Military Review

"Desert Storm." Carrier strike

98



A sharp jerk - and the plane disappears in a cloud of superheated steam, rushing forward, towards the wind. Another moment - and the boundless sea stretched under the wing ... Gone! The deck crew jumps off their knees and prepares for the start of the next F / A-18. The fighter, swaying under the load of bombs, approaches the catapult - the reflective shield rises behind, the sailors fix the catapult shuttle to the nose landing gear. A final check follows and a fancy SHOOTER begins — arms at shoulder level, body turning from side to side, returning to the starting position, hand to side — bringing the engines to take-off mode. Done! Now follows the characteristic gesture of "sitting down" with an outstretched hand ... TAKE OFF !!!

Shooter is a member of the deck crew of an aircraft carrier responsible for aircraft production. Due to the high noise level, communication between the pilot and the Shooter is accomplished with the help of a sophisticated gesture system.

The last time US Navy aircraft carriers were massively used about a quarter of a century ago was the hot winter of 1991, during the Desert Storm offensive operation. The violent 43-day air war that crushed the army of Saddam Hussein became a reference example of the new generation wars - where the stakes were made on high-quality information support, high-precision weapon and the absolute technical superiority of the winner over the vanquished.

In total, 44 countries (international forces - MNF) have signed up to the Coalition against Iraq. However, in fact, the whole operation rested on American bayonets. The Yankees made a decisive contribution to the defeat of Hussein, and, frankly, they could have managed on their own. The “Allies” were invited only for courtesy (however, some of them ran himself, hoping for praise and a tasty piece from “Uncle Sam”).



As expected, in a super war the American fleet flashed with its power and magnificence. For the first time, Tomahawk cruise missiles were used limitedly - in total, 288 SLCMs were fired on the positions of the Iraqi troops and Iraqi infrastructure. Mine-sweeping ships engaged in the elimination of mine installations in the Persian Gulf. Battleships with a deafening roar fired at the coast. In general, the classical naval forces were symbolic in a purely land war. Before the mass appearance of Tomahawk SLCM, the only naval means capable of providing real support to the Army and the Air Force was deck aviation US Navy.

Floating airfields!

“Jack of all trades” or stupid relic of the past, seeking any, sometimes the most ridiculous ways to prove the viability of its existence?

What are the prospects of modern AUG in air offensive operations? How rational was the decision to use the forces of the six carrier groups to strike at targets deep in the coast?

The answer can be found by following the combat path of each of the “heroes”.

As noted above, the Yankees drove six aircraft carriers of different generations to the Middle East. Despite the 40-year-old difference in age, the Nimitsev and Midway decks were the same - the best and most modern aircraft at the time. The real combat power of an aircraft carrier is weakly correlated with its age - the composition of the air group rapidly changes with the appearance of the next generation of fighters (bombers, UAVs), and no radical changes are required in the design of the ship itself.


USS Teodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) sounds like the Suez Canal

At first glance, the choice of AUG combat maneuvering areas seems illogical — half of the aircraft carrier groups were stationed in the Red Sea. This situation is in clear contradiction with the very idea of ​​the aircraft carrier, as a mobile airfield deployed near the enemy. Deck pilots, on the contrary, had to act from afar, making flights across the entire Arabian Peninsula. The average duration of sorties from aircraft carriers in the Red Sea was 3,7 h versus 2,5 h for those based in the Persian Gulf, 200-280 miles from the coast of Kuwait. Closer approach did not dare.

It is easy to guess that this disposition was dictated by security measures. To send all six aircraft carriers to the turbulent waters of the Persian Gulf would be too careless and presumptuous. There is no hope for an escort. An encounter with a random mine, anti-ship missiles or an attack using asymmetric means (a boat with suicide bombers) is obvious.

If you have already come to “direct the bluff”, you should avoid risky situations whenever possible. Why bother with unnecessary trouble if the air force still does most of the work?

Otherwise, you can get "Scud" on the wide deck (as it could be with the aircraft carrier "Saratoga").

"America", "Saratoga" and "John F. Kennedy" operated from the Red Sea. "Theodore Roosevelt" in the company of the old "Ranger" and quite already decrepit "Midway" ventured into the Persian Gulf.

Otherwise, the contribution of the US Navy carrier-based aviation to Operation Desert Storm is as follows:

Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)

The atomic aircraft carrier, the fourth ship in the Nimitsev series. At the time of the operation "Storm in the Desert" he was one of the largest, most powerful and modern ships in the world. The length of the 332 meter. Full displacement 104 600 tons. The crew of a gigantic ship - 5700 pilots and sailors.

Roosevelt advanced from Norfolk 28 on December 1990, and on the third day already suffered the first loss - during the training flight, the plane EW EA-6B “Prowler” crashed. The burst cable of the aero-finisher did not leave the car a chance - the plane rolled over the deck and fell overboard. The aircraft carrier moved further across the Atlantic.



A powerful combat unit arrived at the position in the Persian Gulf even before the operation began, but the first combat departure from an aircraft carrier took place only on February 19 1991 of the city - on the third day of the war.

During the fighting, the Roosevelt aircraft wing suffered minor losses - for various reasons, three aircraft were lost (F / A-2C fighter-bomber and A-18 attack aircraft). But perhaps the loudest state of emergency occurred on February 6 - a sailor from the deck crew was sucked into the engine of an airplane taking off.

Of course, all this is complete nonsense against the background of the overall results of the aircraft carrier's combat work:

75 days at sea, 4149 sorties, 2200 tons of dropped bombs. Powerfully!

These are the best performance among all American aircraft carriers involved in Operation Desert Storm.

But is the power of the “Roosevelt” against the background of the Air Force so great? However, more on that later.

"John F. Kennedy" (CV-67)

The last of the super naval carriers of the US Navy with a non-nuclear power plant. The only ship of its type, the result of a deep modernization of aircraft carriers such as "Kitty Hawk".

Kennedy has been in the Middle East since August 1990, but made no attempt to slow down the deployment of Iraqi troops in Kuwait. Subsequently, he was appointed flagship combat group in the Red Sea.

"Desert Storm." Carrier strike


In total, during the 43 of the day of the war, the Kennedy wing carried out 2574 combat sorties, dropping tons of bombs on 1600's enemy heads.

America (CV-66)

Official sources claim that the aircraft carrier, named after the American nation, returned freedom to the people of Kuwait. Probably without him would have failed.

78 days at sea, 2672 combat sorties, 2000 tons of dropped bombs.

On the first day of the war, the America’s air wing provided cover for the MNS aviation strike groups, but soon the pilots launched independent attacks on the positions of the Iraqi troops. The military bases, the positions of the Scud missiles, clusters of enemy armored vehicles, bridges and the oil-producing infrastructure of Iraq were subjected to fierce bombing. According to American data, for 43 days of intense combat work, pilots from "America" ​​managed to knock out 387 tanks and enemy armored personnel carriers!

It is worth noting that "America" ​​is the only aircraft carrier that had to operate on both sides of the Arabian Peninsula. A month later, on February 14 1991, America was relocated from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf, where it joined Roosevelt, Ranger and Midway.

Saratoga (CV-60)

The third in a series of four Forrestal attack aircraft carriers, with a total displacement of 75 thousand tons. Ancestor of modern superaviantsev with gigantic size and angular flight deck.

“Lady Sarah” was in the Red Sea from 22 August 1990, but its pilots did not even try to delay the Iraqi army or “project” their force in any other way. The Yankees can not be denied prudence - an attempt to get into Kuwaiti airspace by forces of one or two, even six aircraft carriers, would have given nothing but fierce losses among the equipment and personnel of the wing.

As a result, instead of “projection of force” and calls for Saddam Hussein to stop the aggression, the crew of the Saratogi headed for the coast of Israel. The ship embarked on the roads of Haifa, free from the watch went ashore.

On the way back, there was a tragedy - a boat overflowed with sailors and bags of souvenirs, flew briskly into a high wave and overturned. The crew of the Saratoga was missing the 21 sailor. However, everyone was no longer up to them - a military operation against Iraq began in the region.

The Saratogi pilots made 2374 combat sorties in the conflict zone.

Own losses amounted to three aircraft (F / A-18C "Hornet", A-6E "Intruder" and heavy interceptor F-14 "Tomket"). The Hornet from the Saratogi air wing is considered the only MNS aircraft shot down in aerial combat (shot down by Iraqi MiG-25, pilot Michael Spencer died).

30 January 1991. The Saratogi Air Wing set a record by performing a strike operation with the simultaneous participation of the Hornets 18 - as a result, over the 45 tons of bombs were dropped to the enemy position! (one hundred Mk.83 caliber 454 kg)

At about the same time, another remarkable event occurred with Saratoga.

- Johnny, do you see this shooting star?

“Yes, Steve, that's damn cool.” I made a wish to quickly return alive to my baby in Ohio.

Fortunately for the Yankees, Scud flew over their head and fell into the sea somewhere over the horizon ...


Ranger (CV-61)


Ranger in dry dock. In the background are the Hancock and Coral Sea (1971)

An elderly "Ranger", launched in the distant 1956, was scheduled to be written off for the 1993 year. The ship was sent without regret into the war zone, closer to the shores of the enemy.

The aircraft wing of the aircraft carrier made 3329 combat missions in the conflict zone. Average among other AUGs.

More than that, nothing remarkable happened to the Ranger.

Midway (CV-41)

The old man Midway was surprised.

The ship, built in 1945 year, demonstrated combat capability at the level of Kitty Hawk supercarriers, and in overall efficiency (cost / effect) surpassed everyone, including the atomic Theodore Roosevelt!

3019 sorties, 1800 tons of dropped bombs. Moreover, Midway is the only American aircraft carrier that has not lost a single aircraft during the entire operation Desert Storm.

Vintage "Midway" - a representative of another era. The legacy of piston aircraft and naval battles for Guadalcanal and Midway.



For the Midway aircraft carrier, exotic concepts of combat use were not required (“means for projection of force”, “weapons of the first day of war”, etc., bureaucratic tricks not related to reality).

It was created for real sea battles. At a time when the combat radius of low-speed aircraft did not exceed a couple of hundred miles, and the take-off weight was less than 10 tons - the idea of ​​a maritime mobile airfield was truly a reasonable decision.

During the Cold War, the Yankees began to build "shock super-aircraft carriers" with the expectation of their use in local wars, where they will duplicate the tasks of conventional aviation. Sailors forgot about the sea and got into the air - in the original field of activity of the Air Force. The result is the following paradox:

The not too large and relatively simple aircraft carrier of the time of WWII demonstrated effectiveness at the level of modern overgrowths. The Midway wing made, on average, 76 combat missions per day. Airplane "Theodore Roosevelt" - 96 sorties per day.

The size of the atomic super-giants increased 2 times, the cost and complexity of the buildings reached astronomical values ​​- moreover, their real combat effectiveness increased by only a few% compared to the old ship.


Upgraded USS Midway (CV-41) with Corner Flight Deck

But, excuse me, what does all this matter?

In Operation Desert Storm, the wings of six aircraft carriers made 18 117 sorties.

During the same period, land-based airplanes flew over 98 thousands of sorties over Iraq and Kuwait.

The total contribution of the six AUGs was at the level of 15% of the combat work of the Air Force of the Multinational Force.

And what value would they have separately?

Moreover, the effectiveness of aviation is estimated not only by the number of sorties. Such a parameter as combat load is very indicative. Aircraft carriers dropped about 10 thousand tons of bombs on Iraq.

During the same time, Air Force planes poured thousands of tons of death on 78 Iraqi heads. Impressive?

The penultimate word of the day before yesterday of the technique

The participation of six AUGs in Operation Desert Storm provided a clear example of ineffective use fleet. The results of the combat work of the aircraft carriers turned out to be so insignificant that we can’t talk about any serious impact on the operation. Most likely, the pilots of the air force did not even notice the presence of such "assistants".

Sea pilots were satisfied with this situation. "Centurions" calmly sat behind the backs of the Air Force pilots. Moreover, they received a generous portion of fame and did not particularly hurry to go under the shots of the Iraqi Shilok. With all due respect to the mastery of these people, their participation in the operation “Desert Storm” can only be called a profanation.

Centurion - a pilot who landed 100 aircraft carrier deck

All the facts form a single picture:

- scanty, on the background of the Air Force, the number of sorties and dropped bombs;

- a ridiculous disposition, with the placement of half of aircraft carriers in the Red Sea;

- delays in entering the war. The most powerful of the ships ("Roosevelt") deigned to make the first sortie only on the third day of the war - eloquent testimony to the "necessity" of his participation in the operation;

- the military work of the “centurions” was regularly interrupted by long delays. For 43 of the day of the war, it was only six days when combat flights were made from all aircraft carriers. As a rule, the rest of the time, two of the six “floating airfields” were not capable, and were engaged in other important matters - repair and replenishment of stocks of strategic materials (fuel, used food) from supply ships.

And where were they to hurry? The Air Forces did all the work for them.



Figures irrefutably indicate that carrier-based aviation, due to its small size and unsatisfactory aircraft performance characteristics, is a useless tool in local wars.

Carriers were created as a specific naval weapon. The only adequate scope for this technique is the open ocean. Where there is no competition from ground-based tactical combat aircraft.

However, with the development of the nuclear submarine fleet, jet aircraft and the emergence of in-flight refueling systems, the combat value of these huge expensive ships causes great doubts.

Based on:
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil
http://www.history.navy.mil
http://www.midwaysailor.com
http://www.uscarriers.net

Statistics on the combat use of aircraft carriers are taken from the report Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carriers. GAO / NSIAD-98-1 - August 1998
Author:
98 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Prometey
    Prometey 6 March 2014 08: 14
    0
    It may be an amateurish look, but I would also add that the value of aircraft carriers drops sharply against an adversary with supersonic bombers like the TU-22M or TU-160 capable of carrying anti-ship missiles.
    1. avt
      avt 6 March 2014 09: 13
      +22
      Quote: Prometey
      but I would also add that the value of aircraft carriers drops sharply against an adversary with supersonic bombers like the TU-22M or TU-160, capable of carrying anti-ship missiles.

      At your leisure, after you move away from the next battle with Oleg's aircraft carriers after ecstasy, I recommend searching and finding, since now it is no longer a secret how many aviation regiments, including reconnaissance aircraft and target designators, were planned to be used in Soviet times to destroy the AUG. constellations of satellites and manned stations "Salyut" and "Mir" conducting reconnaissance. Well, I don't even want to comment on the Tu-160, I just agree that the view is really amateurish.
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 6 March 2014 10: 04
        0
        Quote: avt
        At leisure, after moving away from the next battle with aircraft carriers after ecstasy

        There is no ecstasy. And about the TU-22M - this is not my invention. The Americans modeled this situation back in the 1980s - the attack of supersonic bombers on their AUGs. The findings were not very encouraging.
        1. avt
          avt 6 March 2014 10: 09
          +6
          Quote: Prometey
          The Americans modeled this situation back in the 1980s - the attack of supersonic bombers on their AUGs. The findings were not very encouraging.

          Once again, look for and find out HOW MUCH and WHAT ARE THE REALLY SOVIET military leaders planned to destroy ONE AUG and AS they stood on their ears when, according to intelligence during the exercises, it was advancing to the shores of the USSR. Or do you think that searching for an AUG in the ocean is like that, husk seeds looking through binoculars from the mast?
          1. Prometey
            Prometey 6 March 2014 10: 56
            0
            Quote: avt
            AS stood on the ears when, according to intelligence during the exercises, it was advancing to the shores of the USSR.

            Just like the Shtatovs when they spotted the advancement of Soviet submarines.
            Quote: avt
            Or do you think that the search for an AUG in the ocean is so, husking the seeds looking through binoculars from the mast?

            Yes, yes, floating on an old Russian boat.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. MolGro
              MolGro 6 March 2014 12: 14
              +1
              http://www.yapfiles.ru/show/9951/7afd8e8657575dbb1c56608a5931ec1a.flv.html

              something like the video)) unfortunately could not insert (((
          2. cdrt
            cdrt 6 March 2014 12: 30
            +3
            Quote: avt
            Quote: Prometey
            The Americans modeled this situation back in the 1980s - the attack of supersonic bombers on their AUGs. The findings were not very encouraging.

            Once again, look for and find out HOW MUCH and WHAT ARE THE REALLY SOVIET military leaders planned to destroy ONE AUG and AS they stood on their ears when, according to intelligence during the exercises, it was advancing to the shores of the USSR. Or do you think that searching for an AUG in the ocean is like that, husk seeds looking through binoculars from the mast?


            In my opinion from 2 to 4 regiments of MPA. Ideally with a combined missile strike with nuclear submarines
          3. vladsolo56
            vladsolo56 6 March 2014 13: 19
            -1
            Quote: avt

            Once again, look for and find out HOW MUCH and WHAT ARE THE REALLY SOVIET military leaders planned to destroy ONE AUG and AS they stood on their ears when, according to intelligence during the exercises, it was advancing to the shores of the USSR. Or do you think that searching for an AUG in the ocean is like that, husk seeds looking through binoculars from the mast?

            where does this information come from? to you that her Ministry of Defense was issued on special request?
          4. Santa Fe
            6 March 2014 14: 28
            +1
            Quote: avt
            HOW MUCH AND WHAT ARE THE REALLY SOVIET military leaders planned to destroy ONE AUG and HOW they stood on their ears when, according to intelligence during the exercises, it was advancing to the shores of the USSR

            In the fall of 1959 in negotiations N.S. Khrushchev and US President D. Eisenhower agree that money for the armed forces is “knocked out” by defense ministers alike: first, they intimidate the Government with the adversary’s success in developing weapons, and then they demand money to close the “backlog”. Proceeding from this, the First Secretary of the Central Committee advocated reducing the financing of the armed forces, intending to cut off the "excess fat" from the military, and to use the freed money to reduce or completely abolish taxes on the population, raise its living standard, increase housing construction, and shorten working hours.

            In general, I would not like to slide into another dispute between PLA vs AUG. It is interesting to know the opinion of all those who read about the role of the AUG in the conket war - Operation Desert Storm
            1. avt
              avt 6 March 2014 15: 52
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              In the fall of 1959, at the talks N.S. Khrushchev and US President D. Eisenhower agreed that money for the armed forces is “knocked out” by defense ministers alike: first they frighten the Government with the adversary’s success in developing weapons, and then they demand money to close the “backlog”.
              No, Oleg, well, you don’t need to juggle it, but minus someone put it and in general it’s right. Well, in your same post
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              In general, I would not like to slide into another dispute between PLA vs AUG. It is interesting to know the opinion of all those who read about the role of the AUG in the conket war - Operation "Desert Buoy"
              Well, how is it consistent with the previous one? Do you draw conclusions about the military-industrial complex as a whole in terms of the general arms race, and require others to make statements on the use of aircraft carriers on a specific episode of a regional war. But what if, in return, you get quotes that are quite specific for the number and displacement of restrictions on battleships after the First World War ??
              1. Santa Fe
                6 March 2014 17: 02
                -1
                Quote: avt
                Well, how is it consistent with the previous one?

                Very well consistent

                Quote: avt
                HOW MUCH AND WHAT ARE THE REALLY SOVIET military leaders planned to destroy ONE AUG and HOW they stood on their ears when, according to intelligence during the exercises, it was advancing to the shores of the USSR

                Quote: avt
                Conclusions do about the military-industrial complex as a whole regarding the general arms race




                Initially, the question was straightforward in the article - are AUGs effective in local wars like Desert Storm?
                but you left the topic and started talking about the means of countering the ACG in the Cold War
                1. avt
                  avt 6 March 2014 17: 35
                  +4
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  but you left the topic and started talking about the means of countering the ACG in the Cold War

                  I moved out to answer a specific post.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Initially, the question was straightforward in the article - are AUGs effective in local wars,

                  request Naturally effective as a solo - they themselves wrote about the Falklands, quite a small, regional war, and as an additional, quite an operational touch with a haaarrosh element of intimidation - it looks frightening near the Persian shores and the Levante, in contrast to Elks with Tomahawks. And it's terrifying to catch up with one look and quite start the operation until the full deployment of funds.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    6 March 2014 17: 46
                    0
                    Quote: avt
                    they themselves wrote about the Falklands, quite a small, regional war

                    Falkland. single MARINE WAR OF THE PRESENT

                    it was about ordinary local wars, such as Vietnam or the Desert Storm
                    Quote: avt
                    with a haaarroche frightening element - off the Persian shores it looks awesome

                    Did the presence of two Amer AUGs somehow influence Saddam's decision to attack Kuwait?
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. avt
                      avt 6 March 2014 19: 10
                      +4
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Falklands. the only MARINE war of our time
                      laughing I still beg you - so what? What an exclusive
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      it was about ordinary local wars, such as Vietnam or the Desert Storm

                      Well ? Until the heavy equipment was brought in by the sea, the 82nd landing party unpacked the Sheridans and sat with them - with the only tanks, this is to the question of the mobility and omnipotence of the coast over the sea.
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Did the presence of two Amer AUGs somehow influence Saddam's decision to attack Kuwait?

                      Oleg, you are manipulating, the amer gave Saddam the “green light”, and in writing, through their ambassador, stating that they had no interests in Kuwait. Once again, there is no need to oppose one to the other, the amer is calmly combining and not soaring.
            2. Delta
              Delta 6 March 2014 17: 12
              +4
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              It is interesting to know the opinion of all those who read about the role of the AUG in the conket war - Operation "Desert Buoy"


              Oleg, I have asked you the same question many times in this regard, which you leave unanswered. Namely: who, when and where stated that the aircraft carrier is a universal weapon that can replace the Air Force and other types of troops? who positioned them as a means of warfare, without engaging other weapons? who tried to win at least some war, resolve at least some conflict with the help of aircraft carriers ONLY? answering these questions, you will find the answer about a specific AUG and about any others.

              Replicating from article to article is: "The total contribution of six AUGs was 15% of the combat work of the Air Force of the Multinational Forces."You in fact ignore my question.
              1. Santa Fe
                6 March 2014 17: 55
                0
                Quote: Delta
                Who, when and where did they say that an aircraft carrier is a universal weapon that can replace the Air Force and other types of troops?

                Open any news portal - you will definitely meet the news: the Amer aircraft carrier has moved there and there. And below the 1000 of the same type of comments: bastards are pulling together! war is coming soon! fool

                People don’t notice the obvious
                Quote: Delta
                who tried to win at least some war, resolve at least some conflict with the help of aircraft carriers ONLY?

                Nobody tried, because it is obviously useless

                But winning a war with ONLY the air force is easy. Yugoslavia, Libya, but at least the same "Desert Storm" (the role of the decks can be neglected - they were fucking unnecessary there, they just got stupidly underfoot)
                1. Delta
                  Delta 6 March 2014 18: 41
                  +3
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Open any news portal - you will definitely meet the news: the Amer aircraft carrier has moved there and there. And below the 1000 of the same type of comments: bastards are pulling together! war is coming soon!


                  Well, let them comment. Your articles are also commented on and you never agreed with your opponents in anything))) is the indicator of the effectiveness of the arms of service - in the comments and fears of housewives? and yet he didn’t answer the question - who did the aircraft carriers contrast or compare with the Air Force? who said that they are able to replace them? Do they need it? in my opinion - no. They are able to ADD to other types of troops, like self-propelled guns that complement tanks well, how attack aircraft interact with fighters. That is why, such stupid admirals, politicians and country leaders have not yet completely abandoned aircraft carriers. By the way, to your favorite argument about the availability of 800 bases in the States - what will happen if they lose these (or at least most) bases?
                  1. Santa Fe
                    6 March 2014 19: 07
                    -1
                    Quote: Delta
                    an indicator of the effectiveness of the armed forces - in the comments and fears of housewives?

                    This is called public opinion.

                    The development of a promising Russian aircraft carrier is the best topic for cutting. Under the joyful screech of the jingoistic patriots, USC will steal another trillion rubles. The ship, of course, will not be built, but the attempt will be counted - otherwise, the fleet without Av))
                    Quote: Delta
                    Self-propelled anti-tank guns complement tanks well

                    In a local war, Av is a bad complement to the Air Force, that's the joke
                    Quote: Delta
                    still have not completely abandoned aircraft carriers

                    They refused 30 years ago - where is Av in Great Britain or Australia? Brita retired their last classic Arc Royal in 1979
                    Franks abandoned the construction of the second ShDG
                    Toy Italian Cavour - for the same toy fleet
                    China - stupidly copies everything
                    The Indians do not Av, but a complete disgrace
                    Quote: Delta
                    about the availability of 800 bases in the States - and what will happen if they lose these (or at least most) bases?

                    This will happen when the States cease to be a superpower and follow the path of the USSR. He also had many bases ...
                    1. Nayhas
                      Nayhas 6 March 2014 20: 06
                      +5
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      In a local war, Av is a bad complement to the Air Force, that's the joke

                      Well, then aircraft carriers are designed primarily to gain supremacy at sea. Here they have no equal, for carrier-based aviation is both a keen eye and a long arm. Striking along the coast is like extra. an option that, unlike the main task, is used more often.
                      Submarines are good too, of course, but they are actually blind. Of course, they themselves can also detect the enemy without using guidance from the side, only the radius is limited. Yes, the latest generation nuclear submarines are quiet, but this is achieved at speeds of up to 6 knots, but it is impossible to catch up with the ASG at that speed, you need to increase the speed, and this is fraught with detection because the main enemy of the nuclear submarines is anti-submarine aircraft armed with both active and passive detection means . Even if the aircraft cannot destroy the nuclear submarines, it will call into that square the ships that with their GAS will drive the nuclear submarines into a corner. And even if it does not detect nuclear submarines have to forget about the task. Here I want to immediately explain to those who wish to give examples of the detection of American aircraft carriers by our nuclear submarines:
                      1. It happened in peacetime
                      2. Before approaching the aircraft carrier, the nuclear submarines were discovered and led more than once, in wartime this would have ended with its destruction, and in peacetime they managed to escape using the fact that anti-submarine forces could only accompany the discovered underwater target.
                      3. There were not many precedents, the fact that for the discovery of the AUG submarine commanders was awarded indicates that this was not an ordinary event.
                      This applies to the main enemy of aircraft carriers. Now about the secondary.
                      An aircraft carrier will always be in a winning position relative to the enemy fleet that does not have one. For reconnaissance of an aircraft carrier will detect the enemy first, whatever the enemy’s long-range anti-ship missiles, an aircraft carrier can keep a safe distance by sending its aircraft to destroy enemy ships. Aviation can fall into the enemy’s anti-aircraft missile system in a compartment with false targets without entering the enemy’s air defense coverage area and even if the enemy can repel the attack without losses, the reduction of the SAM reserve will result in nothing to defend.
                      So the aircraft carrier is able to fulfill its main task in maintaining superiority at sea at 100%.
            3. Nayhas
              Nayhas 6 March 2014 19: 26
              +6
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              It is interesting to know the opinion of all those who have read about the role of the AUG in the conket war - Operation Desert Storm

              Too little information. For example, were 18117 sorties extra, or vice versa? Could land aviation using the same number of airfields make an additional 18117 sorties?
              Ground aviation depends on the home base. It is easier to disable an airfield than an aircraft carrier. Its coordinates are known, having Iskander-type weapons, there is a chance to disable the runway for a while (of course, it is not realistic to do this by SCUDs), a group of saboteurs can destroy aircraft on the ground or destroy ammunition or fuel depots. It is much more difficult to destroy an aircraft carrier, because at first it is necessary to find it, albeit in a relatively small area of ​​the Persian Gulf, but it is also moving and you need to constantly monitor it, which is extremely difficult in conditions of enemy superiority in the air and at sea.
              Let's just say aircraft carriers in 1991. were not superfluous.
              1. Santa Fe
                6 March 2014 19: 38
                0
                Quote: Nayhas
                18117 sorties were extra or vice versa?

                Given the lower combat load and the worst performance characteristics of deck aircraft

                Drop into the sea
                Quote: Nayhas
                Could land aviation using the same number of airfields make additional 18117 sorties?

                First, fewer sorties would be required. The F-111 / 15E and the deck Hornet have "slightly" different performance characteristics. Just like Hawkeye and Sentry

                It would take another five civilian airports in the region. And the problem is solved
                Quote: Nayhas
                Land aviation depends on the location. It is easier to disable an airfield than an aircraft carrier.

                Talking about vulnerability would make sense if Av could duplicate the tasks of air bases. Otherwise, 6 Av and 60 airbases
                Quote: Nayhas
                Let's just say aircraft carriers in 1991. were not superfluous.

                Just an example of inefficient fleet use
                1. Nayhas
                  Nayhas 6 March 2014 23: 25
                  +3
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Drop into the sea

                  Damn, okay. I propose moving on to a more detailed analysis. I suggest referring to primary sources, namely the Gulf War Air Power Survey Summary Report, TAKeany and EACohen, Washington, DC 1993.
                  On page 184 is a plate for the number of sorties of the US Air Force, United States Naval Forces and the United States Naval Aviation.
                  Due to the fact that we are interested in the actions of U.S. strike and reconnaissance aircraft, I give data on the number of sorties of the US Air Force and the U.S. Air Force (the ILCs operated from the air base in Bahrain) in comparison with the number of departures of the U.S. Navy and the United States Naval Air Force.
                  So:
                  1. US Air Force and ILC strike / fighter aircraft
                  A-10 8084
                  F-111E 458
                  F-111F 2423
                  F-117 1299
                  F-15C 5685
                  F-15E 2172
                  F-16 13087
                  A-6 795
                  F / A-18 4936
                  OV-10 482
                  TOTAL 39421
                  2. US Navy and ILC strike / fighter aircraft
                  A-6 4824
                  A-7 737
                  F / A-18 4449
                  F-14 4004
                  S-3B 1674
                  AV-8 3359
                  TOTAL 19047
                  Now with regards to reconnaissance aircraft, electronic warfare, military-industrial complex, repeaters
                  1. US Air Force and ILC strike / fighter aircraft
                  F-4G 2683
                  EF-111 1105
                  OA-10 660
                  RF-4C 822
                  EF-111 1105
                  E-3 379
                  E-8 42
                  EC-130 450
                  EC-135 24
                  EA-6B 504
                  TOTAL 7774
                  2. US Navy and ILC strike / fighter aircraft
                  EA-6B 1126
                  E-2C 1183
                  TOTAL 2309
                  TOTAL: the number of sorties of strike and fighter aircraft of the US Air Force and ILC amounted to 67% of the total, and carrier-based aviation 33%.
                  The number of aviation support flights was 77% and 23%, respectively.
                  Therefore, your statement that the contribution of carrier-based aircraft to the defeat of the Iraqi armed forces is miserable is not true.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    7 March 2014 01: 42
                    -4
                    Quote: Nayhas
                    TOTAL 19047

                    Quote: Nayhas
                    TOTAL 2309

                    You have a lot of inaccuracies.
                    No data on B-52 (1650 sorties, 40% of bombs dropped by the Americans)
                    Missing RC-135 data
                    Many EA-6B and ILC Harriers flew ashore
                    NO DATA ON ALLIES
                    What about Apache helicopter gunships?
                    But what about Ganships and the search and rescue vehicles of the Special Operations Command?

                    Also, the work of the Air Force tankers is not reflected in the above. 300 machines
                    Quote: Nayhas
                    67% of the total, and deck aviation 33%.
                    The number of flights of support aviation amounted to 77% and 23%

                    Nothing like this. The ratio of the number of flights of the Navy to the Air Force / ILC was 15 percent
                    Quote: Nayhas
                    Your statement that the contribution of carrier-based aircraft to the defeat of the Iraqi armed forces is miserable.

                    Given the worst characteristics of carrier-based aviation - one hundred percent true

                    And I emphasize the results of this work. 6 carrier groupings
                    And what can one?
                    1. Nayhas
                      Nayhas 7 March 2014 08: 22
                      +5
                      You have a lot of inaccuracies.
                      No data on B-52 (1650 sorties, 40% of bombs dropped by the Americans)

                      Oleg, it was a question of the fact that US ground aviation could quickly be transferred to the necessary area at the base of the ally from where it will work. B-52, however, wasn’t thrown anywhere, they flew from the air base in the UK as far as I remember. Yes, and nothing equivalent to the B-52 in deck aircraft simply can not be.
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Missing RC-135 data

                      Sory, though missed 197 sorties RC-135.
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Many EA-6B and ILC Harriers flew ashore

                      Yes, I missed the 504 departure of the EA-6B ILC. How many Harriers flew from the coastal sites is unknown, they can be neglected.
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      NO DATA ON ALLIES

                      Did you remember something about them? They were redundant in your words?
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      What about Apache helicopter gunships?

                      What do they have to do with it? Do they need concrete runways?
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      But what about Ganships and the search and rescue vehicles of the Special Operations Command?

                      The number of USSOCCent sorties is small, the same AC-130 completed only 104 sorties, and then when all the air defense was suppressed.
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Also, the work of the Air Force tankers is not reflected in the above. 300 machines

                      They are irrelevant to this issue, as is transport aviation.
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Given the worst characteristics of carrier-based aviation - one hundred percent true

                      You repeat this phrase as a mantra. What is worse deck aviation? The lion's share of combat sorties was made by F-16s (13087 sorties) with a carrying capacity of not more than 5,5 tons, while on deck F / A-18 it was 7,5 tons. Moreover, the F-16 had to fly further because were in Qatar and the UAE. In your opinion the single-engine light fighter F-16 is superior to the deck twin-engine F / A-18?
                      Oleg, you set yourself the task of belittling the role of carrier-based aviation, but you are doing it poorly.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        7 March 2014 10: 53
                        0
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        B-52 wasn’t thrown anywhere,

                        Why did you decide that? They flew with Saudi King Abdullah
                        Some cars were based in Spain and the UK - but still, most flew with Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean

                        There was even a departure from the United States - 14 thousand miles, the Yankees were kidding, practicing extra-long flights. And their home base was in bulk - in any state
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        How many Harriers flew offshore sites is unknown, can be neglected.

                        Fuck !!
                        86 Harriers, 3380 sorties. Almost everything comes from onshore sites
                        (it would be more useful if F-16 flew instead, but the Yankees wanted to fly to VTOL)
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        Did you remember something about them?

                        Tornadoes and Jaguars have made their contribution. Like the Saudi F-15
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        They were redundant in your words?

                        They themselves would not have decided anything. The US Air Force appendage, which saved the Yankees a couple of hundred million $
                        If necessary, they would have done without them - the Yankees did not cost anything to increase the grouping by an extra pair of hundreds of F-16, etc. winged war workers
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        What do they have to do with it? Do they need concrete runways?

                        Do you see this as their fault?
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        They are not relevant to this issue.

                        Fuck !!
                        Without tankers, the whole operation would have failed - even your favorite Navy regularly resorted to their services
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        What is worse deck aviation?

                        Limit take-off weight - this is all the problem
                        Quote: Nayhas
                        Do you think the F-16 single-engine lightweight fighter is superior to the F / A-18 twin-engine fighter?

                        Both for simple tasks.

                        But USAF can get it off its sleeve:
                        F-111 - 3000 sorties
                        F-15E - 2200
                        A-10 - 8000

                        And 40% of strategically important objects destroyed F-117. The Navy had nothing of the kind and never
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 6 March 2014 12: 29
      +6
      1. Well, the author, as usual, is not original. laughing we all understood that, in his opinion, AB is not a necessary waste of money for the sake of the show off of admirals of the whole world
      2. My favorites too are Midway and Coral Sea
      3. It seems like Ford promises 160 sorties a day in calm mode and 270 sorties a day for several days, which is not a few%, but 2 times more than
    3. Nayhas
      Nayhas 6 March 2014 14: 05
      +4
      Quote: Prometey
      It may be an amateurish look, but I would also add that the value of aircraft carriers drops sharply against an adversary with supersonic bombers like the TU-22M or TU-160 capable of carrying anti-ship missiles.

      The Tu-160 is armed with tactical missiles, and not anti-ship missiles. Tu-160 RCC is not. This is 5 kopecks for the post avt.
  2. aleksandrs95
    aleksandrs95 6 March 2014 08: 18
    0
    if it weren’t for high-precision strikes, I agree that the effectiveness of modern missile launchers is not high along the coast. It’s another matter against the fleet of another enemy and in the open ocean. Perhaps you should not hurry to create aircraft carriers;
    1. avt
      avt 6 March 2014 09: 21
      +8
      Quote: aleksandrs95
      Perhaps in a hurry to create aircraft carriers should not, it is better to take care of them off the coast by neutralizing and creating weapons against them.

      Why spend money ??? They, the Americans, will finally read Oleg's articles, see how many adherents he has, cry and cut the fuck to pieces, or drown him like that "Oriskani" for underwater tourists. And you can also, on the advice of Priest Smirnov, which he gave on events in Ukraine, just pray and let God deal with the aircraft carriers.
  3. inkass_98
    inkass_98 6 March 2014 08: 35
    +10
    All opinions fade against the background of one thing - Oleg Kaptsov’s deep dislike for aircraft carriers comes from the first lines of any of his creations. laughing
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 6 March 2014 12: 31
      +5
      Quote: inkass_98
      All opinions fade against the background of one thing - Oleg Kaptsov’s deep dislike for aircraft carriers comes from the first lines of any of his creations. laughing


      That is the question - what is the reason for such dislike?
      Obviously, something from the subconscious is climbing laughing
      1. Tyler Durden
        Tyler Durden 6 March 2014 19: 01
        +6
        Quote: inkass_98
        All opinions fade on the background of one thing - Oleg Kaptsov’s deep dislike for aircraft carriers



        Quote: cdrt
        That is the question - what is the reason for such dislike?



        laughing Probably when he was little his Aircraft Carrier BIT. laughing
  4. Prometey
    Prometey 6 March 2014 08: 56
    0
    Quote: inkass_98
    All opinions fade against the background of one thing - Oleg Kaptsov’s deep dislike for aircraft carriers comes from the first lines of any of his creations.

    And I like his articles. Nuclear submarines and strategic aviation are our asymmetric response to AUG floating scrap metal.
    1. Know-nothing
      Know-nothing 6 March 2014 10: 06
      +9
      Why is asymmetric? After all, the Americans also have boats, and strategic aviation, with a larger number and better quality. AUGi is one of the tools.
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 6 March 2014 12: 40
        +2
        Quote: Prometey
        And I like his articles. Nuclear submarines and strategic aviation are our asymmetric response to AUG floating scrap metal.


        Yeah. Asymmetric.
        As a result, they spent the same amount, if not more, of the AUG states (for a comparison of the cost of concepts see the article here + Nikolsky), who can fight in any war, even with the Papuans, even with the USSR, and we have PLACR with the Legend that are capable of only the first strike on the ACG (even if not only the first, even the second).
        In fact, it was precisely this asymmetry that guaranteed the superiority of the US Navy everywhere except near our coasts and MRA bases.
        All the more, remembering the teachings (I think in the 1970s), when the Americans showed well how to use the AUS to suppress everything that moves in Kamchatka and leave with impunity.

        Well, you can recall the experience of 1945.
        When carrier-based aircraft ALWAYS attacked coastal airfields unexpectedly (for mobility, in 8-10 hours of the night the ACS covered 300 miles easily).

        Well and yes, if you compare the number of carrier-based and land-based sorties in any war, of course the carrier-based ones will be much fewer than sorties. What is called a small spool ...
        1. Santa Fe
          6 March 2014 14: 35
          +1
          Quote: cdrt
          who can fight in any war, even with the Papuans, even with the USSR

          Avan carriers could not fight the USSR - such a war would end in half an hour after the total destruction of the USSR and the USA themselves. When Moscow and Washington burn out, everyone will no longer be up to AUG / AUS

          In the war with the Papuans, such ships are not needed. The numbers I brought
          how to suppress everything that moves in Kamchatka with the help of AUS and leave with impunity.

          Wow, in the 1991 year, they HAS BEEN unable to bomb Iraq for 43 days. It took another participation of 2000 Air Force aircraft
    2. Zabvo
      Zabvo 6 March 2014 12: 48
      0
      Oh damn, how did you get a complete lack of knowledge for what AUG is necessary and how to destroy it. We are afraid of AUG only with the S-3 "Viking" on board, this is in peacetime. During the war, the fact is that all our surface ships will be at the bottom. And to be guaranteed to destroy AUG, you just have to always be with her ...
    3. Zabvo
      Zabvo 6 March 2014 12: 48
      0
      Oh damn, how did you get a complete lack of knowledge for what AUG is necessary and how to destroy it. We are afraid of AUG only with the S-3 "Viking" on board, this is in peacetime. During the war, the fact is that all our surface ships will be at the bottom. And to be guaranteed to destroy AUG, you just have to always be with her ...
    4. Delta
      Delta 6 March 2014 17: 15
      +1
      Quote: Prometey
      Nuclear submarines and strategic aviation are our asymmetric response to AUG floating scrap metal.


      why respond to scrap?
      1. Santa Fe
        6 March 2014 17: 57
        0
        Quote: Delta
        why respond to scrap?

        http://topwar.ru/40888-burya-v-pustyne-udar-palubnoy-aviacii.html#comment-id-204
        0444
  5. Ruslan
    Ruslan 6 March 2014 09: 48
    +6
    all the same, probably the main purpose of aircraft carriers was and is air cover for the ships of their fleet: combat and landing. as well as the fight against enemy ships as well. but all these tasks are present in a big war, against a strong enemy. here is the United States and perverted with them as they can. what was Iraq in front of the military power of the Americans? zilch! Why rush, overexert yourself? if you can calmly, slowly, collect conventional aircraft and then gut them. which the Americans did. their actions in the "desert storm" were not due to the ineffectiveness of the aircraft carriers, but to the lack of danger from Iraq. if Saddam attacked Saudi Arabia, preventing the accumulation of forces against himself, the entire carrier-based aircraft immediately jumped into the air, interfering with the offensive. So in Korea, carrier-based aircraft thwarted the DPRK offensive. Amer needs huge aircraft carriers, with their military strategy. Does Russia Need? I think 5-6 with the performance characteristics of the French Foch de Gaulle will not interfere, to strengthen the air defense of the fleet formations, support the landing forces and other naval tasks. and, of course, they are not suitable for gaining air supremacy, in a war with a serious enemy, for this there is the air force.
  6. Wlad
    Wlad 6 March 2014 10: 24
    +3
    The effectiveness of aircraft carriers should not be judged by the number of sorties and the mass of bombs dropped. Aircraft carriers are a serious weapon of psychological pressure, a powerful argument in political dialogue with "unlikely friends." This is a powerful impetus for the development of technology, the rise of industry, jobs, authority in the eyes of the world community, which understands only strength. Yes, a lot more.
    And whatever one may say, alternatives to AUG are not visible even on the horizon. That's when we'll learn to build flying saucers ... If we have time to learn. Syria yesterday, Ukraine today, who tomorrow? We will build an aircraft carrier for 15 years, but it would not have hurt, it would have been yesterday! A lot of money, there is nothing to do with it, the infrastructure cannot be built in 15 years? For "Mistrals" it means it is possible, but for an aircraft carrier it is impossible? Remember Buran "- is it really effective? The whole country built it - and only one flight! Do you think they only built it for the sake of prestige?
    1. Santa Fe
      6 March 2014 14: 50
      -2
      Quote: W L A D
      it is a serious weapon of psychological pressure, a powerful argument in political dialogue

      It is interesting to know what psychological pressure the AHG had on Saddam Hussein? Did the presence of American aircraft carriers influence his decision to attack Kuwait?

      Hussein changed his mind only after the 43-day bombardment of his country by 2000 + US and NATO aircraft
      Quote: W L A D
      This is a powerful impetus for the development of technology, the rise of industry, jobs

      Create at least one competitive Russian class "C" car and launch it into serial production
  7. TAMERLAN 7
    TAMERLAN 7 6 March 2014 11: 05
    +3
    In a business like the fleet, it’s important to create a well-thought-out and balanced system. Moreover, this is not only the ship’s composition, naval aviation and infantry, but also the infrastructure. We must not forget about training with preparation! It makes no sense for us to compete with someone in the number of aircraft carriers. China is building 4 aircraft carriers, let's build six, the United States has 11 so far, let's get 14 !!! That's bullshit. We need to build aircraft carriers to support our fleet.
    I am completely sure that for the OCEAN PORTABLE Fleet, an aircraft carrier with air defense and early warning systems is needed in the first place and the possibility of anti-aircraft defense, ground strikes - in the second. If an ocean surface fleet is not needed, aircraft carriers are not needed.
  8. Pimply
    Pimply 6 March 2014 11: 42
    +3
    Do not you love Oleg aircraft carriers
    1. Tyler Durden
      Tyler Durden 6 March 2014 19: 07
      +1
      Quote: Pimply
      Do not you love Oleg aircraft carriers


      And also AEGIS Ships, and indeed the entire American Navy. And what did they do to him? request
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 6 March 2014 23: 31
        +1
        Quote: Tyler Durden
        And also AEGIS Ships, and indeed the entire American Navy. And what did they do to him?

        Oleg takes him critically, which is basically correct, he just categorically negatively refers to some points, raising his theories to an axiom.
  9. Professor
    Professor 6 March 2014 12: 02
    +5
    During the same time, Air Force planes poured thousands of tons of death on 78 Iraqi heads. Impressive?

    No, not impressive. B-52 heavy bombers could drop even more.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 6 March 2014 12: 50
      +6
      +100500

      Actually comparing on this indicator is how to compare BELAZ and a Mercedes S class in terms of the amount of cargo transported. Mercedes - complete garbage.
      After all, a simple thought - for ships of the Navy of the West, there are virtually no tasks at sea (i.e., confrontation with a comparable opponent for the dominance of the sea) only because the AUS guarantees an excellent degree of control.
      Only after understanding this fact should all other operations of the fleet be considered, incl. and "fleet against shore".
      Moreover, now the only country that is trying in the future to challenge at least locally the superiority of the US Navy is China.
      And what are they doing?
      - amazing laughing but deploying aircraft carrier construction program
      1. Santa Fe
        6 March 2014 15: 06
        0
        Quote: cdrt
        Actually comparing on this indicator is how to compare BELAZ and a Mercedes S class in terms of the amount of cargo transported.

        They are compared in all respects:
        - number of sorties
        - mass of dropped bombs
        - the number of enemy aircraft shot down
        - time of departures and delays (the wing of the most powerful aircraft carrier made its first flight only on the third day of the war)
        - the duration of departures (directly related to the distance from the target). The AUGs had problems with this - flying from the Red Sea longer than from bases in Saud. Arabia)

        The most interesting thing is that in Operation Desert Storm, the Air Force lost to the Air Force in all these parameters. There is even nothing to drink about here, everything is too obvious - the ABs were useless in that war
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 6 March 2014 23: 59
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          They are compared in all respects:
          - number of sorties
          - mass of dropped bombs
          - the number of enemy aircraft shot down

          Not all sorties were successful and the effectiveness of the dropped bombs was zero, what is the difference in this case, 2 tons dropped or 4? For example, when hunting for SCADs, 2493 sorties were carried out, although the Iraqis launched no more than a hundred missiles, and air defense units were destroyed. How much ammunition was unloaded to the desert to no avail?
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The AUGs had problems with this - flying from the Red Sea longer than from bases in Saud. Arabia)

          Yeah, no further than from Crete or airbases in Saudi Arabia located off the west coast such as Khamis Mushait, Jeda and Taif, or from airbases in Oman.
          Aircraft carriers located in the Persian Gulf were generally almost the closest to those who flew from Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE flew longer.
      2. kplayer
        kplayer 9 March 2014 11: 02
        0
        Quote: cdrt
        After all, a simple thought - for ships of the Navy of the West, there are virtually no tasks at sea (i.e., confrontation with a comparable opponent for the dominance of the sea) only because the AUS guarantees an excellent degree of control.
        Only after understanding this fact should all other operations of the fleet be considered, incl. and "fleet against shore".
        Moreover, now the only country that is trying in the future to challenge at least locally the superiority of the US Navy is China.
        And what are they doing?
        - amazing laughing but deploying aircraft carrier construction program

        - I agree! In marine doctrine, China does not shine with wisdom. Would you still know who the PRC has a potential enemy, We? or states?
        Quote: kplayer
        Aircraft carrier is a means of gaining superiority in air over the sea (oceans). Just as the ground forces need support and cover for the Air Force aviation, the fleet also needs naval (base and carrier-based) aviation. In other words, aviation is the guarantee of success in military operations, both over land and over the sea.
        The fact that we are observing the use of carrier-based carrier-based aircraft in local conflicts (in fact, there is no operational need) is a more common exception than the desire to keep aircraft carriers, crews and flight crews in combat readiness. It is better to use them than to keep on the balance sheet (5 permanent operational formations (fleets) and the ship's staff, taking into account rotation).
        For geographical reasons, US aircraft carriers are more necessary in the event of a war with China (aircraft in peacetime - 2,3 million people) than with Russia. So in the Atlantic zone, with the abundance of NATO land bases, they are not needed at all (they never went to the Baltic and Black Sea), and our D. East is not very populated in the Asia-Pacific region, it is not so full of potential targets and objects, here they have enough air bases in Japan, South Korea, Alaska and the Aleutian Islands.

        Topic: "Leap into the future" http://topwar.ru/40534-pryzhok-v-buduschee.html
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. Santa Fe
      6 March 2014 14: 56
      +1
      Quote: Professor
      B-52 heavy bombers could drop even more.

      25 thousand tons of bombs. They are well done

      78 - 25 = the remaining 53 thousand tons are for tactical aviation

      Impressive?
      1. postman
        postman 6 March 2014 20: 35
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Impressive?

        qty La there (B-52) and there?
        number of sorties (B-52) and there?
        ===
        The answer is obvious - NOT IMPRESSIVE !!!
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Professor
          Professor 6 March 2014 21: 25
          +1
          Quote: Postman
          The answer is obvious - NOT IMPRESSIVE !!!

          I am joining. Not impressive. Give statistics on the types of aircraft, deck and non-deck. F-18, F-16, F-15, B-52, etc. And on flights. Then we’ll be impressed.
        3. Santa Fe
          6 March 2014 21: 42
          0
          Quote: Postman
          qty La there (B-52) and there?
          number of sorties (B-52) and there?

          26 Stratophotresses
          1600 sorties

          Powerful beasts
  10. Blind
    Blind 6 March 2014 12: 30
    -2
    another amateurish "article"
    There are a lot of pearls, but this one was especially pleased:

    "Otherwise, you can get the Scud on the wide deck (as could be the case with the aircraft carrier" Saratoga ")."
    - shtoa ?! author, do you even know that Scud, it’s the R-17, is generally induced only by coordinates, and in principle it’s not capable of getting into a moving target? not to mention the fact that even the original R-17th KVO is 450 meters, while the North Korean and Iraqi variants have even more ... up to 2-3 km. It got to the point that during the events described, the Iraqi skads could not really get into Israeli cities! up to 80% of missiles fell in non-populated areas


    wait, wait .. this is not the comrade who here from time to time publishes "Notes of a Madman about battleships" ?? )
    then everything is clear.
    1. Santa Fe
      6 March 2014 15: 15
      -5
      Quote: Blind
      author, do you even know that Scud, it’s P-17, is generally induced only by coordinates, and it’s possible to get into a moving target basically not capable of?

      Here amused



      A body flying along a ballistic trajectory in the Earth's gravitational field will certainly fall on its surface. Therefore, "Scud" is, in principle, capable of hitting any object on the surface of the land / sea

      Another question, what is the likelihood of such an event - Scud getting into an aircraft carrier? The funny case of Saratoga showed that the probability is small, but it is
      1. Professor
        Professor 6 March 2014 21: 29
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Another question, what is the likelihood of such an event - Scud getting into an aircraft carrier? The funny case of Saratoga showed that the probability is small, but it is

        Probability is an interesting thing, but getting Skad on an aircraft carrier is as real as meeting Schwarzenegger in a Tajik aul. Saddam could not get down in Tel Aviv, and this city is not much larger than the flight deck. request
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 7 March 2014 22: 02
          0
          Quote: Professor
          Probability is an interesting thing, but getting Skad on an aircraft carrier is as real as meeting Schwarzenegger in a Tajik aul. Saddam could not get down in Tel Aviv, and this city is not much larger than the flight deck.

          Nevertheless, the probability exists.
          1. Professor
            Professor 7 March 2014 22: 04
            +1
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            Nevertheless, the probability exists.

            For an aircraft carrier, it’s about the same as being sunk by an asteroid.
    2. postman
      postman 6 March 2014 20: 45
      -1
      Quote: Blind
      - shtoa ?!

      Respected....
      How do you think Anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles (of the same date of "birth", based on the same principles and technologies) hit moving highly maneuverable targets (and for an aircraft, a maneuver with high angular and linear velocities / accelerations, and even in three coordinates?
      Replace:
      - antiquity gyroscopic instruments (1СБ9, 1СБ10, 1СБ12), 1СБ13М (1СБ13), etc., for a modern seeker (even PAGSN-Shooting S-125, S-200 for ground and surface targets)
      - take option 9K72-1 - with a detachable warhead, trajectory controlled in the final section using an optical homing head , or operating time according to OCD "Aerofon", a detachable controlled warhead 9N78 (weighing 1017 kg) with an optical homing 9E423, and so on.
      ?
      FALL!
      Only all this is not economically viable.
      And so .. the mona’s grace.
      The basic model of the R-17 was intended primarily for use with nuclear warheads, accuracy is not important here, and could not be provided at that time
  11. postman
    postman 6 March 2014 12: 36
    0
    Quote: Author
    with the development of the nuclear submarine fleet, jet aircraft and the emergence of air refueling systems, combat value

    US carrier-based aviation: Boeing F / A-18 = 765 + Northrop F-5E = 32
    / no bombers, no strategists, no attack aircraft)
    USAF: fighters = 2222 (F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35), strategists = 180 (B-52, B-1B, B-2), attack aircraft = 390 (A-10),
    ====================
    Now take and recount your calculations according to the SPECIFIC parameter: the number of sorties (combat effectiveness / number of affected objects, number of bombs dropped, etc.) SECTION for number of aircraft =?
    how is the result?
    Quote: Author
    During the same time, Air Force planes poured thousands of tons of death on 78 Iraqi heads. Impressive?

    no
    =============================
    multipurpose submarines
    On January 1, 2014 - 41 boats of the type "Los Angeles":12 vertical shaftsdesigned to launch missiles Harpoon and Tomahawk (only 688i), let all 12x41 = 492 + 3 of the Sivulf type: up to 50 Harpoon, Tomahawk missiles with launch from torpedo tubes, let all 3x50 = 150
    EVERYTHING GATHERED (in Persian, IF GETTED), pulnul ... and? to reload! Where? how much?
    AND? without an AIR COVER (marine naturally too), not a single mad bullet will.

    Further: the cost of 1 plane of departure, which is about $ 20000, the cost of one missile from $ 1, I will not say anything about the "standard hour" for nuclear submarines.
    =========================================

    Refueling airplanes: even all 508 collected in a heap (and this does not happen and cannot be) will not be able to provide aviation refueling at the required point of military operations.

    -------------------------------------
    The fact that US Navy aircraft use ground-based aerodromes (when possible) is natural.
    But it’s not always possible
    Vietnam, especially "flight" - for example
    1. Santa Fe
      6 March 2014 15: 43
      -2
      Quote: Postman
      Boeing F / A-18 = 765 + Northrop F-5E = 32 ... USAF: fighters = 2222 (F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35)

      And here is Tiger and Raptor? What time are we talking about?
      Quote: Postman
      / no bombers, no strategists, no attack aircraft)

      There are a lot of things on the decks of aircraft carriers. What the Air Force has

      RC-135W, EP-3C Aries, E-3 Centry, stealth, GiStars, today there are no UAVs (Ripper), no heavy interceptors (F-22), strategic reconnaissance (U-2S, TR-1, unmanned RQ- 4 GlobalHock and MQ-4С Titon), normal tankers (RC-135, KC-46), P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft
      Quote: Postman
      Further: the cost of 1 departure plane, which is about $ 20000, the cost of one missile is from $ 1, I will not say anything about the "standard hour" for nuclear submarines

      Actually, the article was comparing the Air Force and Navy aviation. The deck "centurions" were unsuitable for the war with Iraq.

      About the high cost of the Tomahawk:

      each bomb dropped by a deck aircraft is worth more than 2 million dollars. Calculate the standard hour for an aircraft carrier, flight training hours to maintain / upgrade pilots, support for combat flight
      Quote: Postman
      even all put together in a heap (but this does not happen and cannot be)

      Why doesn’t it happen - during the Desert Storm, the Yankees drove 300 tankers KC-135 and KC-46 to the Middle East
      Quote: Postman
      they will not be able to provide aviation refueling at the required point of operations.

      If you do not consider a deliberately delusional example with about. Easter - Air Force aircraft supported by tankers MAY provide strikes and patrols over any land and sea area
      Quote: Postman
      Vietnam, especially "flight" - for example

      What do you mean by that?
      The Yankees, until recently, were transporting Vietnamese children by transport aircraft (Operation Babylift)
      1. postman
        postman 6 March 2014 18: 50
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And here is Tiger and Raptor? What time are we talking about?

        I wrote for now, but that’s not the point.
        TAKE at that time all the coalition planes (2300 if I’m not mistaken) and all the DECKERS (well, there are intruders, F-14)
        AND SIMPLY recount your numbers SPECIFICALLY (air sorties, bomb load, success)
        you will be surprised
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        There are a lot of things on the decks of aircraft carriers.

        So be kind recount where there is no BECOME ZERO
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        each bomb dropped by a deck aircraft costs more than $ 2 million

        and how much is EVERY WINGED missile launched from a nuclear submarine, ADD: the normal working hours of a nuclear submarine and the hours it takes to prepare a qualified submariner.
        Marvel
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Yankees drove to the Middle East 300

        in my opinion out of 600 (!)
        These 300 (rotation, smoke break, self-refueling, runway) will not be able to completely ensure the PERMANENT HANGING of the Air Force aviation over a given area REMOTE from the airfield.
        I mean, what is your thesis
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        the advent of air refueling systems, the combat value of these huge
        bluff, not true in principle.
        Refueling aircraft will be able to solve the problem of refueling aviation (remotely from the coast) for the first ten, for two (maybe), but will not solve for the wing
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        patrolling over any land and sea area

        no
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The Yankees were taken to the last

        Where were the attack aircraft (fighters, attack aircraft) based?
        1. Santa Fe
          6 March 2014 20: 01
          0
          Quote: Postman
          AND SIMPLY recount your numbers SPECIFICALLY (air sorties, bomb load, success)

          on the decks of 6 ships were:
          Drums - 85 Ф-18, 95 А-6, 24 А-7
          Fighters - 100 F-14
          They had 18177 sorties and ~ 10 thousand tons of dropped bombs (of course, among these 18177 sorties were also AWACS-PLO)

          Now for comparison:
          44 F-117 made 1250 sorties and dropped 2000 tons of bombs
          F-15 fighters - 120 vehicles - 5900 take-offs
          F-16 - 249 vehicles - 13 450 sorties
          Needle Strike - 48 units - 2200 departures
          Tandebolts - 144 units - 8000 sorties, they accounted for 90% of the Mavrick missiles launched

          Quote: Postman
          hours of training a qualified diver.

          The crew of the submarine is on average 40 times smaller than the crew of an aircraft carrier
          Quote: Postman
          PERMANENT Hovering of the Air Force aviation, over a specified area REMOTE from the airfield.

          But is it even necessary?

          And what does "CONSTANT VANE" mean? Nobody was hanging over Iraq - the MNF aviation "swept" in waves of 1000 cars, a couple of times a day. Then the scouts flew in and evaluated the results
          1. postman
            postman 6 March 2014 20: 30
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            on the decks of 6 ships were:

            18177 (10 tons) / 000 =59,8 sorties (32,9 tons))/ plane === in the "heap"
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Now for comparison:

            F-117: 28,4 sorties, 45,45 tons of bombs (someone after that will fart that the machine is useless ???? "saw the dough")
            F-15: 49,17
            F-16: 54,01
            Strike Needles: 45,9
            A-10: 55,5 ("Worker of the fields")
            And?
            59,8 sorties (32,9 tons))
            And after that, you say that carrier-based aircraft is a "worthless expensive toy" ???
            BUT!!!
            math buddy, just a digital, but how impressive
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The crew of the submarine is on average 40 times smaller than the crew of an aircraft carrier

            CREW CREW (crew of 14 officers, 127 junior ranks),on average 141 (70,5) TIME MORE DECK AIRCRAFT CREW
            WHY ARE YOU ATTRACTING COOK? And other quartermaster, the conversation went:
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            flight training hours for retention / continuing education pilots,


            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            But is it even necessary?

            Well, here's a convoy with foodstuffs sailed through the Atlantic to Ukraine (damn ... corn on the tongue already, to Europe essno), "Red Storm" for example.

            There will be no air cover (well, anti-submarine defense essno) -Forget about the convoy
            1. Santa Fe
              6 March 2014 21: 58
              -1
              Quote: Postman
              18177 (10 tons) / 000 = 304 sorties (59,8 tons)) / plane === in the "heap"

              No - see picture
              After all, you did not take into account drlo / EW + PLO, tankers
              Quote: Postman
              There will be no air cover (well, anti-submarine defense essno) -Forget about the convoy

              To do this, you must certainly create super-nimitz (Ford?)
              Can a Midway-level ship be enough?

              And the aircraft carrier has no relation to PLO
              1. postman
                postman 6 March 2014 22: 34
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                After all, you did not take into account drlo / EW + PLO, tankers

                I agree ... But I was based on your data.
                Think -5%? will arrange?
                All the same, the result is IMPRESSIVE. And the conclusion - carrier-based aircraft - the "work" horse of the US Navy.
                By the way: if the USSR WAS, any Air Force (or the most) minuscule) would be used in such a conflict.
                Would just be afraid to "bare the front"
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Can a Midway-level ship be enough?

                Excursion, enough for the eyes.
                Well, what to do .. that's the Americans

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                And to PLO

                this is me to the fact that WITHOUT a plane convoy SAME did not reach.
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 7 March 2014 22: 27
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        If you do not consider a deliberately delusional example with about. Easter

        And if they find a lot of oil there?
  12. Blind
    Blind 6 March 2014 12: 56
    +2
    In Operation Desert Storm, the wings of six aircraft carriers made 18 117 sorties.

    During the same period, land-based airplanes flew over 98 thousands of sorties over Iraq and Kuwait.

    The total contribution of the six AUGs was at the level of 15% of the combat work of the Air Force of the Multinational Force.

    And what value would they have separately?

    the author "does not know at all in mathematics"
    for reference, the coalition forces included about 2300 aircraft. deck of them not more than 500 21% of decked aircraft made about 16% of sorties (18 thousand of the total number of 116 thousand sorties). Where is the colossal difference? And even if the author turned on the brain, he could find and comprehend the following data:

    The composition of the standard at that time (early 90s) for Nimitsa wing:

    F-14 Grumman Tomcat 20 is a pure interceptor, not suitable for striking at ground targets .. let's say - deck MIG-31
    F / A-18 McDonnell Hornet 19 - Multipurpose Fighter Bomber
    A-6E Grumman Intruder 18 - attack aircraft
    EA-6B Grumman Prowler 5 - EW airplane
    E-2C Grumman Hawkeye 4 - AWACS
    S-3B Lockheed Viking 8 - anti-submarine aircraft
    KA-6D Grumman Intruder 4 Refueling Machine
    SH-3H Sikorsky Sea King 6 is your helicopter.

    Now remember what coalition aviation was mainly involved in? 90% of departures went to attacks on ground targets.
    so, 47 adapted for striking at ground targets of aircraft on each aircraft carrier. that is, 300 pieces for all 6 AUGs.
    if we comprehend these data, it turns out that carrier-based aviation was even used a little more actively than ground-based aircraft .. this is despite the fact that a huge amount of bomber and multipurpose aircraft was just caught on ground-based
    1. Santa Fe
      6 March 2014 15: 17
      +1
      Quote: Blind
      90% of the departures went to attacks on ground targets.

      Do not write nonsense

      More than half of all departures fall on the support of strike groups
  13. navigator
    navigator 6 March 2014 13: 25
    +3
    Aircraft carrier is very serious. Assessing their value by masses is stupid. This is how to evaluate the effectiveness of air defense by the number of goals achieved, and not by the number of unaffected goals. The fight against AB is very difficult. Those who watched the AMG in a sturdy building at the SAC know that just understanding the situation is a problem, and even using a weapon ... Passage on the use of SCAD on AUG is just a joke.
  14. navigator
    navigator 6 March 2014 13: 30
    0
    And, by the way, the detachment of forces on the AMG was actually the 3rd MRAD regiment. When using the SSGN pr 945 4-6 units in the so-called "washer"
    1. Blind
      Blind 6 March 2014 13: 45
      +2
      in .. 3 regiment is about 75 cars * ??
      despite the fact that we now have the whole country no more than 120 units of Tu-22M3 left of which no more than a third can fly into the air
  15. Evgan
    Evgan 6 March 2014 14: 16
    +2
    Of course, the view is amateurish, but to draw conclusions about the AUG inefficiency based on the percentage ratio of the work of the Navy and Air Force is somewhat incorrect. Of course, the Air Force should have more striking power, planes for TTX - the best characteristics, and in the presence of land airfields, the fulfillment of combat missions is more justified by them. But if there are no land airports nearby, the role of the AUG becomes extremely important.
    In the case of Iraq in 1991, the Yankees could use land-based airfields - and naturally the Air Force pilots surpassed their naval counterparts in terms of work. Yes, and a combat flight of a land-based aircraft, I suspect, is cheaper than the departure of a Navy aircraft. This may have also determined the "load" distribution.
    1. Santa Fe
      6 March 2014 16: 16
      0
      Quote: EvgAn
      But if there are no land airports nearby, the role of the AUG becomes extremely important.

      an attempt to get into Kuwait’s airspace with the help of one or two, even six aircraft carriers, would have yielded nothing but brutal losses among the equipment and personnel of the air wings
      Quote: EvgAn
      In the case of Iraq in 1991, the Yankees could use ground airfields

      And in which of the wars they could not use them?
      1. Evgan
        Evgan 6 March 2014 16: 27
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        an attempt to get into Kuwait’s airspace with the help of one or two, even six aircraft carriers, would have yielded nothing but brutal losses among the equipment and personnel of the air wings


        Six aircraft carriers are, if I am not mistaken, approximately 400 aircraft. I will not make assumptions about what this air group in Iraq could achieve, but, in my opinion, the force is more than impressive. As for 1-2 aircraft carriers, I probably agree.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And in which of the wars they could not use them?

        They are yes. But if you answer to talk about the effectiveness of aircraft carriers as applied not only to the United States, which has air bases around the world, then the question loses its meaning.
        1. Santa Fe
          6 March 2014 16: 57
          +1
          Quote: EvgAn
          approximately 400 LA

          Quote: EvgAn
          what could this air group in Iraq achieve

          To succeed in Iraq, the Yankees needed to drive 2600 aircraft
          Quote: EvgAn
          But if you answer to talk about the effectiveness of aircraft carriers as applied not only to the United States, which has air bases around the world, then the question loses its meaning.

          Of course loses. Who else but the States is ready to fight around the world?

          This country was called the Soviet Union, and it had hundreds of bases and allies throughout the world.

          How else?
  16. kirpich
    kirpich 6 March 2014 14: 38
    0
    I apologize to the author of the article, but if Kovalenko and Ostroumov’s guide to foreign fleets doesn’t lie to me (Military Publishing House 1971), then Essex is at number nine in the dry dock, but not RANGER (Randolph?).
    1. Santa Fe
      6 March 2014 16: 14
      0
      Quote: kirpich
      at number nine in the dry dock is Essex himself, but by no means RANGER (Randolph?).

      Not 9, but 61

      Large Ranger (75 thousand tons) cannot be confused with Essex from WWII (36 thousand tons)

      In the distance are Coral Sea (43 number, Midway type) and Hancock (19, Esex type)
      1. kirpich
        kirpich 6 March 2014 16: 53
        0
        I'm sorry, it's my fault, I read the wrong number. request
    2. TAMERLAN 7
      TAMERLAN 7 6 March 2014 16: 17
      0
      The dry dock shows the aircraft carrier number 61, CV-61 - “Ranger”, and “Essex” - CV-9 (the flag was lowered in 1973).
  17. Dezinto
    Dezinto 6 March 2014 14: 41
    +2
    ahh yeah damn are you serious ?? Again disputes about aircraft carriers ?? Again Oleg met with Profesor? Thank you for the article and the work. In fact, I always learn a lot from the articles (sorry if I praise but the fact) Oleg correctly competently approaches the material. And the professor ..... I will not say anything ... but you, dear, are always right there.
  18. Taoist
    Taoist 6 March 2014 15: 16
    +5
    Love for "battleships" reaching to ecstasy, and "holy" hatred for aircraft carriers ... In general, this is already becoming predictable and unconditionally recognizable. But what does this have to do with reality?
    As one hero of the famous TV series "The Truth Is Somewhere Out There" said.
    The truth is that "wunderwaffe is a fantasy" - and no matter how we try to pull the "owl of truth" onto the globe of our sympathies and antipathies, it will not fit into it.
    There are situations when carrier-based aircraft, in principle, are irreplaceable, and in the same way there are situations when it is the "fifth wheel" in the war cart. Considering these situations separately, we can conclude that no fleet in the world can do without aircraft carriers and that aircraft carriers are an expensive whim of admirals ... Both will be equally and equally wrong.
    1. Santa Fe
      6 March 2014 16: 19
      0
      Taoist, you are a real philosopher))

      The trick is that situations when
      Quote: Taoist
      carrier aircraft is, in principle, indispensable

      not observed for 50 years

      But there are more than enough examples when she was the "fifth wheel"
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 6 March 2014 17: 50
        +8
        Yes, I’m a philosopher, but I’m also a practitioner who has some practical experience in military affairs and, in particular, in the use of carrier-based aircraft. But I’m not ready to absolutize even my knowledge and experience - simply because everything changes and reality (especially in combat conditions) often violates all cunningly and not very conceived plans. AUG has one indisputable advantage - they allow you to quickly (much faster than the transfer of ground forces) to respond to a changing situation and threats. And this is precisely their main tactical advantage that often redeems their really serious shortcomings. Aircraft-carrying ships are often an initiative and a pace, which in a real battle is more valuable than the number of sorties and the tonnage of dropped ammunition.
        1. Santa Fe
          6 March 2014 18: 04
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          AUG has one indisputable advantage - they allow you to quickly (significantly faster than the transfer of ground forces)

          F-111E fighter-bombers from the 77th squadron of the 20th air wing were transferred from Upper Hayford airbase to the Turkish Incirlik base in early 1990 in August. From there they attacked the northern regions of Iraq. Almost simultaneously, F-111F planes from the "fraternal" 493 squadron flew from Leikinhirt to Zaragoza. Interestingly, the transfer of two squadrons of “semi-strategic” aircraft to NATO's advanced airfields was motivated by the usual exercises of the North Atlantic block.

          In Saudi Arabia, the first 20 F-111F aircraft from the 492 and 493 th squadrons of the 48 tactical air wing appeared on 25 August. Fighter-bombers performed a non-stop flight with several refueling in the air along the route Leukinhirt - Typhus airbase. This flight can certainly be considered a training exercise: the planes flew with a combat load - each carried four 2000-pound GBU-15 adjustable bombs and two Sidewinder SDs, some of the vehicles were additionally equipped with underwing containers for firing IR traps and dipole reflectors, in the back of the fuselage, AN / ALQ-131 containers with electronic warfare equipment were attached. Another twenty F-111F flew to Saudi Arabia on 2 September. The flight was carried out with suspended adjustable bombs and Sidewinder missiles. EW-EF-111F EW aircraft were also based at the Typh airfield.


          Is a ship faster than an airplane? Or do you need to drag a floating airdrome everywhere behind you?
          Quote: Taoist
          Carrier ships are often an initiative and a pace

          The first combat flight from Roosevelt took place only on the third day of the war)))

          In Yugoslavia, he generally came only on the 12 day
          1. BIG
            BIG 29 October 2014 08: 39
            0
            And why do not you take into account the transfer for the needs of the air force of fuel, ammunition and maintenance personnel? And also with what to feed these people and where to place? And where to store fuel and ammunition? And heal, and protect ..
            So how many weeks will it take to prepare for a full-fledged operation by the Air Force?
            While the AUG is a "combat unit in itself" and supply ships are part of it.
  19. Wlad
    Wlad 6 March 2014 15: 22
    +3
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: W L A D
    it is a serious weapon of psychological pressure, a powerful argument in political dialogue

    It is interesting to know what psychological pressure the AHG had on Saddam Hussein? Did the presence of American aircraft carriers influence his decision to attack Kuwait?

    Hussein changed his mind only after the 43-day bombardment of his country by 2000 + US and NATO aircraft
    Quote: W L A D
    This is a powerful impetus for the development of technology, the rise of industry, jobs

    Create at least one competitive Russian class "C" car and launch it into serial production

    What does Hussein have to do with it? I'm talking about defending Russia's interests! Or do you think that the arrest of our ships is the norm? Is an attack on Libya also the norm? Do you think it would take place if our aircraft carrier was there? But in fact, we can do very little far from our borders! They drove half of the combat-ready fleet to Mediterranean! Is this also the norm? We want to have an ocean-going fleet, we will have to build aircraft carriers! And if we don’t want to, we must say so bluntly: "We don’t need this"
    And at the expense of "competitive Russian class C car" - do not confuse warm with soft! The defense of the state is not a business, it is not making money in a certain niche of the car industry!
    1. Santa Fe
      6 March 2014 16: 23
      +2
      Quote: W L A D
      Attack on Libya is also the norm? Do you think it would have happened if our aircraft carrier were there?

      I think it did.

      Would the Su-33 openly attack the US Air Force F-16?
      Quote: W L A D
      And at the expense of "competitive Russian class C car" - do not confuse warm with soft! Defense of the state is not a business, not making a "dough"

      Strange, an hour ago you said the opposite:
      about the development of technology, the rise of industry and new jobs
  20. damodan
    damodan 6 March 2014 15: 25
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    Love for "battleships" reaching to ecstasy, and "holy" hatred for aircraft carriers ... In general, this is already becoming predictable and unconditionally recognizable. But what does this have to do with reality?
    As one hero of the famous TV series "The Truth Is Somewhere Out There" said.
    The truth is that "wunderwaffe is a fantasy" - and no matter how we try to pull the "owl of truth" onto the globe of our sympathies and antipathies, it will not fit into it.
    There are situations when carrier-based aircraft, in principle, are irreplaceable, and in the same way there are situations when it is the "fifth wheel" in the war cart. Considering these situations separately, we can conclude that no fleet in the world can do without aircraft carriers and that aircraft carriers are an expensive whim of admirals ... Both will be equally and equally wrong.

    I can not disagree with you;)
  21. Hemdall
    Hemdall 6 March 2014 19: 27
    0
    the regulars have an enchanting love for aircraft carriers, they are ready to forgive them everything in absentia, well, so the fleet section, eh .. youthful dreams.
    Young men, like generals, always prepare for past wars. The Japanese, too, dreamed: dreadnought ... armor ... the main caliber ... Yamato ... sank without making a single volley main caliber.
    1. Delta
      Delta 6 March 2014 20: 04
      0
      Quote: Heymdall
      The Japanese also dreamed: dreadnoughts ... armor ... the main caliber ...


      and at the same time built aircraft carriers. And set up more than the same States
      1. Assistant
        Assistant 6 March 2014 23: 39
        0
        The Japanese also dreamed: dreadnoughts ... armor ... the main caliber ...


        and at the same time built aircraft carriers. And set up more than the same States


        C'mon, if only you tuned. They were also the first to develop concepts for the use of new types of weapons, and, in fact, in accordance with these concepts they used: first carrier-based aircraft, and then heavy anti-ship cruise missiles against the enemy’s linear forces. And as far as I remember, in addition to these two concepts, only one is currently applied: crush the enemy with economic sanctions so that he does not have a fleet at all. It is now being implemented by mattress covers.
  22. barbiturate
    barbiturate 6 March 2014 19: 50
    +3
    A ridiculous article, Oleg is again in his own style, he perverted everything as he wanted, well, judging by the forum, there are a lot of people who still think with their heads, not their heads)
    Oleg’s main mistake is a SYSTEM error. Well, who told Oleg and drove into the brain that the aircraft carriers were created to conquer !! strong !! states !! and supposedly from this point of view they should be considered? Well who? Why does the author with pleasure refute the same nonsense invented by him? Let the author tell who ?? where ?? when?? claimed !! in the world that with the help of aircraft carriers you can capture !!! countries with millions of armies and a population of tens !! million (like Iraq, since we are talking about it) ??? Well, who told him this? Oleg, tell me a secret !! He himself writes that hundreds of thousands of soldiers and 2000 aircraft of the Air Force were needed for the operation, but he concludes from this that the aircraft carrier is nothing. That is, if a ship or group of ships is unable to defeat a country with a population of 30 million people, then such ships are not needed !! Good conclusion?))
    Why does Oleg not offer a ship armed with missiles (such as a destroyer or a cruiser) to attack and conquer countries, why does Oleg not offer a ship sailing under water and armed with torpedoes to conquer countries ?? But he offers a ship armed with aviation! and says like "oh, you can't conquer India or Iraq either alone or in 6 ships)), then you don't need anything and the fleet does not need you. Personally, I just laugh like a gray gelding over such articles of Oleg)) I drove myself nonsense to the head, he himself with pleasure (judging by the number of articles on this topic) refutes))
    About Scud on an aircraft carrier in general caused a homeric laughter)) Oleg, theoretically, 11 randomly taken from the street people can beat the Brazil national football team when playing this same football)), but what are the chances? Or a boat with explosives looking for an aircraft carrier in the ocean ...)) Articles should be written sober, it seems like good articles are often obtained, but as you start writing about ARMS, you simply don’t
    1. Delta
      Delta 6 March 2014 20: 05
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      Well who? Why does the author with pleasure refute the same nonsense invented by him? Let the author tell who ?? where ?? when?? claimed !! in the world that with the help of aircraft carriers you can capture !!! countries with millions of armies and a population of tens !! million (like Iraq, since we are talking about it) ??? Well, who told him this?


      won't answer. I asked a hundred times - no answer))
    2. Santa Fe
      6 March 2014 20: 13
      -1
      Quote: barbiturate
      That is, if the ship or a group of ships beyond their strength to defeat a country with a population of 30mln people, then such ships are not needed !!

      Then what is "force projection"?

      Carriers with their wings and an escort stand like an air force. But the Air Force can easily defeat a country with a population of 30 million people. Carriers - no.

      Do it yourself
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 6 March 2014 21: 37
        +1
        The Air Force alone cannot do anything either. Any "power projection" is always an integrated approach. An aircraft carrier is nothing without an escort, an escort without an aircraft carrier will not fight much either, an air force not backed up by ground support can serve as a scarecrow at best. Even the supermassive raids had virtually no effect on the military production of the Third Reich. There is no wunderwaffe ... and there is no single branch of the armed forces that "can do everything."
        1. Santa Fe
          6 March 2014 22: 11
          +1
          Quote: Taoist
          The Air Force can’t do anything either.

          Yes, yes, tell it to Saddam Hussein in 1991.
          Or Milosevic in 1999
          Quote: Taoist
          an excursion without an aircraft carrier also won’t take much,

          Destroyers fired on Libya without the presence of AB
          Nuclear submarines are generally extremely autonomous
          Quote: Taoist
          Even supermassive attacks practically did not affect the military production of the Third Reich

          It's all about the accuracy of the bombing and the mass of the combat load. Now strike the needle many times stronger and more accurately

          secondly it is a myth. The bombing affected - from 1943, the Reich’s military production grew several times slower than in the USSR or in the USA, because in Germany the civilian production sector was practically curtailed from 1944 — no more radios and gramophones

          Now USAF will "roll out" any country the size of Yugoslavia or Iraq in a month
      2. barbiturate
        barbiturate 7 March 2014 03: 22
        +1
        "Force projection" is one or more ships ?? And why do you call your favorite destroyers, cruisers, and submarines so dismissively - an escort? So nafig aircraft carriers are not needed, but their ESCORT without aircraft carriers is needed, did you think? And what will be the effectiveness of this escort with and without an aircraft carrier?

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Carriers with their wings and an escort stand like an air force. But the Air Force can easily defeat a country with a population of 30 million people. Carriers - no.


        do not tell nonsense, aircraft carriers with an escort cost MUCH LESS THAN the Air Force, because aircraft carriers with an escort are far from the whole fleet (for example, from the same USA) and all the same, allocations for the fleet in the USA are smaller and decently less than for the Air Force. In addition, no Air Force defeated any country, there are no such examples, there has always been a comprehensive approach.
        And is it generally correct to compare? I can also answer that a ground-based American military base, with 80 airplanes and a brigade of marines and other air defense missile systems there, with many hundreds of supply trucks, fuel and lubricants and MTO services, will not be able to capture Syria, for example), will we liquidate the base? Duck can the base come in handy for our troops? support there, scout, just deliver blows ... Not not, because Syria will not be able to capture - liquidate, useless))
  23. Taoist
    Taoist 6 March 2014 21: 31
    +3
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Is a ship faster than an airplane? Or do you need to drag a floating airdrome everywhere behind you?


    You are inattentive (or deliberately distort) - the plane is faster, it’s only by itself a flight to a new place of basing (even if we assume that we have it nearby, but now you can’t take off from the first glade that you get, concrete and not simple ones are needed) it is also necessary to transfer supplies, technical personnel and maintenance equipment ... And these are completely different time and transportation costs. The aircraft carrier in this regard is a mobile airbase - I carry everything with me. And the strip, and TEC and ABATO ...
    1. Santa Fe
      6 March 2014 22: 24
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      even if we assume that we have it nearby

      USA officially has 800 bases around the world
      but they usually don’t have enough and they use allied airbases and civilian airports
      Quote: Taoist
      there you also need to transfer the supply,

      Will be delivered as needed (as on an aircraft carrier)
      as part of the 2 Maritime Transport Command specialized weapons transport serving the Air Force
      Tanker accounts go to dozens + 26 high-speed container carrier tankers
      Quote: Taoist
      technical staff and maintenance equipment ...

      Ten flights of military transport aviation
      Quote: Taoist
      And the strip, and TEC and ABATO ...

      Do you really think that at the Turkish Incirlik airbase (USAF property) or the Saudi airbase them. King Faisal missing the necessary infrastructure ???

      Kuwait Air Force Base, 80
  24. Taoist
    Taoist 6 March 2014 22: 41
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Yes, yes, tell it to Saddam Hussein in 1991.
    Or Milosevic in 1999


    And what in either case someone capitulated without a "ground phase"?
    1. Santa Fe
      6 March 2014 23: 16
      0
      Hussein - "100-hour" ground war, finished off the remnants
      Milosevic capitulated WITHOUT ground phase
  25. Taoist
    Taoist 6 March 2014 22: 51
    +3
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    USA officially has 800 bases around the world
    but they usually don’t have enough and they use allied airbases and civilian airports


    And for some reason they need the largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world ... They are mad about fat, not otherwise ... You are a strange person. It is clear that you will find a counterargument to any of my objections - peace (and even more so war) is a complicated thing and for any "about" there will be "contra". Only here's the point? Nobody will refuse to build aircraft-carrying ships (albeit not in such a ruinous version as the United States). Nobody will build new "battleships" (just to please you). Are you trying to refute the logic of events just because you believed in something and pulled from the network of some facts confirming your fantasy? So I can tell you as a philosopher - there are such sciences as rhetoric, sophistry and scholasticism. Using the principles laid down in them, you can formally prove absolutely any thesis. But this will not change the "observed picture of the world" one iota. So good luck with your fight against the windmills ... hi
    1. Santa Fe
      7 March 2014 02: 02
      -1
      Quote: Taoist
      And for some reason, they need the largest carrier fleet in the world ... They rave about fat, not otherwise ..

      Well, you thought!

      They have such a cool counter hanging on 6 Ave.

      There will be enough for aircraft carriers, for rovers, and for medical insurance - and for all sorts of other "goodies"

      Quote: Taoist
      No one will abandon the construction of aircraft carriers

      The joke is that they refused!
      And those who build are single constructions, faintly reminiscent of Nimitsa
      No one has full-fledged aircraft carriers - with AWACS and F / A-18E level fighters, except the USA (10 pieces) and France (1 SDG, the construction of the second one has been canceled)
      Quote: Taoist
      So I can tell you as a philosopher - there are such sciences as rhetoric, sophistry and scholasticism.

      And also FIGURES and FACTS
  26. Dezinto
    Dezinto 6 March 2014 23: 05
    +2
    but what is the "observable picture of the world" I will ask you as a philosopher ..... not the topic of course, but I was directly intrigued by the course of your thoughts
  27. kplayer
    kplayer 6 March 2014 23: 24
    +3
    However, with the development of the nuclear submarine fleet, jet aircraft and the emergence of in-flight refueling systems, the combat value of these huge expensive ships causes great doubts.

    I always believed that an aircraft carrier was intended mainly to provide air defense for fleet formations and of course this is their "long arm" in the struggle for dominance in the World Ocean (+ a good tool, both for preemption and finishing off), and participation in local wars is just a lyrical digression, or "keeping fit" (US aircraft carriers and their air wings line up for training opportunities).
  28. Nayhas
    Nayhas 7 March 2014 00: 49
    0
    During the same period, land-based airplanes flew over 98 thousands of sorties over Iraq and Kuwait.

    I repeat for the sake of truth. The number of land sorties indicated by Oleg also includes 11000 sorties of refueling aircraft, 16800 sorties of cargo planes. If we take only the work of the US Air Force and the ILC on the destruction of the armed forces of Iraq, then 39400 sorties will be released against 19000 sorties of carrier-based aviation. This is not taking into account the work of helicopters. So the contribution of the US Navy carrier-based aviation is much more than Oleg is trying to imagine.
    P.S .:
    The Yankees made a decisive contribution to the defeat of Hussein and, frankly, could generally do on their own. “Soyuznichki” were invited only for courtesy (however, he came running something himself, hoping for praise and a tasty piece from “Uncle Sam”).

    The "allies" so despised by Oleg performed 10300 sorties on strike aircraft and fighters, and in total, taking into account the work of aviation to support 17300 sorties, their losses were not small. The pilots of Saudi Arabia flew the most, with a total of 6852 sorties of strike, reconnaissance and transport aircraft.
    1. Santa Fe
      7 March 2014 01: 53
      -3
      Quote: Nayhas
      If we take only the work of the US Air Force and the ILC on the destruction of the armed forces of Iraq, then 39400 sorties will be released against 19000 carrier-based sorties. This is not taking into account the work of helicopters.

      Your numbers are not true

      http://topwar.ru/40888-burya-v-pustyne-udar-palubnoy-aviacii.html#comment-id-204

      3462
      Quote: Nayhas
      So the contribution of the US Navy carrier-based aviation is much more than Oleg is trying to imagine.

      But much less than YOU are trying to imagine

      and there is only one contribution - 15% of the MNS sorties, and even less in terms of combat load, number and priority of destroyed targets
      1. Blind
        Blind 7 March 2014 11: 04
        +2
        really "stoned")
        he has already been given real figures and links to official research a hundred times already, and he continues to creak like a broken gramophone on his old record ... go first read Gulf War Air Power Survey, "journalist" ...

        I didn’t do anything with my "research" and still do not have enough brains to get out of the discussion with my nonsense.

        disgrace.
  29. Yura
    Yura 7 March 2014 01: 02
    -1
    Good and relevant topic. Oleg, as soon as I saw your article I immediately realized that it would be interesting. Your calculations are fair and your position regarding the ACG, if I understand it correctly, is very, very close to me, that is, I am not a categorical opponent of them, but it seems to me that they are far from a panacea. But there are questions of this kind: do we know how the United States is going to use them, let's say against us, if it comes to that? Now I’ll explain what I mean, suppose they could keep part of their AUGs where the return point of their ground forces begins (and at the same time provide air defense in the radius of their action, covering their air borders), in order to cover the possible approaches of our submarines, another while the part already covering their submarines escorts them to our shores, and in addition, with their presence they bind a huge number of our Navy around forcing them to control and keep these rather toothy monsters at gunpoint. This time. Two, how they used their AUG to this day and what it gave them, I think they are just like you analyzed and for some reason they are going to build more. I understand ACG looks awesome, but it is just as much a target that it makes it possible to confront them no less intimidatingly. And yet, I clearly realize that all of their aircraft carriers with their escorts are against us, and only after that against the rest of their potential opponents. That's how they are guaranteed and without prejudice to destroy them, it excites me, although I read articles and comments on some other resources at VO, I still want to make sure once again that we have something to hammer and hammer these fucking troughs. Yes, but thanks for the article, it’s very interesting to read your comments as well as your opponents, incendiary.
    1. Yura
      Yura 7 March 2014 01: 23
      -1
      Quote: Jura
      that we have something to hammer and hollow these fucking troughs

      A typo, it meant "We have something to hammer and hammer these fucking troughs".
  30. Santa Fe
    7 March 2014 01: 55
    0
    "Soyuznichki" were invited only for courtesy (however, Something came running himself, hoping for praise and a tasty piece from "Uncle Sam"

    In particular, Hafez al-Assad (father of Bashar al-Assad), who sent the Syrian expeditionary force and 300 tanks to help the Americans
  31. Taoist
    Taoist 7 March 2014 14: 25
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The joke is that they refused!
    And those who build are single constructions, faintly reminiscent of Nimitsa
    No one has full-fledged aircraft carriers - with AWACS and F / A-18E level fighters, except the USA (10 pieces) and France (1 SDG, the construction of the second one has been canceled)


    So do you think that American aircraft carriers are an indisputable role model?
    I somehow get lost from the whimsical course of your thoughts ... "Invincibles" and others like them are "non-Avian carriers" and therefore useless. "Nimitz", etc. these are "full-fledged aircraft carriers" but still useless.
    The fact that most countries simply stupidly have no money to build a heavy aircraft carrier is of course little things that are not worthy of attention. And India and China, who are buying up the remnants of the Soviet Navy for quiet sadness, simply do not know what to do ...
    By the way, I would rather agree with you - American aircraft carriers are disproportionately expensive in relation to their actual combat capabilities. The same Gorshkov was a much more balanced combat vehicle. In any case, he could ensure the stability of the combat strike group no worse than Nimitz, while not diverting resources for his own protection. Iowa would definitely be rolled "for wood" far beyond the range of its guns ... tongue
    1. Santa Fe
      7 March 2014 19: 54
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      So do you think that American aircraft carriers are an indisputable role model?

      At least they are the only ones who can at least do something on the high seas.
      Quote: Taoist
      Those. "Invincibles" and others like them are "non-Avian carriers" and therefore useless.

      Exactly
      Quote: Taoist
      "Nimitz", etc. these are "full-fledged aircraft carriers" but still useless.

      Nimits useless in local wars
      But they can fend for themselves in the open sea. Another question - was it worth creating such a ship to cover the convoys ?? (as practice has shown, Midway is quite enough)
      Quote: Taoist
      The fact that most countries simply stupidly do not have money to build a heavy aircraft carrier

      But there was money for aviation, a powerful modern fleet, etc. High-tech expensive means! It turns out that they do not consider it necessary to urgently invest in the construction of the Nimitsev (or at least the SDG), due to the lack of any need and adequate tasks for such a ship. It is more correct to invest in other defense programs
      Quote: Taoist
      The same Gorshkov was a much more balanced combat vehicle

      Gorshkov / Vikra - no. He has a castrated air group without AWACS

      In this regard, the Queen Elizabeth gas turbine (the original version with catapults) is much more interesting. But the Britons didn’t even want to build one
  32. supertiger21
    supertiger21 7 March 2014 19: 46
    0
    In some ways I agree, in others I don’t. Oleg, you criticize the AUG too much, in those tasks not for which they were created. I agree that in the "Desert Storm" it was possible to do without deck aviation, but what can you say about open space of the ocean. Didn't you, in one of your articles of 2012, prove that "the Pacific Ocean is huge", and only an aircraft carrier would be useful for performing aviation tasks in it ?! How many thousands of US bases would not exist if a conflict occurs in an open they will not help the ocean. Here you can only rely on carrier-based aircraft, because. refueling can help ground aviation only theoretically - in practice it will be very difficult. Moreover, an aircraft carrier, unlike a ground base, is always moving, and thus it will be much more difficult to destroy it. It's not just that AUG have been operated and improved for almost a century.
    1. Santa Fe
      7 March 2014 19: 59
      0
      Quote: supertiger21
      .Didn't you, in one of your articles of 2012, argued that "the Pacific Ocean is huge", and only an aircraft carrier will be useful for performing aviation tasks in it ?!

      A little higher, I answered Taoist about this situation.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 7 March 2014 23: 26
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        A little higher, I answered Taoist about this situation.

        You counted how many flights you made from an aircraft carrier, and how much could you do as much as possible in case of emergency?
        1. Santa Fe
          8 March 2014 00: 10
          0
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          and how much could you do as much as possible in urgent need?

          Is there really a need for such a regime?

          they are definitely unsuitable for coastal strikes
          for round-the-clock patrolling of a pair of combat patrols (+ a duty link on the deck) - 70 Midway sorties are enough for the eyes. The Atlantic is not Stalingrad. Where in the middle of the ocean does a large group of enemy aircraft come from? (unless Tu-22M break through the Faroe’s border)
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 8 March 2014 10: 45
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Is there really a need for such a regime?

            I'm about the Persian Gulf.
            With each aircraft carrier per day, they could make 150 sorties, multiply by 6 and get 900 sorties, multiply by 40 days and get 36000 sorties.
            Arithmetic is primitive but still.
            1. Santa Fe
              8 March 2014 12: 41
              +1
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              With each aircraft carrier per day, they could make 150 sorties

              This mode can be supported for no more than a couple of days, otherwise:
              1. not enough strength for maintenance and repair of aircraft
              2. Run out of fuel / bombs / parts quickly
              the peak period of the air campaign, aircraft from the Roosevelt consumed an average of over 4,930 barrels (207,060 gallons) of fuel daily,
              207 thousand gallons = 620 tons of kerosene per day

              Not surprisingly, under normal conditions (96 sorties), Roosevelt needed 43 docks with supply ships in 12 days. Midway is 19
              On the day of refueling, the ship is not operational

              In general, 6 could operate from 4 at the same time, while the other two were refueled / repaired
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 8 March 2014 13: 57
                +2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Not surprisingly, under normal conditions (96 sorties), Roosevelt needed 43 docks with supply ships in 12 days.

                These are already logistics problems, and the Americans have no particular problems with it.
                New Ford announces 270 sorties per day, which speaks of 150 without straining.
                1. Santa Fe
                  8 March 2014 14: 59
                  0
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  These are already logistics problems.

                  These are the problems of time.
                  Every few days, the aircraft carrier will be forced to leave the battle and replenish supplies.
                  It is useless to use such a technique in air offensive operations, they are too weak - they cannot provide the required density of blows

                  But what about the repair and pre / post-flight maintenance of aircraft - this is generally an insoluble issue. Not enough space, people and equipment on board
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  which speaks of 150 without straining.

                  A few days
                  Next, the question inevitably arises with the repair of aircraft and refueling care. Fuel and bombs on board Ford are hardly more than on Nimitz, due to the same size of ships
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  New Ford announces 270 sorties per day

                  To begin with, let them build at least one active EMALS catapult and AAG turboelectric aerofinisher

                  Moreover, all of these 200-270 does not make sense as long as the conditions are unknown: range, combat load, weather conditions
                  At J-FEX-97 Nimitz pinned, brought the number of departures per day to 197, by flying over the mast and landing. Most departures were less than 100 miles from the ship
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 8 March 2014 18: 27
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Every few days, the aircraft carrier will be forced to leave the battle and replenish supplies.

                    So I write that a maximum of 270 and really 150 flights per day (that is, take the average for the week.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    It is useless to use such a technique in air offensive operations, they are too weak - they cannot provide the required density of blows

                    In my opinion, Americans in modern history had two successful aircraft, the F-15 and F-18.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Next, the question inevitably arises with the repair of aircraft and refueling care. Fuel and bombs on board Ford are hardly more than on Nimitz, due to the same size of ships

                    For the first day I made 270 sorties, for the second day I was refueled, the third day I made 270 sorties.
                    The average value of 180 sorties.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    A few days
                    Next, the question inevitably arises with the repair of aircraft and refueling care.

                    Two countries in the world announced 4000 continuous operation of the engine: the USA and Russia (with curved arms engineers) and this is 160 days.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    To begin with, let them build at least one active EMALS catapult and AAG turboelectric aerofinisher

                    Nimitz 240 launched,
                    So in your article 200 with a tail of miles
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Most departures took place less than 100 miles from the ship

                    The average duration of combat sorties from aircraft carriers in the Red Sea was 3,7 hours versus 2,5 hours for those based in the Persian Gulf, 200-280 miles off the coast of Kuwait. Closer to approach did not dare.
  33. barbiturate
    barbiturate 8 March 2014 07: 57
    +2
    Quote: kplayer
    I always believed that an aircraft carrier was intended mainly to provide air defense for fleet formations and of course this is their "long arm" in the struggle for dominance in the World Ocean (+ a good tool, both for preemption and finishing off), and participation in local wars is just a lyrical digression, or "keeping fit" (US aircraft carriers and their air wings line up for training opportunities).


    I absolutely agree that as soon as an aircraft carrier is seen as a ship armed with aviation, everything falls into place immediately, and if we attribute to the aircraft carrier some mythical functions to capture countries with a multi-million population, etc. it’s so sweet to refute your own nonsense))
  34. kplayer
    kplayer 9 March 2014 12: 46
    0
    Children's confusion! "I started for health ...":
    Quote: ruslan
    all the same, probably the main purpose of the aircraft carriers was and is the air cover of the ships of their fleet: combat and landing. as well as fighting with enemy ships as well. but all these tasks are present in conditions of a great war, against a strong enemy ...

    "... and finished for the repose":
    Quote: ruslan
    ... in a war with a serious adversary, they are not very suitable, for this the air force exists.

    The Air Force is not able to cover the oceans, and the search for enemy ships on its open spaces is not such an easy task. Otherwise, a surface fleet would not be needed. There is still war at sea, as a separate kind of database maintenance.