Military Review

The best fleet. Only forward?

134



The previous series of short stories about "the best navy"Caused a mixed reaction among visitors to topwar.ru. Many of the commentators warned the author about the inadmissibility of excessive self-confidence and "hatred" in relation to the "probable adversary", especially when it comes to such a formidable formation as the US Navy. US naval forces are not ideal weapons, they, like everyone else, suffer from carelessness and accidents in peacetime, suffer losses in zones of military conflicts, but stubbornly strive for the goal. And if they are unable to accomplish the task, they do everything to harm their opponent to the maximum.

The annual budget of 155 billion dollars in size - more than the Russian SDO provides for before the 2020 of the year - allows you to increase the number of ship crews without any restrictions and, if necessary, to rudely “fill up” the enemy with equipment. At the same time, the scientific potential of the United States (where, according to statistics, 80% of research supercomputers around the world are concentrated) implies that every combat unit with a USS index (United States Ship - “United States Ship”) should be an unsurpassed technical masterpiece. Tomahawks and Aegis, superhuman carriers, littoral warships, the world's first 4-generation PLA (SeaWolf type), Ohio missile-carrying submarines with powerful and reliable Trident 2 (151 successful launch, 4 failures) ... Facts must be respected. But for some reason, a sense of respect is increasingly replaced by a feeling of disappointment.

The best fleet. Only forward?


By the beginning of the XXI century, the American fleet was completely outdated and degraded: in some incomprehensible way, the Navy, the development of which is spent every year hundreds of billions of dollars, was left without supersonic anti-ship missiles. It is difficult to believe in this, but all the newest destroyers of the US Navy are completely deprived of the ability to carry and use anti-ship weapons!

* The possibility of firing missiles at surface targets, as well as light helicopter-based Penguins, can be safely ignored; The adoption of subsonic LRASM - a vague prospect of the future.

Despite the huge expenditures on its maintenance and development, the American fleet is still left without anti-aircraft missiles with active homing heads (such missiles have already been in service with many European and Asian countries in the form of the PAAMS marine air defense system).

And this is despite the fact that fire control systems based on the multifunctional SPY-1 and AN / SPG-62 radar for illumination of the Stenderd / ESSM semi-active SAM systems also do not shine with perfection: mechanical control in azimuth and elevation, total 1-2 simultaneously fired at an attack from one selected direction.

The Yankee ships were left without a radar with active phased arrays. But the radar with AFAR - FCS-3A, SAMPSON, EMPAR, APAR, S1850M has long been used on ships of the naval forces of Japan, Great Britain, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands ... This is without taking into account the fact that the ships of all these countries are equipped with several specialized radars for of each type of threat - in contrast to the American focus, when one radar station of the UHF AN / SPY-1 range tries to simultaneously monitor both space and anti-ship missiles. Tracking targets at the LEO works well, unlike the search for low-flying anti-ship missiles.


A small Japanese destroyer of the "Akizuki" type, equipped with the ultra-modern BIUS ATECS and a dual-band radar with active phased array FCS-3A. Created specifically to protect the "big" destroyers of the Atago and Congo types (copies of the American Berkov) from low-flying anti-ship missiles attacks. It is precisely this “companion” that the American cruisers and destroyers lack

Americans do not have anti-aircraft systems for submarines. Despite the apparent absurdity, it is one of the most interesting and relevant naval developments. All enemies of submariners fly awkwardly and slowly: as shown by tests, the submarine, using its hydroacoustics, is able to detect the “trace” of a helicopter rotor on the surface of the water and shoot the helicopter using rockets guided through a fiber-optic cable. In 2014, the Germans plan to adopt such a system (IDAS). His interest expressed the Turkish fleet. The French and Indians are working on the subject. But what about the Americans? And the US Navy again found themselves "in the span."

Amazing история associated with the promising destroyer Zamvolt: a ship whose cost, taking into account R & D exceeded 7 billion dollars, strangely lost the sightseeing radar! The Americans had enough money to experiment with stealth technology and to develop a six-inch with a range of 150 km, but did not have enough money to install a dual-band radar DBR. As a result, the over-slayer will only be equipped with a multi-functional AN / SPY-3 station, which is not able to effectively track air targets from a long distance. As a result, the Zamvolta anti-aircraft ammunition is limited only to short / medium range missiles ESSM.


USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000)

The events of the last 20 years have clearly shown that the “best fleet” is powerless against sea mines and diesel-electric submarines. The noise background of modern “dizelukh” turned out to be below the threshold of sensitivity of American means of PLO. The absence of thundering pumps and GTZA, air-independent power plants, small size and power, systems of electromagnets compensating for anomalies in the Earth’s magnetic field - the results of joint exercises with the Australian, Israeli and Dutch navies showed that such submarines could pass through any US naval anti-submarine cordons. Allied Swedes were urgently called up with their Gotland naval base. Tests confirmed all previous concerns. The Swedish boat was immediately leased for two years (2006-08). Despite an intensive study of Gotland and the development of measures to combat such submarines, the American command still considers non-nuclear submarines to be one of the most dangerous threats and are not going to turn off the DESI (diesel-electric submarine initiative) program.

If some progress has been made in the fight against non-nuclear submarines — at least, the Yankees are paying increased attention to this problem and are actively looking for countermeasures — then the mine threat issue remains open.

The US Navy suffered significant losses from enemy mines. In 1988, the frigate “Samuel B. Roberts” was damaged in the Persian Gulf (this prankster was blown up by a contact mine of the 1908 model of the year). Three years later, the Tripoli helicopter carrier (ironically, the flagship of mine-trawling forces in the region) and the cruiser Princeton (blew up on the cleared fairway and then stood alone for a long time, were blown up on Iraqi minefields. None of the US Navy ships ventured to help the dying "colleague").

It would seem that the abundance of stocks of these deadly sea traps (according to military analysts and experts, one China has about 80 thousand sea mines!), As well as the real facts of familiarity with the "horned death" should have convinced the American command of the need to create effective means countering the mine threat. But nothing like this has been done!

The fleet, which is proud of eight dozen cruisers and missile destroyers, has only ... 13 mine and mine ships!


Minesweeper USS Guardian (MCM-5). 17 January 2013 of the year flew over a reef in the Sulu Sea (Philippines). He was left the crew and soon completely destroyed by the blows of the waves.

In theory, in addition to the old sweepers like the Evenger, 4 littoral warships can be used to search for and eliminate sea mines. However, the 3000-ton LCS seems not very effective as a minesweeper. Excessively large size, the abundance of metal structures - all this makes the search for magnetic mines in a deadly game. And after possible damage, it makes the repair redundantly complex, lengthy and expensive.

Further, only two squadrons of MH-53E minesweeper helicopters (squadrons HM-14 and 15) remained in service with the US Navy. Some attempts are being made in the field of creating unmanned underwater vehicles for searching and destroying mines - with a very dubious result. The Persian Gulf 2012 exercises clearly showed that the US Navy minesweepers, supported by ships from the 34 allied countries, were able to detect only half of the specified minefields from the 11 for 24 hours. In general, the disgraceful result for the superfleet, which claims to be global hegemony, but at the same time is not able to protect itself from the most primitive means of naval warfare.


Helicopter minesweepers MH-53E Sea Dragon on board UDC "Wasp"

If we are talking about the "primitive means of destruction", then this is a reason to recall the attack on the American destroyer Cole in the port of Yemen in October 2000 of the year. Two Arab ragged boldly moored to the side of the destroyer on a leaky boat and powered an SVU with a power from 200 to 300 kg in TNT. The consequences of the close explosion turned out to be terrible - the shock wave and the hot products of the explosion burst through the 12-meter hole into the body, destroying all the bulkheads and mechanisms in their path. “Cole” instantly lost its combat capability, lost its course and stability - an explosion turned the left side engine room, the lighting went out, the propeller shaft was deformed and the radar grille was damaged. Began intensive flooding of the premises. The crew lost 17 people killed, 40 more injured were immediately evacuated to a hospital in Germany.

It is curious that in January of the same year the destroyer USS The Sullivans was subjected to a similar attack. However, at that time, the terrorists acquired a boat that was too full of holes - as soon as they "lay down on the combat course," their fragile canoe filled with water and sank, bringing hapless kamikazes to the bottom.


Doprygalsya

The Yankees are well aware of the danger of terrorist attacks using fishing boats and feljugs - more recently, all destroyers are equipped with remote-controlled Xmash mm Bushmasters; an order was given to shoot at anyone who tried to get close to the board of the American ship (the Yankees had already managed to “dump” by mistake several Egyptian fishermen and a pleasure boat from the United Arab Emirates).

But what is the danger of such “asymmetric threats”? After all, next time it will not be a boat, but some other "focus" - for example, mortar shelling of a ship standing in the harbor (a famous case is rocket shelling of the Jordanian port of Aqaba at a time when there were ships of the US Navy, 2005). . Or the attack of underwater "saboteurs" (even at the most primitive level, using civilian public equipment and impromptu). As practice shows, to deal with such flexible threats in the absence of a clear front line is impossible. The terrorists will certainly respond to every American cunning with another “stupidity”.

The Yankees are lucky that no one is seriously fighting with them - all incidents are limited to minor incursions of Islamist groups and the entertainment of the Arab punks. Otherwise the losses would be huge. Every port in the Middle East would turn into a scaffold for American sailors.

In unison with the asymmetrical threats of the “War on Global Terrorism” there is a problem of low ship security - a situation where a boat worth $ 300 disables a ship worth 1,5 billion, sounds at least suspicious. No “active” means of defense or half measures in the form of local booking by Kevlar will fix this problem - only the armor belt of 10 thickness and more than centimeters of steel will help minimize the consequences of the explosion.

Low security is a problem of all, without exception, modern ships built according to the standards of the second half of the 20th century. The US Navy is no exception. The Yankees have riveted 62 disposable “pelvis” and are very proud of the result. "Cole" showed that its type destroyers completely lose their combat capability from a surface explosion with a capacity of 200-300 kg of TNT - any cruiser of the Second World War would only startled by a blow and looked at the bent armor-plates in surprise at the epicenter of the explosion. Peripheral armored UVP destroyer "Zamvolt", performing the role of a kind of "armor", also can not be considered an adequate means of protection.

Nevertheless, the risk of losing the 7 billionth ship from a single hit by a small-sized RPC should certainly attract the attention of designers to this problem.

Epilogue

The two-part story about the misadventures of American sailors was intended not just to laugh at the failures of the “best fleet in the world.” These facts are an occasion to reflect on the role of the navy in the 21st century and its optimal appearance in the conditions of the modern geopolitical situation.

The main feature of the US Navy is that no one is afraid of them. Despite the huge number of ships and brilliant (often the best in the world) training, no one pays attention to the American squadrons moving on the horizon. Populist notions “projection of force” or “control of sea communications” lose all meaning after becoming acquainted with real historical facts. Those countries who should have been horrified by the invincible AUG and amphibious groups of the US Navy, do not react to the presence of starship-flagged ships on their banks, continuing to commit unfriendly acts towards America.

North Korea, without batting an eye, boarded the American reconnaissance ship in neutral waters, and a year later the reconnaissance ship EC-121 of the United States Naval Forces shot down over the Sea of ​​Japan.

For several years, Iran bombarded tankers and mined the neutral waters of the Persian Gulf, without hesitating the presence of American warships. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini’s supporters seized the US Embassy in Tehran and held the day 444 captive for American diplomats. No demonstration of force with the help of the AUG had any effect there (as was the attempt to force the release of hostages by special forces "Delta").

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait without even looking in the direction of the US Navy's carrier strike groups.
Colonel Gaddafi 40 has been a thorn in the eye of the American administration for years: even after Operation Fire on the Prairie, he continued to stubbornly bend his line and really got excited only after the collapse of the USSR.

The reason for this self-confidence is known. All these political, military and religious figures understood very well that a real war would only begin when caravans of American transports were pulled into the ports of neighboring states tanks and weapons. And all airbases and airports in the region will buzz from hundreds (thousands) of US and NATO countries flying from all over the world. Without all this, the defile of American ships was perceived as a cheap joke.


In 1968, the Yankees handed over the ship to the Koreans, filled to the brim with secret electronic equipment. The trophy is still moored at the embankment in Pyongyang


The power of the modern fleet is primarily determined not by the number of ships, but by the political readiness to use this force - with close cooperation with other types of armed forces. Without all this, the fleet turns into a useless pantomime theater. This is well demonstrated by the modern US Navy. A monstrously expensive, inefficient mechanism, which by its existence causes more damage to the economy of its own country than to all geopolitical opponents of the United States.
Author:
134 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 10kAzAk01
    10kAzAk01 3 December 2013 08: 17
    +6
    ... it seems to me that the fleet is mowing their economy! bully
    1. Sakhalininsk
      Sakhalininsk 3 December 2013 09: 37
      23
      The fleet is an expensive thing in itself, and a fleet similar to that of the Yankers in general from the category of madness. Of course it's cool to build a dozen full-fledged AUGs, but why? When, in fact, even with their hyperambitions, four would have been enough ... So let them build their Zumvolts, Khrenulbolts and ruin their economy.
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 3 December 2013 14: 21
        +7
        Quote: Sakhalininets
        So let them build their Zumvolts, Hrenulbolts and ruin their economy.

        Dear colleague, everything would be fine ... BUT,
        these descendants of gangsters and cowboys have managed to arrange themselves so that they build their "troughs" for you and me. More precisely, at the expense of the whole world, who spend their economy and finances in the fucking gum of the US Federal Reserve System. It is sad...
        And so let them build, I have nothing against ...
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 3 December 2013 12: 00
      +7
      Quote: 10kAzAk01
      ... it seems to me that the fleet is mowing their economy! bully

      It just seems that it takes several times more for social networking. For example, in the United States, 48 ​​million people receive so-called "food stamps" or "foodstamp" every month (in fact, this is a card that is calculated in stores for a certain number of products), the average amount of such assistance is $ 135 per month, it is not difficult to calculate how much it costs budget, about 78 billion dollars a year, despite the fact that many recipients of the Food Stamp Benefit have been living for more than one generation at the expense of the state, working for cash without paying any taxes.
    3. lukke
      lukke 3 December 2013 21: 53
      +4
      The fleet is expensive, I agree. And who counted how much profit he brings when with his help American companies become equity investors in oil production in Iraq or Libya? For amers, he fulfills his tasks at all 200%, ranging from satisfying the internal appetites of "kickbacks" for orders and ending with using it as a foreign policy argument. With the help of their fleet, the Yankees are able to build up their land forces exponentially at any point on the ball in the shortest possible time. There is no one else to boast of such successes. For different reasons....
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Gladiatir-zlo
      Gladiatir-zlo 4 December 2013 21: 11
      0
      Corporations master money, and therefore build any superwaffle. The main thing is that Schaub is expensive, and if the exercise turns out to be, "The 2012 exercise in the Persian Strait clearly showed that the US Navy's minesweepers, supported by ships from 34 allied countries, were able to find only half of the 11 assigned minefields in 29 days. , a shameful result for a superfleet that claims global hegemony but is unable to defend itself against the most primitive means of naval warfare. " That is even better, you can again saw off some money to modernize all this waffle.
  2. PSih2097
    PSih2097 3 December 2013 08: 26
    12
    the American fleet is still without anti-aircraft missiles with active homing heads (such SAMs have been in service with many European and Asian countries in the form of PAAMS naval air defense systems for 10 years).
    What for? To do this, they have an air wing on the AB and E2 hokai (400 km airplane, 140 - 180 anti-ship missiles) on it (after all, their doctrine is built and supported by aircraft carriers) ...
    1. AVV
      AVV 3 December 2013 11: 48
      +3
      Yes, the wing will not have time to take off, as the aircraft carrier goes down, and if someone has time to take off, there will be nowhere to land !!! Even Chinese medium-range missiles designed to destroy aircraft carriers from the Americans are terrifying, and this is the most effective and asymmetric weapons against the AUG. And I believe that if China has such missiles, then we have the same missiles of different bases !!! The same Iskander can accommodate missiles of extended range up to 1.5 thousand kilometers. On aircraft carriers, in submarines that for the Carrier groups does not bode well !!! So that for every tricky bolt there is always a nut. And this nut will be much cheaper and more efficient !!!
      1. Angry reader
        Angry reader 3 December 2013 13: 33
        +6
        Nick has an air wing on antimatter flies, surrounding himself with a handshake vacuum illuminated by the rays of the democratic community)))
      2. Angry reader
        Angry reader 3 December 2013 13: 56
        +2
        It seems the author of the post has justified his nickname, judging by the minuses)
      3. clidon
        clidon 3 December 2013 22: 32
        +3
        How are you going to guide the missiles on the Iskander? I’m not even asking why these non-operational CDs became anti-ship missiles.
    2. clidon
      clidon 3 December 2013 22: 33
      0
      From 2016, they will receive AGSs (SM-6) ...
    3. Don
      Don 4 December 2013 18: 31
      0
      Quote: PSih2097
      the American fleet is still without anti-aircraft missiles with active homing

      Quote: PSih2097
      What for? For this they have an air wing on AB

      What does the air wing have to do with it. SAMs are located on cruisers and destroyers to destroy anti-ship missiles that threaten the aircraft carrier, cruisers and destroyers. There are no anti-missiles on the F-18. They are not capable of shooting down anti-ship missiles.
  3. Denis
    Denis 3 December 2013 08: 37
    +2
    The US naval forces are not an ideal weapon; they, like everyone else, suffer from sloppiness and accident rate in peacetime, and suffer losses in zones of military conflicts
    I am glad if so
    But let the experts judge this
    And here is the admiral (or Fuhrer?) Of all the oceans, but what is there, of the whole world
  4. makarov
    makarov 3 December 2013 08: 37
    +4
    As for me, the best fleet is one that does not drown on its own.
    1. Stiletto
      Stiletto 3 December 2013 08: 53
      +4
      Quote: makarov
      As for me, the best fleet is one that does not drown on its own.


      Do not drown know what? wink
      1. makarov
        makarov 3 December 2013 18: 06
        0
        probably what should go ???
    2. Denis
      Denis 3 December 2013 12: 33
      +5
      Quote: makarov
      the best fleet is one that does not sink in itself.
      Worse when inside and even with a pigment delight they drown
      Anastasia Nikitinskaya, a specialist in the press service of FSUE PO Sevmash, told Interfax that at the end of June the "six-section" aircraft is planned to be sent to Sayda-Guba (Murmansk region).
      She recalled that nuclear fuel was discharged from the ship’s reactors in the 2003 year, and in the 2005 year the hull was cut and a sealed reactor block was launched.
      "Now, - said A. Nikitinskaya, - towing and emergency devices, signal lights are being mounted on the reactor block. Operation management is entrusted to the department of repair, modernization, warranty supervision and disposal (URMGiU)."
      “There were many difficulties in the dismantling of the ship, - said the order delivery officer Alexander Orlov. - Firstly, this submarine is structurally different from traditional nuclear submarines, accordingly, instead of the usual" three-compartment "(reactor compartment with two adjacent to maintain buoyancy, -" IF " ) here a "six-section" was cut out.
      "Transporting a structure with a displacement of almost 8 thousand tons is also not an easy task, but by joint efforts of the URMGiU, the design bureau, the nuclear and radiation safety department, the transport department and shop 22, it should be solved in June," he added.
      The TK-202 nuclear submarine became the second Akula dismantled at Sevmash.
      The disposal of Project 941 heavy nuclear-powered strategic missile cruisers of the third generation is carried out within the framework of the Russian-American Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, also known as the Hann-Lugar Initiative.
      The CTR program began in 1991 at the initiative of the US Congress. Its main goals are the destruction of launch vehicles and their launch systems, chemical weapons and the provision of control over nuclear weapons and their components in the territory of the former USSR. Congress has allocated over $ 3,1 billion to the US Department of Defense for the implementation of this program.
      The submarine "Akula" was designed at the Rubin Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering (St. Petersburg). The lead ship, Dmitry Donskoy, has been reequipped for the new Bulava-M missile system intended for Project 955 boats.
      A total of 1970 submarines of the 80 project were built at the NSR in the 6-941 years. The seventh was dismantled on the slipway.
      head with a patch burn in hell
      let them hurry, they’ve already been waiting there
  5. Baron Wrangell
    Baron Wrangell 3 December 2013 08: 39
    +2
    all the power of the American fleet, this is my opinion, these are aircraft carriers. They will rely on them in case of a big conflict.
    1. just exp
      just exp 3 December 2013 08: 57
      +7
      AB they essentially have a fleet, the rest of the ships are only for the protection of AB. Well, they also have nuclear power.
  6. bif
    bif 3 December 2013 09: 00
    +3
    Thanks Oleg for the detailed analysis.
    A monstrously expensive, ineffective mechanism that, by its existence, causes more damage to the economy of its own country than to all geopolitical opponents of the United States

    The states, in pursuit of the idea of ​​the world gendarme, raised a highly unbalanced and hypertrophied fleet, which has exorbitant financial appetites.
    1. velikoros-xnumx
      velikoros-xnumx 3 December 2013 15: 23
      0
      Quote: bif
      Thanks Oleg for the detailed analysis.
      A monstrously expensive, ineffective mechanism that, by its existence, causes more damage to the economy of its own country than to all geopolitical opponents of the United States

      The states, in pursuit of the idea of ​​the world gendarme, raised a highly unbalanced and hypertrophied fleet, which has exorbitant financial appetites.

      Oleg, as always, is in his own spirit, but personally to me his position on the future of the fleet in general and aircraft carriers in particular is close hi , although I am far from a specialist, or rather, generally speaking, an amateur in this area.
  7. Bongo
    Bongo 3 December 2013 09: 02
    +7
    Americans do not have anti-aircraft systems for submarines. Despite the apparent absurdity, it is one of the most interesting and relevant naval developments.

    And who has them?
    1. Magellan
      Magellan 3 December 2013 10: 13
      +3
      Quote: Bongo
      And who has them?

      Starting next year - in service with the Bundesmarin
      Since 2015 - on Indian submarines of the "Scorpen" type (French construction)

      Tests of the IDAS system (U-33 submarine, 2008)
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 3 December 2013 11: 21
        +5
        To date, no one.
  8. FC SKIF
    FC SKIF 3 December 2013 09: 08
    +3
    It's all about amers strategists. They calculated what future wars would be and ordered equipment for them. And miscalculated. + thanks to their corruption and cuts. for a bunch of dough to cook up how it is, if not with us, great.
  9. ed65b
    ed65b 3 December 2013 09: 30
    0
    and will he be locked to which aircraft carrier or will he go with his own escort?
    1. denozavr
      denozavr 3 December 2013 09: 45
      +3
      Well, he’s invisible, he doesn’t need an escort, he crept up quietly and rrrrrraz ... wink
  10. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 3 December 2013 09: 42
    +5
    As the Yankees said at the time? "We will build ships faster than they sink." Well, that's the principle))
  11. denozavr
    denozavr 3 December 2013 09: 43
    +1
    and what, in the USA there is no corruption? the larger the pie, the larger pieces of it are sawn off! And with such sums, it’s a sin to put nothing in your pocket ....
  12. Ddhal
    Ddhal 3 December 2013 10: 08
    0
    Bravo, Oleg!
    Nothing pleases a Russian person more than the poor competitiveness of a planetary neighbor.
  13. Alexey
    Alexey 3 December 2013 10: 28
    +8
    The author is inclined to go to extremes.
  14. Alexey
    Alexey 3 December 2013 10: 28
    +1
    The author is inclined to go to extremes.
  15. Silent
    Silent 3 December 2013 10: 40
    +5
    So you say, the US Navy is degrading and mowing their economy. It is very interesting why the Americans built an expensive ocean fleet, and then sold it to scrap metal or hotels. Or were they not Americans? I am clearly confused.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 3 December 2013 14: 29
      -1
      Quote: Silent
      It is very interesting why the Americans built an expensive ocean fleet, and then sold it to scrap metal or hotels.

      ... as they say, they have it all ahead ...
      As well as denunciation of the chancellor in 2044. Although ... it may well happen earlier. Are you not happy?
  16. sevtrash
    sevtrash 3 December 2013 10: 47
    +8
    Most likely, Americans have a much better idea of ​​the development of their own fleet (and indeed create development directions that everyone else is trying to catch up with), if they don’t have something (or it seems that they don’t), maybe this component of defense / attack is implemented in a different way weapons. And maybe a radically new model / type of equipment is being developed, which in the future covers the absence / insufficiency of the existing one.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 3 December 2013 14: 34
      +6
      Quote: sevtrash
      which everyone else is trying to catch

      This is where you hit the mark, dear colleague!
      Only...
      not all, thank God, blindly drag after the crowd following the mattress flag.
      Alas, we have such a lot, requiring the creation of a symmetrical Yankee fleet with AUGs request

      Well, at least our Supremes understood the flaw of this approach:
      Here - http://www.mk.ru/politics/army/article/2013/11/30/952906-dlya-chego-putinu-armiy

      a.html
      review of the MK observer "Why Putin needs an army, how the president sees the country's defense"

      Basic postulates:
      The president is primarily interested in strategic issues: improving the nuclear triad, protection against all possible means of enemy delivery, as well as related areas: military space and high-precision non-strategic weapons with non-nuclear military equipment.

      The train of thought of the president and the military leadership is extremely clear and concise. Russia is a large and resource-rich country, a tasty booty for any strong rival. At the same time, demography and the general level of economic development do not allow organizing the country's security by conventional means. This means that so that no one would be unnecessarily tempted to take away all our wealth by force, we must firmly grasp the "nuclear grenade", take out the check and convey to all interested parties: if anything, it will not seem to anyone
      .
      Neither strategic means of attack, nor means of defense can function effectively without space reconnaissance, navigation, and target designation. We need military and dual-use satellites: communications, surveillance, mapping, GLONASS
      .
      Finally, in order to be able to snap back without launching the Third World War along the way, Russia needs to be able to carry out non-nuclear deterrence. High-precision weapons with conventional warheads - mainly cruise missiles - this is now the latest fashion in military strategy
      .
      By all of the above, Putin expects to “ensure the country's defense for a long historical perspective”
      .
      It is noteworthy that Putin was not at all interested in the branches of armaments and military equipment that needed to be developed for a successful counter-guerrilla war — those areas to which so much attention is now being paid in the West. Neither the equipment of the soldiers of the future, nor the new small arms, nor the armored personnel carriers of high security (MRAP), nor heavy armored vehicles were discussed at meetings in Bocharov Stream. Neither the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces nor the Commander of the Airborne Forces in Sochi were invited. The surface fleet was not remembered either.
      1. Santa Fe
        3 December 2013 19: 45
        -3
        Quote: Rus2012
        The president is primarily interested in strategic issues: improving the nuclear triad, protection against all possible means of enemy delivery, as well as related areas: military space and high-precision non-strategic weapons with non-nuclear military equipment.

        Quote: Rus2012
        It is noteworthy that Putin was not at all interested in the branches of armaments and military equipment that needed to be developed for a successful counter-guerrilla war — those areas to which so much attention is now being paid in the West. Neither the equipment of the soldiers of the future, nor the new small arms, nor the armored personnel carriers of high security (MRAP), nor heavy armored vehicles were discussed at the meetings in Bocharov Stream. The surface fleet was not remembered either.

        This just once again proves that science and the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation have completely degraded.

        Kremlin officials are trying to "strengthen their defenses" (in fact, to cut more dough and show the jingoists what kind of statesmen they are and how they care for the state), using old developments from the dusty shelves of the design bureau and equipment from the Soviet ground - it's no secret that the same - are built from sections of decommissioned submarines (K-333 "Lynx", etc.)

        Everything else - ocean-class surface ships, drones, new type of armored vehicles - are beyond the capabilities of the Russian military-industrial complex. And there’s nothing even V. Obeschalkin to talk about there - too dead a topic, a lot of bad things will come to the surface
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 3 December 2013 22: 57
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Everything else - ocean-class surface ships, drones, new type of armored vehicles - are beyond the capabilities of the Russian military-industrial complex.

          The platform crisis has not been overcome. But you are not familiar with this concept.
        2. Don
          Don 4 December 2013 18: 45
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          This just once again proves that science and the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation have completely degraded.

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          using old practices from dusty shelves of the design bureau and equipment from the sovereign reserve

          And again began the groaning, gasping and sighing. What cut dough? What new technology does not arrive? Arriving. Or are you here to list what and how much has been received in 2-3 years. And about the Soviet developments, so I will tell you that all countries of the world use their achievements of past years. The United States has upgraded its aircraft several times. And the Russian Federation, according to your crazy logic, should forget all the old achievements and come up with something special that God forbid will look like a Soviet model. Despite the fact that PAK FA, Vityaz air defense missile systems, S-400 air defense systems, Shell-C1, Ka-52, Su-35 are purely Russian developments. Old developments were taken as a basis, but new, improved equipment was already being developed in the Russian Federation.
        3. postman
          postman 5 December 2013 01: 57
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          that the corps of the same Boreyevs is built from sections of decommissioned submarines (K-333 "Lynx", etc.)

          I was surprised.
          +
          Did not know.
          / This is called: DEGRADATION
  17. Per se.
    Per se. 3 December 2013 10: 47
    10
    “The main thing about the US Navy is that no one is afraid of them,” well, just an inspirational quote of the day. Iran is not so afraid of them that it is ready to mine the entire Persian Gulf and set fire to all its oil fields, constantly bluffing, to ostracize, in demonstrating "new" weapons. The Chinese did not invade Taiwan, obviously not because there is an American fleet, but, simply, they are too lazy to get there by sea. The possible appearance of US ships in the Black Sea and in the Arctic, too, "seeds". "The power of a modern fleet is determined primarily not by the number of ships, but by the political readiness to use this force - in close cooperation with other types of armed forces," iron logic, but how does it contradict the presence of a strong fleet here? It is the United States that rely in all its operations on this very interaction of the fleet with other branches of the military, from the war in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, to ​​the bombing of Yugoslavia, the alleged strike on Syria, compressing the ring around Russia. Not a single major US military operation could have done without the Navy, and most of them, without the Navy, would have been impossible at all. The domination of the sea, at one time, allowed England and France to defeat Russia in the Crimean War, where forces were transferred by sea. Without a strong fleet, Britain would not have dared to fight for the Falklands, it would have been impossible at all. Yes, the United States can afford to have a powerful fleet, just as we cannot but have a strong and full-fledged fleet that can and should interact with other types of armed forces and rely on political will. However, what conclusions does the article suggest? It says about the US Navy, Russia is meant. "Do not wash, so by rolling", "You are at the door, they are at the window," the impression is as if there was no thought about sea power, and, moreover, the aircraft carrier fleet.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 3 December 2013 23: 04
      +1
      Quote: Per se.
      Iran is not so afraid of them that it is ready to mine the entire Persian Gulf and set fire to all its oil fields, constantly bluffing, to ostracize, in demonstrating "new" weapons. The Chinese did not invade Taiwan, obviously not because there is an American fleet, but, simply, they are too lazy to get there by sea.

      Apparently all of these countries are afraid of US nuclear weapons, but what does the fleet have to do with it?
      Quote: Per se.
      The possible appearance of US ships in the Black Sea and in the Arctic, too, "seeds".

      American AUGs will not be able to physically fight in the Arctic.
      Quote: Per se.
      Not a single major US military operation could have done without a fleet, and most of them, without a fleet, would have been impossible at all.

      Contrary to popular belief in the conflicts of recent years, where the US fought the main job, ground forces performed, the role of carrier-based aviation ranged from 5 to 10%.

      The main role of the fleet is to control sea communications, and not "the projection of force on land", from the wrong doctrine - a flawed fleet - overgrown.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 4 December 2013 07: 36
        +3
        Quote: Setrac
        The main role of the fleet is to control sea communications, and not "the projection of force on land", from the wrong doctrine - a flawed fleet - overgrown.
        Control of sea communications is only part of the tasks solved by the fleet. I have already spoken about the role of the fleet in the war, I will add from history, on your "and not" the projection of force on land "" - the opening of the second front, Operation Overlord began precisely with this projection, like the landing in North Africa, Sicily, Italy. Now the role of the fleet is only increasing, it is not only control and the struggle for sea communications, but also the projection of this force onto land, from amphibious operations to cruise and intercontinental missiles aimed at enemy territory from surface ships and submarines, and carrier-based aircraft. Now, a naval component of the missile defense system is being added to this projection. You are right that the wrong doctrine will result in a flawed fleet, but, only, the US has a fleet that is not flawed in any way, and not "overgrown" at all. Unlike us, the Yankees know what they want, have a clear doctrine, under which they build their armed forces. It is we who run from one extreme to the other, we can carry out military "reforms" without having a coherent doctrine or changing both the doctrine and these very reforms.
      2. clidon
        clidon 4 December 2013 20: 03
        +2
        Apparently all of these countries are afraid of US nuclear weapons, but what does the fleet have to do with it?

        Well, yes, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya just received from nuclear weapons? Or since the time of the Second World War they have not only not used it, but have never threatened to use it against non-nuclear countries (with the exception of the use of mime WMD)?

        American AUGs will not be able to physically fight in the Arctic.

        Behind the northern polar is quite imagined. ) Physically.

        The main role of the fleet is to control sea communications, and not "the projection of force on land", from the wrong doctrine - a flawed fleet - overgrown.

        We have interesting throwing - either the US Navy is an incapacitated freak, or an overabundance of power. At the same time, carrier-based aviation can "project force" in those places where ground aviation cannot cope, will not get it, and will work within range.
        The fleet makes the enemy expect a strike from those directions which, if the enemy had only ground forces, could be weakened. This is a universal, albeit expensive, tool.
        1. Santa Fe
          4 December 2013 20: 50
          -1
          Quote: clidon
          Well, yes, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya just received from nuclear weapons?

          Really from the fleet?))
          Quote: clidon
          Behind the northern polar is quite imagined. ) Physically.

          in winter time - they cannot
          1. clidon
            clidon 4 December 2013 21: 04
            +1
            Including from the fleet. )

            in winter time - they cannot

            Well, already in the winter. ) Yes, I think, if the American Motherland sets the task and go down in winter. I don't see any fundamental problems. However, as for "Kuzma" which is based there.
            1. Santa Fe
              4 December 2013 22: 12
              0
              Quote: clidon
              Including from the fleet. )

              The whole question is in this "number"
              The role of the fleet in local wars is negligible
              Quote: clidon
              Well, already in the winter.

              But what, in the summer, does the same Barentsovo differ from the Baltic or the North Sea?

              The whole focus is obtained in the winter, which lasts in those latitudes, as a rule, for 8 months of the year.
              Quote: clidon
              I don’t see fundamental problems

              Well, bend your fingers:
              - Extremely low temperatures, making it impossible to service aircraft outside the hangar (there is still a big question with the thermal insulation of the Nimitz hangar - there are openings there that seem to be on the street)
              - polar night - around the clock
              - disgusting visibility - fog / snow charges
              - ICE



              1. clidon
                clidon 5 December 2013 07: 07
                +2
                The role of the fleet in local wars is negligible

                You still say that the strike force of the fleet is vanishingly small. ) And fifty hundred tomahawks on each destroyer is nonsense. )
                13 percent of sorties in Desert Storm is not so "vanishingly small". From your point of view, the Airborne Forces, for example, are absolutely useless troops - participation is negligible, weapons are weaker than those of a motorized rifle division, the number is relatively small.

                The whole focus is obtained in the winter, which lasts in those latitudes, as a rule, for 8 months of the year.

                Well, don’t scare us that winter. ) The weather can be windy, but the temperature is quite high not lower than 20 - 23 degrees. The Gulf Stream does. Check out today's weather forecast for the Kola Peninsula. You will be pleasantly surprised. This is talking about extreme temperatures. )

                The same "Kuznetsov" (having a cursory glance, because I don't remember from memory) calmly walked around and in early April to the exercises and in November took the cars. This is despite the fact that TAKRY on the Northern Fleet is not new.
                Therefore, yes, the conditions there are not easy, but a big war forces us to make big bets.
  18. tchoni
    tchoni 3 December 2013 10: 47
    +8
    So, it’s unambiguous to take and recognize the Russian fleet as not fighting - this is too much.
    It was rightly said here that the lack of powerful air defense systems and early warning systems on American ships is explained precisely by the carrier-oriented orientation of the fleet. For the aviation group provides both reconnaissance and cover and air defense of the order of the ships (moreover, it must be said very effectively).
    As for the low-noise diesels - yes here they blinked, but again - they are actively catching up. And about the mine war - most likely it is planned to be conducted by the forces of the Allies - for catching mines is a dangerous damn thing.
    But the main thing is that the strength of the states is not in the navy, but in that. that they have a large number of allies (read bases) around the world. This, as the author rightly pointed out, allows them to intervene in geopolitics around the world. And all these carrier groups are just a means to do this in more comfortable conditions. (Well, the military budget saw cut providing a very solid sector of the economy :-))
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 3 December 2013 14: 40
      0
      Quote: tchoni
      It is explained precisely by the carrier-oriented orientation of the fleet. For the aviation group provides both reconnaissance and cover and air defense of the order of the ships (moreover, it must be said very effectively).


      So they need to be beaten and drowned in bad weather, when the storm is more than 5-6 points and the vultures are tightly tied to the deck, don’t you?
      1. Delta
        Delta 3 December 2013 14: 55
        +5
        Quote: Rus2012
        So they need to be beaten and drown in bad weather, when the storm is more than 5-6 points and the vultures are tightly tied to the deck


        It is only a pity that the times when the kings warned each other, "Sir, tomorrow we have the honor to attack you. And since the weather will be sunny and the sun will shine in your army's eyes, we suggest you surrender without a fight." Do you propose to wait for favorable conditions during the war?
  19. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 3 December 2013 10: 51
    +9
    Everything is so bad already tears welling up. The fact is that others are even worse. The US fleet and its allies have no comparable opponents and therefore can calmly degrade to a certain level. But still, even such a "degraded" fleet allows America to keep the whole world for the Yai. So there is no particular reason to have fun.
    1. Lapotnik
      Lapotnik 3 December 2013 11: 12
      +2
      For eggs the whole world holds their fleet of dollars. In order for this fleet of dollars to exist, they created a fleet, an army and spread around the world. They will have a bad time against a serious adversary, moreover, vigorous weapons are the main force, the rest is for local warfare and moral pressure.

      The truth is (and this has already been mentioned, including in the article) that their troops were created only as collateral for the dollar, it should be supported, and that’s all. The force of s is determined not by the army, but by the dollar and nuclear weapons. IMHO.

      PS Tell me the war wherever the Americans would at least confront the enemy close to them and do not crap. Everywhere only crap with a knowingly weak enemy, the conduct of terrorist wars and wars with the wrong hands.
    2. Rus2012
      Rus2012 3 December 2013 14: 43
      0
      Quote: chunga-changa
      even such a "degraded" fleet allows America to keep the whole world for the Yai. So there is no particular reason to have fun.

      Oh?
      Paws to the sky and bayonet to the ground?
      And the covenants of fathers and grandfathers, now we do not have a decree?
  20. Admiral 013
    Admiral 013 3 December 2013 11: 02
    0
    11 aircraft carriers! Etozh how much waste paper is needed for their maintenance.
  21. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 11: 03
    21
    M-dya :))))
    Many of the commentators warned the author about the inadmissibility of excessive self-confidence and "hatred" in relation to the "probable opponent"

    But warnings obviously did not go to the author for the future
    The annual budget of 155 billion dollars is more than the Russian state defense order provides before 2020

    But to compare the US budget is not with the Russian state defense order (by the way, it’s said that the planned 20 trillion rubles for the RF Armed Forces is still about 606 billion dollars), but with the American GDP. Given the fact that in 2012 the gross domestic product, according to the IMF and the World Bank, amounted to 15,68 trillion. dollars, then the states spend as much as 0,99% of GDP on their fleet. Therefore, all the arguments that
    Quote: 10kAzAk01
    it seems to me that the fleet is mowing their economy!

    The consequence is exclusively of such articles claiming analyticity.
    The Americans can afford their fleet.
    By the beginning of the 21st century, the U.S. Navy was completely outdated and degraded.

    How many do not say "halva" in the mouth will not become sweeter
    In some incomprehensible way, the Navy, for the development of which hundreds of billions of dollars are spent annually, was left without supersonic anti-ship missiles.

    And how much does the US Navy need these supersonic anti-ship missiles? Well, the Russian Federation has supersonic anti-ship missiles, and what next? The mass of the "Onyx" is under 3 tons, the mass of the "limited supersonic" Caliber is for 2 tons. The Americans, on the other hand, have a completely reliable "Harpoon", whose weight is 660-750 kg, and such missiles can be suspended from the aircraft three to four times more than the domestic supersonic two-three-ton missiles.
    It's hard to believe, but all the latest US Navy destroyers are completely deprived of the ability to carry and use anti-ship weapons!

    Why do they need it? The Americans are not going to arrange missile cruising missiles. The striking power of the U.S. Navy - carrier-based aircraft. Of course, I understand that now again the debate about the inferiority of carrier-based aviation can begin again - but the trouble is, the Yankees, who have vast experience in using this carrier-based aircraft, do not think so. Having been operating aircraft carriers for many decades, they consider carrier-based aviation the main striking force of the fleet in a non-nuclear conflict. Oleg Kaptsov may not agree with them, this is his right. The difference between Oleg Kaptsov and the Yankees is that the Americans have experience operating AUGs, while Oleg Kaptsov does not. So it's worth listening to the practices
    the American fleet is still without anti-aircraft missiles with active homing

    Nevertheless, work on CM-6 is underway, the rocket was quite successfully tested in 2008, i.e. Americans are not exactly sitting on the priest, they are developing missiles with the AGSN, although they are lagging behind in this matter.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 11: 04
      10
      similar missiles for 10 years are in service with many European and Asian countries in the form of naval air defense systems PAAMS

      To begin with, ZUR with AGSN alone is not a panacea at all. SAM with an AGSN still needs to be brought to the target range of the AGSN, and this may not be so easy - it all depends on which radars are used to control the ASM on the marching section
      Yankee ships were left without radar with active phased arrays. But radars with AFAR - FCS-3A, SAMPSON, EMPAR, APAR, S1850M have long been used

      And even EMPAR active?
      In general and in general - the air defense and missile defense of the Arlie Berkov is of course inferior to the air defense and missile defense of the British Daring (although about the Horizons it is already a big question, their EMPAR actually lacks stars from the sky. aircraft carrier :) But the British Navy does not have it.
      Americans do not have anti-aircraft systems for submarines. Despite the apparent absurdity, it is one of the most interesting and relevant naval developments.

      Well, yes - if the submarine is to operate under the domination of enemy aircraft. But here's the thing, the Americans, having the most powerful aircraft carrier forces, are able to operate under the rule of their aviation. So why do they need all these tricks?
      The events of the last 20 years have clearly shown that the "best fleet" is powerless in front of sea mines and diesel-electric submarines.

      It remains only to find out which fleet can effectively combat both. And I would also like to know the statistics of victories of diesel-electric submarines over US Navy ships. If my memory serves me right - NOT ONE victory since WWII.
      Potentially non-nuclear submarines are a big threat and difficult to detect. Americans are working on it
      The 2012 exercises in the Persian Strait clearly showed that US minesweepers, with the support of ships from the 34 allied countries, were able to detect only half of the 11 specified minefields in 29 days. In general, the shameful result for the super fleet, which claims to be global hegemony, but is not able to protect itself from the most primitive means of naval warfare.

      Then it should be recognized that no fleet has ever ruled the seas at all since the invention of sea mines. For there is no reliable means of dealing with them and was not in service with any fleet of the world.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 11: 04
        +9
        The Cole showed that destroyers of its type completely lose their combat readiness from a surface explosion with a power of 200-300 kg of TNT - any World War II cruiser would only flinch from a strike and look in surprise at the bent armored shells at the epicenter of the explosion.

        Yeah. The light cruiser "Manchester" (9100 tons of standard displacement) was damaged by an aviation torpedo on 23.7.1941/1942/11.10.1940, repairs - until April 1942. The same type "Liverpool" was damaged by an aircraft torpedo on 14.6.1942/1945/200, repairs - until March XNUMX, XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX again damaged by an aircraft torpedo, repairs - until August XNUMX. This despite the fact that the warheads of the aircraft torpedoes (both German and Italian) did not exceed XNUMX kg.
        Nevertheless, the risk of losing the 7 billionth ship from a single hit by a small-sized RPC should certainly attract the attention of designers to this problem.

        ??? Oliver Perry stood the 2.
        The main feature of the US Navy is that no one is afraid of them. Despite the huge number of ships and brilliant (often the best in the world) training, no one pays attention to the moving American squadrons on the horizon

        :))) a very funny statement
        The reason for this self-confidence is known. All these political, military and religious figures were well aware: a real war would begin only when caravans of transports with American tanks and weapons were pulled into the ports of neighboring states. And all airbases and airports in the region will buzz from hundreds (thousands) of US and NATO countries flying from all over the world.

        But for some reason Saddam was not afraid of the "endless rows of Korovans" and did not give up Kuwait even when the US and other MNF deployed the strongest air and ground forces in the desert. Following Oleg's logic - the US Armed Forces (not only the Navy) - no one is afraid at all laughing
        1. Magellan
          Magellan 3 December 2013 12: 13
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Light cruiser "Manchester" (9100 tons of standard displacement) on 23.7.1941 July XNUMX damaged by an aircraft torpedo,

          These were all underwater explosions.
          Many times more dangerous and destructive than what the terrorist boat was launched
          Water, unlike air, is an incompressible medium
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          ??? Oliver Perry stood the 2.

          In fact - one, the second, fortunately, the Yankees did not explode
          He survived ... but burned to the ground - repair 140 million dollars. How to build half of the new
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          But for some reason, Saddam was not afraid of the "endless rows of Korovans" and did not give Kuwait even then,

          So it was too late
          Saddam did not calculate his strength and played too far
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 12: 30
            +5
            Quote: Magellan
            These were all underwater explosions.

            Well, undermining the boat gives a semi-underwater explosion.
            Quote: Magellan
            In fact - one, the second, fortunately, the Yankees did not explode
            He survived ... but burned to the ground - repair 140 million dollars

            Well, why then fantasies about the loss of the 7-billionth ship from a small-sized anti-ship missile?
            Quote: Magellan
            So it was too late

            It's just a question that cannot be discussed with Oleg's simplified logic - "there were aircraft carriers, but Saddam still did what he wanted, so he was not afraid of the aircraft carriers." I just showed that the same logic is quite applicable to other aircraft.
            1. Magellan
              Magellan 3 December 2013 12: 44
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Well, undermining the boat gives semi-underwater explosion.

              No such
              The shock wave is on the path of least resistance - most of it is scattered in the air, scaring the gulls. There wasn’t even a directed explosion there - the usual shellless VU

              A good example is the British cruiser York. See how the subversion (submersible boat) was implemented. And compare the consequences.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              about the loss of a 7 billionth ship from a small-sized anti-ship missile?

              Those. billionth of damage (in the case of zamvolta or berk) from such nonsense does not bother you at all?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I just showed that the same logic is quite applicable to other aircraft.

              I honestly did not understand your logic.
              Saddam laid down on all international rules and threats. And he came to his senses only when a millionth army grew up at its borders with 7000 tanks and thousands of aircraft. Power projectors (AUGs), as such, did not scare him at all. Neither him nor the other scumbags
              1. Delta
                Delta 3 December 2013 12: 49
                +5
                Quote: Magellan
                Saddam laid down on all international rules and threats. And he came to his senses only when a millionth army grew up at its borders with 7000 tanks and thousands of aircraft. Power projectors (AUGs), as such, did not scare him at all. Neither him nor the other scumbags


                what does it mean - "came to my senses"? surrendered or what?))) No, he continued to be a scumbag. Those. and the army with 7000 tanks did not frighten him. Well, where is the fault of the aircraft carriers in something? where did they "underplay"?
                1. Magellan
                  Magellan 3 December 2013 13: 20
                  0
                  Quote: Delta
                  what does it mean - "came to my senses"? surrendered or what?

                  By that time, Saddam had only one way out - to give battle. True, most of his army did not want to die under NATO bombs.
                  Quote: Delta
                  Well, where is the fault of the aircraft carriers in something? what are they "underplayed"?

                  How so! A famous symbol of power, 90 tons of diplomacy (remember such a demotivator?)

                  So what? The hostages in Iran immediately released? Assad abdicated the family throne? Saddam didn't even pay attention
                  1. Delta
                    Delta 3 December 2013 14: 48
                    +3
                    Quote: Magellan
                    How so! A famous symbol of power, 90 tons of diplomacy (remember such a demotivator?)


                    You repeat Kaptsov’s spells, which he then replicates from article to article. Namely, the aircraft carriers did NOT WIN a single war themselves, and therefore they are useless and they must be put under the press for this. Well, he doesn’t see uncomfortable questions at point blank range, but I ask you, as a recent opponent, who positioned the aircraft carriers as a universal tool, moreover, not just universal, but not in need of support and interaction with other military branches? in other words, who said that aircraft carriers are required to withstand any attacks and who said that ONLY aircraft carriers NEED to win?

                    Quote: Magellan
                    Saddam didn't even pay attention


                    Kaptsov’s one more receiver, and you thoughtlessly copy it. He somehow very easily decides who, when and where, what he paid attention to or not, how he is there, poor for what he was worried and what he was afraid of. This is the lot of pickles, and we, let’s not decide for Saddam after all.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      3 December 2013 19: 53
                      0
                      Quote: Delta
                      You repeat Kaptsov’s spells, which he then replicates from article to article. Namely - the aircraft carriers did not win a single war themselves

                      You distort
                      I said that Av are the most expensive, but they do the least work. therefore, they are ineffective (and by and large - useless in local conflicts such as Iraq)
                      Quote: Delta
                      Saddam didn't even pay attention

                      Kaptsov’s one more receiver, and you thoughtlessly copy it. He somehow very easily decides who, when and where, what he paid attention to or not, how he is there, poor for what he was worried and what he was afraid of. This is the lot of pickles, and we, let’s not decide for Saddam after all.

                      If he had paid attention, he should have been impressed by the power of the US Navy, mortally scared and abandoned plans to capture Kuwait. But alas and ah

                      “How are you, Sheikh?”
                      - Norm. They just had breakfast.
                      - I swear by Allah, you will no longer have lunch in Kuwait
                      (Saddam's real telephone conversation with Sheikh Kuwait)
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 13: 11
                +2
                Quote: Magellan
                A good example is the British cruiser York. See how the subversion (submersible boat) was implemented. And compare the consequences.

                Explosions of boats on the cruiser damaged about a quarter of the hull along its length, resulting in flooding of both boiler rooms and one engine room, York lost power, pumps and lights did not work. The ship sank heavily with its nose and, in order to avoid flooding, was towed deep into the bay and stranded at a depth of about eight meters. Crew losses amounted to two killed from the machine crew and five wounded.
                Those. with the exception of crew losses, which were lower - the WWII era cruiser simply died.
                Quote: Magellan
                .e. billionth of damage (in the case of zamvolta or berk) from such nonsense does not bother you at all?

                Will you be able to present a WWII-era cruiser, whose 300 kg charge exploded under the side, and he "dusted himself off and moved on"? Or what do you mean?
                It is generally unrealistic to book a modern ship against an anti-ship missile attack.
                Quote: Magellan
                Saddam laid down on all international rules and threats. And he came to his senses only when a millionth army grew up at its borders with 7000 tanks and thousands of aircraft.

                What was this "coming to my senses"? Has he publicly repented and withdrew the troops from Kuwait? What did I miss?
                1. Magellan
                  Magellan 3 December 2013 13: 29
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Boat explosions about a quarter of the hull along its length was damaged on the cruiser

                  Two sinking mines at 10 meters depth
                  The total capacity of 660 kg of explosives
                  PS (due to the lack of accurate data, I did not compare the quality of Italian explosives with homemade terrorists that they welded it in a concrete mixer)
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Will you be able to present a WWII-era cruiser, whose 300 kg charge exploded under the side, and he "dusted himself off and moved on"?

                  This is indirectly indicated by York. Otherwise, why all this circus with breaking boats and sinking bombs was needed. Obviously, pasta knew that an explosion at the level of an armored belt would not cause serious damage.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  It is generally unrealistic to book a modern ship against an anti-ship missile attack.

                  Small-sized, like Harpoon?
                  Here they made fun. Armored from 203 mm shells, and from subsonic aluminum ingots they will not be able))))))))
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Did he repent publicly and withdraw troops from Kuwait?

                  No, I began to seriously prepare for the Great War.
                  He had no other choice
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 14: 08
                    +5
                    Quote: Magellan
                    This is indirectly indicated by York. Otherwise, why all this circus with breaking boats and sinking bombs was needed. Obviously, pasta knew that an explosion at the level of an armored belt would not cause serious damage.

                    An explosion at a depth is obviously more interesting than at the level of an armored belt, but that is not the point. And the fact that you never showed which cruiser survived the 200-300 kg of explosives at the level of the armored belt. And I would like to understand what your statement is based on.
                    Quote: Magellan
                    Obviously, pasta knew that an explosion at the level of an armored belt would not cause serious damage.

                    I am glad that it is obvious to you. Well, give an example of such an explosion, so that it is obvious to everyone
                    Quote: Magellan
                    PS (due to the lack of accurate data, I did not compare the quality of Italian explosives with homemade terrorists that they welded it in a concrete mixer)

                    Well, when you figure it out, then bring it.
                    Quote: Magellan
                    Small-sized, like Harpoon?
                    Here they made fun. Armored from 203 mm shells, and from subsonic aluminum ingots they will not be able))))))))

                    Heavy cruisers that had a reservation that protects against 203-mm shells can be listed on the fingers of one hand. This is the time. The second - from the hits of 203-mm shells the uuuuuzenky strip along the waterline protected, i.e. only engine rooms and boiler rooms were covered, and even the ammunition cellar (although they were usually lower) These are two. Third - if you try to arm a modern destroyer such as Arly Burke, then the WHOLE ammunition will be over the armored belt, most of the combat posts and all means of detection / control of the URO will be over the armored belt, Fourth. Deck booking of WWII cruisers (some) could protect against 203-mm shells due to the shell falling into this deck at a very small angle. But the modern anti-ship missile system, which knows how to make a slide, makes deck booking of ships of the WWII era worthless.
                    In other words - the ONLY threat that the armored belt can protect against is the boat of terrorists. But it’s much cheaper and easier to do this with a machine gun and proper service
                    Quote: Magellan
                    No, I began to seriously prepare for the Great War.

                    What is it about - all the MNS Armed Forces did not scare him :)))
                    1. Magellan
                      Magellan 3 December 2013 14: 35
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      which cruiser survived the detonation of 200-300 kg of explosives at the level of the armored belt

                      York would have survived the attack in Aden. with minimal damage
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      The explosion at a depth is obviously more interesting than at the level of an armored belt

                      Not just more interesting. five times more destructive

                      Remember the scattered Mikum at Midway? But it blew 10 oxygen long-lance!
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Heavy cruisers that had a reservation that protects against 203 mm shells can be listed on the fingers of one hand

                      in our case, the task is much simpler. Harpoon's penetrative power is unlikely to be higher than that of a 130 mm projectile (E kinetic, mechanical structural strength). 225 kg warhead - hardly half of it is in explosives
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      uuuuzenky strip

                      Belt, barbets, towers, deck, conning tower. These days, the distribution of armor will be slightly different. With its inclusion in the power set of the hull and superstructure

                      A good example is the American Baltimore with Washington restrictions removed. 1800 tons of armor. six-inch armored belt and three-inch armored deck for 2/3 of the length of the ship - according to technology 70 years ago
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      But the modern anti-ship missile system, which knows how to make a slide, makes deck booking of ships of the WWII era worthless.

                      A Harpoon-type hollow rocket will crash upon impact with armor, like an empty nut. Even if warhead is not destroyed - the consequences of an explosion from the outside will be minimal, compared with falling into an unarmored burke
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      What is it about - all the MNS Armed Forces did not scare him

                      AUGs should have been scary
                      But he couldn’t scare the hedgehog with his bare ass - he had to fight seriously

                      AND? Where is this effect in practice?
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 15: 15
                        +3
                        Quote: Magellan
                        York would have survived the attack in Aden. with minimal damage

                        Once again I ask you to switch from general words to specifics. Which WWII cruiser survived the 200-300 kg of explosives in the armored belt and nothing happened to him? I’m not interested in speculation.
                        Quote: Magellan
                        Harpoon's penetrative power is unlikely to be higher than that of the 130 mm projectile (E kinetic, mechanical strength of the structure). 225 kg warhead - hardly half of it is in explosives

                        This is if semi-armor-piercing warhead. And this gives us over 100 kg of explosives, the rest is steel. How many such warheads can break through is unknown to me (the numbers ranged from 40 mm for Otomat to 170 mm for Tomahok), but the thing is different - the booking tests described by Vinogradov led to the following - to protect the 305 mm projectile in meter from armor it was required no less than 75 mm reservation. And the 305-mm shell is just 13 kg of explosives. What armor should keep the 100 + kg of explosive burst on the armor? Given the fact that usually WWII cruiser had 35-50 mm armored deck?
                        Quote: Magellan
                        Belt, barbets, towers, deck, conning tower.

                        You are not confused with the battleship? Most of the British and Japanese cruisers carried as many 25-mm armor of towers and barbets
                        Quote: Magellan
                        A good example is the American Baltimore with Washington restrictions removed.

                        Good. But all his 1800 tons of armor covered, as I wrote, KO and MO.
                        Quote: Magellan
                        A Harpoon-type hollow rocket will crash upon impact with armor, like an empty nut.

                        well yes. Only here is half-armor-proof warhead made of steel and explosives - no.
                        Quote: Magellan
                        AUGs should have been scary

                        And the concentration of the sun - should not? Saddam was not afraid of the AUG. Saddam was not afraid of the MNF. Where is the moral superiority of the air force and the land pilots over the fleet?
                      2. Magellan
                        Magellan 3 December 2013 16: 11
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I’m not interested in speculation.

                        Everything related to military history is, to some extent, speculation.
                        Italians did not build submersible boats for a reason
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        for protection from a burst of 305 mm of a projectile in a meter from armor, no less than 75 mm reservation was required. A 305-mm shell is only 13 kg of explosives.

                        Dear, there was an effect from the expansion of large fragments. They determined the damaging effect, but not the shock wave.

                        The harpoon has nowhere to take them
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Most of the British and Japanese cruisers carried as much as 25 mm armor of towers and barbets

                        due to artificial restrictions, Washingtonians are not interested in how species

                        Baltimore-Oregon-DeMoyne. Let's rely on this
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Only here is half-armor-proof warhead made of steel and explosives - no.

                        what is her odds. filling up?
                        fur. strength?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And the concentration of the sun - should not?

                        no it was a declaration of war
                        show-offs and diplomacy are left behind
                      3. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 3 December 2013 16: 51
                        +1
                        Otomat like 80mm
            2. Per se.
              Per se. 3 December 2013 13: 39
              +1
              Quote: Magellan
              Saddam laid down on all international rules and threats.
              No more than the United States itself laid down on it. You forget that Saddam counted on a counterbalance and support, which was the Soviet Union, but Gorbachev, in fact, then surrendered Iraq, the USSR had several months to live. Had the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait happened under Brezhnev or Andropov, even under the "early Gorbachev" the Americans, if it did, it would have been "Storm in a Glass", not "in the desert." There were our military advisers and specialists in Iraq, and a strong Soviet fleet at sea.
    2. Magellan
      Magellan 3 December 2013 12: 10
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      To begin with, ZUR with AGSN alone is not a panacea at all.

      But a vital thing, especially in the presence of such primitive guidance tools as SPG-62
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      their EMPAR are actually not enough stars from the sky

      But "Forbin" was shot down by a supersonic sound. target at 5 meters!
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      But the main means of defense of the American fleet is on the deck of an aircraft carrier:

      Does this somehow help in the interception of low-flying Bramos and other similar buns?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      But here's the thing, the Americans, having the most powerful aircraft carrier forces, are able to operate under the rule of their aviation. So why do they need all these tricks?

      read the code of the American submariner and don't ask stupid questions anymore
      (2 articles were published on Topvar at pr. Week)
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      It remains only to find out which fleet can effectively deal with both

      And which fleet claims global supremacy
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      For there is no reliable means of dealing with them and was not in service with any fleet of the world.

      80 KR and ESM
      13 OLD TSCH
      A clear imbalance. While the mine threat deserves more attention - there is experience
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 12: 43
        +3
        Quote: Magellan
        But a vital thing, especially in the presence of such primitive guidance tools as SPG-62

        Alas, we do not know this. Purely theoretically, I can try to prove to you that semi-active guidance has its advantages. But practically the issue was not resolved in combat conditions.
        I do not argue that the AGSN is better. But how much better?
        Quote: Magellan
        But "Forbin" was shot down by a supersonic sound. target at 5 meters!

        Agree
        Quote: Magellan
        Does this somehow help in the interception of low-flying Bramos and other similar buns?

        Brahmos is NOT low flying. He gives out his 300 km along a combined path, along the low-flying - 120 km. And try to approach the aircraft carrier group even on 300 km.
        Quote: Magellan
        read the code of the American submariner and don't ask stupid questions anymore

        Learn the practice of using the US Navy submarine and do not give stupid answers
        Quote: Magellan
        And which fleet claims global supremacy

        But no :) Because global dominance is retained by the US Navy
        Quote: Magellan
        80 KR and ESM
        13 OLD TSCH
        A clear imbalance.

        What's the point? In fact, the mine threat could not somehow influence the actions of the US Navy in any conflict
        1. Magellan
          Magellan 3 December 2013 13: 16
          -2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          semi-active guidance has its advantages

          But just not the same as on American ships
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And try to approach the aircraft carrier group even for 300 km.

          Tell it to divers
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Learn how to use the US Navy

          Boats always act on translation, alone.

          read the code again and don’t try to laugh it off where you should think
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          because global dominance remains with the US Navy

          And what is it expressed in?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In fact, the mine threat could not somehow influence the actions of the US Navy in any conflict

          All because the role of the US Navy was insignificant in each of the conflicts. Only the Tomahawks run from afar. All. Not a single significant naval landing in the past 50 years
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 14: 35
            +2
            Quote: Magellan
            But just not the same as on American ships

            These are common words.
            Quote: Magellan
            Tell it to divers

            What for? They know it better than me.
            Quote: Magellan
            Boats always act on translation, alone.

            And in what post-war conflicts did they act like that?
            Quote: Magellan
            read the code again and don’t try to laugh it off where you should think

            I am much more interested in the practice of using nuclear submarines. And she says that the nuclear submarines are used mainly either for the PLO of their own AUGs, or for delivering strikes to the Kyrgyz Republic along the coast, usually from under the umbrellas of the same AUG.
            Quote: Magellan
            And what is it expressed in?

            The fact that the combat power of the US Navy surpasses the power of all the other countries of the world today, combined
            Quote: Magellan
            All because the role of the US Navy was insignificant in each of the conflicts.

            :)
            1. Magellan
              Magellan 3 December 2013 14: 44
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              These are common words.

              These are not common words. Berke has only 3 primitive radar lights
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And in what post-war conflicts did they act like that?

              Who faced Kostroma at the entrance to the Krolskoy Bay? Aircraft carrier Nimitz?
              Who listened to the cables at the bottom of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? Who stole the warheads from the fallen Tu-95? who shelled Yugoslavia and Libya in 2011? who covered the British Conkeror when he sank Belgrano?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I'm much more interested in the practice of using nuclear submarines

              Well, so wonder who is in the way)
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The fact that the combat power of the US Navy surpasses the power of all the other countries of the world today, combined

              And x sense? What does this give the Pentagon and Congress, besides increasing the FWM in the eyes of their own generals and congressmen?
              1. Rus2012
                Rus2012 3 December 2013 14: 57
                0
                Quote: Magellan
                who stole the warheads from the fallen Tu-95

                Dear colleague, what are the warheads?
                For the sake of justice - NEVER the Navy and the USSR Air Force did not lose nuclear charges (because they never had them on board, except for use in test fields at the test site. RTB did not give out, and there have never been such cases).
                laughing
                1. clidon
                  clidon 3 December 2013 18: 56
                  +1
                  We must add "aviation" did not lose. The naval charges were even "lost" ...
                  1. Rus2012
                    Rus2012 3 December 2013 19: 40
                    0
                    Quote: clidon
                    We must add "aviation" did not lose. The naval charges were even "lost" ...

                    the fact that the submarines were lost ... I agree.
                    And they didn’t lose aviation, neither the Air Force nor the Navy’s aviation ...
                    So it will be correct.
                2. Santa Fe
                  3 December 2013 20: 00
                  0
                  Quote: Rus2012
                  For the sake of justice - NEVER the Navy and the USSR Air Force did not lose nuclear charges

                  At a depth of 40 meters, they saw scattered parts of the bomber. And soon the tail of the first bomb buried in the sand. Wood and Pearson tried to swim towards her. But Grant stopped them with a gesture and approached a dangerous find. Pulling out a Geiger counter, he measured the level of radiation - it went off scale. According to the instructions, no more than an hour was allowed to be in such a zone. Half an hour later, the second "red head" was found.

                  At first glance, the findings were not damaged. The search results were immediately reported to the so-called secret "40 Committee" under the US President. Representatives of the National Security Council, the CIA and the State Department took part in its emergency meeting.

                  There is only one question: what to do with such dangerous finds? Opinions are divided. Some believed that bombs should be secretly taken out. Others argued that their transportation was associated with great risk - in the end bombs can explode. The consequences can be disastrous for many countries. All were united in one thing: Moscow should not know anything about the find. To remove all fears, they decided to invite nuclear weapons specialists.

                  They assured that the safety devices of all US nuclear munitions are of the highest reliability. It is also possible to drop them from a great height. According to technical intelligence, the same security measures are used by Soviet designers. So the probability of a spontaneous explosion during the transportation of nuclear bombs is almost zero


                  - Operation Blue Sun, 1976
              2. Delta
                Delta 3 December 2013 15: 09
                +1
                Quote: Magellan
                Who faced Kostroma at the entrance to the Krolskoy Bay? Aircraft carrier Nimitz?
                Who listened to the cables at the bottom of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? Who stole the warheads from the fallen Tu-95?


                submarine collisions - is it fighting? wiretapping? why don’t you say, in this case, about any other intelligence activities of the States that are conducted against Russia and the former USSR? What is such a great merit of submarines? warheads? hmm ... except in the little book about the spies there is no data about this. At the same time, the same aircraft carriers did not participate in such imaginary conflicts, but in wars and their planes made sorties. Just don’t give Kaptsov’s data that these sorties were few compared to basic aviation. He was answered this many times
              3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 15: 34
                +2
                Quote: Magellan
                These are not common words. Berke has only 3 primitive radar lights

                Let's get a little less general, a little more concrete. What is the primitiveness of the radar backlight from Burke?
                Quote: Magellan
                Who faced Kostroma at the entrance to the Krolskoy Bay? Aircraft carrier Nimitz? Who listened to the cables at the bottom of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? Who stole the warheads from the fallen Tu-95?

                Remind me, during what MILITARY CONFLICT did these events happen? What did I miss?
                Quote: Magellan
                who shelled Yugoslavia and Libya in 2011?

                Yugoslavia was hollowed out from under the "Enterprise" and "Foch", which loomed in the Ionian and Adriatic seas
                Quote: Magellan
                who covered the British Conkeror when he sank Belgrano?

                The only example I agree with. But it was an English nuclear submarine, not an American one, and there was no one to cover it - the British did not have aircraft carriers with normal aircraft.
                Quote: Magellan
                And x sense?

                Who owns the sea - that owns the world
                1. Magellan
                  Magellan 3 December 2013 17: 03
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  What is the primitiveness of the radar backlight from Burke?

                  Fur. radar beam control, only 3 stations
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  during what MILITARY CONFLICT did these events happen?

                  in war, cut the cable will go nimitz?))
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Yugoslavia was hollowed out from under the "Enterprise" and "Foch", which loomed in the Ionian and Adriatic seas

                  There was no enterprise there. As there was no need for some kind of cover
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  the British did not have aircraft carriers with normal aircraft.

                  Give each boat AB!

                  From time immemorial, boats acted stealthily and independently. This is their purpose
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Who owns the sea - that owns the world

                  Chegozh then hostages in Iran were not released?

                  and tackers fired, not embarrassed by the presence of the US Navy))
                  1. Delta
                    Delta 3 December 2013 17: 15
                    +2
                    Quote: Magellan
                    From time immemorial, boats acted stealthily and independently.


                    Mdaaa ... here it’s not even clear what to say ... from what kind of time? in WWII, the Germans lost the battle for the Atlantic precisely because their submarines discovered planes. It would be a cover, many German submarines would have fought longer. Regarding the use of nuclear submarines, it’s the same, no matter how it seems that an atomic submarine can and will hide everything for as long as the commander wants. If the submarine WITHOUT OBSTACLES is hunted by enemy anti-submarine forces (including aircraft and helicopters), then sooner or later it will be discovered
                    1. Santa Fe
                      3 December 2013 20: 04
                      0
                      Quote: Delta
                      in WWII, the Germans lost the battle for the Atlantic precisely because their submarines discovered planes

                      Here you touch on my favorite subject

                      An unsuccessful example - the battle for the Atlantic is divided into 2 periods. The first Germans brilliantly won (1939-May 1943). The second - lost (tactically - in a draw, strategically-a loss)
                      Why? just look at the number of ships and planes thrown into their searches
                      Quote: Delta
                      then sooner or later it will be discovered

                      Sooner or later, the enemy will run out of money - helicopters and planes will need VERY MUCH
                    2. Delta
                      Delta 3 December 2013 22: 11
                      -1
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      The second - lost (tactically - in a draw, strategically-a loss)
                      Why? just look at the number of ships and planes thrown into their searches


                      Well, that's what I said. The main result. And the Allies achieved the desired result, in particular with the help of carrier-based aircraft. Could do without it? probably. But it would be harder

                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Sooner or later, the enemy will run out of money - helicopters and planes will need VERY MUCH


                      Well this is how many submarines are needed for the enemy to wave to build and operate planes and helicopters?))) and by the way, you contradict yourself. He himself just said that a large number of aircraft were thrown against German submarines and thereby achieved the desired result. What is stopping this from happening now? now, as then, nothing will interfere with the naval aviation of NATO countries
                    3. Santa Fe
                      3 December 2013 22: 38
                      +2
                      Quote: Delta
                      Well, that's what I said. The main result

                      There were two results.
                      While the forces were equal, the Germans tore the allies like a heating pad. 1942 year -6,2 million tons of sunk tonnage - a couple of years in this mode, that's all. merchant fleet is over. Britain is dying of hunger

                      A turning point happened when they put up an 1 boat on the 10 Squadron and aircraft. All thanks to the colossal industrial power of the USA
                      They argued about this many times, I don’t want to repeat
                      Quote: Delta
                      Well, how many submarines do you need for the enemy to wave to build and operate planes and helicopters?

                      According to the experience of WWII - I had to put 10 ships on each pelvis. So consider who the first run out of money (if we talk about equal defense industry, equal opponents - Germany: Britain for example)
                      Quote: Delta
                      What is stopping this from happening now? now, as then, nothing will interfere with the naval aviation of NATO countries

                      Now even thinking about the war with NATO is disgusting. Right now, the patriots will come running, they will say that we must fight to the end, never give up, etc. In fact, there will be a second tsushima. And no lonely Ash tree will help
                    4. Cat
                      Cat 3 December 2013 23: 15
                      +2
                      Quote: Delta
                      Well this is how many submarines are needed for the enemy to wave to build and operate planes and helicopters?))) and by the way, you contradict yourself. He himself just said that a large number of aircraft were thrown against German submarines and thereby achieved the desired result. What is stopping this from happening now? now, as then, nothing will interfere with the naval aviation of NATO countries

                      The nuance is that actually underwater Germans did not have boats - they had diving boats. Which all the transitions were carried out on the surface, at best under the air traffic control, and it was at the transitions that the aircraft destroyed them, since the radars of the end of WWII completely allowed to detect not only the boat, but even the snorkel head. And if there was equipment on the U-bot that allowed detecting the radar and diving in time, then there were still some chances for the submariners. Otherwise, the aircraft either attacked itself, or aimed anti-submarine ships at the boat, which in most cases ended in the death of the submarine. The boats of the XXI series created at the end of the war, in which the main mode of operation was underwater, could categorically change the alignment - but the Germans did not have time to put into operation this series.

                      And the situation is completely different - the current submarines, or even submarines, which may not surface for months, and it is not necessary to float under the periscope before aiming under the periscope, and there will be enough data from the HACK. Plus homing torpedoes, plus CR, plus other speeds and other distances ... but the planes have become much more complicated and more expensive (and therefore a smaller number), and the fuel is consumed by no means more than the ancient Liberators. But the detection radius of a submarine crawling at a depth of a couple of hundred meters is very, very limited. In fact, until the boat somehow lights up, the plane cannot detect it, because at random the ocean will fill up the ocean with sonar buoys - not a single budget of any Navy can withstand such mockery =))) That is, if the submarine is detected, it will be after the attack , and far from the fact that she will be able to drown.
                      Actually, based on these preconditions, the main task in detecting enemy submarines is assigned to satellites and stationary systems such as any SOSUS, in order to "put on the tail" of the hunter boat - so that later, if something happens, to suppress and prevent. Plus anti-submarine helicopters for direct protection of ship formations, but again: the helicopter stay in the air is limited to a couple of hours maximum, take-off and landing requires appropriate weather conditions, and the helicopter buzzes not weakly - the boat may well hear it and abandon the attack, while waiting more convenient moment. That is, as in the case of airplanes, it turns out rather a weapon of retaliation than of defense.
  • Magellan
    Magellan 3 December 2013 12: 01
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    by the way, it’s said that the planned 20 trillion rubles for the RF Armed Forces is still about $ 606 billion

    Of these, the Russian Navy 4,5 trillion. (~ 150 billion dollars) For a decade!
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    taking into account the fact that in 2012 the gross domestic product, according to the IMF and the World Bank, amounted to 15,68 trillion. Doll

    The big question is what this GDP is made of.
    How many concrete chairs were made, coats were made and cars were assembled ... but no! GDP is an economic indicator that depends on things that are far from reality (capitalization of enterprises, stocks, Fed obligations). The Yankees consume more than they can afford - because the national debt exceeds GDP and continues to increase. The collapse of government agencies on 01.10.13/XNUMX/XNUMX and Zamvolt without a surveillance radar - all these are consequences of attempts to introduce restrictions and keep the economy
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And how much do the US Navy need these same supersonic anti-ship missiles?

    The LRASM-B project or the RATTLRS project is the Revolutionary Approach To Time-critical Long Range Strike, that is, the weapon of the "revolutionary principle of shortening the battle time over long distances." And if simpler, this RCC is designed to win dueling with modern Chinese warships equipped with anti-ship missiles with a firing range of up to 200 miles. Therefore, the RATTLRS should have a range of about 500 miles and a speed of 3-4M (s)

    The cat knows where the sour cream lies, but is afraid to climb - it’s too expensive and difficult to develop such tools. Not even LRASM-B
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The Americans are not going to arrange a cruising-mortar duel on rocket weapons

    Or maybe they’re going. Most ships sail WITHOUT covering decks
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Americans aren’t just sitting on the priest exactly, they are developing missiles with AGSN, although lagging behind in this matter

    With such a budget - they expected more. Alas, the Yankees on 10-15 years lag behind in the creation of most modern models of naval weapons
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 12: 25
      +3
      Quote: Magellan
      Of these, the Russian Navy 4,5 trillion. (~ 150 billion dollars) For a decade!

      Alas, yes. But if we are talking about the US Navy, then the Russian Navy has nothing to do with it.
      Quote: Magellan
      The big question is what this GDP is made of.

      Be that as it may, it is formed from what is bought.
      Quote: Magellan
      GDP is an economic indicator that depends on things that are far from reality (capitalization of enterprises, stocks, Fed obligations).

      Well, it's you somehow ...
      GDP = National income + depreciation + indirect taxes - subsidies - net factor income from abroad (BHF) (or + net factor income of foreigners working in the country (BHF)), where:
      National income = wages + rents + interest payments + corporate profits.

      Quote: Magellan
      The LRASM-B project or the RATTLRS project is the Revolutionary Approach To Time-critical Long Range Strike, that is, the weapon of the "revolutionary principle of shortening the battle time over long distances." And if simpler, this RCC is designed to win dueling with modern Chinese warships equipped with anti-ship missiles with a firing range of up to 200 miles.

      Nope. In fact, the need for LRASM in general (even though At least B) arose due to the imminent appearance of an aircraft carrier component in China. Because the existing Harpoon is still a bit old, but, most importantly, not too far-sighted, and in which case you will have to strike at the Chinese warrant, delving into the coverage area of ​​its fighters. The Americans do not want this, so they are developing a missile that can be carried not only by ships, but also by the F-18 and F-35.
      Quote: Magellan
      The cat knows where the sour cream lies, but is afraid to climb - it’s too expensive and difficult to develop such tools. Not even LRASM-B

      Supersonic anti-ship missiles have many shortcomings. The main one is the need to fly at high altitude in supersonic sound throughout the marching section, where the rocket is very clearly visible on radars.
      For me, the best anti-ship missile of all times and peoples is "Caliber", which is able to walk on a marching section at low level and accelerate during an attack. But here the Russian Federation has the entire PKR school of the USSR, so it is not easy to overtake us here.
      Quote: Magellan
      Or maybe they’re going. Most ships sail WITHOUT covering decks

      In peacetime - perhaps, but not in war
      Quote: Magellan
      With such a budget - they expected more. Alas, the Yankees on 10-15 years lag behind in the creation of most modern models of naval weapons

      From whom? :))) Before the advent of PAAMS in all of Europe, no one had anything like Aegis air defense. By itself, "Aegis" as a BIUS is quite great. Strike carrier-based aircraft, at least somehow comparable to the United States, is available only to the French, but those have a frankly unsuccessful aircraft carrier. AWACS aircraft are American, electronic warfare, as far as I know, is the best in the United States. American nuclear submarines are excellent, I don't see which of the Europeans can be put above them.
      1. Magellan
        Magellan 3 December 2013 13: 04
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        if we are talking about the US Navy, then the Russian Navy has nothing to do with it

        Those. do you think the U.S. Navy exists in a spherical vacuum?
        Or is everything known by comparison?
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Be that as it may, it is formed from what is bought.

        Undoubtedly. But what does this indicator reflect? How is money made in the state? How are they distributed? Does the country produce something, sell something or "blow up a bubble" of unpaid loans?
        GDP is a far from reality indicator; it will tell nothing about the real situation in the country. It is absurd to refer to it and assert that "they can afford it, because it is 10% of GDP". Reality - government shutdown since October 1, 2013, medicare and Zamwalt fail without surveillance radar
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In essence, the need for LRASM in general (at least A at least B)

        But the sailors from the crews of the berks started talking about this. It is her customized under the Mk.41
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        the entire PKR school of the USSR, so it’s not easy to overtake us here.

        In fact, American RCCs are imperfect. With a budget of 150 billion / year
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In peacetime - perhaps, but not in war

        analyze the ratio of American CR and AB

        and at the same time read the code of the American submariner, also on this topic
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        From whom?:)))

        SAM and Detection Tools - Europe, Japan
        PKR - Russia (here you yourself recognized wink )
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        American submarines are excellent

        Lost in a duel situation by the Swedish NPL
        The US Navy, by virtue of geography, does not have such boats. All TVDs are extremely deleted
        I consider the absence of NPLs an incorrigible drawback of the American Navy
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 14: 19
          +4
          Quote: Magellan
          Those. do you think the U.S. Navy exists in a spherical vacuum?
          Or is everything known by comparison?

          Just do not compare white with soft. Is it convenient to estimate the U.S. fleet costs? Compare with GDP, or with some other macroeconomic indicator. GOZ RF and where? Want to compare the maritime budgets of the Russian Federation and the USA? Compare then the number and combat efficiency at the same time
          Quote: Magellan
          Does the country produce something, sell something or "blow up a bubble" of unpaid loans?

          So look at the structure of US GDP - business.
          Quote: Magellan
          GDP is an indicator far from reality, it will not tell anything about the real situation of the country.

          Suggest yours.
          Quote: Magellan
          It is absurd to refer to it and assert that "they can afford it, because it is 10% of GDP".

          Firstly, not 10%, but less than 1%. And secondly, if you do not like my numbers - give yours. But numbers, not general reasoning
          Quote: Magellan
          But the sailors from the crews of the berks started talking about this.

          Strongly doubt
          Quote: Magellan
          In fact, American RCCs are imperfect. With a budget of 150 billion / year

          These are unrelated statements. Want to compare RCC - compare the costs of developing RCC in the USSR / RF and the USA. Yes, the budget of the US Navy is 150 billion dollars. And they contain more attack planes on this budget than ALL the Air Forces of the Russian Federation. As I said - a matter of priorities
          Quote: Magellan
          analyze the ratio of American CR and AB

          I have already analyzed
          Quote: Magellan
          SAM and Detection Tools - Europe, Japan

          Those. AWACS, EW, CIUS, carrier-based aircraft, Tomahawks all sorts and so on and so forth - this is nonsense, but PAAMS ...
          We can say that Europe has surpassed the United States in certain types of weapons. But in no way can we say that the USA is inferior in Europe to most armaments
          Quote: Magellan
          Lost in a duel situation by the Swedish NPL

          Because any submarine will lose the submarine in such a duel situation. Which does not mean that the nuclear submarines no longer have a place in the fleets. Or that the American submarines are inferior in some ways to the submarines of other countries
          1. iwind
            iwind 3 December 2013 14: 41
            +3
            For reasons of price. She does not value money.
            I think that everyone is aware of the air defense zone by the East China Sea that China has announced.
            As a result, the US Navy, together with "useless aircraft carriers", was able to provide real support to its allies.
            Which politically brings huge dividends. And the allies know that in the event of any emergency, the fleet will come to the rescue.
            Just do not again about the number of US military bases in the region does not interfere with one another.
            The fleet is the fleet, the base is the base.
            photo click
          2. Magellan
            Magellan 3 December 2013 15: 18
            -1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            GOZ RF and where?

            Cool
            1 annual budget of the US Navy = 10 Russian. Everything else is attached
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Is it convenient to estimate the U.S. fleet costs?

            Non-lifting. And most importantly, without any return. Financial black hole

            I gave you specific examples. Not everything is wrong in the Danish kingdom - otherwise why would all government institutions, including a museum at the foot of the statue of liberty, be closed ??
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            So look at the structure of US GDP - business.

            The service sector is leading there.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Strongly doubt

            curious note
            http://topwar.ru/26330-ser-my-hoteli-by-poluchit-nazad-nashi-garpuny.html
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Those. AWACS, EW, CIUS, carrier-based aircraft, Tomahawks all sorts and so on and so forth - this is nonsense, but PAAMS ...

            PAAMS, radars with AFAR, new types of power plants (full electric propulsion), anti-aircraft shells (missiles?), Have their own Tomahawk - SCALP-NAVAl, all radio equipment, electronic warfare, etc. - are the world leaders Thales and BAE. they can do more but financing
            Or that the American submarines are inferior in some ways to the submarines of other countries

            There are some unpleasant facts about Virginia. for a reason only 8 boats were built - but already three series
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 16: 03
              +5
              Quote: Magellan
              Cool

              A joke is not an argument.
              Quote: Magellan
              1 annual budget of the US Navy = 10 Russian. Everything else is attached

              What is attached? How does the fact that the US Navy budget is much larger than the Russian one implies that the US budget is too high for the US budget?
              Quote: Magellan
              I gave you specific examples. Not everything is wrong in the Danish kingdom - otherwise why would all government institutions, including a museum at the foot of the statue of liberty, be closed ??

              Specific examples are held in the category of the younger group of kindergarten. Because the USA after WWII contained a huge fleet, much larger than now, but the explosive growth of their external debt began only recently. And even a hedgehog understands that these are unrelated things
              Quote: Magellan
              The service sector is leading there.

              As in the Russian Federation. Only in our country the production sector is about 33%, they have about 21%
              Comparison with industrial production of other countries, as of 2010 year:

              US - $ 3 239 billion
              China - $ 2 756 billion
              Japan - $ 1 359 billion
              Germany - $ 921 billion
              Brazil - $ 560 billion
              Russia - $ 539 billion
              At the same time, I repeat, taxes are paid from everything - and from services too
              Quote: Magellan
              curious note

              In general, yes, curious. especially curious about the fact that encapsulated harpoons would have been comfortable with guides :)
              Quote: Magellan
              PAAMS, radars with AFAR, new types of power plants (full electric propulsion), anti-aircraft shells (missiles?), Have their own Tomahawk - SCALP-NAVAl, all radio equipment, electronic warfare, etc. - are the world leaders Thales and BAE. they can do more but financing

              radars with AFAR - the USA are in front, there is nothing equal to the fact that there are no F-35С in Europe. In AFAR on ships - lose
              About anti-aircraft missiles - did not understand.
              a new type of power plant, which electromotive is a class, and will be locked up on what, in your opinion?
              Quote: Magellan
              all radio engineering, electronic warfare, etc. - Thales and BAE world leaders

              Yeah. But who finances the development of these advanced systems?
              Quote: Magellan
              Have Your Own Tomahawk - SCALP-NAVAl

              Yeah. Those. The Americans do not have the SM-6 with the AGSN, which they intend to put on the stream, but the Sea Crypt, which is expected in 2015, is already there. Double standards, they are so double ...
              Quote: Magellan
              There are unpleasant facts about Virginia

              And about whom - no? Is everything all right with the British?
              1. Magellan
                Magellan 3 December 2013 16: 55
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                What is attached?

                Political and economical. the situation in the country, the level of development of the military-industrial complex, science and technology
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Because the USA after WWII contained a huge fleet, much larger than now, but the explosive growth of their external debt began only recently

                After WWII? After 1947, when most of the ships were scrapped and did not build new ones for ten years?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                only in our country the production sector is about 33%, they have about 21%

                our main article is export. hydrocarbons
                in the usa is completely different
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                About anti-aircraft missiles - did not understand.

                for 76 mm from melar. search google
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                but the Sea Crypt, which is expected in 2015, already has

                Yes, he would have long been - they would have been financing the Yankees. Caucasians have a money problem. The Japanese have contractual restrictions. South Koreans - have long adopted the Hinmun - an analogue of the Tomahawk (supersonic!)
  • avt
    avt 3 December 2013 11: 26
    +7
    Well, thank Oleg! laughing From the first article it seemed to follow that we would throw our caps over them - they would sink from overloading the caps. Now I realized that it’s not like building ships - you don’t need to sew hats! The main thing is to translate the articles into English language - let them cry. No, Oleg writes lightly and cheerfully - “Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait without even looking in the direction of the aircraft carrier strike groups of the US Navy.” And poorly before throwing such geopolitical conclusions, can he look for the facts of the decision? Well, at least study open sources So, just in case for general development.For example, such a fact would be found, quite well known and not contested by the amers - Saddam sent a letter to the State Department with claims for a military solution with Kuwait and received an official answer through the ambassador that the amers were not interested in this regional dispute ...
    1. Delta
      Delta 3 December 2013 11: 39
      +7
      Quote: avt
      they’ll drown from overloading hats. Now I realized that it’s not like building ships - you don’t need to sew hats


      I told you - Corporal Svyatkin shot all the tanks))) and there is no need to build a fleet. Some Americans do not know about this and are building, for the fun of Kaptsov. Yes, what is being built - entirely cardboard ships.
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 3 December 2013 11: 32
    +1
    The author is a plus. He did not try to denigrate anyone or anything and brought real existing problems in the United States. Another example, the US still could not develop a normal anti-submarine missile. Their latest development, which they are promoting, does not even reach the old "Trumpet b".
  • Delta
    Delta 3 December 2013 11: 34
    +6
    Since, as everyone remembers, arguing with this author is useless (and I don’t want to get a stomach ulcer),
    then there’s only one question for him -

    Oleg, WHY DO NOT YOU WRITE ABOUT YOUR NAVY?

    moreover, not about the past and not about dreams for the futurebut about what is now. Something about the American is somehow much about modern. Why's that? and by the way, after reading the epilogue I want to find out what role do you assign to the fleet and how do you see it (up to the number of ships)? and here’s the question for you (anticipating the answer) - aren't you smarter than admirals, politicians, weapons experts?
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 3 December 2013 15: 02
      0
      Quote: Delta
      but about what is now

      Dear colleague, he writes to our ... :)
      Recently I read about geodetic-measuring vessels (the essence of reconnaissance) ...
      1. Delta
        Delta 3 December 2013 15: 15
        +3
        Quote: Rus2012
        he writes to our


        I was going into what Kaptsov and many others are talking about the US fleet in the context of its comparison. But how else to evaluate, but to compare with something or with someone? and there is no one's fault. But if this is a comparison, then TODAY is in favor of the US Navy, no matter how regrettable and no matter how unpleasant it is for someone. And somehow it is incorrect to compare, saying that someone participating in the conflicts screwed up, but we (without participating) would definitely not screw up in this situation
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 3 December 2013 20: 01
          0
          Quote: Delta
          then it is FOR TODAY in favor of the US Navy, no matter how regrettable and no matter how it was unpleasant to someone.

          But we, dear colleague, are not innocent and independent, heartless experts.
          If i wrote closed confinement with an assessment of his technique against a potential adversary, he would give a full assessment of all the pros and cons. And with suggestions how to eliminate the cons.
          But if we are in the office
          conversation in full view. Moreover, in conditions when Pentagon marketers trumpeted all conceivable and inconceivable "advantages" of their systems. And our "young talents", generations of Internet users, who did not serve and did not see the work of domestic technology in life, take on faith the data of advertising brochures of the foreign country and using them "smash" everything that is ours. We know that we have never verified the data, or clearly overestimated the characteristics of our technique. Everything as it is, with all the shortcomings ...
          In these conditions, Kaptsov's tactics seem to be correct. To "wet" the enemy with a caustic, sharp pen, sometimes exaggerating known data, events ... Let real exploiters or experts oppose him, and not our young "powdered" brains ...
        2. Santa Fe
          3 December 2013 20: 15
          -3
          Quote: Delta
          this comparison, it is TODAY in favor of the US Navy

          you know what the matter is, the yankee fleet is redundant

          in the end, at the same cost, the Yankees could build something much more powerful and perfect (in my opinion, of course) - an interesting lesson for the future if we have to build our own fleet
    2. Santa Fe
      3 December 2013 20: 09
      0
      Quote: Delta
      WHY DON'T WRITE ABOUT YOUR NAVY?

      moreover, not about the past and not about dreams for the future, but about what is now

      You must know the answer yourself
      Quote: Delta
      and by the way, after reading the epilogue I want to find out what role do you assign to the fleet and how do you see it (up to the number of ships)?

      it all depends on the future of our country. Kremlezhulikam - no fleet.
      One boat under construction for 20 years - to cut more money. And for the amusement of hurray-patorites to assemble "Borey" from the skeletons of old nuclear submarines of the 971st project. It is possible without the Bulava - no one is going to shoot at their children, who study at Harvard
      Quote: Delta
      Are you smarter than admirals, politicians, and arms experts?

      at least my position does not contradict the observed facts
      1. Delta
        Delta 3 December 2013 22: 12
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        You must know the answer yourself


        maybe yes or maybe not. But I wanted to get it from you anyway

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        at least my position does not contradict the observed facts


        Do you think that they are all (or almost all) so blind?
        1. Santa Fe
          3 December 2013 22: 49
          0
          Quote: Delta
          But I wanted to get it from you anyway

          there’s just nothing to talk about
          Quote: Delta
          Do you think that they are all (or almost all) so blind?

          what for? they all know better than you and me. and doing everything right. Burke is changed to sub-series 3. Instead of spy-1 they put dbr / amdr. took the DESI initiative, leased Gotland, have a giant submarine fleet, etc. "coincidences"
  • vyatom
    vyatom 3 December 2013 11: 53
    +1
    Quote: Lapotnik
    PS Tell me the war wherever the Americans would at least confront the enemy close to them and do not crap. Everywhere only crap with a knowingly weak enemy, the conduct of terrorist wars and wars with the wrong hands.

    In any case, after a sudden attack on the Pacific Fleet by the Japanese, they were able to turn the tide of the war at sea and force the Japanese out of Southeast Asia. So let's adequately assess the capabilities of a potential adversary
  • shurup
    shurup 3 December 2013 12: 16
    0
    He concluded that if the anti-aircraft defense forces were not in time for the RCC, then they should again hang armor on the ships.
    May my dream come true about a nuclear carrier - a super icebreaker.
    And let the Americans lag behind. May be left behind.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 3 December 2013 15: 05
      0
      Quote: shurup
      my dream of a nuclear-powered supercarrier

      Alas, dear colleague, it is unlikely ...
      For - "You can't harness a horse and a quivering doe into one cart!" (C) not mine ...
      And so, I would like ... :)
  • BOB48
    BOB48 3 December 2013 12: 47
    +2
    Give AUG to the Caspian!
  • Volodya Sibiryak
    Volodya Sibiryak 3 December 2013 12: 55
    +1
    Opponents of the opponent, Monsieur Kaptsov, seem to have run out, even did not answer the previous article, and he has already started a new circulation. Article +.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 3 December 2013 12: 58
    +7
    Thanks to Andrey from Chelyabinsk, he answered a lot. I would like to add on my own account of the mine hazard. Sea mines, especially bottom mines, pose a danger to ANY fleet, in the USA this problem is being solved. Many people know about the successes of the United States in the field of unmanned aircraft, but not many know about their successes in creating Unmanned Submarines or UUVs, probably because they are not engaged in the destruction of "terrorists" from a distance. One of the tasks of the UAV is the detection of sea mines, the Americans gained a lot of experience in this in 1991 and 2003. demining the coast of Iraq and Kuwait.
    REMUS 100/600 - worked in 2003. when clearing the coast of Iraq

    The LMRS system with an AN / 8LQ-11 type anti-aircraft gun was tested with an LA submarine

    Knifefish promising LA for use with LCS

    AN / AQS-20A helicopter towed mine ordnance

    In addition to these devices, work is underway in the United States to create universal anti-mine and anti-submarine missile, reconnaissance, for remote installation of sea mines. For example UUV "Manta"

    I recommend on this topic the book "Underwater robots in a mine war", authors G.Yu. Illarionov, KS Sidenko, VV Sidorenkov, edited by Ph.D. Vice-Admiral KS Sidenko.
  • smprofi
    smprofi 3 December 2013 13: 21
    +1
    Colonel Gaddafi 40 has been a thorn in the eye of the American administration for years: even after Operation Fire on the Prairie, he continued to stubbornly bend his line and really got excited only after the collapse of the USSR.

    all right except one LITTLE nuance: all the "unrest" of Gaddafi, along with the raids of the gringos and the Saxons, stopped after the air defense missile systems with Soviet crews took up combat duty in Libya, and the ships of the Mediterranean squadron of the Black Sea Fleet were not on duty in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Libya.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 3 December 2013 13: 26
    +4
    Despite the huge expenditures on its maintenance and development, the American fleet is still left without anti-aircraft missiles with active homing heads (such missiles have already been in service with many European and Asian countries in the form of the PAAMS marine air defense system).

    Oleg has repeatedly refuted this error by the data on SM-6, but for some reason he assures everyone that the USA does not have such a missile.
    "The company Raytheon Missile Systems has already delivered more than 50 SM-6 missiles to the Navy as part of a small-scale production, in September it received a contract for the production of another 89 missiles ..."
    The article indicated the imminent start of mass production.
    The missile Standard Missile-6 is equipped with an active radar seeker adapted from the seeker missile AIM-120 AMRAAM C, the diameter of the seeker was increased from 7 inches to 13,5, i.e. almost doubled. I think it is not worth talking about the increased capabilities of the GOS in connection with this.

    SM-6 missiles are designed to intercept air targets beyond the radar horizon, the range is 240 km. When shooting over a horizon, guidance is from an external source, which is an E-2D Hawkeye AWACS aircraft. The rocket passed successful tests in August of this year.

    1. Magellan
      Magellan 3 December 2013 13: 40
      -5
      Quote: Nayhas
      The article indicated the imminent start of mass production.

      Maybe in 5 years they will equip all the boats.
      10-15 years later than Europeans

      By the way, Nayhas, I have long wanted to ask
      Where did you get such a burning urge to stand up for the US Navy? Just "devil's advocate", not otherwise)))
      Or is it a subconscious reaction to Russian arbitrariness and a mess around us? Dreams of a better future, interpreted as unrequited love for US NAVY?
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 3 December 2013 14: 57
        +6
        Quote: Magellan
        Maybe in 5 years they will equip all the boats.
        10-15 years later than Europeans

        Can. How important is it? European countries are NOT US rivals, so in essence there is not much difference. Now, if we had created five years earlier, then of course they would have a reason to complex.
        Quote: Magellan
        Where did you get such a burning desire to stand up for the US Navy?

        I just don’t like it when facts attract one’s ears. Objectively, the US Navy is the strongest in the world. The naval forces are a complex of various types of weapons and the United States has almost all types of weapons either ahead of the planet or at a level. Yes, there are countries with some advantage, for example, Sweden has NAPL. But besides Sweden's NPL, there is nothing special to boast of. Visby-type corvettes are interesting, but only for Sweden itself. The British have good Astute submarines and Daring destroyers, yes, but what else?
        It is difficult to say something about the Chinese Navy, because the information is general and much is not clear where it is outright lies and where is the truth. So far we have to talk about our Navy in the past tense. There are ships, but they are from the past, not having undergone a single upgrade since the release. Somehow he asked Oleg Kaptsov which version of the BIUS "Lumberjack" is worth cruisers on pr.1164, to which he received an answer like "we would have such money as in the US Navy", it is clear that the BIUS "Lumberjack" has never been modified, not to mention the hardware part, that it is in the same state as 30 years ago, what then, corresponding to the current realities, the capabilities of the cruisers of project 1164 can we talk about?
        1. Magellan
          Magellan 3 December 2013 16: 38
          -3
          Quote: Nayhas
          Objectively, the US Navy is the strongest in the world.

          In the form of "elusive Joe"?
          (which no one needs)

          In fact - there is no one to fight, but in the event of a serious troubles with the same China - the Americans will cry crocodile tears. They cannot act on enemy shores
          Quote: Nayhas
          How important is it?

          Prestige
          1. Know-nothing
            Know-nothing 3 December 2013 17: 52
            +2
            Quote: Magellan
            in the case of a serious mess with the same China, the Americans will roar with crocodile tears. They cannot act on enemy shores

            They can, by submarines, without any problems at all.
            1. Santa Fe
              3 December 2013 20: 16
              -1
              Quote: Dunno
              submarines without any problems at all.

              And then what is the invincible AUG?))
              1. Know-nothing
                Know-nothing 4 December 2013 06: 54
                +2
                The scalpel and knife have their own tasks. Do not contrast these two useful tools.
              2. barbiturate
                barbiturate 4 December 2013 14: 09
                +1
                Himself declared them invincible and refutes it himself)) I wonder how far in his desire to get some crap a man can go?
          2. Nayhas
            Nayhas 3 December 2013 21: 09
            +2
            Quote: Magellan
            In fact - there is no one to fight, but in the event of a serious troubles with the same China - the Americans will cry crocodile tears. They cannot act on enemy shores

            Arguments For fermented patriots your words are enough, but not for me. At least evidence that the Chinese can at least do something.
        2. 1c-inform-city
          1c-inform-city 3 December 2013 18: 22
          -1
          Well, yes, but about the US fleet they write the truth and only the truth!
          And the pictures that you bring brochures. So the truth in them is also a little.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 3 December 2013 21: 07
            +2
            Quote: 1c-inform-city
            And the pictures that you bring brochures. So the truth in them is also a little.

            The results of the Standard Missile-6 test were announced by Reiton and the military did not make any statements about the inconsistency of the facts. On the contrary, Captain Mike Ladner, program manager for the US Navy's naval weapon systems, said the US Navy is deploying a new Standard Missile-6 extended range naval air defense system to achieve initial combat readiness. If there were only pictures in booklets, I would not even stutter.
            For example, about missiles 40N6E, too, beautiful booklets were drawn, such as a range of 400 km, guidance on the final section of the Su-35 radar. Further announced that the missile 40N6E at the end of 2012. Adopted. And that’s it. No information on the confirmation of the declared characteristics. A priori, it should be recognized that this missile actually flies 400 km., No one doubts this. But can it be induced from the Su-35? You believe?
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 3 December 2013 13: 43
    +4
    adoption of subsonic LRASM is a vague future.

    And what could be foggy there? RCC is developed on the basis of the mass-produced tactical KR JASSM-ER, tests are successful, the latest news on LRASM:
    17.06.2013/337/1 The XNUMXth Test and Evaluation Squadron (Dews Air Force Base, Texas) successfully completed the first phase of the LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile) long-range anti-ship missile tests aboard the B-XNUMX bomber
    17.09.2013/41/XNUMX Lockheed Martin, at the White Sands training ground in New Mexico, successfully launched the first prototype Long Range Anti-Ship Missile) BTV (Boosted Test Vehicle) LRASM from the MKXNUMX vertical launch launcher.
    14.11.2013/14/XNUMX On November XNUMX, Lockheed Martin announced that it recently conducted another successful flight test of the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), during which a direct hit hit a moving sea target.

    PS: So, for information. After adopting the LRASM anti-ship missile system, it will be possible to equip ALL ships with the Mk41 and Mk57 UVP with it.
    1. Magellan
      Magellan 3 December 2013 13: 46
      -2
      Quote: Nayhas
      And what could be foggy there?

      What is the operational availability of the LRASM rocket?
      Is there at least one ship carrying this type of ammunition in its UVP?

      And the fact that they conduct tests ... Maces also conduct tests. Like the 6 SM-2008 / S
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 3 December 2013 15: 21
        +4
        Quote: Magellan
        What is the operational availability of the LRASM rocket?

        Quote: Magellan
        Is there at least one ship carrying this type of ammunition in its UVP?

        Because RCC passes tests, then, accordingly, they are not in service. Instead, so far RCC Harpoon on cruisers like Ticonderoga and half of destroyers like Orly Burke. In addition, anti-ship missile launcher Harpoon and SLAM / SLAM-ER on US Navy carrier-based and anti-submarine aircraft. There are more carriers of anti-ship missiles in the United States than ships of carriers of anti-ship missiles from all likely US opponents.
        Quote: Magellan
        And the fact that they conduct tests ... Maces also conduct tests.

        Comparison is not appropriate both for the purpose of the rocket and for success. There is no doubt that LRASM will be adopted, because the Chinese fleet is growing by leaps and bounds.
        Quote: Magellan
        Like the 6 SM-2008 / S

        We would be so "tormented".
  • nnz226
    nnz226 3 December 2013 13: 50
    -1
    In the internet recently there was a dialogue between the American squadron and the servants of the Spanish lighthouse (!!!), the Spaniards warned the Americans that "their course is leading to death," and then the American "sweeping" began: we are cool, but who are you ?! Until they were told that their ships were powerless against coastal reefs. Only then did the "cool" ones deign to turn away ... This is also a symptom of US NAVY ... Their navigator did not work + navigator's locators + GPS?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 14: 10
      +6
      Quote: nnz226
      In an Internet dialogue recently walked between the American squadron and the servants of the Spanish lighthouse

      This "recent" history of EMNIP is already 30 years old, if not more
      1. Know-nothing
        Know-nothing 3 December 2013 14: 27
        +5
        More. Back in 1930x was http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Легенда_о_маяке_и_корабле
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 December 2013 16: 05
          +3
          Oh how! Thanks, I didn’t know :)
  • basmach
    basmach 3 December 2013 14: 38
    +2
    I would very much like to draw your attention to such a "small" nuance. Any fleet is only an auxiliary means of conducting combat operations (even in modern conditions). By itself, without the action of schooputny forces, war at sea is rather meaningless. Let's look at recent examples.
    1. Iraq. Saddam would still rule the country if the Yankees did not have a bridgehead such as a Saudi for a ground operation (see how much time the Yankees had to fiddle with the islands during the war with Japan and their losses, they remember this and made conclusions ). The organization of the landing through the English Channel took almost 2 years and if it had not been for the eastern front (distracting and grinding the Wehrmacht) would never have taken place. Even in modern conditions, even a local war, based only on the Navy, without a serious ground component, is impossible it’s possible inconceivable costs, the impossibility of creating operational reserves in manpower and material and technical support, even with a primitive coastal defense system, there are also huge losses. And this is only a small part of the difficulties.
    2. Iran. In this version (by and large and the DPRK) there is no such bridgehead. Iraq in its present form cannot be such (the reasons I think are clear). In addition, Iran has at least some kind of coastal defense system. And Iran’s staging of minefields this is normal practice for coastal defense and interruption of enemy communications (and not a wild fright from the sight of the Yankee fleet)
    The Yankees have very well studied their war with the Japanese and made the right conclusions. Their fleet is a good bugbear for intimidation, but it is not suitable for an independent war (as well as any other). With the developed coastal defense system, the losses of any fleet will be such that it will cease to play a serious role in the war (an example would be the German fleet, which, with the exception of the submarine, did not play any serious role in the Second World War) And that is why the Yankees so insisted on the speedy entry of the USSR into the war against Japan (according to the Yankees' calculations, the operation to seize the Japanese islands should have taken at least a year. minimality loss-at least 1 million. people, and the Soviet Union defeated millionth Kwantung grouping on susche for 8 days, although the Japanese hoped to hold at least one year) That this situation of the war at sea.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 4 December 2013 00: 44
      +1
      Quote: basmach
      The Yankees have very well studied their war with the Japanese and made the right conclusions.

      The Yankees have a fleet of high-speed transports.
  • basmach
    basmach 3 December 2013 14: 38
    +1
    I would very much like to draw your attention to such a "small" nuance. Any fleet is only an auxiliary means of conducting combat operations (even in modern conditions). By itself, without the action of schooputny forces, war at sea is rather meaningless. Let's look at recent examples.
    1. Iraq. Saddam would still rule the country if the Yankees did not have a bridgehead such as a Saudi for a ground operation (see how much time the Yankees had to fiddle with the islands during the war with Japan and their losses, they remember this and made conclusions ). The organization of the landing through the English Channel took almost 2 years and if it had not been for the eastern front (distracting and grinding the Wehrmacht) would never have taken place. Even in modern conditions, even a local war, based only on the Navy, without a serious ground component, is impossible it’s possible inconceivable costs, the impossibility of creating operational reserves in manpower and material and technical support, even with a primitive coastal defense system, there are also huge losses. And this is only a small part of the difficulties.
    2. Iran. In this version (by and large and the DPRK) there is no such bridgehead. Iraq in its present form cannot be such (the reasons I think are clear). In addition, Iran has at least some kind of coastal defense system. And Iran’s staging of minefields this is normal practice for coastal defense and interruption of enemy communications (and not a wild fright from the sight of the Yankee fleet)
    The Yankees have very well studied their war with the Japanese and made the right conclusions. Their fleet is a good bugbear for intimidation, but it is not suitable for an independent war (as well as any other). With the developed coastal defense system, the losses of any fleet will be such that it will cease to play a serious role in the war (an example would be the German fleet, which, with the exception of the submarine, did not play any serious role in the Second World War) And that is why the Yankees so insisted on the speedy entry of the USSR into the war against Japan (according to the Yankees' calculations, the operation to seize the Japanese islands should have taken at least a year. minimality loss-at least 1 million. people, and the Soviet Union defeated millionth Kwantung grouping on susche for 8 days, although the Japanese hoped to hold at least one year) That this situation of the war at sea.
  • waisson
    waisson 3 December 2013 14: 52
    0
    seven minutes to him under the keel and heel of torpedoes to the forecourt, how much grief was brought to the people of the world with his help, and they look at their holey globe and don’t see anything except figs
  • mitya24
    mitya24 3 December 2013 15: 29
    0
    Who are they going to fight with? That is the main question. To disperse terraryugal boats with fords and zumvoltami ??? I do not believe. All currently available in the world of the Navy, more or less combat-ready, are if not NATO allies, so bosom friends. Russia and China are far behind.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 3 December 2013 16: 24
    10
    I’m wondering what conclusions Oleg himself draws from his article? After all, why did he write it? Probably influenced by some thoughts. From this article, you can draw a couple of conclusions, for example the first. The USA is a scientifically and technologically backward country and is unable to create a fleet like the Europeans. Who believes in this?
    The second conclusion: the Americans are a stupid nation, unable to give birth to at least one competent analyst (such as Oleg and others like him) who would have indicated a threat to the American admirals with a solid budget, that’s supposed to spend billions of dollars on it, that’s where the threat is, well, don’t you see?
    And the third conclusion: Americans understand everything, they are not more stupid than us, but in terms of the availability of information, they will give the members of the forum (even funny to write)) a hundred points ahead, and with all this they do it this way and not otherwise. I reject the stupidity of a potential "ally", so they hope for something and understand something better than Oleg Kaptsov. I suggest Oleg and others like him think and try to find explanations for the facts that he himself cited in his article, it is still obvious on the surface and is already in the comments.

    PS Here they constantly consider the history of the destroyer Cole - the Americans made conclusions from it and very quickly, but about the damage ... Oleg and his associates are very fond of Daring, so any more or less modern tank (for example) can make a boat out of this in a couple of minutes helpless waddling wreck, so bad ship Daring? Or is he simply put out of his own terms and came close to the shore? And from a machine gun I can turn a couple of "Global Hawks" into scrap metal at the airport, a bad drone? etc. Cole was not damaged in battle, he was blown up by terrorists, and they blew up an unarmored (for the sake of other characteristics) ship, in fact, what does this prove?
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 3 December 2013 16: 49
      +4
      Quote: barbiturate
      Or was he simply not in his own conditions and came close to the shore?

      You are absolutely right. Perhaps many do not know, but usually in ports, and the destroyer was in the port of Aden, a great variety of all kinds of various small ships and boats. Especially a lot of shipchandlers, these are traders who trade directly on the water. They sell all sorts of crap, food, drinks, souvenirs. They behave quite arrogantly and do not pay attention to all sorts of warnings, because they need to vparit their goods. It’s simply impossible to figure out who is swimming for you and with what intentions and only a person who has never worked at sea can blame the crew for rotational activity.
  • Dan Slav
    Dan Slav 3 December 2013 17: 58
    +3
    Reviews and opinions can be any. However, one way or another, their fleet is developing, new ships are being built and put into operation. It stimulates industry and developers, nourishes science, empowers many design bureaus, and serves many US citizens. In addition, this is a thing that this country is proud of.
    Mistakes are possible, but so far this country and this system makes these errors. But here, alas, there is a degradation in all directions. In the fleet as well.
  • kotvov
    kotvov 3 December 2013 18: 30
    +1
    I think you don’t have to be so complacent, wait for it to drown itself. You need to be able and able to destroy any threat to Russia, and hatlessness for good
    when it didn’t.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • lukke
    lukke 3 December 2013 21: 49
    0
    The fleet is expensive, I agree. And who counted how much profit he brings when with his help American companies become equity investors in oil production in Iraq or Libya? For amers, he fulfills his tasks at all 200%, ranging from satisfying the internal appetites of "kickbacks" for orders and ending with using it as a foreign policy argument. With the help of their fleet, the Yankees are able to build up their land forces exponentially at any point on the ball in the shortest possible time. There is no one else to boast of such successes. For different reasons....
  • Rus2012
    Rus2012 3 December 2013 22: 21
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    At a depth of 40 meters, they saw scattered parts of the bomber. And soon the tail of the first bomb,

    ... this is nonsense!
    Never have RTBs been given special ammunition to anyone ... In addition to field tests, of course, there were about a dozen of them ...

    Which does not apply to the Yankees, who were really on duty with nuclear weapons in the air. What this led to - we know and remember until 10 of incidents with nuclear weapons, and with catastrophes.
  • voliador
    voliador 3 December 2013 23: 34
    +1
    Auto RU. political willingness to use force is good when that force exists. And sending the AUG to the right point on the planet is a demonstration of this strength and political readiness.
  • voliador
    voliador 3 December 2013 23: 34
    0
    Auto RU. political willingness to use force is good when that force exists. And sending the AUG to the right point on the planet is a demonstration of this strength and political readiness.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 4 December 2013 12: 19
    +2
    unlike the American focus, when one decimeter-wave radar AN / SPY-1 tries to simultaneously track both space and anti-ship missiles. Tracking targets at the IEO is not bad, unlike the search for low-flying anti-ship missiles.

    Earlier, I wrote that on ships like Orly Burke to help AN / SPY-1 to detect NLCs, the radar for detecting surface and low-flying targets AN / SPS-67 is working, and on ships like Ticonderoga the radar for detecting air targets AN / SPS-49 and radar detection surface and low-flying targets AN / SPQ-9A. But as I understand it, this does not convince anyone, especially Oleg.
    Well, let's say that the radar data is a complete insignificance and stand on ships for beauty and so that the cormorants have a place to shout and shit. Currently, the Ticonderoga-type URO cruisers are being modernized, the AN / SPS-49 is being completely removed, and the AN / SPQ-9A is being changed to AN / SPQ-9B. What is AN / SPQ-9B? This is a pulse-Doppler X-band radar designed to detect surface targets, but the main task is to detect low-flying supersonic anti-ship missiles or, as they say, "creeping over the waves." This radar was supposed to be part of the AMDR radar, which is responsible specifically for low-flying anti-ship missiles.
    So here. This AN / SPQ-9B radar is already installed on the LPD type San Antonio, LHA type America and the upgraded cruiser Ticonderoga. Next year, the first AN / SPQ-9B will be installed on the EM URO type Orly Burke, USS Oscar Austin (DDG-79), the radar has already been purchased and will be tested on it. The plans include the equipment of this radar of all destroyers, as well as during the construction of series III.
    Radar itself:

    She's on a Ticonderoga-class cruiser:
    1. Santa Fe
      4 December 2013 14: 53
      -1
      Quote: Nayhas
      to help AN / SPY-1 for detecting NLCs, the radar for detecting surface and low-flying targets AN / SPS-67

      too weak for this purpose.
      Quote: Nayhas
      and on ships like Ticonderoga radar detection of air targets AN / SPS-49

      Not a help, but a reserve. Currently removed due to complete uselessness (two-axis survey radar - at the beginning of the XXI century, this is a relic dinosaur)
      Quote: Nayhas
      Well, let's say that the radar data is completely insignificant and stand on ships for beauty and so that the cormorants have where to fumble and shit

      Do not distort
      SPS-49 - backup on ticonderogs, it was not installed on the berks
      SPS-67 - navigation, search for single targets against the background of the water (it is pointless to use anti-ship missiles to reflect the swam due to lack of computing power)
      AN / SPQ-9A - an ancient radar created in the middle of 70's. Used to detect surface targets - included in the 127 mm gun fire control system.


      Quote: Nayhas
      So here. This AN / SPQ-9B radar is already installed on LPD type San Antonio, LHA type America and the upgraded cruiser Ticonderoga

      This is not AN / SPQ-9B

      This is an AN / SPQ-9B-based rotating radar with two headlights - the same index with the Lightweight Back-to-Back Slotted Array Antenna prefix. The reason for the appearance of this hybrid was financial constraints - the first Berks of sub-series III instead of AN / SPY-3 or other cool AFAR system will be equipped with this craft. In the future, the ships promise to install something more serious.

      I can congratulate the Ticonderoga - having convinced myself of the futility of SPY-1 as a radar for finding NLCs, the Yankees are trying to add a couple to him in the form of centimeter-range radars. How good is this hybrid compared to the British SAMPSON, the Japanese FCS-3, or at least the European EMPAR? It is inferior to them in all respects.
  • -Patriot-
    -Patriot- 4 December 2013 12: 52
    0
    The logical conclusion of the previous article.
  • Vanya Sevdonym
    Vanya Sevdonym 4 December 2013 16: 09
    +2
    How much bile and hatred. USA launched a modern aircraft carrier (cost about
    15 billion dollars), the electronic power is increasing, the crews are being reduced, which Russia can offer to its navy, in addition to the old projects and Serdyukovs, bought from the French "MiSRALI".
  • Ustas77
    Ustas77 4 December 2013 21: 12
    +1
    I agree with the previous speaker. The author of the article is simply raving about his flaccidity. Tales of a rotting West teach nothing ...
  • postman
    postman 5 December 2013 02: 06
    +2
    Auto RU
    1. I think the situation described (written, "chewed") by the Author is not real (virgin, real).
    Without even delving into the essence (RCC, PL, etc.), one feels: SOMETHING IS NOT SO IN THIS CONCEPT
    / or so: Oleg Kaptsov very smart hi , and in the US NAVY, the Pentagon, in the USA, donkeys.
    In principle, this option is also possible: Oleg-sh., In the USA they are not "fools", but Oleg thinks faster
    2. Regarding the "high cost" and "ineffectiveness" of the US Navy (and, accordingly, the effectiveness, alternative, I would say "we will find an asymmetric answer" and cheapness of the USSR Navy ...., which the Author has been constantly promoting recently (OK, he SS- I don’t know English I can’t write) .... something is wrong here, well, as an argument:
    The USSR collapsed - unable to withstand the defense (economic) race, the USA - still (!) Lives, does not cough, and the Navy is the largest (!) In the world.
    ?
    Question: which fleet was less expensive? Well, as a result - EFFECTIVE

    ??
    Best regards