Military Review

Aircraft carrier "George Bush"

154
The largest warship in the world. Its construction began in 2003 year and cost 6,5 billion dollars to US taxpayers. I propose to look at one of the most modern American ships - the aircraft carrier "George Bush".


Aircraft carrier "George Bush"


For starters the facts. The exact name of the ship is USS George HW Bush (CVN 77). This is one of the 11 American nuclear aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class. The largest warship in the world. The ship was commissioned by the US Army in 2009. Here are its not full tactical and technical characteristics: displacement - 110 000 tons, long - 332.8 m, has two nuclear reactors, accelerates to 60km / h. The ship transports 90 airplanes, helicopters and fighters, serviced by a crew of 3,200 people. Able to sail up to 20 years without refueling. A sort of modern "Noah's Ark".



This ship contains the latest achievements of the 21 century in the field of shipbuilding. Among them - a new hull design, curved to increase buoyancy; innovative coverage to reduce radar visibility; screws of a certain configuration and much more.



Aircraft class "Nimitz" modular. Each of the modules is assembled separately, delivered and attached to other modules in the final stage of construction.



The control tower is equipped with the most modern means of navigation, satellite communications, powerful radar systems capable of controlling the situation in the air, on water and under water for hundreds of kilometers around. The cabin itself, as well as the entire ship, is covered with a 67mm layer of Kevlar armor.



The cabin and antennas are maximally shifted to the edge of the deck, which made it possible to increase the space for take-off / landing of aircraft.



On the deck of an aircraft carrier dozens of attack aircraft and fighters, including F / A-18 Hornet, F-35C, AV-8B Harrier II:



Boeing F / A-18E / F Super Hornet:



Sailor Victor Benish on duty during the passage of an aircraft carrier through the Strait of Gibraltar. Parents of the guy immigrated to the USA from Ukraine:



Military pilots:



"George Bush" in the strait. The picture was taken from the escort ship:

[


One of the 17-T aircraft carrier support ships, the destroyer USS Truxtun (DDG-103):



USS Philippine Sea Missile Cruiser (CG-58):



Missile Destroyer (DDG 51) is awaiting access to the USNS Patuxent military transport fuel vehicle (T-AO 201) in the center, while Patuxent refuels the USS Leyte Gulf missile cruiser (CG 55) on the right, and the Roosevelt missile destroyer left . Ships are preparing for the final layout, led by the aircraft carrier "George Bush" to achieve readiness to perform the tasks:



There are preparations on the deck. Destroyer sailors are preparing the ship to receive fuel:



Landing a helicopter on one of the escort ships:



Sailors on watch during refueling:





Fuel quality check:



In the holds of the aircraft carrier a huge shop with machines and spare parts. You can fix the aircraft carrier itself and any aircraft. By the way, more than 2 500 people are involved in the maintenance of flight crews. Among them are women.



All aircraft are launched from the deck using a catapult. The principle of its operation is very similar to a slingshot: the plane clings to the front landing gear for the accelerating device. The operator sets the mass and the required value of acceleration into the system and it selects the optimal speed or “tension” for the acceleration device.



The aircraft will accelerate the engine and then the start button of the catapult is pressed.



The fighter "shoots into the sky" and then continues its independent flight. With landing, the situation is much more complicated. The pilot needs to hook on the brake hook to the cable, the tension of which increases depending on the weight and speed of the landing ship.



The only exceptions are helicopters and fighters capable of taking off vertically.





Everyone on the ship is busy working. A typical sailor’s day consists of an 12 watch for hours with meals, 4x hours of personal time, and 8 hours of sleep.

To feed more than 5 000 people, the ship crew team works tirelessly around the clock.





In addition to the usual service on the ship, various kinds of training and testing of emergency situations are conducted. During the voyage, sailors learn many specialties and professions in order to replace comrades if necessary. It also test the latest intelligence using unmanned vehicles.



On the ship there is a detachment of rapid response.



Teachings. Search and capture of the "terrorist" who got on board:



The night Watch:



Every sailor on any warship does not want to fight. He dreams of returning home to family and friends.



My personal opinion is this: no country in the world today is able to withstand the military the fleet USA and NATO. If you do not take into account the atomic weapon, the use of which irreversibly leads to the death of both sides of the conflict.

Originator:
http://loveopium.ru
154 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Canep
    Canep 22 March 2014 07: 57
    +12
    They seem to have a chef - colonel (colonel), and an assistant - a lieutenant colonel? Not bad, they saw the loot.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. BARR-D
        BARR-D 22 March 2014 12: 56
        +29
        Quote: Rusin№1
        Well, yes, the dough is kneading.
        It would be better if with the help of the sailors they built their summer houses.

        These times are in many respects already in the past, which cannot be said about the Ukrainian army and your "kind of" subtle trolling sounds just ridiculous, go clean the backyard (passage) from the shit, it's done.

        You have driven your country into an economic asshole with your Russophobia and desire for Europe, you don't do a fucking thing, but Russia is to blame for everything. Only before tearing there would you first figure out what it threatens, + and -. Going to the countries of eastern Europe (Poland-Romania-Bulgaria-Hungary, etc.) and chat with the people, find out how they live, how they work. For the worst part, go through the forums, but not the top ones where there is censorship, read what people write there. And after that, turn on the brain instead of the ass and think about your future !!! Search the Internet for what was built in these countries during the USSR and what was built during the European Union, except for shopping centers - fucking hot !!! And you go there !!!

        PS: Interestingly, the "fraternal European Union" will open markets for your products on equal terms with their products? Interestingly, the "fraternal European Union" will give cheap loans without benefits for itself? Interestingly, the "fraternal European Union" will give a discount on gas at a loss for itself? Interestingly, the "fraternal European Union" will invest in industry and defense? I think the answer is obvious, but if you don’t understand this, don’t want to understand, or you understand and think that this is how it should be, then good luck, my dear Ukrainian friend.
        1. W1950
          W1950 22 March 2014 22: 00
          +7
          You don’t have to travel far, the Baltic states are all ruined that you can, people are earning money in Europe. And given that Ukraine will be at the end of the line, it’s unlikely that they will break off any work in Europe. the next 20 years does not shine, the Germans and the French said about this).
        2. Max_Bauder
          Max_Bauder 22 March 2014 22: 33
          +18
          Quote: BARR-D
          Search on the Internet what was built in these countries under the USSR and what was built under the European Union, except for shopping centers - fucking !!! And you roll there !!! PS: Interestingly, the "fraternal European Union" will open markets for your products on equal terms with their products? Interestingly, the "fraternal European Union" will give cheap loans without benefits for itself? Interestingly, the "fraternal European Union" will give a discount on gas at a loss for itself? Interestingly, the "fraternal European Union" will invest in industry and defense? I think the answer is obvious, but if you don’t understand this, don’t want to understand, or you understand and think that this is how it should be, then good luck, my dear Ukrainian friend.


          You rightly say dude, such praises of the US army and the "development" of the EU, to whom you are writing, do not understand that this power is just made to enslave foreign peoples, turn their countries into chaos and devastation, the population into poverty, plunging into local wars, for at the expense of their devastation to suck out all the resources of the country, like mosquitoes human blood and live off them. One involuntarily recalls a plot from the film "War of the Worlds" with Tom Cruise in the title role. There, aliens enslaved people, after them there was a scorched and unusable land, but in reality this is what the United States does.

          These AUGs and feeding 3200 people. in peacetime on an aircraft carrier alone do you think (referring to the USA praisers) at the expense of the American taxpayer is happening? their whole army? at the expense of their economy is supplied?

          Нет!

          They simply print their dollars, the amount of which no one controls, pay for oil and gas with "candy wrappers", give loans to countries with high interest rates and repay debts with real natural resources, which is what they live on.

          Yes, this whole army is fed to conquer! why spend billions on the army in peacetime? So that the US has "free" gasoline, cheap clothing and food.

          Praisers may object, but why do other countries say they themselves are not developing? and they will offer an answer - the leadership of their country is mired in corruption, it steals and the people are lazy and stupid. Themselves to blame! What is stopping them?

          Нет!

          It hinders and the whole life will be hindered by the USA and the EU. Take a look at the story.

          The entire history of Europe is permeated with colonization, I will not start with Rome, because I think that there was prosperity in their era, just read their achievement in history, but all ancient civilization, Egypt, Greece, were the heirs of the knowledge that possibly existed Anlantida, but when after them came "untrained "barbarians, the era of the fall has come. These people could bring nothing to the World except devastation. All these inquisitions, witch hunts, hereinafter "Great" discoveries, I would call the "Great genocide". Since then, all over 700 years, all the riches of the continents of the Planet Earth went to Europe and America: people-slaves, gold, silk, spices, and so on for a penny and even for free. And this policy is still happening in relation to many weak countries.
          Only the Romans, more precisely Byzantium, came to Russia to enlighten, from them remained written language, names and Orthodoxy. The rest all came to rob. All attacks on Russia went precisely for this purpose. Starting with the Mongols, then Turks, Swedes, Napoleon, and Hitler. Now the US and the EU. They all need Russia's wealth. To do this, they always, throughout history, will bribe the right people, weave plots, destroy the economy through isolation and boycott, make revolutions and even declare war, just as they did. Their destiny is to parasitize.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 23 March 2014 20: 44
            +2
            Quote: Max_Bauder
            to whom you write, they don’t understand that this power has been done to enslave other peoples, turn their countries into chaos and devastation, the population into poverty,

            Who plus article scream in ecstasy
            Zig Heil.
            1. Fandorin
              Fandorin April 1 2014 16: 56
              +1
              You shouldn’t be so, the pictures are high-quality, the material is relevant. The enemy must be known in person. Respect to the author.
            2. Basswawa81
              Basswawa81 April 30 2014 13: 36
              0
              Suchara fascist!
        3. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 23 March 2014 07: 28
          +1
          The EU has already opened markets, unilaterally for Ukraine
          It will also give loans, it will not work without benefits for itself, since the political benefits of issuing such loans are undeniable.
          Just the facts.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 22 March 2014 08: 24
      +9
      Quote: Canep
      They seem to have a chef - colonel (colonel), and an assistant - a lieutenant colonel? Not bad, they saw the loot.

      There is no colonel title in United States Navy. The supply department is commanded by Commander (underground overland), the galley is only one of the divisions of the supply department, the foremen are in charge of the galley, Ensign maximum, that is midshipman (aka chest).
      1. Containers
        Containers 22 March 2014 23: 12
        +2
        In the photo, only as cooks are Captain (Colonel in the army) and Commander (Lt. Colonel in the army). Polkan and subpolkan in our opinion. Above there, they already have admirals. So it goes.
    3. AVV
      AVV 22 March 2014 12: 48
      +8
      Quote: Canep
      They seem to have a chef - colonel (colonel), and an assistant - a lieutenant colonel? Not bad, they saw the loot.

      And under the water it will look much better !!!
  2. Igor39
    Igor39 22 March 2014 08: 33
    +15
    The ship is impressive.
    1. serega.fedotov
      serega.fedotov 22 March 2014 12: 13
      +19
      Quote: Igor39
      The ship is impressive.

      Only some of the characteristics are at least surprising: "Invasion materials that reduce radio visibility" is that if, instead of a fool of 330 meters, the target is 300 meters on the artillery radar, will it change something?
      In addition, Americans always significantly overestimate the combat capabilities of their equipment, then they are surprised.
      1. Sea snake
        Sea snake 22 March 2014 13: 57
        +14
        Scanty article. For some reason there are no pictures on the back of the cabin. I don’t put anything in the article.


        Click on the pictures for normal viewing.


        1. pilot8878
          pilot8878 22 March 2014 14: 32
          +6
          These are special radio-absorbing openings so that the radar does not see anything at all and is completely at a loss.
        2. Val_y
          Val_y 22 March 2014 16: 50
          +31
          This is how it will look better, with all 11 pieces laughing
      2. kplayer
        kplayer 22 March 2014 22: 54
        0
        The farther to the horizon, the visibility is less, i.e. the signature of the ship at greater distances is further reduced.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Basswawa81
        Basswawa81 April 30 2014 13: 40
        0
        they forgot about the old cow - the TITANIC, and made a new one ... the road is there for them.
    2. Val_y
      Val_y 22 March 2014 16: 44
      +5
      But I wonder how many Yahont missiles of the Bastion system or the Kh-35E Bal system are needed in order to fill up such an "iron". soldier
      By the way, read the story "Drowning the Enterprise" "I was lying laughing laughing
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 22 March 2014 17: 05
        +6
        Quote: Val_Y
        But I wonder how many Yahont missiles of the Bastion system or the Kh-35E of the Bal system are needed in order to fill up such an "iron"

        No matter how much, aircraft carriers do not come so close to shore.
        Quote: Val_Y
        By the way, read the story "Drowning the Enterprise" "I was lying

        An old bike, you talk with the sailors, they will not tell you something like that, while everything they invented is not a lie, it's a sea bike, a tradition like that, hunters and fishermen didn’t stand near ...
      2. Basswawa81
        Basswawa81 April 30 2014 13: 44
        -1
        Need one POPLAR M1. the accuracy of hitting the target is a radius of 30 cm. It is noticeable by tracking systems so 50 meters away. The eye will see earlier. but it will be too late ...
    3. Makarych
      Makarych 4 May 2014 22: 46
      0
      For me, this is especially the first shot. It takes pride that we can create "such". But for what purposes it was created is a completely different question.
  3. tema2101
    tema2101 22 March 2014 08: 37
    +6
    It is a pity that we do not have such ships with us. And nothing is being done so that we can make such "handsome men" ourselves.
    1. sledgehammer102
      sledgehammer102 22 March 2014 09: 00
      +31
      Quote: tema2101
      It is a pity that we do not have such ships with us. And nothing is being done so that we can make such "handsome men" ourselves.


      The question is "What the hell do we need it for now?"
      1. zennon
        zennon 22 March 2014 17: 02
        +6
        The question is "What the hell do we need it for now?"

        That's right. With that, I have 2 questions:
        1) What is the cost of operating this miracle.
        2) And how much does a pair of Onyx (Yakhont), supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles 3M55 (3M55E) anti-ship missile systems cost?
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 22 March 2014 17: 09
          +6
          Quote: zennon
          That's right. With that, I have 2 questions:
          1) What is the cost of operating this miracle.
          2) And how much does a pair of Onyx (Yakhont), supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles 3M55 (3M55E) anti-ship missile systems cost?

          And I have a counter question:
          Some special forces are training there, perfecting their skills for years perfecting the technique of battle, disguise, shooting ... But I can neutralize it with a single bullet from a PM pistol and hit it in the head with a penny 9mm caliber bullet. and what's the point that the state spent so much money on its training?
          1. zennon
            zennon 22 March 2014 17: 19
            0
            Here is a special forces officer training for years

            It’s not correct. You, I think, yourself understand that our analysts in the defense industry have been thinking about this for many decades. So they told us everything! And I have a counter question: Do you remember what happened on December 7, 1941?
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 22 March 2014 17: 27
              +3
              Quote: zennon
              You, I think, yourself understand that in our defense industry analysts have been pondering this for many decades.

              MIC analysts can even dance around the Christmas tree in June, the fleet development concept does not depend on them. Analysts at the headquarters of the Navy reflect and plan, and for many years they demanded an aircraft carrier as the only tool against US aircraft carriers.
              Quote: zennon
              And I have a counter question: Do you remember what happened on December 7, 1941?

              The aircraft carriers sank the alleged (as it seemed at the time) "aircraft carrier killers." Or missed something?
              1. zennon
                zennon 22 March 2014 18: 11
                +5
                Or missed something?

                Well, why so primitive? A question about sloppiness. Americans themselves admit that they have nothing against 3M54E1 missiles, or how they call them SS-N-27. But I would like to get the answer to question No. 1 in my post above. in passing, that throughout their entire history until the beginning of the 80s of the last century, the Americans collected $ 1 trillion as state debt. And from the beginning of the 80s (that is, from reagonomics), to this day they have donated another $ 16 trl! level 1 TRL $ of government debt for 1,5 years! Do you understand that next to this Cheopsova, the pyramid of MMM JSC looks like a kindergarten Easter cake in a sandbox?
                1. Nayhas
                  Nayhas 22 March 2014 20: 42
                  0
                  Quote: zennon
                  Well, why so primitive? The question of sloppiness.

                  If you are an adherent of Zadornov on the topic of "stupid Americans", then I will understand you, if you are reasoning sensibly, you should be aware that the USA 1941 and the USA 2014 are still different things. It is simply stupid to hope that after 1941 they continue in the same spirit. 1941 they remember well.
                  Quote: zennon
                  But I would like to receive an answer to question No. 1 in my post above.

                  No more money, which the United States has sooooo much.
                  Quote: zennon
                  . I will add in passing that in their entire history before the beginning of the 80s of the last century, Americans scored $ 1 TRL as a state debt. And from the beginning of the 80s (that is, from Reagonomics), to this day they have raised another $ 16TRL! have reached the level of 1 TRL of $ government debt in 1,5 years! Do you understand that next to this Cheopsova, the MMM pyramid looks like a kindergarten Easter cake in the sandbox?

                  All this is stupid chatter. Nothing terrible will happen to them. Moreover, defense spending does not particularly affect the size of public debt. What is 550 billion for defense compared with 900 billion for education or more than 1,5 trillion. on healthcare? Are you aware that they allocate 540 billion from the budget to support the low-income (benefits, food stamps)? Knowing full well that most of this money will work for the shadow economy, including drug trafficking? So if anything destroys their economy, this is a game of socialism.
                  PS: but that puzzled me, where and when did they recognize this?
                  Quote: zennon
                  Americans themselves admit that they have nothing against the 3M54E1 missiles, or how they call them SS-N-27.

                  RCC is undoubtedly good, for the first time the designers created a rocket in the required dimensions, bravo KB Innovator! But what is so terrible about the carrier that distinguished it from similar anti-ship missiles?
                  1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Trinity
            Trinity 22 March 2014 18: 55
            +1
            Nayhas / Are you sure that this commando will allow you to shoot a penny bullet at your head, and will you have time to shoot first with his preparation and reaction to danger?
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 22 March 2014 20: 24
              +5
              Quote: trinity
              Nayhas / Are you sure that this commando will allow you to shoot a penny bullet at your head, and will you have time to shoot first with his preparation and reaction to danger?

              So did not understand a parallel? The presence of cheap weapons in the form of a bullet or anti-ship missiles gives absolutely no guarantees for the destruction of the enemy. Will the aircraft carrier allow him to approach the launch distance of the RCC? No, of course, any potential carrier will be destroyed because the aircraft carrier has enough funds for this.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. varangian
      varangian 22 March 2014 10: 22
      +16
      Quote: tema2101
      It is a pity that we do not have such ships with us. And nothing is being done so that we can make such "handsome men" ourselves.


      But we have “aircraft carrier killers.” Here is our worthy answer to “George W. Bush” ...
      1. SSR
        SSR 22 March 2014 11: 55
        -4
        Quote: varangian
        Quote: tema2101
        It is a pity that we do not have such ships with us. And nothing is being done so that we can make such "handsome men" ourselves.


        But we have “aircraft carrier killers.” Here is our worthy answer to “George W. Bush” ...

        Let's look at it from the other side - the Americans with their aircraft carriers where they have not already fought and wherever they have not demonstrated their "power / presence", REAL and our killers of aircraft carriers still remain paper "killers" who have not flooded a single aircraft carrier and we will not mention Papuans))))) with all due respect to our weapons and soldiers, I don't want to underestimate ......... Something like this.)))
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 22 March 2014 12: 43
          +19
          Quote: SSR
          Let's look at it from the other side - the Americans with their aircraft carriers where they just did not fight

          These were mainly banana republics that did not have their own combat fleet.
          Quote: SSR
          our killers of aircraft carriers so far remain paper "killers" who have not flooded a single aircraft carrier

          You yourself said the answer to all the questions. Maybe that's why they don’t enter our waters?
          Knowing what awaits them there.
          1. Beck
            Beck 22 March 2014 17: 19
            +2
            [quote = wanderer_032] Let's look at it from the other side - Americans with their aircraft carriers where they just did not fight

            [quote = wanderer_032] These were mainly banana republics that did not have their own combat fleet. [/ quote]

            And why not see anything further than your nose. According to the logic of scientific and technological progress, all the weapons of the world, except nuclear missile, at the moment, only for local limited conflicts. For 3 MV, all this weapon is useless, because Armageddon will come from the use of nuclear weapons with an inevitable end of the world.

            With MV, there will be no hand-to-hand combat techniques, machine guns, guns, planes, tanks, ships. All this is needed for local limited conflicts. But even in local conflicts, no one has canceled the commandments of military art - creating superiority of forces and means in a particular theater of operations.

            Example. What will be more impressive and significant off the coast of Syria - 5 landing barges or 3 AUGs.

            World war, on his right mind, is not expected. But local conflicts around the world will arise and you need to be prepared for them. Best of course, with AUG than without it. Russia, like other leading countries, has global interests. And where these interests intersect, one must have superiority in forces and means.
          2. SSR
            SSR 22 March 2014 23: 48
            0
            Quote: wanderer_032
            Quote: SSR
            Let's look at it from the other side - the Americans with their aircraft carriers where they just did not fight

            These were mainly banana republics that did not have their own combat fleet.
            Quote: SSR
            our killers of aircraft carriers so far remain paper "killers" who have not flooded a single aircraft carrier

            You yourself said the answer to all the questions. Maybe that's why they don’t enter our waters?
            Knowing what awaits them there.

            Yes, the question is completely different, many members of the forum do not think and blindly poke. For the stupid, I immediately wrote, - "that we will see from the other side."
        2. rasputin17
          rasputin17 22 March 2014 13: 11
          +10
          , REAL and our killers of aircraft carriers are still paper "killers" who have not flooded a single aircraft carrier and we will not mention the Papuans))))) With all due respect to our weapons and soldiers, I do not want to underestimate ........ . Something like this.)))

          You shouldn't be so !! To let such a galosh sink to the bottom is not enough trick, here you have to think about the consequences! For my service, I repeatedly looked at these Ameikos show-offs with their floating airfields, and our crew practiced training launches of missiles and torpedoes on them conditionally !! They are not as cool as they want to seem !! Remember the story of "Tirpitz"
          1. kplayer
            kplayer 22 March 2014 23: 47
            -1
            Quote: rasputin17
            For my service, I have often looked at these Ameikos show-offs with their floating airfields and our crew worked out missile training launches and torpedoes conditionally on them !!

            And you didn’t think about the fact that you have been grazing for a long time and deck submarines have worked out approach to you with conditional discharge of torpedoes more than once, since peace time is good.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. kplayer
              kplayer 24 March 2014 19: 37
              0
              The AUG has hydroacoustic stations (GAS) for nuclear submarines and surface ships (range 45-60km), towed (up to 100-120km), lowered by helicopter GAS and aircraft radio sonar buoys (RSL) of aircraft and helicopter submarines.
              At the same time, surface ships of the order, due to their own noise, are not shy in using the active GAS mode, in other words, the coordinates of the submarine's location will be known after detection.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Lawless
          Lawless 22 March 2014 17: 53
          +2
          You can argue a lot, but how many times have they bombed with an aircraft carrier? ... cruise missiles are fired at targets)))) Something like this ...
        4. Basarev
          Basarev 22 March 2014 21: 12
          0
          Meanwhile, there were opportunities. Alekseev’s design bureau built a wonderful rocket winged vehicle named Lun, which even now cannot be stopped in principle. But Ustinov’s death destroyed his dream.
        5. Nekarmadlen
          Nekarmadlen 23 March 2014 03: 04
          -7
          At the beginning of the war, Hitler also had two handsome men, "Tirpitz" and "Bismarck". And the knees of many Europeans trembled just at the mention of them. And as we remember from history, one of the giants was torpedoed by a Soviet submarine, and the other rotted away in the dock, and did not carry out a single military operation significant for Nazi Germany. Rotted, if I'm not mistaken, somewhere in the fjords of Norway. The devil is not so terrible as he is painted!
          1. Fornit
            Fornit 25 March 2014 14: 03
            0
            You do not remember the story well ... You only described Tirpitz ... But Bismarck was just launched to the bottom of the English squadron specially dressed up for this ...
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas 22 March 2014 17: 21
        +7
        Quote: varangian
        But we have “aircraft carrier killers.” Here is our worthy answer to “George W. Bush” ...

        "The killer of aircraft carriers" sounds loud, recently many countries are shouting to the whole world that they have created a "killer of aircraft carriers", even Iran has noted ... Long ago the Japanese also created a "killer of aircraft carriers", Yamato was called ... I will say, an example of courage and resilience ...
    3. w2000
      w2000 22 March 2014 12: 41
      +11
      Carriers are a weapon of aggression and colonial expansion. Our army is created and tuned to the defense of the country and possible military operations with neighboring states. Why do we need aircraft carriers? Even if we had 3-4 of them cruising off the coast of the United States, this would not have changed anything in the strategic alignment of forces. They do not represent a real threat to a powerful nuclear power, and we do not have overseas territories for the control and intimidation of which they are really suitable. Our fleet needs more strategic and strike submarines.
      1. cumastra1
        cumastra1 22 March 2014 16: 07
        +5
        Since Russia got a vigorous bomb, the urgent need for a too powerful fleet has disappeared. Yes, it is very necessary, simply necessary, but for defense, aircraft carrier groups are not needed, and to scare the Papuans - and what is now will do. There "Moscow" came to the shores of Georgia, and not a single pie in the sea slipped.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    4. udav1964
      udav1964 22 March 2014 22: 38
      +1
      tema2101

      It is a pity that we do not have such ships with us. And nothing is being done so that we can make such "handsome men" ourselves.

      Do Russia need these? Russia needs to develop further means to bring them down. It is much cheaper. And let them feed these monsters.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. siberalt
        siberalt 22 March 2014 23: 19
        +1
        We have Crimea, which costs dozens of such fleets. Why sail for ten thousand miles, when you can take the train laughing
  4. poccinin
    poccinin 22 March 2014 08: 38
    +16
    Well what can I say. a good target for the HERO of RUSSIA. 17 security ships. No one has tested the AUG for military operations. when false targets apply. EW funds. at the training ground, this is one thing, but in real combat it’s completely different. and how electronics behaves is not known. The weak spot on the box is ENERGY. here it closes and that's it. the ship is dead. 1-2 missiles in the Aircraft Carrier and all. fires and explosions on the deck. MCCAIN here disabled his carrier in Vietnam like that. that I had to go home for repairs.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 22 March 2014 08: 41
      +1
      Quote: poccinin
      after all, no one tested the AUG for military operations. when false targets apply. EW funds.

      While in the world there are no such Navy. Maybe the Chinese through 30 years will catch up ...
      1. sledgehammer102
        sledgehammer102 22 March 2014 09: 01
        +10
        Quote: Nayhas
        While in the world there are no such Navy. Maybe the Chinese through 30 years will catch up ...


        Let them come to the Crimea, and then we'll see what is cooler "Bastion" or "Kevlar armor"
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 22 March 2014 10: 02
          +12
          Quote: sledgehammer102
          Let them come to the Crimea, and then we'll see what is cooler "Bastion" or "Kevlar armor"

          It will not work because the Turks will not let him in, they do not let aircraft carriers and ships with a nuclear power plant into the Black Sea (and from it).
        2. homo soveticus
          homo soveticus 22 March 2014 12: 19
          +5
          this cow will not crawl under the bridge over the Bosphorus and + the Montreux doctrine
        3. Zeus
          Zeus 22 March 2014 16: 58
          +2
          If the characteristic of Nimitz’s height of 73 meters is correct, then not a single Nimitz will pass under the Bosphorus Bridge whose arch height is 64 meters. We'll have to either demolish the bridge or saw off the mast.
    2. varangian
      varangian 22 March 2014 10: 08
      0
      It was necessary to repeat the "star raid" when "George Bush" was in the Greek port. That was the goal ... soldier
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 22 March 2014 11: 22
        +7
        Quote: varangian
        It was necessary to repeat the "star raid" when "George Bush" was in the Greek port. That was the goal ... soldier


        And besides the realization of your fantasies about playing war games, why did you need to do this? Moreover, invading the airspace of a NATO member country?
        1. 0255
          0255 22 March 2014 12: 02
          +9
          Quote: cdrt
          Quote: varangian
          It was necessary to repeat the "star raid" when "George Bush" was in the Greek port. That was the goal ... soldier


          And besides the realization of your fantasies about playing war games, why did you need to do this? Moreover, invading the airspace of a NATO member country?

          oh well, don’t run into a person, what, you can’t dream? )))
          We all dream of either sinking the state aircraft carrier, or launching the Satan or Topol-M missile on the Pentagon)))
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 22 March 2014 12: 28
            +4
            Quote: 0255
            We all dream of either sinking the state aircraft carrier, or launching the Satan or Topol-M missile on the Pentagon)))

            No need so unfounded, for example, I do not want to kill anyone, especially in such a terrible way.
            1. rasputin17
              rasputin17 22 March 2014 13: 06
              +7
              No need so unfounded, for example, I do not want to kill anyone, especially in such a terrible way.

              We all do not want to !! But these are our potential enemies and aggressors of the world. and if life makes you have to, many of us will do it with great pleasure !! Want to survive beat first !!
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 22 March 2014 16: 10
                +4
                Quote: rasputin17
                and many of us will do it with great pleasure !! Want to survive beat first !!

                "Doctors assure us there are people,
                Those who find pleasure in murder ... "
                A.S.Pushkin.
  5. podolski_cky
    podolski_cky 22 March 2014 08: 39
    +7
    what I like, what a loud ship was built in a short time, and we have built ships many times less for decades
    1. sledgehammer102
      sledgehammer102 22 March 2014 09: 02
      0
      Quote: podolski_cky
      what I like, what a loud ship was built in a short time, and we have built ships many times less for decades


      If you subtract the EBNA period, then we are not talking about any decades, or give something specific as an example.
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 22 March 2014 11: 23
        +3
        Quote: sledgehammer102
        Quote: podolski_cky
        what I like, what a loud ship was built in a short time, and we have built ships many times less for decades


        If you subtract the EBNA period, then we are not talking about any decades, or give something specific as an example.


        The EBN period is already 15 years old ...
        And it lasts 8 years, i.e. Almost two times less than the current period
        1. 0255
          0255 22 March 2014 12: 11
          +7
          Quote: cdrt
          Quote: sledgehammer102
          Quote: podolski_cky
          what I like, what a loud ship was built in a short time, and we have built ships many times less for decades


          If you subtract the EBNA period, then we are not talking about any decades, or give something specific as an example.


          The EBN period is already 15 years old ...
          And it lasts 8 years, i.e. Almost two times less than the current period

          But the consequences of EBN and humpback remained recourse How many military-industrial enterprises were ruined in all countries of the former USSR?
          at the time of the collapse of the USSR, aircraft carriers Varyag and Ulyanovsk were built in Ukraine. Independent Ukrainian ******* Ulyanovsk was cut into metal, the unfinished Varangian was sold to the Chinese.
          Who knows how many aircraft carriers would be now if normal people came to power in the USSR in 1985, and not traitors, traitors ...
  6. Nayhas
    Nayhas 22 March 2014 08: 42
    +5
    Quite an amateur review, a photo from the US Navy website with rather scarce comments on the photo.
  7. Yuri Sev Caucasus
    Yuri Sev Caucasus 22 March 2014 08: 46
    +1
    already twice our pilots showed amers their vulnerability.
    1. Letun
      Letun 22 March 2014 10: 32
      +4
      Quote: Yuri Sev Caucasus
      already twice our pilots showed amers their vulnerability.

      What is it like? Flying nearby in peacetime?
      I read the article and thought, now there will be comments like: we will disable electronics, sink one rocket and everything like that. Well, in general, I was not mistaken, lol Russian hatred is incurable.
      1. Jaros81
        Jaros81 22 March 2014 11: 04
        0
        In fact, not one, but three P-1000 Vulkan, but a full salvo of Project 1164 Atlant cruisers or Orlan Project 1144 cruisers is guaranteed to be enough to destroy the enemy's AUG.
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 22 March 2014 11: 27
          +3
          Quote: Jaros81
          In fact, not one, but three P-1000 Vulkan, but a full salvo of Project 1164 Atlant cruisers or Orlan Project 1144 cruisers is guaranteed to be enough to destroy the enemy's AUG.


          And why are such conclusions interesting?
          Here are the "stupid" Soviet staff officers believed that at least 2 regiments of the MRA, which gives almost 100 heavy anti-ship missiles, and even better in cooperation with the KUG and 2-3 PLAKR - this is for the normal probability of a successful attack.
          What were you based on?
          1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Beck
        Beck 22 March 2014 12: 02
        0
        Quote: Letun
        Well, in general, I was not mistaken, Russian hat-making is not curable.


        I don’t understand my terrible thing at all. In fact, it’s clear black envyif they don’t have that kind of thing, then everybody that’s like that r ... but.

        Kazakhstan does not have a cruiser similar to the Russian heavy missile cruiser Peter the Great in the Caspian Sea, so now what? What can the Kazakhs say that the cruiser "Peter the Great", as a product, is worth nothing. It is expensive, it is too complicated, it is bulky, it can be seen from space, etc. And it costs nothing to sink it with one torpedo. In general, a cruiser is a lot of trash.

        Here are also the stories about the most powerful and modern warship in the world. And they do not want to look from the side at their gag.

        No to treat this with white envy and wish the same for themselves, as part of the Russian Navy. That would be the case.
        1. Beck
          Beck 22 March 2014 21: 35
          +3
          Quote: Beck
          There is no need to relate to this with white envy and wish the same for himself, as part of the Russian Navy. That would be the case.


          No, I understand that there are buttons, so they should be pressed, but where are the arguments against what I said. Like this is not so, the chicken is not a bird there, and the boots are not boots.

          Where? Simply, quietly indulging with buttons, indulge.
      3. PN
        PN 22 March 2014 13: 04
        +10
        No, we won’t drown it (as the purpose of drowning). This is just a floating airfield. But his main weapon - aviation, we have something to shoot down. In general, I believe that AUG is a weapon for intimidating banana republics. Yes, they are large and formidable, but what is the use of their aircraft if there is a highly efficient air defense system? For us, their submarines carrying intercontinental and cruise missiles are much more terrible.
      4. Yuri Sev Caucasus
        Yuri Sev Caucasus 22 March 2014 14: 40
        +1
        and where does the cap-bail? You speak peacetime, or did you serve on one of these aircraft carriers? Find AUG in the ocean is the same as a needle in a haystack! So they found and made a demonstration run over the Avionos. In the event of hostilities, all AuGs must approach the coast of about 500 km to effectively impact the enemy!
        That's the goal for tactical aviation. Although I could be wrong IMHO.
        1. zennon
          zennon 22 March 2014 17: 12
          +1
          Find AUG in the ocean is the same as a needle in a haystack!

          A year ago, one authoritative member of the forum replied to such a statement: "The wake of the AUG is visible from Mars!"
  8. Volodya Sibiryak
    Volodya Sibiryak 22 March 2014 08: 52
    +11
    Eh, let such a vessel go to the bottom winked
  9. 094711601
    094711601 22 March 2014 08: 55
    +7
    I understand that this ship is designed to act against countries such as Libya, Syria and others like them! Well, so with impunity!
  10. Afinogen
    Afinogen 22 March 2014 09: 04
    0
    Aircraft carrier is a good target, big. A pair of Tu - 160 without entering the radar zone will launch a salvo of anti-ship missiles and from the aircraft carrier group a second pearl - harbor will be obtained only in the middle of the ocean.
    1. irk_tma
      irk_tma 22 March 2014 09: 19
      +10
      Tu-160 was created for several other purposes.
      Yes, and the main weapon of the Swan missile x-55 (x-555)

      To combat AUG, the Tu-22 - Tu-22M2 / M3 series was created at the time.
      1. DS22
        DS22 22 March 2014 10: 38
        0
        Well, yes, the complex attack on the US AUG - the TU-30M22 regiments, atomarines and the surface fleet, worked out 3 years ago (it was not without reason that they built a bunch of missile boats). In addition, on the Black Sea we have combat skegs - "Bora" and "Samum", and more than one ship will not catch them in speed, they carry anti-ship weapons.
      2. Afinogen
        Afinogen 22 March 2014 16: 40
        +1
        Quote: irk_tma
        Tu-160 was created for several other purposes.
        Yes, and the main weapon of the Swan missile x-55 (x-555)

        To combat AUG, the Tu-22 - Tu-22M2 / M3 series was created at the time.

        I completely agree. I dreamed so figuratively, it’s just in that womb - 160 more gifts for the AUG fits.))
        Now strategic aviation, or rather the remnants of its former power, outlined the tasks for the future ..

        http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/22597/
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 22 March 2014 09: 51
      +4
      Quote: Athenogen
      Aircraft carrier is a good target, big. A pair of Tu - 160 without entering the radar zone will launch a salvo of anti-ship missiles and from the aircraft carrier group a second pearl - harbor will be obtained only in the middle of the ocean.

      Athenogen, answer the simple question, what anti-ship missiles can the Tu-160 at least launch on no matter what surface target?
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 22 March 2014 11: 29
        +8
        Quote: Nayhas
        Quote: Athenogen
        Aircraft carrier is a good target, big. A pair of Tu - 160 without entering the radar zone will launch a salvo of anti-ship missiles and from the aircraft carrier group a second pearl - harbor will be obtained only in the middle of the ocean.

        Athenogen, answer the simple question, what anti-ship missiles can the Tu-160 at least launch on no matter what surface target?


        I think the correct answer is like this - "... piu .... bdyyschsch !!! ..." laughing
      2. Afinogen
        Afinogen 22 March 2014 16: 03
        0
        Quote: Nayhas
        Phynogen, answer a simple question, what anti-ship missiles Tu-160 can at least launch on no matter what surface target?


        Answer X - 65SE http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/kr/x65.html

        X - 15C http://shooter.com.ua/specialnye-zadachi/685-aviacionnaya-ayeroballisticheskaya-
        raketa-x-15.html

        http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/x15/x15.shtml

        These missiles have already been adapted for the Tu-160, for sure it is possible to adapt the onyxes for firing, if there is a desire.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 22 March 2014 16: 20
          +3
          Quote: Athenogen
          Answer X - 65SE

          There is no such missile in service.
          Quote: Athenogen
          X - 15C

          The Tu-160 never wore it, all references to it to the Tu-160 are only speculations.
          Quote: Athenogen
          These missiles have already been adapted for the Tu-160, for sure it is possible to adapt the onyxes for firing, if there is a desire.

          Onyxes will not fit into the Tu-160, theoretically it is possible to suspend calibers, but with appropriate modernization to integrate it on board.
          Tu-160 (those that can still fly, four sides) are only tactical KR.
  11. irk_tma
    irk_tma 22 March 2014 09: 15
    +21
    I don’t understand the meaning of this article.
    its content is more like an advertising booklet like "Uncle Sam needs you!"
    There were more detailed and interesting articles on this resource about aircraft carriers of the "Nimitz" type.
    about the aircraft carrier as part of the AUG .... there is generally "no comments"
    if I want to see beautiful photos (exactly beautiful ones) about the army, then I’ll go to militaryphotos.net
    I think most Topwar patrons know this site
    article minus for it
  12. Old scoop
    Old scoop 22 March 2014 09: 17
    +12
    Advertised? No thanks. I won’t buy anything.
  13. Fofan
    Fofan 22 March 2014 09: 28
    +4
    article from opium lovers site? http://loveopium.ru ???
    explains a lot laughing
  14. Turkestan
    Turkestan 22 March 2014 09: 30
    +3
    Quote: Athenogen
    Aircraft carrier is a good target, big. A pair of Tu - 160 without entering the radar zone will launch a salvo of anti-ship missiles and from the aircraft carrier group a second pearl - harbor will be obtained only in the middle of the ocean.


    And it is not necessary to use airplanes to destroy an aircraft carrier group. There are ground-based systems of destruction of surface targets that can pass the PROK at large distances and their price is not high.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 22 March 2014 11: 31
      +1
      Quote: Turkestan
      Quote: Athenogen
      Aircraft carrier is a good target, big. A pair of Tu - 160 without entering the radar zone will launch a salvo of anti-ship missiles and from the aircraft carrier group a second pearl - harbor will be obtained only in the middle of the ocean.


      And it is not necessary to use airplanes to destroy an aircraft carrier group. There are ground-based systems of destruction of surface targets that can pass the PROK at large distances and their price is not high.


      In Russia, there are none in general (in reality, and not at exhibitions)
      Do not tell me - what happened in Turkestan in this area? laughing
  15. Support
    Support 22 March 2014 09: 52
    0
    A large cupboard falls louder .... For every .op there is a sly one you know what. A large trough, not weak of course, but also a noble target.
  16. mpa945
    mpa945 22 March 2014 09: 52
    +8
    "My personal opinion is this: not a single country in the world today is able to withstand the US and NATO navies. If you do not take into account atomic weapons, the use of which irreversibly entails the death of both parties to the conflict."
    This phrase, as I understand it, belongs to the poster without a signature. Bold minus.
    Hatred is certainly bad, but idolatry - IHMO - is much worse.
  17. Victor1
    Victor1 22 March 2014 10: 10
    +11
    in 1988, the Americans also thought that the bigger the cooler, but got on the nose and left beaten:
    1. irk_tma
      irk_tma 22 March 2014 12: 41
      +1
      don't be like reporters
      do not confuse bulk with ram
      1. Victor1
        Victor1 22 March 2014 13: 15
        +3
        I did not say that it was a ram.
        Our asses kicked Americans, and did it at the highest level.
    2. Riperbahn
      Riperbahn 22 March 2014 14: 26
      +7
      It was really great! Until recently, the Merikos did not understand what they were facing - they crowded on cabinets and the upper deck, took pictures. And ours stood on the wings of the bridge, clutching machine guns. And what was the result? I am proud of such people!
    3. Gakkoga
      Gakkoga 23 March 2014 19: 12
      0
      Awesome))) That's the way you always have to do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  18. Curt
    Curt 22 March 2014 10: 16
    +4
    confront amer. everyone can fleet. But not everyone can win this confrontation - here we drown 1 aug, and they still have 9 (
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 22 March 2014 11: 41
      +4
      Quote: Curt
      confront amer. everyone can fleet. But not everyone can win this confrontation - here we drown 1 aug, and they still have 9 (


      That is true. Our current fleet, by the standards of the war with the United States, is a toy fleet. PLACR, which are in operation (4-5) Peter the Great, one active Glory, given that they are all scattered across 2 oceans to several more seas, do NOT pose any threat to the dominance of the U.S. Navy in the World Ocean, and possibly in the Barents and Okhotsk Seas. The most probable exchange is 1-2 AB, 4-5 destroyers / cruisers for 3-4 PLACR at sea, everything that is under repair, Peter the Great, 1164, 3-4 destroyers and 6-7 BOD. After that, we have 2 BODs, a dozen nuclear submarines (no longer PLAKR), and actually the RCA, MPK, BTSSC, DEPL, that is, the direct protection forces of the water area. Interference with the enemy’s naval forces can only be created if an MAO is carried out.
      And in the US Navy with allies - practically the forces will not change (decrease by 10-20%) completely seizing dominance on the seas.
      1. irk_tma
        irk_tma 22 March 2014 12: 50
        +8
        another reasoning ala "T-90 against Abrams"

        so, there will be no naval battle in its classical sense in modern warfare
        The Falkland conflict showed it well, and also that it was the last, which at least somehow can be attributed to the classic naval battles
        and indeed ... do not care on AUG!
        in a hypothetical armed conflict with the United States without the use of nuclear forces, first of all, it is necessary to drown the US maritime shipping rollers
        without them, mattress covers will not be able to pop out of their mainland
  19. Riperbahn
    Riperbahn 22 March 2014 10: 27
    +1
    Kevlar will not help them
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 22 March 2014 11: 43
      +1
      Quote: Riperbahn
      Kevlar will not help them


      Kevlar is most likely from fragments and shells up to 20mm - shorter from shelling with a random aircraft or with what kind of scow. It is clear that this is not protection against RCC OH
  20. varangian
    varangian 22 March 2014 10: 30
    +2
    As the Americans heard that our "Peter the Great" was going to the Black Sea, they were too scared laughing

    The US Navy group, led by the aircraft carrier George Bush, left the Mediterranean Sea, passing through the Suez Canal, the Pentagon reported on March 20.
    Thus, the group moved from the zone of responsibility of the fifth US fleet to the zone of responsibility of the sixth fleet in the Red Sea. The group includes, in addition to the aircraft carrier, the 8th sea-based aviation regiment, a group of destroyers, the Philippine Sea missile cruiser, and the Roosevelt missile destroyer.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 22 March 2014 11: 13
      +6
      Quote: varangian
      As the Americans heard that our "Peter the Great" was going to the Black Sea, they were too scared

      In fact, Peter has been hanging in the middle-earth for the fourth month, if George W. Bush was afraid of him, as you put it, he wouldn’t have passed through Gibraltar. Or is it a fantasy situation that warms your soul?
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 22 March 2014 11: 44
        +4
        Quote: Nayhas
        Quote: varangian
        As the Americans heard that our "Peter the Great" was going to the Black Sea, they were too scared

        In fact, Peter has been hanging in the middle-earth for the fourth month, if George W. Bush was afraid of him, as you put it, he wouldn’t have passed through Gibraltar. Or is it a fantasy situation that warms your soul?


        Yes, here these fantasies warm more than half of the people laughing
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 22 March 2014 16: 24
          +2
          Quote: cdrt
          Yes, here these fantasies warm more than half of the people

          It is sad. Better to gain respect, not fear ...
  21. Dezinto
    Dezinto 22 March 2014 10: 33
    +2
    One single hit of our granite on his deck turns the aircraft carrier into a useless barge. Our PLARK Antey Tihonichko so floats up and produces a series of granites. And floats away. Here you have the whole AUG.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 22 March 2014 11: 45
      +7
      Quote: DEZINTO
      One single hit of our granite on his deck turns the aircraft carrier into a useless barge. Our PLARK Antey Tihonichko so floats up and produces a series of granites. And floats away. Here you have the whole AUG.


      One single hit of an anti-submarine torpedo in the PLACR makes heroes out of its entire crew - mirror
      Some kind of reasoning for children
    2. Zeus
      Zeus 22 March 2014 17: 06
      +1
      Granites than you will give target designation?
  22. Samurai3X
    Samurai3X 22 March 2014 10: 35
    0
    The ship is good, beautiful, huge ...
    In theoretical warfare, this is a big pile of very expensive metal. So I believe that several Granites will lower it to the bottom and it is likely that the submarine will also die ...
    But such a change is more than equivalent.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 22 March 2014 11: 47
      +1
      Quote: Samurai3X
      The ship is good, beautiful, huge ...
      In theoretical warfare, this is a big pile of very expensive metal. So I believe that several Granites will lower it to the bottom and it is likely that the submarine will also die ...
      But such a change is more than equivalent.


      Would ask what outfit of forces for the destruction of the AUG considered it necessary to use the great professionals of the Navy of the USSR ...
      1. Samurai3X
        Samurai3X 22 March 2014 13: 59
        0
        I'm talking about an aircraft carrier, not the whole AUG ... read carefully ...
        And here is http://expert.ru/2014/01/24/ot-rossijskih-raket-teper-ne-skryitsya-dazhe-avianos
        tsam-ssha /
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 22 March 2014 16: 45
      0
      Quote: Samurai3X
      In a theoretical war this is a big pile of very expensive metal

      Any ship can be brought under your words.
  23. dmit-xnumx
    dmit-xnumx 22 March 2014 10: 39
    +1
    This panegyric is bewildering. I served an urgent one 42 years ago and did not particularly follow the achievements of our military-industrial complex. Can anyone say what will happen to this aircraft carrier if a pair of thermobaric charges hits it?
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 22 March 2014 11: 48
      +3
      Quote: dmit-52
      This panegyric is bewildering. I served an urgent one 42 years ago and did not particularly follow the achievements of our military-industrial complex. Can anyone say what will happen to this aircraft carrier if a pair of thermobaric charges hits it?


      Nothing, because they won’t get there, because they’re not made
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 22 March 2014 16: 52
      +4
      Quote: dmit-52
      Can anyone say what will happen to this aircraft carrier if a pair of thermobaric charges hits it?

      What a funny one you are ... Your questionnaire can be continued.
      What will happen to this aircraft carrier if it:
      - a mine will fall from a mortar Tulip;
      - the T-90 tank will be delivered by a cumulative projectile;
      -to start a company of demobilization with a hangover;
      - spat an alien creature from the Alien movie;
      - the Kirovets tractor launched along a parabola will fall;
      Are you interested in such questions?
      1. dmit-xnumx
        dmit-xnumx 23 March 2014 17: 42
        +1
        Actually, my question was specific, but your answer reminded me of the phrase from "Khoja Nasreddin" by L. Solovyov - "He who wears a copper shield has a copper forehead ..." I hope you know the end of this phrase.
  24. Dezinto
    Dezinto 22 March 2014 10: 54
    +4
    They have historically clung to aircraft carriers. Riveted a bunch of them. And now they pretend that this is a terribly technological weapon. Floating in the oceans and bombing rivals which are surrounded on all sides by bases !. Their effectiveness in a war in the ocean, with a modern adversary - is doubtful!
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 22 March 2014 11: 50
      +2
      Quote: DEZINTO
      They have historically clung to aircraft carriers. Riveted a bunch of them. And now they pretend that this is a terribly technological weapon. Floating in the oceans and bombing rivals which are surrounded on all sides by bases !. Their effectiveness in a war in the ocean, with a modern adversary - is doubtful!


      Actually, what’s wrong?
      The presence of 11-15 AB allows them to maintain undeniable dominance in the oceans for 70 years already ..
      Even the USSR Navy hoped to challenge it for a period of 1-2 months and only in the seas that washed the shores of the USSR directly.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 22 March 2014 16: 54
      0
      Quote: DEZINTO
      Their effectiveness in a war in the ocean, with a modern adversary - is doubtful!

      Carriers have more than one day and the history of their use is very rich. What do you personally doubt about the effectiveness of these devices?
  25. Wiruz
    Wiruz 22 March 2014 10: 59
    +9
    Now, if I write that the aircraft carrier is good, they will zamusutut me. But he is really good.
    1. Dezinto
      Dezinto 22 March 2014 11: 03
      +7
      Yes, no, why minus that. The device is serious, it works, it shoots with airplanes. But the only thing that matters is efficiency. And when the Americans advertise something very much, it means they have to be wary. Is this chewing gum so tasty))) IMHO.
    2. Samurai3X
      Samurai3X 22 March 2014 11: 20
      +5
      There is no need to minus ...
      Each type of weapon is created for its purpose.
      Carriers, in my understanding, exist for the quick transfer of aircraft to places where there are no airfields.
      But for bombing twice Iraq, Libya - this is an ideal weapon. There are no serious anti-ship and air defense systems.
      But for the war with Russia, China - useless scrap metal, IMHO)
      1. SSR
        SSR 22 March 2014 12: 04
        +7
        Quote: Samurai3X
        There is no need to minus ...
        Each type of weapon is created for its purpose.
        Carriers, in my understanding, exist for the quick transfer of aircraft to places where there are no airfields.
        But for bombing twice Iraq, Libya - this is an ideal weapon. There are no serious anti-ship and air defense systems.
        But for the war with Russia, China - useless scrap metal, IMHO)

        Why does not everyone mention that the aircraft carrier does not go alone? It's like two strike groups in the ocean, but one has a drill and a hundred planes and the other side has a dozen helicopters. Aircraft carrier goes si air defense ships and missile cruisers and with boats and submarines! Dear comrades. One granite one granite .....
        1. Samurai3X
          Samurai3X 22 March 2014 14: 21
          0
          IF one granite hits ... And then most likely two ...
          No one doubts that this is not the only aircraft carrier and that he still has a cloud of cruisers and other means of amplification. The question is how much they can shoot down at the same time. A salvo of 20 or 30 1-2 missiles will definitely reach ...
  26. ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 22 March 2014 11: 32
    +13
    Able to be in swimming until 20 years without refueling.
    Here is a typical example of psychological warfare. Without refueling what ??? The autonomy of the ship in terms of fuel (nuclear) is given, and an ignorant layman has the impression that this is how a giant whales emerges into the sea and swims for 20 years, without replenishment of food, ammunition and aviation fuel, without crew rest, without maintenance at the port ...

    Colorfully removed the Slav in the American service, Victor Benesh, whose parents emigrated to the United States from Ukraine, and there was not enough space to mention anything about the arrangement of catapults or at least the width of the deck.

    The conclusion is that

    no country in the world today is able to withstand the US and NATO navy
    generally "shine"!

    Bold minus this clumsy and clumsy propaganda. The author did not have enough brains to even rewrite something specific and more or less worthwhile from a military and technical point of view. He stupidly scribbled a dozen pictures and began to admire him as a schoolboy in his first pornographic magazine.
  27. castle
    castle 22 March 2014 11: 34
    +1
    Good health to all.
    I bring to your attention two articles.

    http://guns.d3.ru/comments/532429/
    http://ruskline.ru/opp/2013/10/03/veroyatnost_dlya_rossijskogo_ubijcy_avianoscev
    _unichtozhit_amerikanskij_avianosec_nol /

    Maybe these are articles just PR actions from the area "We don't have anything solid, but give us more money and then we can." Or maybe the articles show the actual state of affairs. In any case, there is something to think about.
  28. Artem1967
    Artem1967 22 March 2014 11: 47
    +5
    The entire series of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers are excellent warships. There is only one minus - fabulous operating costs. We can't pull it. It is necessary to look for other countermeasures (for example, the latest low-noise nuclear submarines).
  29. abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 22 March 2014 11: 55
    +5
    Biggest military vessel in the world. Its construction began in 2003 and cost $ 6,5 billion to American taxpayers.
    The first sentence of the article immediately smiled ... In principle, after that you can end your acquaintance with the article.
    wassat
    Is a ship in a hospital or in a civilian fleet ... Or is it such a delicate author’s trolling over this ship?
  30. Bobxnumx
    Bobxnumx 22 March 2014 12: 00
    +1
    Of course, the ship, we must pay tribute to it, is good, but a whole flotilla - 17 - 20 ships - goes with it. This is a considerable armada, they need space. But against all this, as a rule, an "antidote" is always being prepared.
    1. SSR
      SSR 22 March 2014 13: 11
      +3
      Quote: Bob0859
      Of course, the ship, we must pay tribute to it, is good, but a whole flotilla - 17 - 20 ships - goes with it. This is a considerable armada, they need space. But against all this, as a rule, an "antidote" is always being prepared.

      Undermining the YaBZ atmosphere is perhaps the most economical method for today, although the consequences can be "difficult to predict." request laughing just in the open, where no one is))))
  31. DmitryK
    DmitryK 22 March 2014 12: 17
    -1
    Surprisingly poor-quality, insignificant photographs, then against the sun and under improper lighting, are not sharp most, or simply not in the subject. I did not expect a minus post.
  32. Technologist
    Technologist 22 March 2014 12: 18
    0
    Author, whose friend are you ???
  33. Curious
    Curious 22 March 2014 12: 19
    0
    This is of course power and strength. Maybe the US fleet is the most powerful in the world. But ... they know how to fight missiles from long distances. And in close combat, our army more than once defeated them.
    1. Beck
      Beck 22 March 2014 12: 37
      +5
      Quote: Interested
      And in close combat, our army more than once defeated them.


      Well, you give - A country of coal, at least fine, but up to x ... me.

      Give at least one example, at least one fact, when the armies of the USA and Russia (USSR) opposed each other in a direct military conflict? When did the strategic battles take place and the US armies beaten by the Russian armies would drape?

      There are no such facts in the history or if only to pick up the scary throat.
      1. Ruslan
        Ruslan 22 March 2014 13: 53
        -1
        Of course there were no large-scale operations. but there were local battles. Our fighter pilots fought quite successfully against the Americans in Korea, anti-aircraft gunners again against the US Air Force in Vietnam, when during the Vietnam War, new helicopters arrived, our special forces attacked their airbase to remove some blocks from helicopters (I learned from strike force programs, it will be necessary to look for more information). By the way, the United States invaded our waters in the coastal region and shot our dry river at our air base, and air battles at the border repeatedly took place, it was in the early 50s. so there is no experience of direct collisions, and ours have shown themselves to be excellent.
    2. Assistant
      Assistant 22 March 2014 12: 42
      +3
      And in close combat, our army more than once defeated them.


      And you can in more detail, where
      our army
      defeated the US Navy, and several times?
  34. 0255
    0255 22 March 2014 12: 21
    +2
    We are waiting for comments by Oleg Kaptsov that this aircraft carrier is not needed)))
    And the article liked only beautiful photos. It is a pity that such a beautiful aircraft carrier was created for aggression against third world countries, objectionable to the United States (((
  35. targitai
    targitai 22 March 2014 12: 26
    +6
    Quote: Volodya Sibiryak
    Eh, let such a vessel go to the bottom winked

    You can’t heat this vessel! There are two reactors, the same tin as the light will be. What for maritime open spaces so filthy.
  36. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 22 March 2014 12: 35
    +3
    Why is there no bar in the pictures where sailors relieve stress after "hard" working days?
    Do not order ...
  37. SPACE
    SPACE 22 March 2014 12: 37
    +8
    Quote: Author
    My personal opinion is this: no country in the world today is able to withstand the US and NATO navy. If you do not take into account atomic weapons, the use of which irreversibly entails the death of both sides of the conflict.

    "If you do not take into account nuclear weapons" if you do not take then yes, but that is why the United States has such debts, has built weapons of terror and destruction, instead of saving Detroit and other bankrupts, it would be better to deal with their economy and social sphere. Russia does not have such a fleet, but stood between Syria, and the United States cannot do anything, well, where is their vaunted power? And what is the use of these floating nuclear troughs? If a war breaks out, he will not even be able to reach the DB, he will drown.
    Z.Y. Beautiful, expensive and the most useless and meaningless in the world, a bunch of floating radioactive iron!
    And this is my personal opinion.
    1. 31231
      31231 22 March 2014 16: 07
      +2
      I also somehow do not understand this phrase.
      At sea, yes, our AUGs will not be able to resist. But we do not have an aggressive military policy. And in most cases we can protect our coast from AUG. Vietnam is an example when aircraft carriers at the land theater of action could not do much.
  38. 2front
    2front 22 March 2014 12: 56
    +2
    I know that aircraft carriers are not relevant for Russia! And they are not so unsinkable!
    1. yur58
      yur58 22 March 2014 15: 52
      +2
      We have a non-sinking aircraft carrier - Crimea
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 22 March 2014 21: 35
        0
        Personally, battleships seem to me to be very promising in the fight against American carriers. Especially from such an unusual material as concrete. It's simple, cheap, reliable, and finally, what survivability!
  39. yurik
    yurik 22 March 2014 13: 10
    +2
    the most effective means of combating the AUG of the tan is modern nuclear submarines, their construction will be much more profitable than the construction of 1-2 aircraft carriers that need to be provided with a large cover group and they will still be inferior in the strength and survivability of the enemy AUG
  40. rasputin17
    rasputin17 22 March 2014 13: 17
    +2
    Well, the ship is big !! Well, his convoy is also big !! And there is a lot of show-off and pathos too !! True, with a skillful salvo of "Granit" or "Yakhont" in the event of a real conflict, another coral reef will appear !! In the event of a real conflict and military action, you guys have no idea what a huge target it is that is very difficult to defend !!!
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 22 March 2014 17: 00
      +2
      Quote: rasputin17
      And there is a lot of show-off and pathos too !! True, with a skillful salvo of "Granit" or "Yakhont" in the event of a real conflict, another coral reef will appear !!

      And how exactly are you going to detect the enemy, or will you let go of anti-ship missiles in all directions of the world?
      1. rasputin17
        rasputin17 23 March 2014 08: 14
        +1
        And how exactly are you going to detect the enemy, or will you let go of anti-ship missiles in all directions of the world?

        Well, why !!!)) There are tons of ways to detect and classify targets !! The art of choosing the right one as part of the convoy and just striking it, without exchanging escort for escort and then moving away from pursuit, changing depth depending on the hydrology of the sea, masking the noise of other targets, using special equipment .... and much more !!
  41. Nurbiy
    Nurbiy 22 March 2014 13: 24
    +4
    This is not so much an article as an advertisement for the pseudo military pseudo power of the stripes, they say look how strong they are. Oh, nah .. !!! Perhaps that is why he is accompanied by as many as 17 ships. author remind how many ships he sank? No one? hmm ... the author, (exactly, a small letter) yes you are a Cossack, sir.
  42. sandrmur76
    sandrmur76 22 March 2014 13: 36
    0
    Quote: cdrt
    Quote: DEZINTO
    One single hit of our granite on his deck turns the aircraft carrier into a useless barge. Our PLARK Antey Tihonichko so floats up and produces a series of granites. And floats away. Here you have the whole AUG.


    One single hit of an anti-submarine torpedo in the PLACR makes heroes out of its entire crew - mirror
    Some kind of reasoning for children

    Why baby? It deforms everything that is possible. At least the guides of steam catapults. Of course, the ship is serious, no doubt. But too complicated.
  43. sv68
    sv68 22 March 2014 13: 44
    +2
    the article is a little with hidden advertising of the American Navy. Well done quickly, well done. And the main thing is that there would never be a situation in which we had to test our anti-missile missiles against their ships in real combat
  44. Waroc
    Waroc 22 March 2014 14: 23
    +2
    The biggest ship - PRIZE - the biggest torpedo !!!)))
  45. tokin1959
    tokin1959 22 March 2014 14: 28
    0
    Handsome. Power and technology.
    but this aircraft carrier can only fight against banana countries. smash it into chips.
    neither the USSR nor Russia has ever set the task of waging war on the other side of the world.
    we simply don’t need aircraft carriers.
    1. Basarev
      Basarev 22 March 2014 21: 45
      +1
      Strange. Stalin and Kuznetsov built a large ocean-going fleet. Even the construction of battleships of the "Soviet Union" type was started for this purpose. But after that Khrushchev came and destroyed the dream. So: it is Khrushchev's policy that is to blame for the absence of a real fleet in us. This is he in everything to blame.
  46. DeOS78RU
    DeOS78RU 22 March 2014 14: 41
    +5
    Quote: 0255
    Quote: cdrt
    Quote: varangian
    It was necessary to repeat the "star raid" when "George Bush" was in the Greek port. That was the goal ... soldier


    And besides the realization of your fantasies about playing war games, why did you need to do this? Moreover, invading the airspace of a NATO member country?

    oh well, don’t run into a person, what, you can’t dream? )))
    We all dream of either sinking the state aircraft carrier, or launching the Satan or Topol-M missile on the Pentagon)))

    But how do you dream of Svidomo? impressive?)))
    1. tokin1959
      tokin1959 22 March 2014 14: 55
      +3
      it is immediately clear that these Svidomo - complete amateurs, they missed the Death Star and the Terminator.
  47. Turkestan
    Turkestan 22 March 2014 14: 50
    +1
    Quote: cdrt
    Quote: Turkestan
    Quote: Athenogen
    Aircraft carrier is a good target, big. A pair of Tu - 160 without entering the radar zone will launch a salvo of anti-ship missiles and from the aircraft carrier group a second pearl - harbor will be obtained only in the middle of the ocean.


    And it is not necessary to use airplanes to destroy an aircraft carrier group. There are ground-based systems of destruction of surface targets that can pass the PROK at large distances and their price is not high.


    In Russia, there are none in general (in reality, and not at exhibitions)
    Do not tell me - what happened in Turkestan in this area? laughing


    Well!!!!! at least these OLD SYSTEMS

    Complexes: Bastion, Granite, Mosquito, including the use of NUCLEAR ammunition against aircraft carrier groups.
    1. rasputin17
      rasputin17 22 March 2014 16: 13
      +4
      You shouldn't be ironic dear !!! The NATO countries have no analogues to such systems as Granit and Yakhont, and they are the real and unsurpassed threat to ships of this class !! And this is what you know as a layman !! Do you think that now here on the forum you will be posted for discussion all the developments of the military-industrial complex standing on the defense of the borders and sovereignty of Russia !!)) wink
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 22 March 2014 16: 58
        0
        Quote: rasputin17
        Do not you think that now here on the forum you will be put up for discussion all the achievements of the defense industry standing on the defense of the borders and sovereignty of Russia !!)) wink

        What's the point? They are all known for a long time, nothing special has been invented. All that we have is able to only keep them at a certain distance (with a nuclear-free version, respectively) and then not for long.
  48. yur58
    yur58 22 March 2014 15: 49
    0
    And Cho, we no longer have "killers" of aircraft carriers?
    1. rasputin17
      rasputin17 22 March 2014 16: 07
      +2
      Weight!! and just waiting in the wings !! thanks to them, these galoshes do not climb to us because they understand the insignificance of their pseudo-greatness !! They also understand that the price of their pair of missiles is for a million rubles, which will put the bottom of the billion state department !!!
  49. Bunchuk36
    Bunchuk36 22 March 2014 16: 21
    +2
    Quote: w2000
    Carriers are a weapon of aggression and colonial expansion. Our army is created and tuned to the defense of the country and possible military operations with neighboring states. Why do we need aircraft carriers? Even if we had 3-4 of them cruising off the coast of the United States, this would not have changed anything in the strategic alignment of forces. They do not represent a real threat to a powerful nuclear power, and we do not have overseas territories for the control and intimidation of which they are really suitable. Our fleet needs more strategic and strike submarines.

    It seems to me that this opinion is fair, especially since we have the first experience with titanium and a 1000 m dive.
  50. typhoon7
    typhoon7 22 March 2014 16: 34
    0
    Quote: wanderer_032
    You yourself said the answer to all the questions. Maybe that's why they don’t enter our waters?
    Knowing what awaits them there.

    I agree with the killers of aircraft carriers, this is primarily a deterrent, by the way this AUG headed for home, so our deterrent works well.
    1. Zeus
      Zeus 22 March 2014 17: 32
      +1
      They didn’t go home, but into the coverage area of ​​the fifth US fleet.

      Map of the presence of the US Navy on 20.03.2014/XNUMX/XNUMX
      1. Ignatiuss
        Ignatiuss 22 March 2014 21: 25
        0
        Red and blue, what's the difference?
        1. Zeus
          Zeus 22 March 2014 22: 10
          0
          Different types of ships.
          CVN - aircraft carrier,
          LHD - landing ship.