finds a ship that is similar in purpose to its characteristics - and only then attacks it.


    Thank you, made fun. A lousy subsonic racket (otherwise there won't be enough fuel for useless loitering), no one will be afraid of this for sure. And yes, if the Americans have created a stealth missile, then who forbids us? And then what? Good Bye Aegis?
  • ed65b
    ed65b 25 November 2013 08: 45
    +9
    We saw a photo of Aegis working with a hole in the board. The author scribbled the article with a chicken paw. Not convincing. Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq are not convincing. Oleg still has a preponderance of his arguments more convincing, the more so to some extent they are confirmed by the course of events.
  • UVB
    UVB 25 November 2013 09: 06
    +3
    Aircraft carriers such as "Kitty Hawk" participated in combat operations in Vietnam.
    Carriers of the Nimitz type participated in the Desert Storm combat operations on 1991, on 1999 against Serbia, and on Iraq (2003). Combat damage from enemy missiles, kamikazes, terrorists, etc. - no.
    And what were the real attempts to attack the AUG? Something did not hear about such.
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 25 November 2013 09: 20
      +2
      Quote: UVB
      And what were the real attempts to attack the AUG?
      Yes, until probably no fools were found?

      Quote: Bort Radist
      Two cowboys are riding.
      Something flickered in the bushes.
      - Who is it?
      - Ah, Elusive Joe.
      - No one can catch him !!!
      - And who, in figs, needs him!


      There is such a saying "I WOULD VIE ... L, YES HUNT TO LIVE"!
    2. sawmill
      sawmill 25 November 2013 18: 28
      +1
      The British AUG during the Falkland War was subjected to more than one multiple attack by the Argentine Air Force, the results are mixed. There were hits in the aircraft carrier, even with a shortage of exoset anti-ship missiles in Argentina. There were losses to British escort ships. But the British AUG fulfilled the task of airborne cover for the landing in the conditions of opposition of the enemy air force.
      The conclusions in my opinion may be as follows:
      The effectiveness of the ACG depends on a whole set of factors among them, the goals and objectives of the ACG, the place, the degree of opposition from the enemy, etc.
      Discussing hypothetical scenarios and predicting the development of events without a clear analysis of the forces and means involved in the clash is meaningless.
  • Bort radist
    Bort radist 25 November 2013 09: 13
    +2
    Quote: UVB
    And what were the real attempts to attack the AUG? Something did not hear about such.

    Two cowboys are riding.
    Something flickered in the bushes.
    - Who is it?
    - Ah, Elusive Joe.
    - No one can catch him !!!
    - And who, in figs, needs him!
  • egor 1712
    egor 1712 25 November 2013 09: 16
    +4
    I agree that the article is empty and the information indicated in it is controversial. The author makes it clear that if something happens, only one boat will come out from Russia against the AUG order. Funny ...
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 25 November 2013 09: 27
      0
      Quote: egor 1712
      I agree that the article is empty and the information indicated in it is controversial. The author makes it clear that if something happens, only one boat will come out from Russia against the AUG order. Funny ...

      Yeah, nowhere is funnier. List all who the Russian Navy can expose and then it will be no laughing matter ...
      1. Evgeny_Lev
        Evgeny_Lev 25 November 2013 11: 48
        +1
        Let's clarify where to set specifically?
        In the middle of the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean?
        At which point in the world ocean?

        Do you think that Russia, knowing its strength, will meet with AUG where the thread is far from its borders? And our borders are covered only by boats, right?
  • Ddhal
    Ddhal 25 November 2013 09: 24
    +1
    An interesting contest of very capable argumentators.
    But the half-empty CorneliusScipio glass is becoming less and less impressive, although the author should be commended for striving to be objective. Kaptsov wins in my opinion.
    And the truth is, as usual, somewhere nearby ..
    By creating the fleet Peter made the Empire of Russia.
    In any case, it must be qualitatively improved and the process resumed.
    We will be optimistic.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 25 November 2013 09: 27
    +9
    The author assures that Oleg gives weak arguments, but he himself does not give anything at all. One common phrases and spells. The rocket boat example is generally ridiculous.
  • UVB
    UVB 25 November 2013 09: 38
    +1
    But almost the topic: http://qrok.net/53177-gruzinskiy-avianosec-potoplen-somaliyskimi-piratami.html laughing
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 25 November 2013 09: 58
    +4
    Oleg builds the concept of an Aircraft Carrier-Useless Junk that covers Aegis useless junk, and everything is decided by the Premier League. Under this concept, he pulls up many controversial factors and often gives out wishful thinking.
    Aircraft carriers - Oleg believes that they are completely replaced by classical aircraft based on airfields. No matter how certain the statistics cited by him fully prove this. BUT. Only aviation located on aircraft carriers is capable of sinking any fleet without its own aviation. A non-aviation fleet, of course, can use coastal cover, but this limits the range of the fleet to the range of coastal aviation, + approach time airdromes cannot be located on the shore wherever the fleet requires it.
    Aegis - Oleg believes that the AN / SPY-1 radar cannot intercept low-flying targets, they say that ships with Aegis do not have an additional radar Podkat as on Peter the Great and pr.1155. BUT. On Ticonderoga, in general, there is something similar, it is AN / SPS-49, and on Berks AN / SPS-67, but their functions are more auxiliary, on the upgraded USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) AN / SPS-49 radar was removed. When it came to the characteristics of these radars, I presented the data on AN / SPS-67 and suggested comparing it with the Subcategory radar, which was silent. But then again this is not important. Domestic three-coordinate radars with FAR Fregat-M2EM, Polyment-Redut are positioned as radars that confidently detect low-flying targets, and no one doubts their declared capabilities, moreover, they do not need any additional Doppler radars of the Subcat type, so which bolts are similar to radars with AN / SPY-1 HEADLIGHT this can't? There is no clear answer to this question. I understand that laughing at Aegis is like a balm for the soul, they say we couldn’t do this, but it turns out that we don’t need it, the Chinese were so foolish about us, and we won’t, because it’s proved that it’s not worth it ... It’s worth it. Undoubtedly, it is not 100% protection against any threat, this does not happen, but the probability is very high, therefore Aegis is the most popular system in the world.
    PS: Preventing Mockery of the Aegis theme in a recent incident with USS Chancellorsville (CG-62)
    What do we know about the participants in this incident?
    BQM-74 Chukar aerial target with remote control, reusable.
    USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) URO cruiser, has recently undergone modernization, the latest modification of the Aegis Baseline 9 is installed.
    It is known that tests began in April of this year:
    03.04.2013/127/45 -9 mm. Mk 4 - successfully, stated that "Evaluation acceptance tests of the Aegis Baseline XNUMX will begin later this year, before that there will be XNUMX more flight experiments with real firing from the cruiser Chancellorsville"
    22.08.2013/6/74-SM-XNUMX destroyed two horizontal targets BQM-XNUMX Chukar at an out-of-range range
    Those. firing ended and now the USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) has passed the assessment acceptance tests. Judging by the fact that the MANAGED Chukar crashed into the side of the cruiser it follows that the near air defense was tested, i.e. the operator did not manage to respond to the loss of control of Chukar. If the SM-2/6 and the ESSM were to be tested, then the operator would have had a time car take Chukar to a safe distance for splashdown in the event of a missed missile or an Aegis malfunction. But here most likely (all commentators agree on this) Phalanx CIWS did not work. There can be a lot of reasons. Automation did not work, the skew in the mechanism, software failure ... Therefore, to say that Aegis is not to blame, Phalanx CIWS has its own two radars plus optics and IR
    1. Timeout
      Timeout 25 November 2013 10: 47
      -2
      And how do you comment on the repeated breakthrough of anti-aircraft missile defense by Russian aircraft? And most importantly, no one sees them until the very last moment, until they fly right over the deck? Only official notes from the United States due to the pranks of our pilots for 12 years, 6 were filed. Here you have the much-praised Aegis and everything connected with it. By the way, according to their charters, all this machinery outside the ports of registry should be constantly on!
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 25 November 2013 10: 57
        +8
        Quote: Timeout
        And how do you comment on the repeated breakthrough of anti-aircraft missile defense by Russian aircraft?

        But shaw, was there a war or did I miss something? Or do you think that the Americans should have shot them down? NATO planes regularly fly around our ship groupings in exercises, doesn’t this mean that our air defense on ships is complete Mr.?
        Well then I can do that too, the English frigate HMS Northumberland 31.10.2013/XNUMX/XNUMX. accompanied by TAKR Peter the Great between the Scottish and Faroe Islands. Conclusion according to your logic, here is the vaunted anti-ship missile "Granit" and everything connected with it?
        1. Timeout
          Timeout 25 November 2013 12: 09
          0
          What do you know about the operation of friend or foe equipment? When an aircraft crosses the detection zone, it does not matter if it is a friend or someone else's, the interrogator of the system sends a signal to which the system standing on the aircraft must send a response. And after that if no response was received to the request, all air defense systems are put on alert. And in the case of our planes, the Aegis AUG operators did not see the planes that violated the security perimeter until they appeared over the leader of the group. This despite the fact that the planes were flying at an altitude of 100 meters above sea level. And violation of the security perimeter in the marching order of the AUG is a cant for which they are removed from office. The fact is that, according to the naval code, a warship has the right to shoot down an aircraft that is on course without warning. This is considered a bombing run (default). (Torpedo bombers come across the course). So, if the Americans noticed ours, they had every right to shoot them down. Well, the guys, after decoding the boxes, did not even have a mark about sending a request for the "friend or foe" system, as well as irradiation with an air defense radar! Draw conclusions.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 26 November 2013 11: 15
            -1
            Quote: Timeout
            And in the case of our planes, the Aegis AUG operators did not see the planes that violated the security perimeter until they appeared over the leader of the group.

            How many similar cases can you list? It was when our aircraft did not register the work of the interrogator? You should perfectly understand that in peacetime the ship can undergo routine maintenance and the same Aegis can be turned off. In war and pre-war time, you won’t have to rely on this.
            Of course, we can rejoice that in peacetime a couple of times we managed to do something that would allow us to destroy / damage an enemy ship in wartime, but an exception to the rule is not a system.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 25 November 2013 16: 00
          +1
          And no one checks the war, or not, the interceptors must immediately rise, suddenly it is from the attack on the ship that the war will begin.
        3. Timeout
          Timeout 26 November 2013 02: 33
          +2
          Quote: Nayhas
          But shaw, was there a war or did I miss something?

          Strange, apart from lengthy reasoning, I did not see from you. In order not to be unfounded, I quote the link http://www.1tv.ru/news/polit/115231 We did not expect a picture from the category. I look at some comrades inadequate attitude to the facts, minus recklessly.
    2. 1c-inform-city
      1c-inform-city 25 November 2013 16: 21
      +2
      The point is not to humiliate Aegis, but that a universal system is always worse than a narrowly specialized one. And in this case, Aegis behaves superbly with high-altitude targets, but with cruise missiles his situation is worse and especially with supersonic ones, and the Americans acknowledge this and hope for preventing enemy ships and boats from being launched.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 25 November 2013 21: 52
        +2
        Quote: 1c-inform-city
        The point is not to humiliate Aegis, but that a universal system is always worse than a narrowly specialized one.

        No. Americans, on the contrary, are moving towards the greatest universalization of radar. On the topic of DBR or Dual Band Radar, all tasks ranging from detecting periscopes of submarines to b / h ICBMs will be solved by one radar with several antennas with AFAR. Now almost all ships are equipped with at least three radars, navigation, detection of surface targets and air targets.
        Quote: 1c-inform-city
        And in this case, Aegis behaves superbly with high-altitude targets, but with cruise missiles his situation is worse and especially with supersonic ones.

        You repeat the erroneous opinion of Oleg. It is easily refuted. For example, our radar with the Fregat-M2EM FAR, according to the developer, ensures the detection of anti-ship missiles with EPR 0.1 m at an altitude of 5-10 m at a distance of 15-17 km. Aegis uses four radar antennas with a phased array and the physical principle of the American radar with a phased array can not radically differ from ours. Or it should be recognized that the domestic developers of the radar (in this case, the Salyut NGO) hang noodles on the ears of our military and taxpayers by declaring the protection of domestic ships from NLC.
        Quote: 1c-inform-city
        And the Americans acknowledge this and hope to prevent the enemy ships and boats from being launched.

        The Americans acknowledged that the first modifications of Aegis worked unsatisfactorily for the NLC, therefore, on the Ticonderogas there are additional AN / SPS-49 airborne radars. The same thing happened on our ships, the first Frigates also didn’t work well on the NLC because they put it on Peter and on Project 1155 Radar Roll-up. Then the radar with the phased array improved and the need for tackle disappeared.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 26 November 2013 01: 02
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          subject DBR or Dual Band Radar all tasks ranging from the detection of periscopes of submarines to b / h ICBM will solve one radar with several antennas with AFAR. Now almost all ships are equipped with at least three radars, navigation, detection of surface targets and air targets.

          It’s better to pay attention to the fact that DBR is a system of two radars (6 AFAR) operating in two different ranges. For volume searh and horizon search, its own range is the same as on all ships of other countries.
          Jokes with decimeter "universal" AN / SPY-1 are over

          Money ran out in Zamvolta - because the super destroyer DBR did not receive, but received only part of it - the centimeter sonar AN / SPY-3. As a result, the super-destroyer is not able to fulfill the tasks of zonal air defense (but is effective in detecting low-flying anti-ship missiles in the near zone). Zamvolta anti-aircraft BC will be limited to ESSM. No Standards and SM-6
          Quote: Nayhas
          Frigate-M2EM, according to the statement of the developer, provides detection of anti-ship missiles with EPR 0.1 m at an altitude of 5-10 m at a distance of 15-17 km

          Nonsense is all that. Tales from Booklets
          The Yankees have not in vain abandoned the idea of ​​SPY-1 and built a DBR
          Quote: Nayhas
          The Americans admitted that the first modifications of Aegis did not work satisfactorily on the NLC, therefore, on the Ticonderogas there are additional AN / SPS-49 airborne radars

          How can help in detecting NLC decimeter AN / SPS-49?

          This old two-coordinate air survey radar (volume search) was set as a backup
          Quote: Nayhas
          Then the radar with the phased array improved and the need for tackle disappeared.

          In Podkat it may have disappeared. But SAMPSON or EMPAR - this is the topic!
          You think the Britons just piled high on the radar. Despite the fact that another AFAR S1850M is at the stern
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 26 November 2013 11: 07
            -1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It’s better to pay attention to the fact that DBR is a system of two radars (6 AFAR) operating in two different ranges. For volume searh and horizon search, its own range is the same as on all ships of other countries.
            Jokes with decimeter "universal" AN / SPY-1 are over

            Thanks, drew. But this is ONE radar, such as two in one. It works in two ranges, but one, several AFARs, but one.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Nonsense is all that. Tales from Booklets

            Oleg, not seriously. It is impossible, without any reason to say that the data provided is a blatant lie.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The Yankees have not in vain abandoned the idea of ​​SPY-1 and built a DBR

            Not abandoned, but evolved. Earlier Aegis processed data coming from several sources of a navigation radar, detection of surface targets, detection of air targets, in DBR there will be only one radar performing all functions.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            How can help in detecting NLC decimeter AN / SPS-49?

            That detects low-flying targets.
            "The moving target indicator (MTI) capability incorporated in the AN / SPS-49 (V) radar enhances target detection of low-flying high speed targets through the cancellation of ground / sea return (clutter), weather and similar stationary targets. In 12 RPM mode operation, this radar is effective for the detection of hostile low flying and "pop-up" targets. Features of this set include:
            -Solid state technology with modular construction used throughout the radar, with the exception of the klystron power amplifier and high power modulator tubes
            -Digital processing techniques used extensively in the automatic target detection modification
            -Performance monitors, automatic fault detectors, and built-in-test equipment, and automatic on line self test features
            Source: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-sps-49.htm
            And the characteristics of the radar tackle is?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            In Podkat it may have disappeared. But SAMPSON or EMPAR - this is the topic!

            No doubt. Only the Americans tried to get past this "site" and focused on DBR. (The topic with AMDR seems to me to be "dead").
            1. Magellan
              Magellan 26 November 2013 12: 22
              +2
              Quote: Nayhas
              But this is ONE radar, such as two in one. It works in two ranges, but one, several AFARs, but one.

              No, dear, these are two radars. An antenna is the main element of any radar, DBR has 6 of them, grouped into 2 groups - operating in completely different ranges and designed for different tasks.
              Decimetres - overview
              Centimeter SPY-3 - NLC in the near field

              The fact that SPY-3 with AFAR acts as a navigation radar and fire control radar is another topic. This does not apply to the detection of RCC.
              The main thing is that each task is performed by a SPECIALIZED lattice, tuned to its chosen range. Such a mess as in SPY-1, where a decimeter radar is watching over space and for NLCs - the Yankees completely abandoned such a scheme
              Quote: Nayhas
              our radar with the Fregat-M2EM FAR, according to the developer, ensures the detection of anti-ship missiles with EPR 0.1 m at an altitude of 5-10 m at a distance of 15-17 km.

              No one in the world uses a decimeter radar for such tasks. The Yankees tried - it turned out badly (despite the fact that the SPY-1 equipment and its software were brought to perfection with megawatt radiation power). All new ships plan to equip DBR / AMDR

              About the Frigate M2 EM, I can assume that the developers changed the range - then everything sounds realistic.
              Quote: Nayhas
              Not abandoned, but evolved

              Abandoned.
              All new radars operate in two ranges - see item No. 1
              Quote: Nayhas
              That detects low-flying targets.

              In your fragment there is no indication of the height of the target.
              In the days of SPS-49, NLCs were considered flying at a height of 200 m
              Quote: Nayhas
              And the characteristics of the radar tackle is?

              Radar for detecting low-flying targets МР-350 / МР-360 “Subcat-M” - radar for detecting small-sized low-flying targets of the “cruise missile” type with low EPR, at altitudes up to 100 m, at a range of up to 33,7 km, with the ability to automatically track targets , determination of motion parameters, generation and delivery of target designation data
              Quote: Nayhas
              But the Americans tried to slip through this "section"

              Нет!
              They repeated the omniscience for everyone - see paragraph No. 1
              Quote: Nayhas
              The topic with AMDR seems to me to be "dead"

              AMDR is the same DBR
    3. Setrac
      Setrac 25 November 2013 19: 47
      0
      Quote: Nayhas
      Oleg builds the concept of an Aircraft Carrier-Useless Junk that covers Aegis useless junk, and everything is decided by the Premier League.

      Missiles decide everything. And instead of an aircraft carrier, you can build more long-range missiles, but you need to solve the problem with target designation.
  • CreepyUknow
    CreepyUknow 25 November 2013 10: 10
    +4
    The author has obvious problems with logical thinking. The article on which this "answer" was splashed was devoted to the defense of the idea of ​​building new domestic submarines, on which there will already be new missiles. Since the author compared 1 boat with AUG ??! Bold minus - learn to think!
    1. pr 627
      pr 627 25 November 2013 10: 14
      +1
      With logic, it is very bad therefore to write under a pseudonym. Probably a shame. But why use the name of an excellent Roman commander?
  • Per se.
    Per se. 25 November 2013 10: 11
    +4
    With its publication, Cornelius Scipio seems to have done a disservice to the supporters of a balanced, strong fleet. Now the fun will go, but it's a pity, the desire was not bad, however, and the article is, in principle, good. There is no need to oppose the "liver" and "stomach", and boats with submarines, and aircraft carriers, this is a fleet, a single organism that can be strong or weak, full-fledged or hypertrophied. Supporters of "cheap and angry", in a peculiar way humiliate Russia, presenting it as a beggar, unable to have what most countries with more or less developed fleets have and are going to have. Are we poorer than India, France or Italy? Maybe you sincerely believe that - "And with the money saved, you can build schools, kindergartens, hospitals and housing for the waiting list" (Quote Minesweeper)? Or that the strike aircraft carrier is a purely US national weapon, which is unacceptable to us? If the United States, with their production and the number of shipyards, can not only rivet aircraft carriers, but also much more cruisers, destroyers and submarines, then maybe immediately surrender, and generally not develop its fleet, sing songs about its "land" essence? The same thing, as they would have been convinced earlier that there is no need to build cruisers and battleships, torpedo boats and coastal submarines will be enough. The fleet needs aviation, you will find a way of its full-fledged presence at sea without aircraft carriers, you will be great. Until this happens, aircraft carriers will not only be needed, but necessary. Not dealing with them now is a loss of technology and specialists, the inability to build such ships tomorrow. This is what our enemies are trying to achieve, including when the kids are here ideologically. The shipbuilding experience was too expensive for us to lose now.
    1. vvp2412
      vvp2412 25 November 2013 11: 10
      +1
      I agree that aircraft carriers are needed. But not in large numbers. An aircraft carrier is more of an impact force. Therefore, the amount should be adequate. Especially considering that the cost of their maintenance and the time spent in the repair are simply inadequate.
    2. Walking
      Walking 25 November 2013 11: 11
      +1
      But just throwing money away is also not good.
      Quote: Per se.
      (quote by Minesweeper)? Or that the strike aircraft carrier is a purely national weapon of the United States, which is unacceptable to us? .


      Actually, Russia and the USA have different policies and the development of the fleet depends on it. Russia does not have so many overseas territories, and aircraft carriers are mainly for this
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 25 November 2013 12: 00
        +2
        Quote: Hiking
        Actually, Russia and the USA have different policies and the development of the fleet depends on it. Russia does not have so many overseas territories, and aircraft carriers are mainly for this
        What are the "overseas territories" of the USA, the state of Hawaii? If we were Mongolia, we could philosophize here about the need for a fleet. As for the different policies of Russia and the United States, do not confuse, there is no national fleet, but they all have national interests, which the fleet decides.
        In our case, the fleet is either there or not, it is either strong or weak. What are you for, if "money is not a waste"? Not aircraft carriers are needed, as an end in itself, but their aviation, you seem to be listening, but not hearing. Are you against naval aviation? The surface grouping is necessary for many tasks, including covering the exit of their strategic boats and tracking strangers. It is very difficult here without aviation. The role of the fleet is enormous in the prevention of war, as a deterrent, as a force that promptly responds to challenges, neutralizing or stopping the problem in its infancy. The miser pays twice, and the fools pay three times, no matter how much the army and navy cost, it is cheaper than the loss of national interests and sovereignty.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 25 November 2013 13: 22
          +3
          Quote: Per se.
          What are the "overseas territories" of the USA, the state of Hawaii?

          Guam, Indian Ocean Diego Garcia Base, Puerto Rico, Alaska with the Aleutian Ridge, Bikini Atoll Free ...

          Apart from the "51st state" - Japan. Loyal allies in the Asia-Pacific region - South Korea, Australia, Singapore. Vital interests in the Old World
          Quote: Per se.
          and alien tracking. It’s very difficult here without aviation

          But why put it on a ship?
          Orions fly beautifully from the shore
  • Volodya Sibiryak
    Volodya Sibiryak 25 November 2013 10: 29
    +3
    The author is on the benefits of the State Department? The frenzy with which he extols the AUG suggests. We are waiting for the response article of his opponent.
  • HollyGremlin
    HollyGremlin 25 November 2013 10: 34
    +2
    What is AUG - it is 30 ships + aircraft carrier. Neither the cruiser nor the destroyers are part of the aircraft carrier - they are completely independent ships. I would be much more afraid if these 30 ships went on their own - until you find, while you catch, you do not know where they will appear and what they will sink. It makes no sense to compare the AUG with a boat or even with a cruiser. What role does the aircraft carrier play in the AUG. In my opinion, mediocre. 30 ships demonstrate the flag without an aircraft carrier. The aircraft carrier now has only one bun - control of the sky, but in this role, so far, we have not seen it.
    In my opinion, if you want to show the flag, you need to remember the idea of ​​the USSR: aircraft-carrying cruisers using modern technologies are a kind of huge missile carrier, a tanker with missiles (from strategic to tactical). With rockets it’s easier - released and forgot, a large deck is not needed, the launch is vertical, pilots do not need to be taken with them. That would be a real AUG killer, sweeping away everything with a gulp of missiles.
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 25 November 2013 17: 49
      +1
      An aircraft carrier cruiser is good, but it also requires cover, otherwise it will be sunk, for example, by enemy aircraft from the same aircraft carrier.
    2. SPACE
      SPACE 25 November 2013 20: 57
      0
      Quote: HollyGremlin
      The aircraft carrier now has only one bun - control of the sky, but in this role, so far, we have not seen it.

      Given the really effective radius of action of AUG aviation, and it does not exceed 400-600 kilometers, we can assume that at a given distance from any coast in the open sea, in the center of the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, monitoring the sky in principle makes absolutely no sense, well, who will fly there and why? On the other hand, at a distance of 400-600 km from the coast, AUG aviation completely loses both in range and combat load, and in the mass use in classic airfield-based aircraft. And this is not to mention the possibility of a quick concentration in the coastal zone of additional means of reconnaissance, target designation and destruction, including air defense.
  • vvp2412
    vvp2412 25 November 2013 10: 34
    +7
    I didn’t even finish reading. Only 2 paragraphs were enough! If the previous articles relied on more or less adequate facts and evidence, characteristics, then here only emotions!

    And when he cited as an example against whom the AUGs fought after WWII, he generally put a minus!

    Already wrote that the AUG is a means of projecting force against the Papuans! Or against those who do not have the will to fight, and just give up, as was the case with Libya, with Iraq in 2003. And even then, all of these countries did not have the opportunity to withstand a stronger armament, both qualitatively and quantitatively! Given that the United States was not alone in the war! Yes, plus at first economic sanctions strangled the country to repair there was nothing technically corny!

    So this article, if not custom-made, then definitely written by an Americanist with an empty set of templates and emotions!
    Ugh!
  • Daduda
    Daduda 25 November 2013 10: 49
    0
    Take it easy, take it easy, Riana in Hollywood has already proved that the USA AUG will even cope with aliens.
  • Stalnov I.P.
    Stalnov I.P. 25 November 2013 10: 59
    +2
    It is beautifully written, but not everything is so single-purpose, the teachings of the USA in 2002 showed that even old and small boats can cause terrible damage to the most advanced equipment, there are a lot of such examples, in the same Yugoslavia the F-117 was shot down by the S-125 complex, look what happens when a cruise missile hits - one in a cruiser type ship, and if one missile gets into the aircraft carrier all the same, there will be terrible things, the deck will definitely be destroyed and you will get a big metal kareta. Why is our military silent on this issue, it’s strange or there’s nothing to say this is cause for concern.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 25 November 2013 23: 24
      +2
      Quote: I.P. Stalnov.
      For some reason, our military is silent on this issue, it’s strange or nothing to say, this is cause for concern.

      Dear Ivan Petrovich! I’m personally tired of saying the same thing about a balanced fleet, the need for military aviation for combat stability of the fleet forces in the far sea (ocean) zone, its role in defeating the ASG (during the fleet operation) when covering the anti-aircraft missile systems (from PLO and PLC aircraft) and MPA (from IA). And suddenly I read a wonderful, balanced koment colleagues Per se. If Sergey is not an officer of the fleet with an academic background, then we can only rejoice at the OPERATIONAL-TACTICAL level of understanding of the problems of the fleet. To his comment from 25.11 to 10: 11 I fully subscribe. Collecting crumbs from the table after a hard day is somehow not comme il faut. Therefore, I will be silent.
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 25 November 2013 11: 29
    +3
    Damn, I'm kind of disappointed. My friend is engaged in computer animation so his videos are cooler, you need to ask him to make a video like the cruiser "Varyag" drowns the AUG, or vice versa, extinguishes all 90 F-18s from its six-inch machines, and then write an article about how Atlant-class cruisers are simply drowned. I mean, it's easier to shoot videos, the main thing is that the boobies believe how easy it is to extinguish Granites with the help of Idzhes
    1. Excalibur
      Excalibur 25 November 2013 11: 43
      -3
      Quote: kapitan281271
      Damn, I have some kind of disappointment. My friend is engaged in computer animation so his videos are cooler

      A friend has a fantasy, Lockheed Martin has a reality ...
      1. Evgeny_Lev
        Evgeny_Lev 25 November 2013 11: 57
        +3
        Haha

        Is that movie a reality?

        Adept
  • Bort radist
    Bort radist 25 November 2013 12: 05
    0
    A potential adversary must, until the last moment, be sure of the absolute invulnerability and superiority of his weapon. Let them believe in AUG. The Ushakovs and Suvorovs were not extinct, contrary to the efforts of the West.
    1. Walker1975
      Walker1975 25 November 2013 17: 50
      +3
      Do not worry ... The Medvedevs and Serodyukovs (and other effective managers) are also on guard, so that the Ushakovs and Suvorovs do not reach the command ...
  • klop_mutant
    klop_mutant 25 November 2013 12: 06
    +1
    Carriers are cooler because they are cooler and that’s all - this is about the argument of the author of the article. There were no combat damage. The Soviet submarines since the Second World War also had no combat damage, but they were built more than the Americans of aircraft carriers — an obvious conclusion: Soviet submarines are cooler than American troughs, the logic of the author of the article.
  • Petrix
    Petrix 25 November 2013 12: 16
    0
    There is such a concept "time of life in battle" or something else. For example, for a tank, I heard somewhere, 2-5 minutes. Wondering what time is it for an aircraft carrier? In any case, complete invulnerability is impossible in principle. How many ships and submarines do you need to sink to balance the loss of an aircraft carrier?
    Suppose now the war between Russia and the United States. It is unlikely that the AUGs will dare to approach the coast of Russia, they will not go to the northern ice either, it is easier to work from Alaska. In the open, they feel safe. Do we need to try to attack them in the ocean? What for? It’s easier to attack weakly protected single targets with submarines. Russia is not an island, the sea blockade is not terrible, and the United States is vulnerable from the sea. Therefore, the fleet is more important to them.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • MURANO
    MURANO 25 November 2013 12: 23
    +4
    Pay attention to the monitor (photo), 1 ship - and under control: Japan, Korea and part of China
    This is not the case. On the photo-indicators of the situation. On which the information received from ALL sources is displayed. And if the scale was different? So it can be stated that one ship controls the floor of the world. smile
  • nnz226
    nnz226 25 November 2013 12: 37
    +3
    The author's phrase is touching: "Where is at least one American aircraft carrier damaged by the enemy in combat conditions after the Second World War? They are not." Excuse me, but with whom did these aircraft carriers fight after World War II? Sorry - with the Papuans! That Korea, Vietnam, Iraq are naval underdeveloped countries! And naturally, the aircraft carriers were not attacked ... And the damage to these ships during the hostilities from their own accidents clearly shows that with them it can be, if they are still hit with something anti-ship ... Again, the picture from the remote control a conning tower that supposedly covers Japan, both Koreas and part of China ... So what ?! Our radar station near Krasnodar detected a missile launch towards Syria in the Mediterranean Sea. As they used to say (albeit for a different reason): "To look is not to own!"
    1. Motors1991
      Motors1991 25 November 2013 14: 59
      -3
      I will not argue, but during the Vietnam War, ours did the same one aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Tonkin, then it was towed. In any case, persistent rumors circulated.
  • stjrm
    stjrm 25 November 2013 13: 28
    +1
    A lot of "antlers", Americans love it .....
    But this does not mean that they are invulnerable.

    Interesting. If the aircraft carrier gets damaged, loses its course, will have a roll or trim of 7-10 degrees as a result of this. If at least one guard ship is sunk, others will be seriously damaged. How long has this been not quite a shock, and not quite a carrier group will last?
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 25 November 2013 13: 29
    +3
    It's great, of course, that we devoted so much attention and time to O. Kaptsov.

    I myself was once a young man with a burning eye - but gradually accumulated facts, interesting notes on the selected issue. and the obvious ceased to be obvious. The article, of course, is naive. I will not write a refutation, because here you can refute every word of the respected CorneliusScipio
  • stjrm
    stjrm 25 November 2013 13: 35
    +8
    I almost forgot.
    Photo of AV "Midway" in the distance of 45kbt.
    The submarine (671RTM) which was shooting was NOT DETECTED in the position of using weapons for more than 8 hours.
    1. Good Ukraine
      Good Ukraine 25 November 2013 20: 42
      +3
      hi
      Quote: stjrm
      The photo of AV "Midway" at a distance of 45kbt. PL (671RTM) that was filming was NOT DETECTED in the position of using weapons for more than 8 hours.

      Thank you colleague!
      For connoisseurs praying for the AUG icon, I will explain 45 kbt - this is 8,4 km. The flight speed of "Onyx" is more than 2,5M. AUG should detect, aim and shoot down a rocket within 8 seconds. I think the valiant Gaisa from the USA will only have time to smear his pants.
  • cayman gene
    cayman gene 25 November 2013 13: 44
    0
    thanks to the author, his point of view is clear. word for the opponent? comrade Kaptsov, to the barrier.
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 25 November 2013 13: 54
    +1
    Isoroku Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
    All we did was awaken the sleeping giant and filled it with terrible determination.
    Of the 22 ships that took part in the attack, only one survived by the end of the war.

    It is sometimes said that the main failure of the Japanese is due to the fact that they did not manage to catch the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Saratoga in Pearl Harbor. It is not true. Even the complete destruction of all the American ships at that time in Pearl Harbor, together with the base and the Hawaiian islands combined, ultimately meant NOTHING.

    Over the next 4 years, the Yankees put into operation:
    - 10 battleships (South Dakota, Iowa) and battle cruisers (Alaska)
    - 14 heavy aircraft carriers of the "Essex" class (10 more built did not have time to take part in hostilities)
    - 2 heavy aircraft carriers of the Midway type (the first entered service a week after the war, the second a month later - in fact, the ships were built during WWII, but did not have time to take part in the battle)
    - 9 light aircraft carriers of the "Independence" class
    - OK. 130 escort aircraft carriers (Casablanca / Baugh / Sangamon / Comment Bay)
    - 14 heavy cruisers "Baltimore"
    - 27 light cruisers of the Cleveland class (52 hulls were laid in total)
    - 850 destroyers and frigates
    - 200 submarines

    By the way, from the sunk in Pearl = Harbor 5 battleships - the Yankees repaired and put into operation 3.

    It is not surprising that the Imperial fleet was littered with equipment and was doomed by the beginning of 1943. Yamamoto had been to the United States twice and was well aware of the possibilities of American industry and had no illusions about the outcome of the war.
    "I will die on the deck of the Nagato, and by that time Tokyo will be bombed 3 times."

    It is interesting that until the end of the war only submarines and highly protected ships could hold out. TKR and battleships could go for several hours under the attack of 500 American planes, but return to their native Kure.

    At least they were not afraid of small and medium caliber bombs and suffered less from torpedoes. Unlike AB - which often died of several hits on the flight deck or terrible detonation of gasoline vapors released from damaged tanks after a torpedo hit.

    US Navy Goes to Leyte Bay, 1944
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 25 November 2013 23: 44
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Even the complete destruction of all the American ships at that time in Pearl Harbor, together with the base and the Hawaiian islands combined, ultimately meant NOTHING.
      So, before the commissioning of new American ships, the Japanese had a head start for a year. Perhaps the States themselves provoked the Japanese to attack, they needed to enter the war, and the nation did not want this. The treachery of the attack on Pearl Harbor was what was needed, but, again, the Americans did not expect such losses, and the Japanese did so. Having gained dominance at sea, Japan did not transfer the war to the territory of the United States, but stupidly climbed to disperse its forces to capture the countless islands in the Pacific Ocean. Take advantage of the Japanese success by conducting a landing operation to seize the Aleutian Islands and Alaska, followed by advancement to Canada and the west coast of the United States, this could already have caused, if not surrender of the Yankees, then the signing of a ceasefire on conditions favorable to Japan. To repeat the success of the Russo-Japanese War, on the coast of America, Japan did not dare or did not think of it, and this was their only chance of victory.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 26 November 2013 00: 26
        0
        Quote: Per se.
        So, before the commissioning of new American ships, the Japanese had a head start for a year

        And what's the point?
        The industrial power of the United States and Japan was not comparable
        Quote: Per se.
        Take advantage of the Japanese success by conducting a landing operation to seize the Aleutian Islands and Alaska, with the subsequent advance to Canada

        They had no strength.
        And how would they advance there? In impenetrable taiga?))
        Highway to Alaska was built only by 1943
        Quote: Per se.
        then signing a ceasefire on conditions favorable to Japan

        They would have got a fig, not a contract
        Even with the loss of Hawaii (which was impossible in principle - there were powerful coastal fortifications and batteries there) - the offensive would have begun from the South (Australia) and from the North (Aleutian ridge) + active submarine operations. the war would simply drag on for a year, but the japas lost 100%. The Yankees daily built on 1 new warship. And they built more tanks than the USSR and the Third Reich combined.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 26 November 2013 07: 21
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The industrial power of the United States and Japan was not comparable
          That is why, if it was necessary to fight the United States, only the factor of surprise and the blitzkrieg strategy could give a chance to win.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          And how would they advance there? In impassable taiga?)) Highway to Alaska was built only by 1943 year
          They would advance, as in Southeast Asia, including the jungle. There would be support for the fleet along the coast, both fire and transport, in addition, the prospectors who poured in droves to Alaska during the "gold rush" were no smarter than the Japanese, finding trails.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          They would have got a fig, not a contract

          Tell me more that "donut hole, not Sharapov's." The British valiantly capitulated in Singapore, which was more difficult to take than, for example, the same Los Angeles or any other city in the western United States. Further, panic and retreat, as in France in 1940, the US surrender or a peace treaty beneficial to Japan.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Even with the loss of Hawaii (which was impossible in principle - there were powerful coastal fortifications and batteries)

          Port Arthur also had fortifications and batteries, as in Singapore. If the Japanese had the second phase of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the prepared landing, with the support of the battleships fire, would have taken both Pearl Harbor and all of Hawaii in stride.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The Yankees built daily on the 1 new warship. And they built more tanks than the USSR and the Third Reich combined.
          With the success of the blitzkrieg, this is no longer important.
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 26 November 2013 08: 03
            +1
            Quote: Per se.
            only the surprise factor and the blitzkrieg strategy could give a chance of victory.

            Could not
            No chance to get to US industrial centers
            Quote: Per se.
            the prospectors who in the "gold rush" poured in droves to Alaska were no smarter than the Japanese, finding trails

            Prospectors did not have heavy artifacts, trucks or tanks
            Quote: Per se.
            They would advance along Southeast Asia, including the jungle.

            But there they walked by pawn. There were practically no armored vehicles
            Quote: Per se.
            The British capitulated valiantly in Singapore, which was more difficult to take than, for example, the same Los Angeles or any other city in the western United States.

            Overlord? From a distance of 5000 miles? With the absolute advantage of the Yankees in the air, personnel and equipment?
            Quote: Per se.
            If the Japanese had the second phase of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the prepared landing, with the support of the battleships fire, would have taken both Pearl Harbor and all of Hawaii in stride.

            Not enough strength.
            After many weeks of shelling and bombing by hundreds of ships, the Yankees took these islands - the salesmen had only 6 aviks and 2 modern battleships (+ 4 old, slow-moving)

            An interesting fact is that the fuel reserves in Pearl Harbor (9,5 million barrels of oil) exceeded ALL FUEL RESOURCES of Japan in 1941. Fighting in such conditions was pointless
            Quote: Per se.
            Port Arthur also had fortifications and batteries, as in Singapore

            And how long did Port Arthur last? wink
            Quote: Per se.
            With the success of the blitzkrieg, this is no longer important.

            Yapi could not capture the United States in a month. Without seizing industrial bases - the war was obviously losing
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 26 November 2013 08: 51
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Overlord? From a distance of 5000 miles?
              Why not? The same Singapore is commensurate in range with Alaska and Canada, especially since all the Kuril Islands to Kamchatka and South Sokhalin were then in Japan. Remember your article about the seized bridgehead in Alaska and the formation of cargo and reinforcements in Sakhalin. The blow distracting the Midway from the Aleutian Islands in the summer of 1942, despite the lack of surprise, cannot be considered completely unsuccessful, the Japanese have achieved partial success. If it were not distracting, but the main and sudden, the Aleutian Islands and the same Anchorage in Alaska would have gone to the Japanese. This is already a seizure of US territory, a factor not only military but also political. If a couple of bombs fell from an airplane in the USA, which was launched from a submarine, and this had the effect of creating a panic among the population, what would have given the news that the Japanese had come to American soil? Of course, I do not deny that the war with the USA for Japan was initially an adventure, which, if it could succeed, it was only with very strong luck and brilliant leadership in the blitzkrieg.
              1. Magellan
                Magellan 26 November 2013 10: 17
                +1
                Quote: Per se.
                Почему нет?

                According to the calculations of the Japanese General Staff, the squadron loses 10% of its combat capability for every 1000 miles away from the base.
                The reason, first of all, is fuel, stiffness in maneuver
                Quote: Per se.
                The same Singapore is commensurate in range with Alaska and Canada

                Singapore was in the ring of the Japanese ground forces. By that time, the Japanese were in control of the entire territory of Malaysia. The gap from their bases was only a couple of tens of miles)))

                Remember where the planes that sunk Ripals and the Prince of Wales flew from. Really from Okinawa?
                Quote: Per se.
                Remember your article about the captured bridgehead in Alaska and the formation of cargo and reinforcements in Sakhalin

                Kaptsov wrote about guarding the convoy in open sea areas. It had nothing to do with the landing - read the beginning of the article
                Quote: Per se.
                Distracting blow from Midway to the Aleutian Islands in the summer of 1942

                This is not a blow, but sheer indulgence.
                Subsequently, the garrison of captured Kyski (only unarmed Aleuts lived) had to be supplied with submarines, which was doubly pampering and adventure
                Quote: Per se.
                , then only with very strong luck and brilliant leadership in the blitzkrieg.

                Sometimes Admiral Nagumo is accused of retreating. It was necessary to inflict a new, third in a row blow to PX and completely destroy the base

                Opinion does not take into account that only the first wave was truly effective. The second achieved much less success, having lost 20 aircraft (2 times more than the first) - the Yankees had already uncovered all anti-aircraft guns by that time and had found the keys to the ammunition cellars. They rarely recall the fact that 74 of the returned planes were damaged and out of order - at least for a day.

                Nagumo lost a third of his aircraft. The American base finally woke up and prepared to meet the third wave fully armed. Somewhere nearby were two Amer aircraft carriers. At the aerodromes of PX there were still several dozen combat-ready fighters. There were 70 intact warships in the base harbor. Detain the Japanese from PX for at least a day - they would not return home.

                And this is taken aback, the base in the middle of the ocean !!! Try the Japs to land on Malibu Beach, they would be smashed to smithereens.
                1. Per se.
                  Per se. 26 November 2013 11: 20
                  0
                  Quote: Magellan
                  Singapore was in the ring of the Japanese ground forces.
                  I agree, but in order for the Japanese base aircraft to sink the "Repulse" and "Prince of Wales" flying not from Okinawa, nevertheless, it was necessary to come from the same Okinawa, or even Hokaido. The Japanese, as you rightly noted, first captured the entire territory of Malaysia, moving from island to island in the Pacific Ocean. Had it not been for the pogrom at Midway, India and Australia might have reached the same level, however, this would not have brought victory in the war, but only delayed the defeat.
                  Quote: Magellan
                  This is not a blow, but sheer indulgence.
                  And here, you are right, but it might not have been "pampering" if the attack on the Aleutian Islands happened not in the summer of 1942, but in December 1941, in sync with the attack on Pearl Harbor, and not as a distraction, but as a main blow. Pearl Harbor, - carrier-based aircraft strikes the Pacific Fleet of the USA, troop transports with the support of battleships, - landing on the Aleutian Islands and the Pacific coast of Alaska. Further, as in the advancement in Southeast Asia, "flying not from Okinawa", but from the captured bridgeheads, with the support of the dominant fleet, base and carrier aircraft, the main caliber of battleships, kilometer by kilometer along the coast from Alaska to California and beyond. I remembered Oleg Kaptsov's article mainly because of Sakhalin, where he had formed convoys to operate in these "open sea areas." Basically, from South Sakhalin and the Kuriles, not far to Alaska, the Japanese will create a base there for northern expansion. In any case, in my opinion, this way Japan had at least some chance of winning.
                  1. Magellan
                    Magellan 26 November 2013 11: 44
                    0
                    Quote: Per se.
                    first captured the entire territory of Malaysia, moving from island to island in the Pacific Ocean

                    First they occupied China, then they invaded Indochina, having arrived in Vietnam by rail. Malaysia is a peninsula, they also came there by land. Singapore is an island a couple of miles off the coast of Malaysia.
                    Quote: Per se.
                    it would not bring victory in the war, but only delay the defeat

                    No action by Japan could bring her victory. The war was lost in advance.
                    Quote: Per se.
                    landing on the Aleutian Islands and the Pacific coast of Alaska

                    And the way there they sit further. They won’t go deep into the content - there are 2000 kilometers of cold taiga, 130 rivers, 5 mountain ranges. without a single road or bridge (this I quote from the Alaska Highway (USA-Fairbanks) mentioned in the discussion) - the US Army engineering corps, with the general support of the Canadian population, built the road for 8 months (March-October 1942) and brought it to a couple of years working condition. and this in peacetime! without partisans and shelling of the enemy)

                    Meanwhile, the submarines will cut the supply and the Japanese landing will starve to death in Alaska and Aleutians. The new built battleships and aircraft carriers will fit the eclipse and finish off all those who still show signs of life
                    1. Per se.
                      Per se. 26 November 2013 14: 00
                      0
                      Quote: Magellan
                      No action by Japan could bring her victory. The war was lost in advance.
                      If there is fate, a matrix program, then no, they could not have won, like Hitler. If there is an alternative history, a "multichannel" world of options, then who knows, in any case, the Japanese could postpone not only their fiasco, but also the end of the Third Reich, the Yankees' stuck in the Pacific Ocean, the Japanese pull back our forces, starting in 1942 hostilities on The Far East. The delay of the second front and our exit to the pre-war border, the massive appearance of XXI series boats and jet planes among the Germans, the appearance of the V-3 and the German atomic bomb ... And if Turkey would have joined the war on the side of the Germans in the same 1942, then more, everything is very gloomy. It's fantastic now, but then there was such a threat.
                      Quote: Magellan
                      And the way there they sit further. They won’t go deep into the content - there are 2000 kilometers of cold taiga, 130 rivers, 5 mountain ranges. without a single road or bridge
                      Well, not so dark. Already by the 1932 year, 1980 kilometers of road were built to Alaska, 7614 tracks, 2405 toboggan tracks and 529 temporary roads were laid, 26 airfields were created. In Alaska, there are 5 climatic zones, just beyond the Arctic Circle, a really harsh climate, and in the marine zone, average annual temperatures from + 15 to -6,6 degrees Celsius, in summer to + 21 degrees, sometimes up to + 32. In Mongolia and China, the climate of the Kwantung Army was in some places more severe.
                      Quote: Magellan
                      Meanwhile, the submarines will cut the supply and the Japanese landing will starve to death in Alaska and Aleutians. The new built battleships and aircraft carriers will fit the eclipse and finish off all those who still show signs of life
                      In the meantime, not only American boats, but also German ones from the 33 flotilla could approach, Japanese convoys until the 1943 year could well cruise along the highway from Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands, to the Aleutian Islands, Alaska and the Pacific coast of the USA, get there the imperial army or land from the sea. However, I repeat, this is now science fiction, from which something can turn into a terrible reality, during the world hegemony of China, during its war with the United States.
                      1. Magellan
                        Magellan 26 November 2013 14: 42
                        +1
                        Quote: Per se.
                        If there is an alternative history, the "multichannel" world of options

                        There are no options there. Is a meteorite fall in the United States. Or the invention of a super-plague that responds only to Anglo-Saxons and instantly leads to death
                        Quote: Per se.
                        1980 kilometers of road to Alaska, 7614 trails, 2405 toboggan tracks and 529 temporary roads laid, 26 airfields created

                        An army with trucks and tanks will not pass there.
                        draw our forces by the Japanese, having begun military operations in the Far East in 1942

                        The union could fall. But it would not help Japan.
                        In the end, all cities would have smashed her nuclear weapons and turned her neck
                        Quote: Per se.
                        Japanese convoys until 1943 could well ply along the highway from Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands, to the Aleutian Islands, Alaska and the Pacific coast of the USA

                        Or maybe not quite. Or maybe they could not
                        Take a look at the level and pace of development of American science and the military-industrial complex - and the question will disappear by itself
  • Kavtorang
    Kavtorang 25 November 2013 14: 14
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    here you can refute every word of the respected CorneliusScipio

    As well as yours, in the materials on this topic.
    Oleg, (nothing by name?) After WWII there was not a single submarine vs. AUG. Everything you and your opponents are talking about is pure theory. You can count on some coefficients, you can count on the outfits of forces for that option and for this one (even reference books are available), but any sane operative officer will tell you: "... all this is nonsense - neither fish nor cats speak ... . "(c.)
    You and opponents are talking about a practically dueling situation, this will not happen. The operational situation, at the time of its transfer to the fleet, within the framework of the secondary command and training school, initially provides for the combat deployment of the forces of the parties and the loss of stealth of the parties. Primitive: where the AUG and its composition are known, where the nuclear submarines of the other side are known.
    From this moment, the disputes between you and your opponents turn into a dialogue of two white horses in a spherical vacuum.
    No one has ever done this, God forbid, that no one would ever do.
    God forbid, I am not for or against the doctrine of the development of nuclear submarines to the detriment of the surface fleet, in the same way I do not consider AUG to be a panacea. I believe that analysis at our level is abstract and has nothing to do with reality. Too little evidence, too many ifs.
    IMHO.
    Sincerely.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 25 November 2013 17: 08
      +4
      Quote: Kavtorang
      All that you and your opponents say is a bare theory.

      But the money is real
      Quote: Kavtorang
      You can calculate some factors

      Why
      There are much more obvious things.

      1. The cost of the life cycle of a submarine is 10 times lower than that of an atomic aircraft carrier (excluding air wing)

      2. AB has low resistance to combat damage

      3. Domestic defense industry not equal The military-industrial complex of the USA and NATO countries. We cannot compete head-on with a country whose money is considered the world's reserve currency.

      4. In the event of the prospect of a military clash with the US Navy at sea, we will have several times fewer warships - in such conditions it is more efficient to hide under water. This solves several problems at once - Boats are not afraid of fighter-bombers and strategic offensive arms. Boats are cheap - and as a result - are plentiful. The boats have the highest secrecy - the enemy will have to spend monstrous efforts to detect them (during the Second World War, the Allies put up 10 PLO ships per 1 German submarine and achieved a loss ratio of 1: 1).

      Otherwise, I do not see any tactical and strategic prospects in front of the lone Russian AUG, breaking into the Atlantic, bypassing Scandinavia. Under the attacks of hundreds of NATO aircraft from air bases in Europe and dozens of U.S. Navy submarines.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 27 November 2013 06: 50
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        There are much more obvious things.
        In this you are undoubtedly right if you apply these arguments to the war period of a large-scale war. However, you do not take into account that the pre-war period and the daily tasks of the fleet are no less important, and maybe even more important. It is easier to prevent war, having 3-4 AUG, than after trying to win a global war, having at least 1000 nuclear submarines. We will be squeezed out and weakened in "peacetime", and then the boats will not be required. Is it so hard to understand? The Baltic has been blocked since the First World War; in the Second World War, only individual boats could break into the sea for communications. The Black Sea is blocked by the straits. NATO blocking zones of our Northern and Pacific Fleets also exist. A global war is easier to prevent than to win, and this requires a COMPLETE, BALANCED fleet, capable of solving ALL tasks in the interests of Russia, and not "hiding" from them under water, bringing matters to war. Therefore, it is better to prevent a major war, pushing through and protecting your interests with 3-4 AUG on duty at sea, than to bring matters to a large-scale war, which cannot be won even with 1000 submarines, especially since our enemies are also building submarines, doing it no worse ...
  • ed65b
    ed65b 25 November 2013 14: 22
    0
    Well, how many ships in the escort? 20-30 imagine the same flock of apl. (well, purely hypothetically) who will tear whom?
  • Kavtorang
    Kavtorang 25 November 2013 14: 42
    +2
    Quote: ed65b
    Well, how many ships in the escort? 20-30 imagine the same flock of apl. (well, purely hypothetically) who will tear whom

    And here you are no longer right. They declared an excessive composition of combat guard. Well, let it be your way. 20-30 escort ships for each of the 3 AUGs are easily of the existing composition, but if they aren’t enough (who is scheduled to be repaired or damaged and not combat-ready — I drove into the felucca in Aden and squeezed my nose), that is, reserve 1 and 2 queues. I can imagine this, with mats, wrenches and such a mother - they will go to sea. Guess how we do with the reserve?
    I can’t imagine a picture of 60-90 nuclear submarines simultaneously at sea, formed into operational formations, spent nuclear submarines and aimed at 3 AUGs - I can’t - at least kill. DAS IS FANTASTISH. Even for the USSR. None of the Commanders-in-chief even dreamed of such a thing. If only in erotic dreams smile
    1. Good Ukraine
      Good Ukraine 25 November 2013 21: 05
      0
      Quote: Kavtorang
      I can’t imagine a picture of 60-90 nuclear submarines simultaneously at sea, formed into operational formations, spent nuclear submarines and aimed at 3 AUGs - I can’t - at least kill. DAS IS FANTASTISH. Even for the USSR

      What do you think how many nuclear submarines and conventional submarines the USSR had? And how many accompanied each SSBN? Shine with knowledge please.
  • Kavtorang
    Kavtorang 25 November 2013 14: 43
    0
    Quote: ed65b
    Well, how many ships in the escort? 20-30 imagine the same flock of apl. (well, purely hypothetically) who will tear whom

    And here you are no longer right. They declared an excessive composition of combat guard. Well, let it be your way. 20-30 escort ships for each of the 3 AUGs are easily of the existing composition, but if they aren’t enough (who is scheduled to be repaired or damaged and not combat-ready — I drove into the felucca in Aden and squeezed my nose), that is, reserve 1 and 2 queues. I can imagine this, with mats, wrenches and such a mother - they will go to sea. Guess how we do with the reserve?
    I can’t imagine a picture of 60-90 nuclear submarines simultaneously at sea, formed into operational formations, spent nuclear submarines and aimed at 3 AUGs - I can’t - at least kill. DAS IS FANTASTISH. Even for the USSR. None of the Commanders-in-chief even dreamed of such a thing. If only in erotic dreams smile
    1. ed65b
      ed65b 25 November 2013 18: 20
      0
      Quote: Kavtorang
      Quote: ed65b
      Well, how many ships in the escort? 20-30 imagine the same flock of apl. (well, purely hypothetically) who will tear whom

      And here you are no longer right. They declared an excessive composition of combat guard. Well, let it be your way. 20-30 escort ships for each of the 3 AUGs are easily of the existing composition, but if they aren’t enough (who is scheduled to be repaired or damaged and not combat-ready — I drove into the felucca in Aden and squeezed my nose), that is, reserve 1 and 2 queues. I can imagine this, with mats, wrenches and such a mother - they will go to sea. Guess how we do with the reserve?
      I can’t imagine a picture of 60-90 nuclear submarines simultaneously at sea, formed into operational formations, spent nuclear submarines and aimed at 3 AUGs - I can’t - at least kill. DAS IS FANTASTISH. Even for the USSR. None of the Commanders-in-chief even dreamed of such a thing. If only in erotic dreams smile

      Yes, I proceed from pure fantasy. The stump is clear that it cannot be well, but what if it could? so who whom?
  • report4
    report4 25 November 2013 15: 56
    0
    This paper marauder has obvious problems with logic, they say one thing to him, and he answers a completely different one. It would seem that what does the anti-Papuan war have to do with it, but no !! it turns out that if something is not affected in them, then it is immortal. Well then, our construction battalion will conquer America with shovels because in the Vietnam War none of them died)))) Article KG / AM, with a kind of Jewish darling.
  • report4
    report4 25 November 2013 15: 56
    0
    This paper marauder has obvious problems with logic, they say one thing to him, and he answers a completely different one. It would seem that what does the anti-Papuan war have to do with it, but no !! it turns out that if something is not affected in them, then it is immortal. Well then, our construction battalion will conquer America with shovels because in the Vietnam War none of them died)))) Article KG / AM, with a kind of Jewish darling.
  • moremansf
    moremansf 25 November 2013 16: 18
    +1
    It may not be completely modern, but nevertheless the main thing is clear from the scheme.
  • moremansf
    moremansf 25 November 2013 16: 18
    0
    It may not be completely modern, but nevertheless the main thing is clear from the scheme.
  • Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 25 November 2013 16: 23
    0
    The author must first read, then write. Yesterday they wrote that they successfully tested the launch of Onyx from a submarine of the Ash type through a torpedo tube from an underwater position. And that all boats of this type will receive Onyx.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 26 November 2013 01: 09
      +1
      Quote: Jurkovs
      Yesterday they wrote that they successfully tested the launch of Onyx from a submarine of the Ash type through a torpedo tube from an underwater position.

      Sergey! Onyxes are always in the TPK (transport and launch containers - until 10 years old, without maintenance!), Including on board the Ashen. Diameter TPK (TPS) - 720mm. PlaRK pr.885 has 10 TA (5 outboard) with a diameter of 553mm. (Do you catch the difference?)
      On November 6, 2013, the Severodvinsk submarine (Project 885, Yasen) successfully launched the Onyx anti-ship missile system from the SM-343 UKSK with vertical silos. There are only 8 of them (located on 4 sides), the ammunition load is 32 CR. Prior to that, in 2010, the launch was unsuccessful. The navy announced that it would not accept the boat without the Onyx. (the CD set consists of Onyx, Caliber, Turquoise and promising items) Therefore, without RO, Ash loses its main advantage - the ability to attack AUG (NK) outside of its effective PLO.
      The author must first read, then write.

      You are absolutely right here.
  • Mr. Truth
    Mr. Truth 25 November 2013 16: 31
    0
    Anglo-Saxon Bravado.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 25 November 2013 16: 32
    +3
    The Kavtorang is right, it is simply impossible to imagine the real alignment of forces at the time the hostilities began at sea, as well as their course itself. Nobody knows how events will actually develop and who will strike first. It may happen that one Varshavyanka accidentally found herself in shallow water near a warrant passing under cover of the coast, can destroy an aircraft carrier. Perhaps there will even be time after a torpedo salvo by the whole crew to sing a couple of verses from the Varyag. Or maybe there won’t be any military operations at sea. Given the current state of the fleet and the KOH nuclear submarine, which is approaching zero, for the probable enemy the most tempting will be to solve all the problems at the base.
    AUG is a formidable force, but it is far from a panacea for all occasions and one must perceive it adequately, and not sharpen its entire fleet just to fight them. We already went through this and eventually got a fleet where there is not a single ship (except the BDK) that can work on the ground.
  • indiggo
    indiggo 25 November 2013 16: 36
    0
    By the way, information slipped that the fate of the RTOs has not been decided, perhaps they will be abandoned in the future, well, or left only in the Caspian.
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 25 November 2013 16: 56
    0
    fix idea

    Submarine SeaWolfe, manned by a contract crew of volunteers
    armament:
    - Russian anti-ship missiles "Caliber",
    - American torpedoes Mk. 48
    - containers of the German IDAS system, which allows to destroy helicopters and anti-submarine Orions from a submerged position within a radius of several miles according to the data of our own HAC. The system is already being tested on the Type212 Bundesmarine submarines

    all ammunition is fired from eight standard SiWulf 660 mm TA.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 25 November 2013 22: 17
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      containers of the German IDAS system, which allows destroying helicopters and anti-submarine Orions from a submerged position within a radius of several miles according to the data of our own HAC. The system is already being tested on the Type212 Bundesmarine submarines

      You see Oleg carefully read about IDAS. Let's start with the air target detection system. How does a submarine detect an air target? By running lowered GAS. Those. the helicopter hovered with the loaded GAS; how did the PLO plane appear among the targets hit? Does it freeze too?
      Guidance system. The IDAS missile is controlled via fiber optic cable, the operator sends the missile to the active HAS mode, after leaving the water and starting the rocket engine, the operator should see the helicopter and aim the subsonic missile at it. And how can he be in time? A helicopter usually hangs at a height of no more than 20 meters, and the speed of the rocket is clearly more than 100 m / s, no one will be able to react so quickly.
      So the Germans are wasting money. This system will have no future.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 26 November 2013 00: 43
        0
        Quote: Nayhas
        How does a submarine detect an air target? By running lowered GAS. Those. helicopter hovering with a loaded gas

        Nothing like this
        The GAK of the boat calculates the threat by the "trail" from the propeller on the water surface
        Quote: Nayhas
        how was the PLO plane among the targets hit?

        Similarly. at a flight height of less than 100 m - it can be heard at a depth

        But the main thing is that they got rid of the main threat - the helicopter. It’s easier with Orions - they are few and far
        Quote: Nayhas
        after exiting the water and starting the rocket engine, the operator should see the helicopter and aim a subsonic rocket at it

        He must direct her in the right direction. Then everything will be done by the seeker of the IRIS-T missile (the system uses a conventional air-to-air missile, used by the German Air Force since 2005)
        Quote: Nayhas
        So the Germans are wasting money. This system will have no future

        )))
        You just don't like this system - after all, it undermines the myth of the super-helicopter "Romeo")))

        By the way, the order for IDAS has already been issued by the Turks. And here is a similar system developed by the francs
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 26 November 2013 12: 30
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Similarly. at a flight height of less than 100 m - it can be heard at a depth

          Well, let's say, and how are you going to determine its location from under water? He’s a bastard flying ...
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          He must direct her in the right direction. Then everything will be done by the seeker of the IRIS-T missile (the system uses a conventional air-to-air missile, used by the German Air Force since 2005)

          The IDAS system does not use IR seeker, guidance on the image coming from the TV seeker via fiber optic cable. Therefore, the "chase" of a flying rocket aircraft "on a leash" looks ridiculous. A TV camera has a limited viewing angle and therefore it is important that the rocket "sees" the helicopter when it leaves the water. that should be in the field of view of the seeker. The lower the helicopter, the less chance of seeing it at all, but it also moves, so the task becomes even more complicated. It is impossible to use IR seeker, because it needs preliminary guidance, but how to do it from water?
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          You just don't like this system - after all, it undermines the myth of the super-helicopter "Romeo")))

          The myth does not exist. But the helicopter is good. I do not like IDAS because it does not give a great chance to destroy a helicopter, but it gives 100% of the submarine with which it is launched. If the missile misses, then the submariner remains praying for a quick death.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          And here is a similar system developed by the francs

          Using the MICA rocket with ARLGSN certainly looks more profitable, but again, the problem with preliminary guidance.
          1. Magellan
            Magellan 26 November 2013 12: 57
            0
            [quote = Nayhas] It is impossible to use the ICG seeker because it needs preliminary guidance, but how to do it from the water? [/ quote]
            by cable
            [quote = Nayhas] The IDAS system does not use IR seeker, aiming at the image coming from the TV seeker via a fiber-optic cable .... The TV camera has a limited viewing angle and therefore it is important that the rocket leaving the water "saw" the helicopter, ie that should be in the field of view of the seeker. ... and how to make it out of water?

            Fiber optic line is used to select the direction of flight and control the results of firing
            [quote = Nayhas] If the missile misses, the submariners have to pray for a quick death. [/ quote]
            From what?
            There are 3 more ready-to-launch missiles in the container
            [quote = Nayhas] Using the MICA rocket with ARLGSN certainly looks more profitable, but again the problem with the preliminary guidance. [/ Quote]
            End to helicopter
            1. Magellan
              Magellan 26 November 2013 13: 17
              0
              Quote: Nayhas
              The IDAS system does not use IR seeker, guidance on the image coming from the TV seeker via fiber optic cable. Therefore, the "chase" of a flying rocket aircraft "on a leash" looks ridiculous. A TV camera has a limited viewing angle and therefore it is important that the rocket "sees" the helicopter when it leaves the water. that should be in the field of view of the seeker. The lower the helicopter, the less chance of seeing it at all, but it also moves, so the task becomes even more complicated. It is impossible to use IR seeker, because it needs preliminary guidance, but how to do it from water?

              Google Pervode. Original - http://defense-update.com/20120214_idas-submarine-launched-surface-to-air-missil
              e-system.html

              initially considered using an IRST lookup for IDAS, however, this is high performance and all aspect of the lookup may not be the only option, and other seekers could be considered to pick up the target, provided with passive caying from by underwater sonar. The submarine can acquire an ASW helicopter when immersed, by localizing the ripple effect created by the bevel of the rotor. According to Diehl, the accuracy of such a kaing system is sufficient to provide bearing and range, as a result of which GOS missiles autonomously acquire a target with a high degree of certainty. The fiber optic link will then be used by the crew to verify the target, confirm the interception and carry out combat damage assessment.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 25 November 2013 17: 08
    +3
    A lot of buzzwords and concepts.
    This impression did not even remember the tasks of the AUG.
    It is absolutely clear that in peacetime their main task is to exert political and diplomatic pressure.
    In wartime, God forbid, of course, the Yusovites will not substitute them. They have enough meat in the form of NATO.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 25 November 2013 17: 16
      -1
      Quote: Cynic
      In wartime, God forbid, of course, the Yusovites will not substitute them. They have enough meat in the form of NATO.

      But who will cover the transatlantic convoys with reinforcements? (based on the story of Tom Clancy and Co.)
      about the tasks of the AUG.
      It is absolutely clear that their main task in peacetime is political and diplomatic pressure

      So how?
      pressed a lot?

      celebrate victory in vietnam

      1. Cynic
        Cynic 25 November 2013 18: 46
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        But who will cover the transatlantic convoys with reinforcements?

        Are you serious ?
        If transatlantic convoys from the United States go, it will mean only one thing: _ The Strategic Rocket Forces did not fulfill their task!
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        pressed a lot?

        On whom ?
        To Russia, by definition, it will not work, but with others. Wherever hot there are Yusovskie AUGs.
        And do not forget about the domestic political resonance of the presence of AUG in the problem area.
        How many laudatory words were said to the address of our Navy and the leadership because of sending only the BDK and the BOD to Syria, and if the AUG (which are not) were sent? What then would the public reaction be if only the appearance of the RK Moscow there caused a flurry of emotions?
        hi
        Moreover, do not confuse the escort carrier and the strike, they only have in common that both aircraft carriers.
        wink
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 25 November 2013 21: 40
          +1
          Quote: Cynic
          Strategic Rocket Forces did not fulfill their task!

          I initially consider a non-nuclear conflict (based on T. Clancy)
          There is a chance that no one will dare to press the button - the Third World War will be fought with conventional tactical weapons

          Otherwise, AUGs don't matter and there’s nothing to talk about
          Quote: Cynic
          On whom ?

          I asked you this
          Quote: Cynic
          Wherever hot there are Yusovskie AUGs

          And what's the point? Assad both fought and fights. In Yugoslavia, the only Av came only on the 12th day. Iraq, not embarrassed by the Yusov Av, climbed into Kuwait in 1990.
          Quote: Cynic
          Yes, do not confuse the escort carrier and the strike

          Do you think in our time it is possible to create a "convoy aircraft carrier"?
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 26 November 2013 19: 52
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            I initially consider a non-nuclear conflict (based on T. Clancy)

            And what to consider?
            Better screen
  • rudolff
    rudolff 25 November 2013 17: 15
    +3
    In principle, the question of the advisability of building aircraft carriers can be solved with little blood, so that the wolves are fed and the sheep are safe. To begin work on the project of the ship without making a fundamental decision on the beginning of its construction. Create a working group of specialists from the Nevsky Bureau, the Krylovsky Center. Perhaps the participation of the Indian side, which could take on part of the costs of research and development. Ulyanovsk can be taken as a basis; everything is better than starting from an empty sheet. In parallel with the project of the ship itself, to begin work on an electromagnetic catapult, a new generation nuclear power plant, the creation of a ship version of the PAK FA, carrier-based AWACS and UAVs, etc. All this will be niche products of independent value in the arms market. Even if the project is ultimately unrealized (for political or economic reasons), R&D expenses will not be so devastating.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 26 November 2013 00: 43
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      Ulyanovsk can be taken as a basis; everything is better than starting from an empty sheet. P

      Good evening, Rudolph!
      Our clever guys did just that, so V.V. Chirkov turned their project up for alteration: with new bells and whistles (which you wrote about) and modular schemes of weapons "capable of acting equally effectively in all environments, including space."
      And we continue to help the Indians with their launched Vikranta hull. They plan to build 3 more, maybe they will lead to our enticement for R&D
  • Kavtorang
    Kavtorang 25 November 2013 18: 14
    +2
    Quote: Kavtorang
    Why
    There are much more obvious things.

    Oleg, these, from your point of view, more obvious things - are not included in the calculation of the officer-operators. There is no such provision.
    M.B. they are engaged in calculations of a new look — pah, disgusting! ”in Akamedia, but I doubt it after the smerdyukovsky pogrom and knowing the fate of their colleagues who left as teachers at the Vuznetsk Scientific Center. You know my opinion.
    Lyrical digression: the evening of a difficult last Friday, grace, beer + fish from Kamchatka. Visiting one steep penny, not a military man, but a silovik, begins to tell me how great the army and navy have changed after Medvedev under Putin. And then a malicious jamb happens at sea, right from my window - excellent visibility. Three tugs for the "pitsunda" are dragging one of our "formidable" BODs to the Eastern Bosphorus. Forgive me, I’m not out of malice, but poking my fingers at this hurray-u-idiot, I couldn’t laugh or clear my throat for another 10 minutes.
  • sawmill
    sawmill 25 November 2013 18: 53
    0
    The British AUG during the Falkland War was subjected to more than one multiple attack by the Argentine Air Force, the results are mixed. There were hits in the aircraft carrier, even with a shortage of exoset anti-ship missiles in Argentina, the Argentine Mirages managed to put unguided 500 kg on the deck of the aircraft carrier. The bombs. There were losses of the British escort ships, the sunken Eminem Shefield - a direct hit of the RCC Exoset.
    But the British AUG fulfilled the task of airborne cover for the landing in the conditions of opposition of the enemy air force.
    The conclusions in my opinion may be as follows:
    The effectiveness of the ACG depends on a whole set of factors among them, the goals and objectives of the ACG, the place, the degree of opposition from the enemy, etc.
    Discussing hypothetical scenarios and predicting the development of events without a clear analysis of the forces and means involved in the clash is meaningless.