Military Review

Aircraft carriers and the main directions of construction of the Navy

158



The controversy continues: do aircraft carriers (AV) need Russia? They are usually considered offensive. weapons. AVs allow you to transfer power across the ocean. The need for aircraft carriers can be identified when considering the hypothetical possibility of Russia conducting an offensive operation against the United States.

The basis of the general purpose forces of the US Navy are 10-11 AUG and the corresponding number of heavy ABs. Plus 8 in reserve (1 atomic and 7 non-nuclear). Total - to 18-19 AB. In the current US Air Force there are 2157 combat aircraft. More than a thousand aircraft - in the Air Force National Guard and 1486 in the AMARG - in storage. Plus the Air Force Command of the Marine Corps (ILC). The number of US Air Force combat aircraft will be limited to 2157, although the potential enemy will actually have significantly more aircraft.

How many combat aircraft will the Russian Air Force be able to counter? In North America, we have not only not a single military base, but also a single logistics point. We have no allies there. In air-ground operations (UPD) against Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, the Americans had a sufficient number of bases (their own and allies), on which they deployed advance groups (up to six months) of up to a million people. We will not be able to create anything like this at present and in the coming decades in North America. In this case, an air offensive operation can only be carried out by deck and strategic forces. aviation. That is, practically without a huge part of the Russian Air Force. The latter will be forced to confront (Article 5 of the NATO Treaty) the NATO Air Force (without the United States). In the continental United States (except Alaska), only 16 TU-160 and 32 plus 60 can operate in the reserve of TU-95MS Air Force, 18 SU-33 or 24 MIG-29K / KUB (in the future) with the Admiral Kuznetsov AV. Total 132 aircraft.

For the equality of forces in aviation (not talking about the superiority of the attacking side) of the Russian Federation, you must have: 18-19 АВ and 2157 combat aircraft. That is, 18-19 AB and 2157 are missing - 132 = 2025 combat aircraft. On a heavy AB about 80 LA. Without a dozen helicopters there will be approximately 70 combat aircraft. We divide 2025 airplanes into 70 and get 29 AB.
Therefore, in order for the forces in aviation to be equal (excluding the Air Forces of the National Guard, reserve, KMP), you should have approximately 18-19 plus 29, that is, 47-48 heavy AB. If you build them one by one and 1 AB for 6 years, then it will take approximately 300 years. If we build simultaneously on 2 AB, 150 years will be required. If by 3 - 100 years. By 4 - 75 years. By 6 - 50 years, by 10 units - 30 years.

From the above calculation it follows that: 1. For such an offensive operation will require several dozen heavy AB. 2. Such a number for the Russian Federation - just fantastic. 3. And that means fiction - an offensive operation against the United States. 4. Since there will be no offensive operation, we don’t need to build a single heavy AB for it.

Conclusions on offensive VNO:
1. To conduct an offensive VNO against the US, there is no need for aircraft carriers as part of the Russian Navy.
2. To combat the relatively large naval forces of other states (but not NATO!) To ensure the balance of the Navy in its composition can be aircraft carriers (aircraft carriers).

A hypothetical probable defensive operation of the Russian Navy can be carried out in the event of an offensive VNO by NATO countries (USA). The basis of the attacking group in VNO will be aviation (coast-based and deck). The forces of the parties (the number of combat aircraft in the regular air force and navy, without reserves, the marine corps and the US National Guard): a) NATO aircraft: US Air Force - 2157, NATO Air Force without US - 2265, on aircraft carriers (without backup AV) - 770 -840; b) Russian Air Force - 1301 combat aircraft (without naval combat aircraft - several dozen combat aircraft). Total: NATO has 5192-5262 combat aircraft, the Russian Federation - 1301. Superiority more than 4 times. The multiple advantage of the United States in sea-based and air-based cruise missiles further increases this figure.

One of the tasks of the Air Force and Navy in the VNO is the destruction (disabling) of aircraft carriers - the basis of the US Navy's general-purpose forces. Possible means capable of fighting AB: 1. Aircraft carriers. 2. Surface ships (NK). 3 Aviation Air Force. 4. Submarines (PL). 5. Mines.

1. A probable enemy may have from 10-11 to 20-heavy AB (with the commissioning of the reserve and taking into account the AB of France and the UK). In conditions of significant (at times) superiority in aircraft carriers, naval aviation and NATO air forces, our AVs (military conflict in the coming decades): a) will take an unequal battle on the high seas and will be destroyed or b) must maneuver near their coast under the guise of coastal aviation home base. Moreover, this also does not guarantee their survival - the defeat of the many-fold superior forces pressed to the shore of the AB is a matter of time. In such circumstances, aircraft carriers are practically deprived of their main purpose - the ability to transfer force. Therefore, the rejection of expensive aircraft carriers in favor of coast-based aviation is an economically viable step. As aviation's potential superiority decreases over Russian aviation, the probability of hitting aircraft carriers will decrease. Consequently, the use of aircraft carriers in the defensive VNO is advisable when our loss in the aviation forces (Air Force and Navy) will not be as significant as at present.

2. Fighting on the territory of the Russian Federation can be conducted at several theaters of operations (theater of operations). And to achieve success, strategic mobility of forces Fleet. Surface ships have significant limitations in strategic movements, for example, from one sea to another: a) on inland waterways - insufficient depth of shallow channels and dimensions of lock chambers; b) problems with year-round movement along the Northern Sea Route (NSR); c) possible actions of the probable enemy in the straits (remember the Tsushima tragedy when moving the Russian squadron from the Baltic to the Sea of ​​Japan): Tsushima, Laperuza, Bering, Bosphorus and others.

No matter how long-range anti-ship missiles had NK, they will always be amazed before with the same range missiles, but fired from aircraft that took off from aircraft carriers. In other words, AVs practically will not allow NKs to launch their missiles. Therefore, NK is useless in the fight against AB. The strategic mobility of NK groups is low. Therefore, surface ships should not be used to directly destroy enemy aircraft carriers. Their number should be limited only by the need to have a balanced fleet.

3. Strategic and long-range aviation, having several bases in the west and east of the country, can act at any time in the interests of any navy fleet. Its strategic mobility is huge. Consequently, rocket-carrying aircraft capable of fighting aircraft carriers simultaneously in different theaters should be the main strike force of the Navy (Air Force). Serial production from 2025, the PACDA with hypersonic missiles (RMS) with a launch range of up to 1000 km (approximately) allows bombers to use weapons without entering the aircraft carrier's air defense zone. This further enhances the importance of missile-carrying aircraft in the destruction of aircraft carriers. To ensure the reconnaissance of targets, the following should be built: DRLO aircraft, spacecraft of the Liana system, over-the-horizon radar, etc.

4. Submarines, possessing great secrecy, can suddenly strike AB. However, the cost of submarines is high. Consequently, it is necessary, along with them, to have a sufficient number of cheap rocket (RCC) of air-independent submarines - VNPL and DPL, capable of hitting aircraft carriers.

Conclusions on the defensive operation:

1. The use of aircraft carriers in the defense VNO becomes appropriate when the loss of the Russian Federation to a potential enemy in the aviation forces (Air Force and Navy) will be insignificant. Under the conditions of the repeated superiority of the enemy, the probability of destroying the aircraft carriers of the Navy will be great.

2. The main strike force of the Navy (VS), capable of hitting enemy aircraft carriers, must be missile-carrying aircraft.

3. To combat aircraft carriers, it is necessary to have in the Navy, along with nuclear submarines, a significant number of rocket launchers (SPM).

4. Limit the construction of expensive large surface ships, unable to fight aircraft carriers. Their number should ensure the balance of the Fleet.

5. Funds saved on aircraft carriers and large surface ships should be channeled into the development of missile-carrying aircraft, submarines, and target reconnaissance assets.
Author:
158 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Good cat
    Good cat April 21 2014 08: 50
    +6
    And what about the Russian armed forces based on direct conflict with the United States? We need aircraft carriers, and so it’s clear to everyone.
    1. Canep
      Canep April 21 2014 09: 34
      0
      when considering the hypothetical possibility of Russia conducting an offensive operation against the United States.
      I did not read further, the author would not hurt to see a doctor, narcologist or psychiatrist.
      1. klaus16
        klaus16 April 21 2014 11: 22
        +25
        No, "looking at your feet", the author considered the tactical possibility and the balance of forces. Possible scenario. But those who think that we and America are friends forever should go to a psychiatrist. And it's not about us. But the NATO grouping in the Baltic countries of several thousand people, doesn't it bother you? Moreover, it has only increased over the past 5 years. So who needs a doctor?
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 April 21 2014 12: 29
          +11
          Quote: klaus16
          No, "looking at your feet", the author considered the tactical possibility and the balance of forces. Possible scenario.

          nevertheless, the author omitted from consideration ballistic anti-ship missiles of medium (1-3 thousand km) and long-range (over 3 thousand km). Which "cheap and angry" can keep all the AUGs chained to the dock.
          1. aleks 62
            aleks 62 April 21 2014 14: 05
            +4
            .... And also a new generation of KR with a launch range of 5000 km or more ...
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 21 2014 16: 47
              0
              will you understand nuclear warheads with the Papuans? to stop torturing the hostages?
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 21 2014 16: 45
            +1
            What do you think of the SM-3 missile defense at the AUG why?
            RCCs do not know how to refuel one another in the air.
            AUG without opposition from someone else's carrier-based aircraft will get SSBNs, unhinderedly detect them and lead them, or immediately drown them.
            1. lestrigon
              lestrigon April 21 2014 18: 44
              +4
              That is why the Americans managed to find and "destroy" our 4 submarines during the Cuban missile crisis ...
              Although the stripes involved more than one AUG lol
              Let me remind you: our boats drove a striped fleet for a very long time, and if they were found, it was only due to malfunctions on the boats, and one was never found, although the Americans used 85% of their Atlantic fleet
            2. Rus2012
              Rus2012 April 22 2014 11: 51
              0
              Quote: Kassandra
              What do you think of the SM-3 missile defense at the AUG why?

              To begin with, it would not hurt you to figure out what missile defense systems can do, especially marine ones ...
              For information: modern ballistic missile systems, created on the basis of "Pioneer-3", "Bulava" and "Topol-M" - for missile defense will be as a maneuvering target with initially unknown launch parameters, using the KSP ...
              Especially if they will use a highly energy-consuming quasi-stable changing trajectory with part of the flight in the stratosphere in hypersound ...
        2. sub307
          sub307 April 21 2014 12: 48
          +8
          Well, yes, that's right. But such a categorical, without hesitation, sending those with whose opinion they themselves do not agree where the "smart guys" want to, it is at least "dangerous" to explain common truths, like - "do not judge yourself, but you will not be judged" (htyaby, to example ...). Especially if the "smart guys" are in a frenzy of "hurray-patriotism - it is simply" mortally dangerous. "
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. Canep
          Canep April 21 2014 13: 38
          +1
          Quote: klaus16
          But the psychiatrist must go to those who think that we and America are friends forever
          If you are hinting at me, I am in favor of building a canal between Canada and Mexico.
          Americans have never been able to make friends with me for a century, I talked to them at one time, it was enough to make an opinion about them, and the US behavior itself does not cause my sympathy.
          1. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 21 2014 16: 49
            +1
            "Stalin Strait" is more likely called ... smile
        5. vanya
          vanya April 21 2014 14: 41
          +10
          the cost of the lead aircraft carrier without an air wing will exceed $ 10 billion, about 100 t-50s will cost about the same. we choose what is more necessary for us
          1. Wanderer H7
            Wanderer H7 April 21 2014 16: 07
            +7
            Of course, you need to rely on aviation, ABs are designed solely for the transfer of force, which is the transfer (we do not shine, alas). That is why we do not even plan any aircraft carriers
            1. Kassandra
              Kassandra April 21 2014 16: 59
              -5
              angry but about Admiral Kuznetsov and Vikramandity, impotento, forgot? or didn’t know? angry
          2. Kassandra
            Kassandra April 21 2014 16: 58
            -2
            really fuck
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakri_Nareubet
            how much is it?
            Wikipedia seems to be 30 times cheaper - Cost: US $ 336 million
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. Rostovchanin
          Rostovchanin April 21 2014 14: 21
          +2
          Very controversial article. The main task (at the moment) of the Navy is to maintain and promote the policy and economy of the Russian Federation far from its native coasts. For example, in Syria. I think that considering the Navy today as an element of an attack or repelling an NATO attack is simply stupid. The weapon of retaliation on the submarine performs another task and, I hope, successfully. The author asked himself an incorrect question and answered it incorrectly.

          Yes, this topic is overwritten with holes !!! we have our own path of development of the Navy ... all of their superiority is eliminated by tactical nuclear weapons !!!! Such authors are used to thinking by the standards of the Second World War (wall to wall) ...
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 15: 33
            +2
            Quote: Rostovchanin
            Yes, this topic is erased to the holes !!! we have our own path of development of the Navy ... all their advantage is eliminated by tactical nuclear weapons !!!!

            NOT liquidated.
            1. Rostovchanin
              Rostovchanin April 21 2014 16: 59
              0
              NOT liquidated.

              those. you want to say that the anti-ship missile "Granit" with special ammunition is not able to disable the AUG?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 17: 15
                +3
                Quote: Rostovchanin
                those. you want to say that the anti-ship missile "Granit" with special ammunition is not able to disable the AUG?

                Quite right, unable.
                Our tactics of using tactical nuclear weapons with the Tu-22M3 provided for shelling the ASG with several anti-ship missiles with special warheads, and not with the purpose of drowning, but only with the goal of disabling the radar and other radio equipment, after which it was supposed to hit the ASG ships with conventional anti-ship missiles.
                1. Rostovchanin
                  Rostovchanin April 21 2014 17: 28
                  0
                  Our tactics of using tactical nuclear weapons with Tu-22M3 provided for the firing of several anti-ship missiles with special warheads

                  Well, if the conversation is not about aviation, but about the Navy ... RCC Granite carries 500 CT special warheads ... it only disables the radar, i.e. only for EMP?
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 18: 28
                    +1
                    Quote: Rostovchanin
                    Well, if the conversation is not about aviation, but about the Navy ... RCC Granite carries 500 CT special warheads ... it only disables the radar, i.e. only for EMP?

                    Well, it seemed to me that we are talking about tactical nuclear weapons, aren't they? :) And half a megaton is not a tactical nuclear weapon.
                    And the X-22, which they were going to shoot at the AUG with the Tu-22М3, had special warheads ranging from 0,35 to 1 megatons.
                    1. Wheel
                      Wheel April 21 2014 22: 20
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Well, it seemed to me that we are talking about tactical nuclear weapons, aren't they? :) And half a megaton is not a tactical nuclear weapon.

                      And since when is tactical and strategic nuclear weapons measured in charge power?
                      All division exclusively at ranges.
          2. washi
            washi April 21 2014 16: 00
            +8
            Quote: Rostovchanin
            What authors are used to thinking by the standards of the Second World War (wall to wall) ...

            Unfortunately, wall to wall will still have to.
            I hope not on our territory.
            Americans, in any case, will try to prove that they are the coolest.
            On the outskirts do not want (there ours)
            I offer Poland (nobody needs it).
            1. lestrigon
              lestrigon April 21 2014 19: 17
              +3
              All this is utopia ...- there will be no thermonuclear war, because. even fools already realized that this is yesterday’s weapon. Simply because there will be no winners.
              Indeed, even if a dozen warheads break into enemy territory, no one will need such a territory. Well, why are Americans and Europeans infected with Siberia and the Far East?
              Wars in the 21st century have spilled over into the information field - someone will take "weakly".
              -Can this or that leader "PRESS THE BUTTON"?
              Now the United States is trying to repeat its trick with Ronald Reagan, who was specially created the image of a "shibanted" president who is about to start an atomic war. + Beautiful pictures with star warriors ... - Here Gorby and "swam" - he believed in Reagan's game ...
              Remember how they justified .... on the contrary, when Khrushchev scared them from the UN rostrum (Boot).
              Now private military companies rule the ball. Will they come tomorrow to the threshold of your house such what? With a hydrogen bomb fight them off?
              Do not be afraid that we have fewer weapons, we just need to make it clear that we will use it!
              1. Allegedly
                Allegedly April 21 2014 19: 31
                +1
                Quote: lestrigon
                All this is utopia ...- there will be no thermonuclear war


                Your statement is logical in principle, I personally am inclined to believe that the first "world-economic" war begins. Yet one authoritative source states that "the present heaven and earth are preserved by fire." Especially interesting are the forecasts of analysts of the Israeli special services, they believe that people will survive in any scenario, just many will regret that they survived. I don't even know what to add to this on this optimistic note.
                1. lestrigon
                  lestrigon April 21 2014 19: 55
                  +2
                  Nothing has happened in our world for a long time that is not beneficial to a certain circle of people. It is unlikely that "these faces" are fools and they probably do not want to burn in a "fiery hyena." As long as there are no escape routes for these individuals - thermonuclear fusion does not threaten us drinks
              2. Yorgven
                Yorgven April 22 2014 06: 36
                +1
                Even 500 megaton thermonuclear explosions, if half fall on the oceans, will not cause global damage to the planet, and the effects of radiation contamination from thermonuclear explosions should not be compared with dirty atomic bombs, and even more so with nuclear explosions.
                What do you think is the background radiation on Novaya Zemlya?
                Tales of a nuclear winter leave am. For such a winter, not less than 10000-15000 megatons are needed. Modern carriers contain charges of 100-200 kilotons. 10 mega charges are a thing of the past, with improved accuracy.
                Given the superiority of the US Navy over the Russian Navy, nuclear weapons are our surest answer to the Chamberlains. An exchange of thermonuclear strikes at sea with the destruction of a pair of AUG troika will most likely lead to negotiations and a quick conclusion, if not peace, then an armistice. Because no one wants to expose the population of their own countries, under the attack of the enemy's strategic nuclear forces.
                1. lestrigon
                  lestrigon April 22 2014 15: 13
                  +2
                  There is one small nuance, Yorgven, you lose sight of the pathological cowardice of Americans and others like them. Remember the latest history and you will laugh for a long time laughing They were afraid of us even when they were monopolists in the possession of AO.
                  The American army fights for money, and ours for the Motherland - so think about which army will be stronger before the "Apocalypse"?
                  While there will be an opportunity for at least one of our rockets to fly to Manhattan - these chubby hamsters will sit still, too worried about their lifestyle.
                  And vice versa, our man is ready to go for embrasure for the sake of the Motherland!
                  This is psychology, my friend, and there is absolutely no need for 15000 megatons.
                  After all, it doesn't matter to you personally how many megatons will be spent on your murder? wassat
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. washi
          washi April 21 2014 15: 54
          +1
          Quote: Polovec
          retaliation gun

          On a submarine, not only nuclear weapons, but also normal torpedoes and anti-ship missiles
          Carriers are needed to attack an unprepared defense.
          We have a defensive policy.
          With the Trotskyist-Tukhachevsky doctrine, we flashed the country to the Volga.
          The IVS could not convince the Red Guards of the need for a defensive policy (it is a pity that the IVS was not a dictator)
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. cosmos111
        cosmos111 April 21 2014 14: 40
        +6
        Quote: Canep
        see a doctor, narcologist or psychiatrist.

        article-nonsense UNIVERSALLY ((((
        but, to speak on the topic, it is necessary ....
        Aircraft carriers and the main directions of construction of the Navy


        Before thinking about the construction of aircraft carriers for the Navy, you must at least start the release of destroyers !!!!

        while only projects, the last real ship entered service, back in the USSR (((((

        the new destroyer should be an ocean ship capable of operating for a long time in the oceans in isolation from its own bases !!!

        1. santepa
          santepa April 21 2014 16: 06
          +2
          very accurate !!! you can’t say better
          1. URAL72
            URAL72 April 21 2014 16: 25
            +1
            He concluded: the author finished 4 classes and mastered arithmetic well. There is no logic in the article. It does not take into account air defense, electronic warfare, attacks on airfields (KR with submarines for example), and much more.
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 21 2014 17: 03
          +1
          dry cargo carriers and container ships are quietly converted into aircraft carriers as well as destroyers with vertical launch
          but it will give you! if they even hide the rifle from the Russians, but in some kind of Switzerland or Israel, it lies with the people at home.
        3. Biolant
          Biolant April 21 2014 17: 54
          +1
          They have long been talking about the destroyer of the oceanic zone, but they have not heard of their construction.
        4. Dart2027
          Dart2027 April 21 2014 19: 23
          +1
          According to the author, this is superfluous:
          "4. Limit the construction of expensive large surface ships that are unable to fight aircraft carriers. Their number should ensure the balance of the Fleet."
    2. starshina78
      starshina78 April 21 2014 19: 43
      +5
      What aircraft carriers are we talking about, when we build corvettes for five years, and nuclear submarines for 15-20! We would have more TFR and BOD, and auxiliary ones with rescuers. Look at the payroll of the fleet - it's laughable to the chickens! The average age of warships is from 10 to 30 years, and auxiliary ones are even older (take the "Commune" built in 1913). We need something that can become operational in the near future. To speed up the construction of frigates for the Black Sea Fleet, to finally finish building corvettes at the Amur Plant for the TF, and so on. And we will build aircraft carriers when we have something to protect them, that is, ships and escort vessels that are part of the AUG. Not to fat!
  2. Takashi
    Takashi April 21 2014 09: 03
    +17
    I am against aircraft carriers. We need destroyers, BOD - for the ocean. For inland seas, watchdogs / frigates. We need ships that will be inexpensive in the area and can long perform the task in the Pacific \ Indus \ Antl oceans.
    1. poccinin
      poccinin April 21 2014 11: 41
      -1
      RUSSIA OCEAN POWER. THERE ARE WASHED BY THREE WATERS !!! OKEANOV.PETR-1 SURVIVELY TURNS OVER TO THE Coffin. why do we need destroyers and cruisers. why do the fleet of RUSSIA? we have ROCKETS. Cut the submarine into needles. Why do they need the Air Force? There are missiles with a launch range of 500 km. Strategists have 11 km each. ARTICLE PREVIOUS. It's a shame just that we probably won’t see RUSSIAN Aircraft carriers. IN THE WORLD CRISIS. THE ENEMY IS ALREADY AT THE GATE OF RUSSIA. Everything is going to a world war. In the next 000-10 years.
      1. Petrix
        Petrix April 21 2014 15: 37
        +5
        Quote: poccinin
        ARTICLE PREVIOUS. It's a shame just that we may not see RUSSIAN Aircraft carriers.

        The article has the correct idea - everything should be harmonious. Carriers are needed, but only after the construction of thousands of aircraft and hundreds of escort ships. Now to build aircraft carriers is stupid. It would be possible to build them now for the prestige and development of technology, but
        Quote: poccinin
        THE ENEMY IS ALREADY AT THE GATE OF RUSSIA. Everything goes to the world war. In the next 10-15 years.

        And you can't be sprayed on aircraft carriers. In a "hypothetical" conflict, it is necessary to seize a bridgehead in Alaska and develop a ground offensive. This is where we are stronger.
        1. washi
          washi April 21 2014 16: 07
          +2
          Quote: Petrix
          In a "hypothetical" conflict, it is necessary to seize a bridgehead in Alaska and develop a ground offensive.

          To do this, restore the engineering and railway troops.
        2. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 21 2014 17: 05
          0
          why after? not right away?
          ships of other classes already exist ... and there is one aircraft carrier.
          large boats are built longer than small ones.

          In short, what else can you think of?
        3. denis02135
          denis02135 April 21 2014 20: 23
          +2
          Dear, how do you see the development of the offensive with
          Quote: Petrix
          foothold in alaska
          ... If you look at the Discovery Channel, cargo delivery in Alaska is possible only in winter on ice roads. And where are you going to develop a land attack on Seattle or Washington (city). "It is written cleanly in paper, but they forgot about the ravines, how to walk on them."
      2. washi
        washi April 21 2014 16: 06
        +1
        That the tank, that the BOD are designed for 15 minutes of normal battle. But what is the difference in finances.
        Aircraft carrier is needed to ensure landing on a foreign territory.
        Where should we land? Where is the BDK for landing?
        To fulfill the US Monroe Doctrine, we have enough SV and VKS.
        1. Kassandra
          Kassandra April 21 2014 17: 10
          +1
          Russian submarines against carrier-based aviation are completely defenseless. and the Tu-142 NATO will bring down at any moment ...

          when the landing party will need to land so that you don’t chop off your head at the emirates or just at a resort in the Emirates, remember your words.
      3. Biolant
        Biolant April 21 2014 17: 59
        0
        Something a lot of panic in the comments. Nobody says anything about destroyers and cruisers - they are needed. A couple of the Kuznetsovs, with a small number of aircraft on board and missile weapons. Undermining the take-off deck at Amerovsky AB and he is a tin can.
  3. ambiorix
    ambiorix April 21 2014 09: 15
    +13
    And who said that in the event of a conflict with NATO, the RF Armed Forces must sail across the ocean and capture the United States? O_o.
    The main theater of action is Europe. Russia has never waged aggressive wars overseas, unlike the United States. There is no experience, no strength.
    1. klaus16
      klaus16 April 21 2014 11: 26
      +7
      America doesn't care, Europe will suffer. And we, in order to screw up America, will have to shoot "vigorous" missiles across the ocean. It's easier for them, they will not fight on their territory.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Polovec
      Polovec April 21 2014 13: 18
      +2
      America will still need to be punished! It is impossible that these ghouls again pay with the blood of Europeans for their policies! They need under their noses an uninhabited underwater autonomous battery with nuclear weapons to place (or something like that) and more than one. What would they know that kirdyk is inevitable! Signal! And do not send guys to the sub! Death is already waiting near the Hudson!
      1. ttv-cfo
        ttv-cfo April 21 2014 15: 18
        +2
        "... to place an underwater autonomous battery with nuclear weapons ..."
        The thought is sound ...
        Why are issues not discussed about the possibility of creating autonomous automated underwater systems?
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Petrix
      Petrix April 21 2014 15: 42
      +2
      Quote: ambiorix
      Russia has never waged aggressive wars overseas, unlike the United States. There is no experience, no strength.

      Have to go to the end. as to Berlin. Otherwise, this is not a victory, but a temporary gain. But that later. Now we are on the defensive.
  4. andrey682006
    andrey682006 April 21 2014 09: 16
    +10
    And why does the author of the article not mention the use of AB to give combat stability to SSBNs in patrol areas?
    After all, all the operations described in the article cannot be carried out secretly and, naturally, the USA and NATO will be interested in a preemptive disarming strike against the forces of strategic nuclear forces. Yes, AB will die, but it will allow SSBNs to shoot back. Knowing this, the United States will not start a war.
    So AB is needed. And not one, but two each in the SF and Pacific Fleet.
    1. Petrix
      Petrix April 21 2014 15: 49
      +1
      Quote: andrey682006
      Yes, AB will die, but it will allow SSBNs to shoot back.

      The presence of an assigned AB to SSBN negates the main thing - stealth. In other words, you want to build an AB with ballistic missiles on board. But are such ships being built? It's stupid to put all the eggs in one basket.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 April 21 2014 19: 27
        +1
        Quote: Petrix
        The presence of an assigned AB to SSBN negates the main thing - stealth

        Why? The aircraft carrier will cover an area of ​​thousands of square kilometers - go find a hiding nuclear submarine there. And the main patrol areas have been known for so long.
    2. washi
      washi April 21 2014 16: 10
      +1
      Quote: andrey682006
      And why does the author of the article not mention the use of AB to give combat stability to SSBNs in patrol areas?

      Because if the boat was found, then its commander is a sucker and can be removed from duty.
    3. Biolant
      Biolant April 21 2014 18: 00
      -1
      NOT ONLY CLEAN AB. A LIKE KUZNETSOV.
      1. Dry_T-50
        Dry_T-50 April 21 2014 23: 00
        +2
        No, no, no, no "Kuznetsovs". We need REAL aircraft carriers with a hundred Su-33 + escort ships on board. Also needs to build Project 949A submarines, capable of single-handedly shoot AUG. We have such nuclear submarines - 13 units, NATO + China - 13 aircraft carriers. A couple of nuclear submarines will be sunk, then what to do?
  5. saag
    saag April 21 2014 09: 17
    +7
    Quote: Good cat
    We need aircraft carriers, and so it’s clear to everyone

    For what tasks?
    1. klaus16
      klaus16 April 21 2014 11: 28
      +1
      Well, at least for intimidation. Controversial this situation.
      1. Petrix
        Petrix April 21 2014 15: 51
        +2
        Quote: klaus16
        Well, at least for intimidation. Controversial this situation.

        Those. for bluffing. Somehow expensive.
      2. washi
        washi April 21 2014 16: 15
        +2
        Quote: klaus16
        Well, at least for intimidation. Controversial this situation.

        Who to scare if ALL friends.
        It may be cheaper to withdraw from the agreement on medium-range missiles (the most interesting: sea and air-based medium-range missiles (for example, a nuclear powered tomahawk with a range of 2800 is not included in this agreement)
    2. The comment was deleted.
  6. Wiruz
    Wiruz April 21 2014 09: 39
    +5
    Multipurpose submarines are the future of the fleet. Aircraft carriers are so, either for show-off, or for the "distribution of democracy." Although, about aviation, the author is right, Russia (so far) has few planes.
    One can only hope for Zhirinovsky, who promises to lower the entire North American continent to the bottom of the ocean. Volfych, by the way, recently hinted that the disappearance of a Boeing is his work.
  7. Per se.
    Per se. April 21 2014 09: 50
    +16
    For the equality of forces in aviation (not talking about the superiority of the advancing side), the Russian Federation must have: 18-19 AB and 2157 combat aircraft. That is, 18-19 AB and 2157 - 132 = 2025 combat aircraft are missing.
    Here, only, it is not necessary to bring everything to the point of absurdity. The United States has more aircraft carriers, more destroyers, more frigates, and their navy is generally dominant, so if we can't have more ships, maybe we will give up the navy altogether? Finally, is it only the United States that has aircraft carriers, why do other countries with a substantial fleet not suffer from this "hemorrhoid" of brains from their ears, why does the Navy need aviation and their carrier-based carriers? As if the CIA financed such articles, they, after all, killed so many forces to destroy the powerful fleet of the USSR, and the aircraft carrier in particular, if only it did not revive! Endlessly, "caring" people try to create the necessary opinion in the media, others are lobbying and sabotaging higher, just as kids can go to our naval development. Yes, we do not need to compete with the United States in the number of AUG, but the Russian fleet must perform any tasks, and for this it must be COMPLETE, and not castrated, the fleet needs aviation, and, therefore, its carriers. That's all, enough to carry a blizzard, pouring from empty to empty.
    1. Petrix
      Petrix April 21 2014 16: 08
      +1
      Quote: Per se.
      so if we can’t have more ships, maybe we’ll abandon the fleet altogether

      You have to choose: refuse either from AB or from dozens of other VK and PL.

      Quote: Per se.
      why other countries that have a substantial fleet do not suffer from this "hemorrhoid" of brains from their ears, why does the fleet need aviation and their carrier-based carriers?

      Percentage of marine and land boundaries. Look at these countries - the coastal zone is the most developed economically area.

      Quote: Per se.
      Yes, we do not need to compete with the United States in the number of AUGs, but the Russian fleet must fulfill any tasks, and for this it must be COMPLETE, not castrated, the fleet needs aviation, and, therefore, its carriers.

      This is what the article says about how much and what is needed to complete any tasks. And one or two ABs do not allow to perform ANY tasks. Time is not scattered, but focus on specific goals. Until there is parity in aviation and ground forces with NATO or China, which ensures guaranteed defense, the construction of aircraft carriers is more harmful than useful.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. April 21 2014 19: 14
        +1
        Quote: Petrix
        You have to choose: refuse either from AB or from dozens of other VK and PL.
        Priorities, of course, are very necessary, there is nothing to argue about, but what is more, the refusal from aircraft carriers here, especially since the fleet is being built more than one day.
        Quote: Petrix
        Percentage of marine and land boundaries. Look at these countries - the coastal zone is the most developed economically area.
        Geography, one of my favorite sciences, do you know the length of the Russian coastline? I assure you, it is larger than that of the United States. However, the need for a strong fleet is determined not only by the length of the coastline and sea borders (in Russia they are just as impressive), but by the possibility of its influence on world processes, without waiting for sadness to come to our doorstep. In addition, the fleet is a single organism, in which each class of ships arose not on a whim, but in the process of the evolution of military technology, the development of weapons at sea. Three "livers" will not replace one "heart".
        Quote: Petrix
        This is what the article says about how much and what is needed to complete any tasks.
        You re-read, Alexei, what is written there, in particular, such pearls:
        The main striking force of the Navy (aircraft), capable of hitting enemy aircraft carriers, should be missile-bearing aircraft.
        The financial resources saved on aircraft carriers and large surface ships should be used to develop missile-carrying aircraft, submarines, and reconnaissance assets.
        Maybe building more "Grachat" or even motor boats, and throwing "Molotov cocktails" from them, is cheap and cheerful? As for development priorities, I mentioned them above.
  8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 09: 57
    +14
    What a horror ...
    The need for aircraft carriers can be identified when considering the hypothetical possibility of Russia conducting an offensive operation against the United States.

    The spherical horse burst into tears in a vacuum and killed on the Milky Way.
    What else, to Allah, an offensive operation against the United States? The goals of such an operation? That the United States can theoretically try to "look at the light" is understandable, they have NATO and all of Europe, and if we start, say, another era of the Cold War, then plans to concentrate large land forces in Europe can be revived, as well as support actions of these forces AUGami from the coastal flanks. In other words, the United States has the potential to threaten our borders with large land forces, and their fleet can support these very forces and must ensure their supply. But we, even in theory, cannot concentrate ground forces on the American continent capable of threatening the United States! Even the USSR was not capable of this. So what are we going to do when we catch up with 100500 aircraft carriers to the US coast? Well, we'll scare New York to death, we will maliciously abuse the Statue of Liberty, and then what?
    In a global and non-nuclear conflict (pah-pah-pah), a promising task for our fleet (not with today's naval staff, of course) would be to curb the Atlantic communications of the United States and make it difficult to transfer their forces to Europe. this task will be reduced to bringing to the Atlantic and ensuring the actions of our nuclear submarines with the Northern Fleet. Those. if we consider a hypothetical conflict against the United States, then the task of our aircraft carriers (together with other forces, esesso) will be to destroy the AUG in the region of Norway (they love to graze there), defeat naval groups of likely opponents somewhere between Iceland and Britain, exit to the Atlantic and piracy - that is, the issuance of the command center for the nuclear submarines and the cover of the latter from the air.
    Pretty fantasy, of course, but much more realistic than what the author writes
    1. washi
      washi April 21 2014 16: 50
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      But even in theory, we cannot concentrate ground forces capable of threatening the USA on the American continent!

      In vain doubt.
      Brighton, Texas, California, Alaska, etc. Everywhere there are ours, including Latinos and blacks.
      Why is the US better than the outskirts?
      It is only necessary to push.
      The only problem is the deployment of troops to guard nuclear weapons (solved)
  9. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov April 21 2014 10: 06
    +6
    He killed the reserve altogether. The Enterprise is being handed over for scrapping - he is no longer a tenant anyway. And there are already 6 non-nuclear aircraft carriers in the reserve - Forrestal was sold for scrapping for 1 cent. And yet, all the aircraft carriers are not in service at the same time. the quantity is under repair to one degree or another.
  10. ambiorix
    ambiorix April 21 2014 10: 34
    +5
    And in general, before issuing this, one should study the historical military doctrine of Russia and compare it with that of the United States.
    Russia has never waged wars of conquest over distant lands. Russia's military doctrine is defense. This is the main difference with the expansive, aggressive doctrine of the United States. Russia borders on a huge number of countries and there is a clear threat from all sides. Russia needs a powerful ground army to guard 1/6 of the land. Therefore, Russia waged all wars right at its borders, and not somewhere far away. Even the campaigns against Berlin and Paris were initially determined by defense and counteroffensive. And the Russian fleet is needed exclusively for the defense of huge sea borders, and not offensive operations off the coast of a potential overseas enemy.
    The situation is completely different in the USA. Who do they border with? With sixes Canada and Mexico. All enemies (China, Russia) overseas. They don’t need a huge ground army to defend their borders. They just need a cool fleet and AUG to be present in strategically important parts of the world.
  11. Fiero
    Fiero April 21 2014 11: 08
    +2
    2-3 an aircraft carrier you need to have all that ...
  12. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov April 21 2014 11: 09
    +3
    And besides, the author clearly does not understand what kind of work it is worth taking the ship from the reserve back to the system-repair, modernization, manning of the air group, manning the crew (several thousand people is a lot), testing and fine-tuning, all this year 1,5- 2 minimum will go away at best. And I will not say anything about money.
  13. lestrigon
    lestrigon April 21 2014 11: 23
    +11
    The author forgot that Russia has always been famous for its cheap asymmetric responses.
    It is worth recalling that at one time, in response to the threat of "Star Wars", our scientists said that they would launch a couple of cars with rusty nails into orbit ... laughing
    Why do you think we still have the best RCC in the world? -Just easier to build a dozen rockets than one AB
    There is no need to respond symmetrically to all steps of America and NATO - our navel will simply be untied.
    It is probably worth remembering the projects of rocket ekranoplanes or the already somewhat forgotten "Spiral" (a nightmare for pins ... s), which theoretically could deliver irresistible missile strikes from space at any moment, including on AB.

    PSDevelopment is always cheaper, and Russia's strategy has always been aimed at defense.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 11: 50
      +3
      Quote: lestrigon
      The author forgot that Russia has always been famous for its cheap asymmetric responses.

      Asymmetric - yes. Cheap? laughing
      Quote: lestrigon
      Why do you think we still have the best RCC in the world? -Just easier to build a dozen rockets than one AB

      Easier, of course. Only for the reliable defeat of the AUG as part of an aircraft carrier and several ships from Aegis, it was required to provide a salvo of about 100 anti-ship missiles. And their carriers still needed to be brought to the line of attack. And you do not by any chance know why, instead of building another "ten missiles" of the USSR Navy, it suddenly took care of building aircraft carriers? :)
      Quote: lestrigon
      It’s probably worth recalling the projects of rocket ekranoplanes

      Not worth it
      Quote: lestrigon
      or the already somewhat forgotten "Spiral" (a nightmare for pins ... s), which theoretically could at any moment inflict irresistible missile strikes from space, including on AB.

      wassat Lucas' Star Wars should be watched less
      1. aleks 62
        aleks 62 April 21 2014 14: 10
        +2
        .... For reliable defeat of an aircraft carrier, one TU-22M3 regiment with X-22 is needed .... To increase the effect of anti-ship missiles with nuclear warheads .... I remember that modern anti-ship missiles are already flying further 500 km, and the new one had infa - about 5000 km. ..
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 14: 38
          +9
          Quote: aleks 62
          ..To reliably defeat an aircraft carrier, you need one TU-22M3 air regiment with X-22 ..

          To reliably defeat the AUG, you must first find it, and this requires reconnaissance aircraft (we used the Tu-95, if that) Then we should highlight TWO regiments of the Tu-22М3, provided with cover for the EW and RTR aircraft and at least 2 of the fighter aviation regiments.
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe April 21 2014 15: 14
            -2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            To reliably defeat AUG, you must first find it

            What for? She herself comes
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Then, TWO regiments of Tu-22М3, provided with cover for EW and RTR aircraft, and at least 2 fighter aviation regiments should be allocated.

            Wow
            And this is against Xnumx nonsense Nimitz
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 15: 30
              +2
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              What for? She herself comes

              I mean? :)))) It’s not her who comes, but her planes and KR. And AUG - look for fistulas :)
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Wow
              And this is against Xnumx nonsense Nimitz

              Such things, brother :))))
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe April 21 2014 15: 53
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                It’s not she who comes, but her planes and KR

                Well KR usually come without AUG
                Starting from the 5-th sub-series Virginia will be installed an additional compartment with 40 Axes + 2 mines in the bow (total 52). Worthy change by converted Ohio

                Under-planes will interrupt when meeting with coastal aviation and air defense. to suppress the air defense system of a small country by forces even of the 6 AUG is an impossible task.
                http://topwar.ru/40888-burya-v-pustyne-udar-palubnoy-aviacii.html
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Then, TWO regiments of Tu-22М3, provided with cover for EW and RTR aircraft, and at least 2 fighter aviation regiments should be allocated.

                Those. do you think one Amer plane costs five, controlled by the Russian Mongols?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 16: 03
                  +4
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Well KR usually come without AUG

                  In fantasy novels? certainly
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Under-planes interrupt when meeting with coastal aviation and air defense

                  Oleg, tell me AT LEAST ONE case in the history of mankind, when land-based aviation would "bend" aircraft carriers. Then count how many times the ground aircraft got rid of the aircraft carrier.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Those. do you think one Amer plane costs five, controlled by the Russian Mongols?

                  Oleg, it’s all happened more than once. How many times has Sergey VAF explained about the outfit of forces to defeat AUG? If you overslept all this - not my sadness.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    Santa Fe April 21 2014 16: 20
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    In fantasy novels?

                    Tell it to the Yugoslavs and Libyans.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    tell me AT LEAST ONE case in the history of mankind when land-based aviation would "bend" aircraft carriers

                    storm of Okinawa

                    In just one day, April 6 1945, the American fleet lost six squadrons of destroyers from kamikaze attacks! The 7 of April damaged the battleship Maryland and the heavy aircraft carrier Hancock. The battleship, having lost 10 anti-aircraft gunners on the upper deck, still managed to hold out for a week in position, firing on the shore and repelling countless suicide attacks. The aircraft carrier with a twisted deck had to be immediately sent for repair in the US (the fire broke out was succeeded in extinguishing the cost of killing 62 seafarers, another 72 were injured and burned).

                    16 April 1945 was damaged (for the fourth time!) The aircraft carrier Intrepid - by luck, the damage was small, the crew was able to restore the ship’s combat capability in just three hours. However, the very next day, Intrepid was forced to redeem in San Francisco.




                    Saratoga is on fire


                    Bunker hill


                    on this ended the career of the legendary Enterprise


                    you can recall the Falklands - the Argentinean amigos gloriously gouged the squadron. The shaves were in the balance of failure

                    Or Bekaa-83 valley (air defense systems)
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    How many times has Sergey VAF explained about the outfit of forces to defeat AUG?

                    Sergey suggested flying to search for AUG in the Atlantic
                    With the same success, you can invade the airspace of Iraq with the help of six carrier-based wing wings
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 16: 59
                      +3
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Tell it to the Yugoslavs and Libyans.

                      :))) And did they have a fleet that could prevent US submarines from firing on their countries? :))) No need to build any far-reaching strategies for beating minors
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      storm of Okinawa

                      Sit down, deuce.
                      The Americans used over 1500 warships, landing, transport, and auxiliary. ships, including 59 strike and escort aircraft carriers (1727 aircraft), 22 battleship, 36 cruisers, more than 140 destroyers and destroyers. In addition, the operation involved a strategist, aviation (20 and 21 aviation bomber commands, approx. 700 aircraft), subsequently tactical, as well as submarines deployed on approaches to Japan. Navy
                      The Japanese lost 4200 aircraft and were able to sink as many as 33 ships, the largest of which was the destroyer.
                      Ground aviation was unable to defend Okinawa, despite the large-scale use of "Japanese anti-ship missiles" - kamikaze. In fact, they couldn't even scratch the Americans.
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      can you recall the Falklands

                      It is impossible, since there were no aircraft carriers there. The English troughs were anything but aircraft carriers
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Or Bekaa-83 valley (air defense systems)

                      wassat And where are the aircraft carriers from? :)))
                      1. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe April 21 2014 17: 25
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        did they have some kind of fleet that could prevent US submarines from shelling their countries?

                        And it does not matter. Boats are always single. Check out the U.S. Navy submarine code http://topwar.ru/36395-undersea-warfighting-kodeksa-podvodnika-vms-ssha-chast-1.


                        html
                        Submarine forces often operate far ahead without the support of other friendly forces. This means that submarine forces are often the only real forces in these areas.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        were able to sink as many as 33 ships, the largest of which was the destroyer.

                        Sit down, count! And do not repeat the stupidities of American propaganda
                        Kamikaze bombs and strikes did not cause damage below the waterline - naturally, large ships did not sink. But this was not easier - they burned to the ground and went to the base for months of repairs.

                        the cost of damage in only one Franklin, where all the air wings were burned and 400 people, probably exceeded the cost of all 27 sunk destroyers
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In fact, they even could not really scratch the Americans

                        almost every ship received its own "prize"
                        Many - repeatedly
                        Each ram ended with a grand fire on the upper deck, completely destroying aircraft that was parked there, and streams of burning gasoline somehow got into the hangar, where the fiery hell began. By the beginning of May, on board the order of the burnt "Fomidebl", only 15 operational aircraft remained!
                        By the way, all five British aircraft carriers (Victories, Ilastries, Indomiteable, Fomideable and Indifetable) aimed at Okinawa were burned to one degree or another and could not hold on until the end of the operation
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Land Aviation Failed to Protect Okinawa

                        Still would! a super fleet of 1500 modern ships acted against them
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The English troughs were anything but aircraft carriers

                        In this case, the Argentine aviation was anything but military combat. The passenger Boeing 707 and Neptune 45 of the year flying for reconnaissance are symbolic
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And where are the aircraft carriers from? :)))

                        As usual: come, show off, fail the task
                        On December 3, American F-14 aircraft carrying out a reconnaissance flight over Lebanon were fired by Syrian anti-aircraft artillery. In response to this December 4 bombardment, US Navy aircraft bombed Syrian positions in Lebanon. The attack was unsuccessful: two aircraft (A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair II) were lost, one pilot was captured (was released a month later thanks to the intervention of Jesse Jackson).
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 18: 43
                        +2
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And it does not matter. Boats are always single. Check out the U.S. Navy submarine code http://topwar.ru/36395-undersea-warfighting-kodeksa-podvodnika-vms-ssha-chast-1.

                        Oleg, the code, this is fine, but in practice, for some reason, American nuclear submarines prefer to operate from the domination zone of their own aviation and navy.
                        This is because their commanders are well aware of the difference between propaganda poster and harsh reality.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Sit down, count! And do not repeat the stupidities of American propaganda
                        Kamikaze bombs and strikes did not cause damage below the waterline - naturally, large ships did not sink. But this was not easier - they burned to the ground and went to the base for months of repairs.

                        Oleg, I asked you a question
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        tell me AT LEAST ONE case in the history of mankind, when land-based aviation "bent" the aircraft carriers.

                        The Americans had about 1,7 thousand aircraft on aircraft carriers. The Japanese lost 4,2 thousand aircraft, but could not resist the Americans. What else can I talk about? It is clear that the Americans suffered some losses, but the fact remains - AND THIS TIME, land aviation saved the sea. The Americans solved their tasks, the Japanese did not. And why and why - it doesn’t matter. I ask you to say when land aviation prevailed over the sea, and not tell me what reasons prevented it from doing so
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        In this case, the Argentine aviation was anything but military combat.

                        Well, since we came to the conclusion that there are no aircraft carriers on the English side and land aviation on the Argentine side, then your example about the Falklands is dropped due to the lack of both :)
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        As usual: come, show off, fail the task
                        On December 3, American F-14 aircraft carrying out a reconnaissance flight over Lebanon were fired by Syrian anti-aircraft artillery. In response to this December 4 bombardment, US Navy aircraft bombed Syrian positions in Lebanon. The attack was unsuccessful: two aircraft (A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair II) were lost, one pilot was captured (was released a month later thanks to the intervention of Jesse Jackson).

                        Ahhh, what are you talking about :)))
                        Yes, one case of a successful confrontation can be counted, but a small nuance - what would happen if the Soviet cruiser had not warned the Syrians about the rise of the planes?
                      3. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe April 21 2014 19: 09
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        in practice, for some reason, American nuclear submarines prefer to operate from the dominant zone of their own aviation and navy.

                        all the examples I know indicate the opposite - who covered Archerfish when he drowned Sinano? Who covered the boat Baton Rouge, which collided with Kostroma at the entrance to the Kola Bay? Who covered SiWulf when he listened to cables at the bottom of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? Boats are always single. Otherwise, what's the point of their secrecy?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        1,7 thousand aircraft. The Japanese lost 4,2 thousand aircraft, but could not resist the Americans. What else can I talk about?

                        Yes, you can talk about a lot
                        For example, shells with a Mark.53 radar fuse
                        Or talk about the ammunition consumption of the Bofors and Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns
                        You can compare the TTX of the Corsair with the TTX of Zero or some hydroplane (the japas threw everything at their fingertips into battle)
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        It is clear that the Americans suffered some losses ... The Americans solved their tasks, the Japanese did not

                        Kamikaze could destroy and take flight any fleet in the world. Except American. US industry compensated for ANY losses - in the place of hundreds of retired ships immediately got up new
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        when land aviation prevailed over the sea, and not tell what reasons prevented it from doing so

                        Now you are trying to seem principled because you have nothing to argue
                        Okinawa is a clear example of how basic aviation smashed an ultra-modern fleet of dozens of aircraft carriers. With the same number of forces victory would go to the Japanese
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        the Falkland example is no longer due to the absence of both

                        Only in reality did the British have cheap aircraft carriers. And the Args had bespontovoy aircraft of about the same level. Result - a third of the squadron is bombed from the air
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        a small nuance - what would happen if the Soviet cruiser had not warned the Syrians about the rise of the planes?

                        And who warned the Vietnamese?
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 20: 29
                        +3
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        all the examples I know indicate the opposite - who covered Archerfish when he drowned Sinano?

                        Archer Fish - such a nuclear submarine, well, just to all nuclear submarines laughing
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Who covered the boat Baton Rouge, which collided with Kostroma at the entrance to the Kola Bay? Who covered SiWulf when he listened to cables at the bottom of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk?

                        And what was the war there and against whom?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Yes, you can talk about a lot

                        Oleg, I understand that you can talk a lot about anything without saying anything about the substance of the issue. And the creature is this - the Japanese land forces could not repel the attack from the sea. And therefore, the example you cited is inappropriate.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        For example, shells with a Mark.53 radar fuse
                        Or talk about the ammunition consumption of the Bofors and Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns

                        About Aegis systems, about SM-2 and SM-6, about KR Tomahawk ...
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Kamikaze could destroy and take flight any fleet in the world.

                        Oleg, have you heard such a song "We are brave heroes, very small in stature"?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Now you are trying to seem principled because you have nothing to argue
                        Okinawa is a clear example of how basic aviation smashed an ultra-modern fleet of dozens of aircraft carriers.

                        good laughing
                        Oleg, this discussion can be completed. To explain to you that black is black, but not green at all is not in my circle of interests
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Only in reality did the British have cheap aircraft carriers. And the Args had bespontovoy aircraft of about the same level. Result - a third of the squadron is bombed from the air

                        Firstly, the British did NOT have aircraft carriers :))) There were VTOL carriers.
                        Secondly, the British beat off the Falklands, i.e. battles ended with the victory of the fleet over the shore
                    2. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 April 21 2014 19: 37
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      The Americans on aircraft carriers had approximately 1,7 thousand aircraft. The Japanese lost 4,2 thousand aircraft,

                      Here it is necessary to take into account the difference in training - Japan was suffocating from a lack of oil and the training of its pilots was, to put it mildly, very weak. The United States did not experience such problems and their pilots had a decent raid. If pilots were equal in training, it was not a fact that everything would end the same way.
                    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 20: 33
                      +1
                      Yes, no one argues. But Oleg has a small fad - one hundred million selective hatred of aircraft carriers. He believes that carrier-based aviation is a helpless victim for land aviation. That in the current reality almost all any scale operations of the fleet’s aviation against the coast ended in a victory for the fleet, Oleg ignores it.
                    4. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 April 21 2014 23: 09
                      0
                      I don’t understand what is the point of juxtaposing naval and land aviation.
                      In a battle between two aircraft, everything is decided by the training of pilots, or the overwhelming technical superiority of one machine over another. Sea-land has nothing to do with it. Another thing is that everyone has their own tasks and you need to try to develop all types of military equipment.
                    5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 22 2014 09: 15
                      +1
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      In a battle between two aircraft, it is all about pilot training, or the overwhelming technical superiority of one machine over another. Sea-land has nothing to do with it.

                      That's just the point, that very much moreover.
                      The objectives of naval aviation on the shore. They are stationary, and they cannot run away from her anywhere. Airfields, air bases, infrastructure and so on are not relocatable. The aircraft carrier is mobile, and therefore can choose when and where it will strike. In other words, naval aviation always knows the coordinates of its target, but land aviation needs to first find the AOG and only then strike at it.
                      AUG, having entered at the 30 nodes in the area of ​​operation of ground aviation, within a few hours reaches the line of elevation of the air group. At the same time, land aviation cannot be everywhere at once, it is dispersed (for example, in the Russian Federation a modern airfield is unlikely to be able to base more than one regiment, double-regiment bases are already a rarity) and you can choose a route so that you can keep to the effective radius of a significant part of the land aviation. Therefore, to strike at AUG, even after its discovery is still a headache, it is necessary to concentrate forces for such a strike, and this again is time. But one can even detect AUGs, if only by organizing a round-the-clock duty-scanning of the space in all possible azimuths of the approach, which requires a large outfit of forces, but does not guarantee a positive result. Without detecting the AUG, it is impossible to predict when the strike will be delivered.
                      That is why, all the time, naval aviation found land "with his pants down"
                    6. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe April 22 2014 09: 34
                      -1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      That is why, all the time, naval aviation found land "with his pants down"

                      And chegozh purged in Vietnam?
                    7. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 April 25 2014 17: 39
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      The objectives of naval aviation on the shore. They are stationary, and they cannot run away from her anywhere. Airfields, air bases, infrastructure and so on are not relocatable.

                      I don't mean that. We are talking about a direct clash.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      The aircraft carrier is mobile, and therefore can choose when and where it will strike.

                      It's right. True, I doubt that at the current level of tracking systems it will be possible to catch the land by surprise, but in any case, the mobility of an aircraft carrier can become a trump card.
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa April 21 2014 15: 53
    +3
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    What for? She herself comes

    Oleg, hello! When striking an AUG with its arrival at the strike line, it is necessary to "identify" its composition, i.e. determine where the main target is - AVU. And this is not always the central, most radio-contrast NC. It's good if "Liana" will be, but how it will not be (which most likely will be). So reconnaissance aviation is needed.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    And this is against Xnumx nonsense Nimitz

    Did you sink the ships of the warrant in advance? 5-6 Em with "Aegises" is a real fence not only for Aviation, but also for anti-ship missiles.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe April 21 2014 16: 35
      +3
      Hello, Alexander
      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      When striking the AUG with its arrival at the strike line, it is necessary to "identify" its composition

      This is too complex a task - the threat is not worth the effort to neutralize it.

      If he tries to attack, the decked wing will inevitably be interrupted by coastal aviation and air defense forces.
      If possible, the AUG itself will be attacked by forces of the submarine fleet and coastal aviation. And the prospects for AUG in this case are very bleak
      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      5-6 Em with "Aegises" is a real fence not only for Aviation, but also for anti-ship missiles.

      It's unlikely Aegis is out of date

      USS-Chancellorsville incident - unable to intercept subsonic target
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa April 21 2014 17: 41
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This is too complex a task - the threat is not worth the effort to neutralize it.
        And no one argues that the task is difficult. Therefore, even in peacetime, SF flyers received orders for the timely opening of AMG warrants: the aging time made it possible to carry out the tasks of both the PLRK and MRA without further exploration.
        About the cost of the effort. They are worth it. If the AUG "is not intercepted" before the line of the rise of aviation, then count a lot of misfortunes to do with the swarm of "Hornets". So the game is worth the candle!
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        If possible, the AUG itself will be attacked by forces of the submarine fleet and coastal aviation.

        And this can be, if along the coastal airfields it is inflicted by airborne adversary’s airborne landing gear. But who can guarantee this on 100%? Then, the fleet is deprived of the MRA, and the land commander (if the task on ACG is not set above) will find a cloud of reasons for why he can not assist the fleet. And this happened more than once in the last war. (Tallinn Crossing).
        By boat. Terrible power, no doubt. But, at least, 2-4 will be always highlighted at the cover of AUG (2-3 АВУ). Moreover, they will solve the problem of anti-aircraft defense by the boundaries of the use of weapons by our anti-aircraft guns. Noises will be compared? Not!? And what position will you take if the launch depth of our anti-ship missiles is known? Well, and so on.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Aggis outdated

        Oh oh Something I did not hear that they are being withdrawn from service as Axes. But the fact that they are constantly being improved is regular.
        About the hole in the board. "And there is a hole in the old woman!" This does not mean at all that I am not happy about the "neighbor's grief". But shapkozidatstvo is deadly for the military. This is forgivable to the spanks, they do not know what they are fooling around. But for a military man, a professional, it is deadly. This is about the same as being unfit for a surgeon.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe April 21 2014 18: 30
          0
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Therefore, even in peacetime, SF flyers received orders for the timely opening of AMG warrants

          These flyers, like many Soviet (and American) servicemen, were engaged in profanities and "witch hunts." Even purely geographically, AMG could not pose a threat to the USSR. And running around the Atlantic to find the elusive Joe - what's the point? The elusive Joe is elusive because nobody needs nafig
          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 successes in developing weapons, and then
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          If the AUG is not "intercepted" before the line of the rise of aviation, then count a lot of misfortunes to be done by the swarm of "Hornets"

          Much more troubles will cause Strike Needles from coastal air bases
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          And this can be, if along the coastal airfields it is inflicted by airborne adversary’s airborne landing gear.

          At the time of escalation of conflicts, the Air Force will organize combat patrols with AWACSAMs, the air defense system is put on alert No.1
          Or are these comrades eating their bread in vain?

          If you are too lazy to organize shifts on duty for AWACS, then how did these loafers get together to fight the USA and NATO?
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Noises will be compared?

          We will
          Diesel is always quieter than a nuclear submarine
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          But the fact that they are constantly being improved is regular.

          Yes, I do not want to
          the only one who received the specialized SPQ-9B radar with HEADLIGHTS (in fact, of course, this is not Spook Nain, this is a completely new system) is the destroyer Oscar Austin (2013 g.)

          The rest of the 83 American ships with the Aegis go, sorry, with a bare ass. Their main SPY-1 radar against modern low-flying anti-ship missiles is nothing
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa April 21 2014 22: 45
            +4
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            These flyers, like many Soviet (and American) military personnel, were engaged in profanation and "witch hunts"

            Oleg, you are wrong. The military are bonded people, they go under the sovereign oath. What the leadership ordered them to do, they did. Well, since they received state awards, then they did their job well!
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Even geographically purely AMG could not pose a threat to the USSR.

            You're not right. Sailors who had a chance to serve in the era of the USSR remember very well that with the arrival of the AMG to the line of the rise of aviation, the entire fleet (BF, SF, Pacific Fleet) was transferred to various degrees of BG. The forces began to deploy, aviation relocated according to plan ..., the ships left the permanent basing points for the reserve areas ... A permanent watch was established at the command post from the fleet to the division, inclusive. The reconnaissance aviation became "on a circle". Sedizemka is a separate topic. So, with the arrival of AMG at the North Cape - Medvezhiy border, the SF changed the rhythm of everyday life. I know this from myself.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Much more troubles will cause Strike Needles from coastal air bases
            This is if the combat radius is enough. And in the open Ocean, they, too, will throw grenades into ships without additional reconnaissance?
            Quote: SWEET SIXTEEN
            Diesel is always quieter than a nuclear submarine
            And you, however, are mischievous! Can you name the projects of diesel engines capable of intercepting an AUG running 20-25 nodal, and even in the mobile zone of an ASW in the middle of the Atlantic? "Kalina" is on its way, but it is also not a panacea. You will ask the submariners: how long can the DPL pass 20 knots in one stroke, and what will the commander then do with the zero density of the AB AB?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            against modern low-flying anti-ship missiles
            Oleg, you do not seem to be a sharpie!
            Then name the launch range of the anti-ship missiles using the self-propelled missile launcher of self-propelled guns. Now name the depth of the PLO AUG zone.
            We have commanders who are capable of fulfilling the assigned task by any means in any conditions ...
            But the question is: what will happen to the boat from the moment the RCC is launched? It’s not a fact that the missile (s) will reach the target.
            An attack by a single SSBN, without a RER of the warrant ships, without the simultaneous approach of anti-ship missiles from different heights and directions, without tying up the air patrol and destroying the Hokai, without neutralizing the "attacking submarines" from the AUG is probably doomed to success. I guess the sarcasm is understandable.
            But the blow TO - certain death of the target. But this is the distance of a pistol shot. Need a new A.I. Marinesco, at least!
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe April 22 2014 02: 00
              -1
              Quote: BoA KAA
              The military are bonded people, they go under the sovereign oath. What the leadership ordered them

              In the fall of 1959, at the talks N.S. Khrushchev and US President D. Eisenhower agree that money for the armed forces "knocked out" ministers of defense equally: at first they intimidate the Government with the success of the enemy in the development of weapons
              Accordingly, the opinion of the Minister of Defense is based on information received from his many advisers, deputies, the head of the general staff, intelligence and analytical departments of the army, aviation and navy ... a vicious circle

              These guys themselves gave rise to illusions of problems which WASN’T
              Quote: BoA KAA
              Sailors who had a chance to serve in the Soviet era remember very well that with the arrival of AMG to the line of aviation recovery, the entire fleet (BF, SF, Pacific Fleet)

              And even BF! Incredible
              It is interesting why such an honor was rendered to a lonely floating airfield with under-planes, when around there were constantly dozens of air bases with the most powerful aircraft of the US Air Force and NATO
              Quote: BoA KAA
              So with the advent of AMG to the Nordkap - Medvezhy line, the SF changed the rhythm of everyday life. I know that by myself.

              And why did you forget to mention that the AB in this case was used as air transport - its aircraft were unloaded ashore, at Norwegian air bases. Where already was full of aviation of NATO countries
            2. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe April 22 2014 02: 02
              -1
              Pro Strike Eagle
              Quote: BoA KAA
              This is if the combat radius is enough

              Could you give a map of the US Air Force airbases?))
              (or as an option - foreign bases of the USSR Air Force, the same GSVG)
              Quote: BoA KAA
              And in the open Ocean, they, too, will throw grenades into ships without additional reconnaissance?

              Let the crests of the waves bomb
              In the event of a direct conflict with NATO, our surface ships could not be a priori there - such is the geography of land Russia. We did not depend on ocean transportation, we had nowhere to conduct convoys, we had nothing to do in the open ocean. If necessary, the SSBNs will come out and shoot themselves - from under the ice dome of the Arctic
              Quote: BoA KAA
              projects of diesel engines capable of intercepting an AUG running 20-25 by a nodal move, and even in the mobile zone of a PLO, in the middle of the Atlantic?

              What for?
              Let the Yankees run across the ocean, it makes us hot and cold
              If they try to get closer to our shores, they will get non-acidic change.

              Varshavyanka, foreign Type 212 / 214 submarines with hydrogen fuel cells, Scorpen, Soryu, Gotland (as an example) ... Is it not logical to put a barrier from such submarines somewhere in the Mediterranean or in the Barents (Japanese) seas? Kids will tear apart any convoy or AUG. Indian Warsaw women are already armed with our own RCC Club - it’s time to equip them with our boats!
              Quote: BoA KAA
              how long can the 20 submarine pass through, and what will the commander then do with zero density AB AB?

              Modern NAPL is capable of supporting 20 nodes for more than an hour. Next, 5 will go by the nodal move on Stirling recharging the AB; average diving time 2 of the week. With economical consumption of liquid oxygen - up to 20 days.
              Quote: BoA KAA
              What then is the launch range of the anti-ship missiles using self-propelled guns

              to 50 miles
              Quote: BoA KAA
              Now name the depth of the PLO AUG zone.

              10 miles Determined by the range of the PLUR
              Turntables are not too dangerous. They are few. And they become useless already with the excitement of 5 points. At present, developments have appeared that make it possible to bring down anti-submarine helicopters from underwater position (IDAS - in service with the Bundesmarin since 2014)
              Basic anti-submarine aviation poses a certain threat. But the thing is happening in our operating area, off our coast! (no further about Bear Bear) Where are our fighter patrols and AWACS ??
              Quote: BoA KAA
              What will happen to the boat from the moment the RCC is launched?

              50 / 50 will go unpunished
              But what will happen to the AUG after the launch of the Caliber (Club) - there 100% will kill several ships. Aegis is useless against high-speed low-flying targets
              Quote: BoA KAA
              without tying up the air patrol and destroying the Hokai,

              Air patrol and Hokai can not pose a threat to the boat
        2. Dart2027
          Dart2027 April 21 2014 23: 14
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Diesel is always quieter than a nuclear submarine

          This is true, but they have a limited time under water and are effective only near the base or under the cover of surface ships. In the Black or Baltic Sea they will be good, but in the ocean it is better than nuclear submarines.
  • Biolant
    Biolant April 21 2014 18: 32
    0
    Yeah "Aegis" has already shown itself on Cook))) Against 1 su-24))
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa April 21 2014 15: 42
    +4
    Quote: aleks 62
    .I remember - modern anti-ship missiles are already flying further500km, and according to new ones there was infa - about 5000km ..
    Alex, you are repeating the same mistake a second time: the ASBMs with a range of 2500-3000, as well as up to 5000km, are used exclusively for stationary coastal (land) targets and have nothing to do with ships (except those standing in the naval base). With such a launch, they simply do not fall into the region of the probable location of the target.
  • shurup
    shurup April 21 2014 11: 26
    +3
    I am against the construction of aircraft carriers and am already tired of arguing on this topic.
    Space, air force, air defense, etc. - there is where to invest gigantic funds in a country that has well, very long land borders.
    And aircraft carriers for show-offs? It will end, as with battleships.
  • kodxnumx
    kodxnumx April 21 2014 11: 26
    +3
    Yeah, what can you say, it’s necessary to build, and not count the enemy’s ship, I think not quantity but quality will matter, we had the rocket of the structure always at the height and even the air force is now a formidable force, these two components will be decisive, although other types of weapons are required ,!
    1. klaus16
      klaus16 April 21 2014 14: 10
      +1
      Yes, both Pacific Fleet and Northern should be well equipped. For warfare in these areas, it is much more convenient to fly from the deck than from land. At least for the sake of intercepting something.
      1. ar-ren
        ar-ren April 21 2014 14: 37
        +2
        Quote: klaus16
        Yes, both Pacific Fleet and Northern should be well equipped. For warfare in these areas, it is much more convenient to fly from the deck than from land. At least for the sake of intercepting something.


        No, not handy. To build a jump airfield on the shore is a matter of a week or two. And you can make them as much as you need. And the aircraft carrier is being built for a long time, alone, and requires strong support from NK and PL.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Igor75
    Igor75 April 21 2014 11: 58
    +6
    If we consider an aircraft carrier as a means of covering the squadron, then it is definitely needed. Without air cover, any squadron is a difficult target, albeit a difficult one. Gorshkov understood this, but he certainly could not be called a layman. Therefore, they built cruisers for vertical aircraft, and when they realized that the Yak-38 could not provide air cover, they switched to a full-fledged aircraft carrier.
    1. santepa
      santepa April 21 2014 18: 41
      0
      CORRECT THOUGHT-YOUNG THINK !!!!
    2. vch62388
      vch62388 April 21 2014 23: 23
      0
      In my opinion, the Russian Navy needs 1-2 aircraft carriers, moreover, on the Northern Fleet. I will try to justify:
      1. Covering areas of combat patrol SSBNs easier to produce from the shore. These areas do not need to be carried far from their shores (SLBM range is comparable to land-based ICBMs)
      2. The deployment of multipurpose boats in the Atlantic will require overcoming NATO's anti-submarine lines. The task of the SF squadron is to clear the sky from NATO anti-submarine aviation for a short time of the submarine breakthrough. The ship-borne Vikings should be fought by destroying the aircraft carriers with Tu-22M strikes, and ship-based fighters are needed to cover them and fight various coastal Orions.
      3. At the Pacific Fleet, the problem of boats entering the open ocean is not a problem; it is free from Petropavlovsk. Those. aircraft carriers are not needed there.
  • erofich
    erofich April 21 2014 12: 00
    0
    Pacific and North - at least 2-3 AUGs. For protection. And look for other technologies, maybe PAX 6 generations. Which these AUG for one tooth will be.
    1. santepa
      santepa April 21 2014 18: 43
      0
      I also think so -2 so that they change each other in positions
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa April 21 2014 12: 09
    +3
    Normal article. Normal arguments. It is clear that children always want new toys and more. Unfortunately, they are not interested in where and how parents take money for these pleasures, I want it and that's it, they find it somewhere for food. You can still arrange a tantrum in the store and sincerely hate greedy parents. Meanwhile, it is enough to ask for a toy for their birthday and the problem is almost solved, but the children do not know how to plan and wait. Fortunately, you yourself know who seems to be able to. So don't be sad, you will have an "adult" bike when the time comes, and maybe even a moped will be bought.
    1. santepa
      santepa April 21 2014 18: 54
      0
      WANT TO LIVE? - You’ll find it. You’ll find the domestic tricks. It’s easier for him that the gold reserve of the Russian Empire has sunk and hell knows where along with Admiral Kolchak (a whole train), but there weren’t shells in the war, there were only 4 modern armadillos under Tsushima and not 10 as a supposedly great naval power, proud of its naval victories, and outstanding (without irony) naval commanders.
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city April 21 2014 12: 25
    +2
    Quote: erofich
    Pacific and North - at least 2-3 AUGs. For protection. And look for other technologies, maybe PAX 6 generations. Which these AUG for one tooth will be.

    And where will these aug swim in the event of an exacerbation of the situation? In the north, they will be sandwiched between the ice and the shores of Norway, Denmark, etc. But coastal aviation is a priori more powerful than naval, the same in the Pacific Ocean. Japan and Korea practically lock our fleet in the Sea of ​​Japan and Okhotsk. And if submarines can somehow go through and fight, then to large surface ships this is very problematic for modern aviation, even aircraft carriers. Our doctrine was made up of intelligent people who understand the situation today. And having aircraft carriers for the sake of prestige is too expensive.
  • lestrigon
    lestrigon April 21 2014 12: 40
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Asymmetric - yes. Cheap?

    Compared to them - Yes! -Our weapon is several times cheaper
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And you do not by any chance know why, instead of building another "dozen missiles" of the USSR Navy, it suddenly took care of building aircraft carriers? :)

    As far as I know now, the government's plans do not include the construction of an AB, and what happened in the days of the USSR was still more an ASW than a real "Strike Fleet". Remember the technical characteristics of their "boards" and our Airborne cruisers.
    As for the Aegis, don't you think that this toy is quite expensive and that even today they cannot provide 100% protection of the AUG? -Let's leave out of the brackets the ability of Americans to PR, to conduct marketing policies and information wars.
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Lucas' Star Wars should be watched less

    -Constructive in the discussion you obviously "do not occupy", and therefore there is nothing to object to. hi
    PS And about the "spiral" I still recommend you to read. -Hypersonic missiles directed almost vertically downward a priori can not be taken by any "Aegis" wink
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 21 2014 12: 55
      +1
      Quote: lestrigon
      Compared to them - Yes! -Our weapon is several times cheaper


      They pinned me here by comparing DK Ivan Gren with DK Mistral. Despite the fact that Ivan Gren has 4 times less displacement than the Mistral, at the moment he has already cost half the price of the Mistral, and not the fact that the completion will not cost another half.
      1. lestrigon
        lestrigon April 21 2014 13: 22
        +2
        Have to fend off laughing
        American "Abrams" is 3 times more expensive than our T-90
        "Striped" aircraft of the 5th generation are one and a half times more expensive (not to mention the development cost) http://pikabu.ru/story/f22_raptor_vs_pakfa_t50_fgfa_1508500
        Domestic anti-tank systems are generally an order of magnitude cheaper (and do not say that we almost never use the "shot-forget" system - this is still a controversial issue whether it is effective or not)
        Our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are much cheaper and maintainable.
        The last submarine cost "mattress makers" $ 1.000.000.000
        And about the Kalashnikov assault rifle, I generally keep silent
        As for the Mistrals, it has long been clear to everyone that they were sold to us. After all, the same India offered to build helicopter carriers for us at 2 times cheaper.
        As for "Ivan Gren", to be honest, I don't know ... what but most likely there is some kind of fraudulent scheme
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 14: 35
      +4
      Quote: lestrigon
      Compared to them - Yes! -Our weapon is several times cheaper

      Let's somehow separate the flies from the cutlets. The cost of weapons is one question, but the cost of an asymmetrical answer is another. In essence, the question sounds like this - how much did the "asymmetric answer" cost us and what would we get if the funds allocated for "asymmetry" were used to build an aircraft carrier fleet.
      After the war and until 2000, the Americans built 17 aircraft carriers (not counting the Midwayes laid down in the war years) - 8 with conventional and 9 with nuclear power plants with an aggregate displacement of 1,4 million tons.
      The USSR built 71 nuclear submarines with cruise missiles, 28 diesel submarines with anti-ship missiles and 15 missile cruisers with a total displacement of almost 700 million tons. At the same time, by 2000, the Americans had 12 combat-ready aircraft carriers, and we had 7 missile cruisers and 13 nuclear-powered submarines of "aircraft carrier killers" of the 949 type with the "Granit" anti-ship missile system, the rest of the ships were already outdated and did not pose any particular danger to the AUG (for example, boats that had armament still P-70 "Amethyst" could no longer pose a significant threat to AUg, since in wartime it would be extremely difficult to get close to AUg by 80 km (and then Amethyst did not fly). Thus, having built cruisers and submarines with missiles displacement 50% of the American aircraft carrier fleet, we still could not expect to protect our shores from the US AUG.
      A dozen American aircraft carriers supported the basing of up to 1200 aircraft, the heaviest of which was the Tomcat (empty weight - 18,1 tons). We focused on missile-carrying aircraft, having built 300 Tu-22 and almost 500 Tu-22M (empty weight - 68 t) Despite the fact that, of course, these aircraft were not self-sufficient, they needed to be covered with fighter aviation, which, of course, was also created. Plus a basing system for them.
      The lack of a sea site for early-range radar aircraft led to the need to create monstrous reconnaissance aircraft based on strategic bombers (Tu-95) and a completely cosmic-cost ICRC "Legend" system, but still the task of an external control center for long-range anti-ship missiles was never solved.
      Quote: lestrigon
      As far as I know now, the government's plans do not include the construction of an AB, but what happened during the Soviet era was still more an ASW than a real "Strike Fleet"

      Sorry, but you don't know well. Look at the history of the design of "Admiral Kuznetsov" and the history of the TAVKR "Ulyanovsk". Back in the late 60s, the sailors tried to "break through" the construction of nuclear aircraft carriers (Project 1160 "Eagle"), but they were able to do this only in the 80s.
      The emergence of AB in the Soviet Navy is due to the fact that the AUG is able to detect and destroy targets at a distance of 1000 km or more from the aircraft carrier. And we had anti-ship missiles with a range of 300-500 km, so there was a need to "bring" the anti-ship missile carriers (ships and aircraft) to the launch lines. Without air cover, losses would have been colossal, and ground-based fighter aircraft could not effectively solve such tasks.
      This is not my opinion, if that. This is the opinion of the Soviet admirals, and I see no reason not to listen to him.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 14: 35
        +3
        Quote: lestrigon
        Constructive in the discussion you obviously "do not occupy", and therefore there is nothing to object to.

        Well, yes, of course there is nothing :)))
        Quote: lestrigon
        PS And about the "spiral" I still recommend you to read. -Hypersonic missiles directed almost vertically downward a priori can not be taken by any "Aegis"

        But I still recommend that you familiarize yourself with the performance characteristics of the "Spiral" and the history of its creation. Then you will learn that although it was really intended to create a system capable of hitting naval targets, the Spiral project did not come close to achieving this goal.
        Although it is really unfortunate that the development of the Spiral has been stopped.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 15: 27
        +1
        Pup. Not
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        in almost 700 million tons.

        and almost in 700 thousand tons, of course
      4. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe April 21 2014 15: 43
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        USSR built 71 nuclear submarine with cruise missiles, 28 diesel submarines with anti-ship missiles and 15 missile cruisers with a total displacement of almost 700 million tons

        And why don’t you take into account that this armada was used ONLY and not so much against the aircraft carriers themselves

        AUGs, KUG, cowboys, single ships - Submarines with cruise missiles kept all US fleets and their satellites on the fly

        Further, from your horror stories - the number of crews of all 28 diesel engines with KR is 2 times less than that of one aircraft carrier. They themselves were as simple as stools and cost a penny. Half was generally converted from post-war diesel-electric submarines. 613

        71 SSGNs of which half are primitive 659 and 675. Specific impromptu - Pears and Andromeda can be neglected. The real force during the Cold War was only ~ 20 Skats with the Amethyst anti-ship missile system (excellent boats in every respect, they would have to be built anyway). And again, the number of crews of all 71 boats is equivalent to two aircraft carriers.

        949 and 949А (as well as titanium 661) are ineffective wunderwaffles, their construction was a mistake. 885 - perfect ocean hunters turned out to be much more balanced and interesting.

        15 missile cruisers - of which 4 are tiny 58 (based on the hull of destroyers pr56) and 4 are the same primitive 1134.
        4 Eagles - expensive show-offs, there was no need for their construction.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        but they could only do this in the 80's.

        When there was no need for them
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        AUG is able to detect and destroy targets at a distance of 1000 km or more from an aircraft carrier.

        Everything is conditional there
        There is no protection at all from boats to the Kyrgyz Republic - these can come closer than 50 miles without the risk of being discovered

        By the way, therefore, in my opinion, Soviet missile aircraft was a profanity. Why break through the air, if the enemy there is very well organized. Too good to be able to break through: pass the Faroe line and continue to attack the AUG without fighters. crying The only one who can carry out the task relatively cheaply and efficiently is an underwater missile carrier
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 16: 14
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          And why don’t you take into account that this armada was used ONLY and not so much against the aircraft carriers themselves

          Because "not only and not so much" are your fantasies, Oleg.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          AUGs, KUG, kovoys, single ships - submarines with cruise missiles kept all US fleets and their satellites on the fly

          Well, now Oleg will tell us how a hundred nuclear submarines of the USSR dominated the oceans laughing
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Further, from your horror stories - the number of crews of all 28 diesel engines with KR is 2 times less than that of one aircraft carrier. They themselves were as simple as stools and cost a penny. Half was generally converted from post-war diesel-electric submarines. 613

          With near-zero combat effectiveness.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          949 and 949А (as well as titanium 661) are ineffective wunderwaffles, their construction was a mistake. 885 - perfect ocean hunters turned out to be much more balanced and interesting.

          15 missile cruisers - of which 4 are tiny 58 (based on the hull of destroyers pr56) and 4 are the same primitive 1134.
          4 Eagles - expensive show-offs, there was no need for their construction.

          Oleg, why are you telling me all this? There is a comrade to whom I wrote my post, writes about how we cheaply and angrily gave all NATO fleets one left asymmetric answers.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Everything is conditional there
          There is no protection at all from boats to the Kyrgyz Republic - these can come closer than 50 miles without the risk of being discovered

          Oleg, absolutely the same is true for submarines of the Second World War. Let us recall the invaluable contribution of Doenitz to the defense of Normandy? laughing
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe April 21 2014 16: 55
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            "not only and not so much" - these are your fantasies

            Not at all

            Battleship Battle Group, 1986

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            while near-zero combat effectiveness.

            exaggerating. Boats placed along a possible convoy route (AUG, KUG) posed a great threat

            Do you remember the story of how Super Super Long Beach screwed up in the presence of President Kennedy - he could not shoot down an air target with five missiles. after that he (the cruiser) was added two guns))
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            how hundreds of nuclear submarines of the USSR dominated the oceans

            Intention and opportunity are slightly different things.

            in order to dominate the Atlantic in the event of a nuclear-free third world navy, the USSR had to be twice as large as the US Navy and NATO fleets combined. Unsuccessful geography affects - our fleet would have to operate in areas of the ocean entirely controlled by the enemy, near its shores (British island-carrier, Norway, Faroe’s line)
            And conversations - so that it would be more effective: to build three Ulyanovsk or 71 submarines do not make much sense. Neither method provides control over communications in the Atlantic (in this case, boats, in my opinion, will be more useful - they are more secretive and their operation is cheaper)
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            absolutely the same is true for WWII submarines

            what is this example for?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 21 2014 18: 50
              +3
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Not at all

              And where is the Soviet submarine in the 71 photo? :)
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              exaggerating. Boats placed along a possible convoy route (AUG, KUG) posed a great threat

              Oleg, the ocean is large, and in order to block the "possible routes of the route" you need a little more nuclear submarines
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              And conversations - so that it would be more effective: to build three Ulyanovsk or 71 submarines do not make much sense

              Five to six Ulyanovsk
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              what is this example for?

              Moreover, the WWII ships also had no protection against the submarines - they just needed to come closer. BUT - did not work, disgusting. Warships died when they themselves and accidentally were substituted by torpedoes of submarines
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe April 21 2014 19: 29
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                And where is the Soviet submarine in the 71 photo? :)

                Likely New Jersey squadron will throw caps from the shore
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                the ocean is great

                Diesel babies not for the oceans
                Cover them with the Mediterranean or the Sea of ​​Japan, put up barriers at enemy bases, at Gibraltar, put them along the route of their convoy - in my opinion these are obvious ways of using DEPL
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Five to six Ulyanovsk

                And you need 20-30
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                WWII ships also did not have any protection against submarines - they just needed to come closer

                And they came up!
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Warships died when they themselves and accidentally were substituted by torpedoes of submarines

                The slow-moving diesels of Doenitz did not particularly hunt for cruisers and destroyers (moreover, 123 warships were destroyed by German boats during the entire war)
                It was believed that the attack of a high-speed warship is an ineffective, dangerous and wasteful event. It is more useful to shoot a couple of convoy transports with strategic cargoes
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa April 21 2014 18: 55
          +4
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          949 and 949А (as well as titanium 661) are ineffective wunderwaffles, their construction was a mistake.

          Strange, and I and all the naval ones still consider their construction an adequate response to the aircraft carrier threat. It was these boats that became the basis of the anti-aircraft division of the submarines of the Northern and Pacific fleets. And repeatedly conducted exercises (including research) on the destruction of AUGs confirmed this.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          885 - Perfect Ocean Hunters
          And who argues that a motorcycle is better than a bicycle. But in order to grow up to the 885 project, you had to go through 949, 971, 671 and so on. And today it turns out that the 885 is too big and expensive, as well as the Amerovsk Sea Wolf. And the design of the boat on 6-7 thousand tons is already underway. This is all a normal process of improving weapons systems.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          There is no protection at all from boats to the Kyrgyz Republic - these can come closer than 50 miles without the risk of being discovered
          There is always a risk of being discovered. Therefore, a periodic check is made for lack of tracking you. Any submariner will tell you this.
          Battleship Battle Group 1986 picture - not correct. So no one walks in combat formations, and in marching ones too. And they "huddled" only to fit into the lens and at the same time something else could be seen from the ship's architecture.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Boats placed along a possible convoy route (AUG, KUG) posed a great threat
          Undisputed. Therefore, the Americans came up with such disgusting thing as a mobile PLO zone, include Losy and Virginia in the AUG, and at distances along the AUG deployment route up to 100 miles, a couple of KPUGs crawl 50 miles from the core, and all this space is surveyed from the air by PLO helicopters (earlier and " Vikings "were). And recently it appeared infa that the long-range observation ships are going to attach to this pack of dogs.
          But the most opposite, over all these indecency, they hung Hokai, tied to the Aegis ships and capable of directing the IA at the detected anti-ship missiles.
          So it turns out: you make a launch with a secured D - the IA will intercept, maybe there is time. Crawl closer, you can run into a "Stars and Stripes relative" or APUG. So spin the commander as you know, but complete the task! And if in the course of the aircraft intercepting barriers from the RGAB periodically erects, then boats cannot do without an aircraft carrier. Well, at least you crack! and against the RGAB pruha is powerless.
          So, dear Navy historian!
  • Sledgehammer
    Sledgehammer April 21 2014 12: 42
    +2
    You won’t believe it :) but back in the days of the USSR drew the same conclusions.
    To combat the AUG, they built submarines with the Kyrgyz Republic and small missiles for destruction
    enemy fleet approached close to our shores.
    And all this was supposed to be covered by coastal aviation, and in the case of
    with the Tu-22 and help drown their AUG.
    And now, with limited funding, these principles
    not lost relevance. So the article plus the author as well
    efforts.
  • Monax
    Monax April 21 2014 12: 46
    +1
    Your own AUG is certainly good to show your presence in the oceans. But fighting them is much easier. Destroy GPS ground stations - and they and their weapons get lost. I don't think any of them know how to use sextant. Well, and lastly, lightly hammer along their volcano. Fenita La Comedy.
    1. Sledgehammer
      Sledgehammer April 21 2014 14: 12
      +3
      Quote: Monk
      Destroy GPS ground stations

      Ground ?! This is a satellite constellation like our GLONAS.
      1. ar-ren
        ar-ren April 21 2014 14: 39
        +2
        There are ground stations too. Recently there was a scandal, the United States banned the installation of GLONASS ground stations on its territory.
        1. Sledgehammer
          Sledgehammer April 21 2014 15: 54
          +1
          In the United States banned devices using GLONASS, in response, Russia banned
          GPS (acre while cell phone).
  • ar-ren
    ar-ren April 21 2014 12: 50
    +6
    I agree with copyright, although he expressed the idea a little clumsily. The correct order, IMHO, such.
    1. We make a submarine, place in places of possible passage of enemy squadrons, close the advantage on the submarine with the enemy.
    2. We make a satellite constellation for target designation by our submarines.
    3. We make ground-based aviation, close the advantage in aviation with the enemy. We create the line of defense by aviation of our territory.
    4. We make surface ships PLO and air defense, the future "kit" of our AUG, for the task of escorting our UDC and aircraft carriers.
    5. We make the right amount of UDC for landing operations.
    6. And only here we begin to make aircraft carriers, like a shock cherry for the UDC cover and for shock offensive operations.

    PS opera turbo gives an interesting effect. It turns out I live in the United States! :)))
    1. dmitrij.blyuz
      dmitrij.blyuz April 21 2014 13: 55
      +3
      It turns out I live in the United States! =========== laughing Urgently seize the moment!
    2. Sledgehammer
      Sledgehammer April 21 2014 14: 08
      +1
      And I often in Iceland laughing
      1. dmitrij.blyuz
        dmitrij.blyuz April 21 2014 14: 34
        0
        Masterpiece! Silence, calmness! And create mattresses for a bong-bong! wassat
  • ruslan207
    ruslan207 April 21 2014 13: 09
    +2
    the author thinks that the war will destroy tanks like airplanes? Why do you need yao in France, how much nuclear power costs, or in America are they suicides
  • A. RU
    A. RU April 21 2014 13: 16
    +3
    The rearmament program until 2020 does not include the construction of aircraft carriers, so there is still enough time for discussions. But as for the continental power of which our country is, I think we now need to increase the number of military transport aircraft, they seem to be very few and we need them to transfer troops. To increase the number of air refueling aircraft and AWACS aircraft, and it would not hurt to postpone the development of the PAK DA to an earlier period, the White Swan is certainly power, but 16 aircraft will not be enough.
  • Voenruk
    Voenruk April 21 2014 13: 51
    +2
    What for? Why do we need aircraft carriers !? It is necessary to build submarines, cruisers, etc. to combat the Avinos. Why push so much money into crazy ideas. Keeping one Kuznetsov a year is expensive. For this money, you can make small tactical devices to combat aircraft carriers. With one little development, send their entire fleet to the scrap. In general, we would have to keep our territory, where to climb to the USA.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 21 2014 13: 53
      +2
      Quote: Voenruk
      For this money, you can make small tactical devices to combat aircraft carriers. With one little development, send their entire fleet to the scrap.


      The thoughts of Voenruk somehow indirectly resemble the thoughts of Hitler in 1944-1945. He also hoped to make a child prodigy, which would turn the tide in the war in his favor.
  • dmitrij.blyuz
    dmitrij.blyuz April 21 2014 13: 51
    +2
    the possibility of Russia conducting an offensive operation against the United States. ============================== What is this all to? Or has the author seen enough of fiction? What, for example, clashes with the US AUG in a conflict of two nuclear powers? There are only two options: 1) there will be no conflict. 2) The conflict has ripened. As a result, there is nothing to do with the whole balloon.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 21 2014 13: 57
      +2
      Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
      What’s this all about? Or has the author seen enough of fiction? What, for example, clashes with the US AUG in a conflict of two nuclear powers? There are only two options: 1) there will be no conflict. 2) The conflict has ripened. As a result, there is nothing to do with the whole balloon.


      In general, after watching the events in Ukraine, I decided that the situation of a conventional war between Russia and the United States is quite possible. I mean that on the Maidan, both sides very diligently and for a long time did not use the "street analogue of SNF" lethal small arms, preferring to throw noise grenades, Molotov cocktails at each other, built catapults, burned tires, etc. In general, we avoided strategic nuclear forces as soon as they could. If not for an unknown group of snipers, who quietly decided to inflame the situation, it is still unknown how it would have ended.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 April 21 2014 19: 53
        0
        A war situation is possible on the neutral territory of some Zimbabwe.
        Или:
        Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
        The result is kryndets to the whole ball
  • Aleksandr89
    Aleksandr89 April 21 2014 13: 52
    +2
    A few questions to the author of the article. Developing the powerful air defense systems that the USSR-Russia was famous for. How many cruise missiles and planes will lose NATO and the United States in the conflict with us. Here their 4-fold advantage in airplanes will not play any role. In addition, the author does not sufficiently assess the potential of large surface ships, for example, Peter the Great is able to create powerful zonal air defense by ship systems. In defensive tactics, when your fleet will be off the coast, for example, in the north. It will be difficult for the Americans: diesel boats will pose an additional threat, surface ships will support ground-based air defense systems, aviation that can strike from coastal airfields, strategic aviation. In general, if we consider the conflict near the borders of the Russian Federation in the North in the zone of 500-1000, then the loss of aircraft and cruise missiles of the United States and NATO will reach 30-60 percent of the total.
  • Officer
    Officer April 21 2014 14: 27
    +1
    If the author gave a business case, the rating would be 100%. For the price of one US aircraft carrier, our "smart guys" will come up with such missiles and means of their delivery that NATO will disintegrate - it just won't make sense. The future belongs to rockets and space, and we can and are able to do it, if only the will of the Chief Commander.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 21 2014 14: 42
      +1
      Quote: Officer
      For the price of one US aircraft carrier, our "smart guys" will come up with such missiles and means of their delivery that NATO will disintegrate - it just won't make sense.


      The USSR was inhabited by "smart people" at the very least. NATO has not disintegrated. Now our "smart guys" in NATO, let us recall Sergey Brin, the creator of Google, or Alexander Geim, the creator of graphenes. Why would NATO disintegrate now?
  • santepa
    santepa April 21 2014 14: 41
    +3
    The article says absolutely nothing about the fact that the AOG is needed first of all to reliably cover the position areas and the rifle patrol patrol areas. Without the AUG, the combat stability of the rifle regiment with forks on the water is written. There are not many of these areas in our naval strategic nuclear forces, and almost all they are known to be potent. So that an adequate strike of the sea component of the strategic nuclear forces without ASG becomes, to put it mildly, PROBLEMATIC. Yes, and simply, without crawling into the jungle of nuclear affairs, would it be possible such a development of events as happened in the Mediterranean over the past 20 years, if only there on a permanent basis would be a powerful AUG of Russia? Like for example the 5th squadron of the USSR. THINK !!!!
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe April 21 2014 15: 11
      0
      Quote: santepa
      for reliable cover of position areas, and patrol areas of the SSBN.

      Disservice

      AUG only unmasks the position

      Actually, AUGs have not been doing this for 40 for years, due to the appearance of SLBMs with a launch range of 8-9 and more than thousand km. Boats calmly watch under the ice of the Arctic or slowly circle along Hawaii - closer to their bases and further away from the enemy fleet

      Where are the 10 AUGs? Which of them covers 14 American SSBNs?
      1. santepa
        santepa April 21 2014 17: 58
        +1
        absolutely right! The USA absolutely does not need this cover; they have enough bases all over the world, IT IS NECESSARY TO RUSSIA and only RUSSIA. AUG is the mink into which such a slowly circling rpksn hides and is always accompanied by a multi-purpose hunter, in order to throw off the enemy hunter’s tail, in case of detection and pursuit. and the hydrological situation of the northern seas makes the task of detecting even such monsters as Shark very problematic in most seasons. And of course, you can shoot with a blue, airliner, and a mace from the pier in Vidyaevo, but there are also positional areas in the Atlantic, and as YOU quite rightly noted in the Pacific Ocean, and not only in Hawaii. BUT !!! what do you command the commander of the SSBN and the pike accompanying it if two or even three Virginia sat on their tail near the same Hawaiians (no one canceled the SOSUS systems and the like), and these systems only become more widespread and more perfect over time .Plus plying in the so-called. free barrage of ORIONS and NEPTUNES from ov bases, and anti-submarine aircraft with AUG. I want to remind you that since the 2nd World War there is no enemy boat more dangerous than an airplane or a helicopter. This is where this boat needs a Momkin’s mink (AUG is usually spread out in a radius of 100-150 miles from an aircraft carrier, i.e. from a guarded carcass, and these are only forward watch ships, but planes, and PLO helicopters are even further away. And these guys are quite capable (in response to the tearful complaint of the comrade of their own boat) to overtake any Virginia so many buoys that it won’t seem enough. Well, there is still the task of tracking the SSBN sweat prot. (read about the ATRIN operation of the USSR submarine), and here, in all its gigantic growth, there is the task of breaking through the Icelandic and Greenlandic borders of NATO PLO. only God knows the Soviet sailors (the titles of Heroes for ATRINA were not just assigned). But if this line is crossed by the RUSSIAN AUG (at least equal in strength to the USA AUG) deployed in all its might (barrage of anti-aircraft defense decks, air defense fighters) so that one fucking ORION didn’t come close, and dozens of SEVERODVINSKI freely pass under the keels in the Atlantic and hang on the tails of LOS_ANZHELESOV (which PLO decks find for them), this is a picture worthy of a feather. in the ocean like an aircraft carrier.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe April 21 2014 18: 14
          -1
          Quote: santepa
          , and not only among the Hawaiians.

          speaking of Hawaii - I meant American SSBNs
          Quote: santepa
          then order the commander of the SSBN and its accompanying pike to do if near the same Hawaiians

          Why should our SSBN go to Hawaii? To the mouth of the enemy

          About the three Virginia - if they got on their tail, you need to change the position. The boat is unmasked, the task failed
          Quote: santepa
          Plus plying in the so-called. free barrage of ORIONS and NEPTUNES from ov bases

          What can they do boat under the ice of the Arctic

          So the task of escorting the SSBNs by the SSBNs was invented by you personally and has nothing to do with reality
          1. santepa
            santepa April 21 2014 19: 29
            +1
            Please, don’t find fault with words taken out of context, YOU understood very well what I had in mind (ORIONES are not needed on sowing the ice! We put quiet SOSUS there, from sensors, on the ridges and peaks of the underwater, like in the Atlantic. And accompany each AUG you don’t need a boat, you just need to BE. BE in the ocean, as the last resort until which it’s only a day or two, because changing the area by dropping the tail of the hunters, who also managed to call the aircraft, is a task for which the Heroes commanders were given (and quite deservedly ) And the detection equipment allows you to find apl on the wake of the wake even if the boat passed here 3 days ago, and the direction it went is free. Yes, the Hawaiians may not, but I don’t believe that our boats with Pacific Fleet revolve exclusively around Kamchatka. And so they turn around (sometimes losing a confused track, looking for a city that doesn’t exist) There are still layers of the so-called RACE, layers of different density of water, salinity, temperature, diving under which you can temporarily get lost, and come off, and if you are very lucky ,and if the wake is washed up by the gulf stream, then it’s quite possible to dive into the hole in a day (at least to the edge of the zone of the controlled native AUG). Well, there we will think how to get around you and leave.
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex April 21 2014 15: 27
      +1
      I thought. :)

      Firstly, the USSR is needed to contain the 5th Mediterranean squadron of naval ships. If he were, then the situation would have generally developed in a different scenario. Globally.
      Secondly, even the 5th Mediterranean Navy ships squadron did not include aircraft carriers, and therefore is not relevant. :)
      Thirdly, the main advantage of the U.S. Navy in the Mediterranean was not aircraft carriers, but coastal bases, that is, full-fledged naval bases, which the USSR did not have there, except for the PMO in Tartus and Port Said.
      Fourthly, submarine missile carriers of the USSR's strategic nuclear forces did not go as part of ship groups. Neither Dolphins nor Sharks. The presence or absence of a strike aircraft carrier with them is completely meaningless. Much more important for these boats is the range of the missile system. If you are capable of throwing warheads 15-16 thousand km, then block your patrol area practically impossible, since it begins in the territorial waters of Russia.
      Here in this direction to work much more promising.
  • the handsome
    the handsome April 21 2014 14: 55
    +3
    The author comes from the wrong end. Take away the Bretton Woods system, deprive the dollar of the status of world settlement and reserve currencies - and the American fleet will suffer the fate of the Soviet. The United States simply will not pull up the contents of this colossus - this is not within the power of any state living within its means, but not exporting paper in exchange for resources from around the world. GDP, by the way, understands this very well (thank God). So the opposition to the enemy’s AV groups should take place in the offices of Moscow, Beijing, Delhi and Brasilia. And it does happen. As for aircraft carriers - yes, they are needed. One per fleet, 50-60 aircraft each.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 21 2014 15: 02
      0
      Quote: elguapo
      it is beyond the power of any state living within its means, and not exporting paper in exchange for resources from around the world.


      The excess of imports over exports for the United States is approximately 10%. This is the cost of the "cut paper". If the dollar loses its power tomorrow, the United States will simply need to cut imports by 10%.
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 April 21 2014 15: 18
    +1
    The article is very one-sided and shallow on the study of the topic.

    I would put the question differently: does Russia have tasks for aircraft carriers and aircraft carrier groups.
    There are such tasks, for example, ensuring the presence of state interests in regions ...

    A war with NATO can only be nuclear ... therefore, the question here is whether or not to have aircraft carriers for the war is inappropriate.

    You can discuss on the topic which aircraft carriers ...
    Of course, drums with a nuclear power plant (nuclear power plant), which provides them with greater autonomy, and with the ability to accommodate a large number of aircraft and helicopters for various purposes, which provides combat power.
    Aviation guidance should be provided by air command posts (something like the E-2 "Hawkeye") that provide a larger control and guidance zone than any deck-based means (like now at Kuznetsovo).

    A separate topic is the construction of ships and the composition of the carrier group itself ... I will say in general they should be enough to solve the problems of covering and striking, as well as solving current security issues.

    Perhaps you need to write a series of articles, in the first to determine the GOALS and TASKS solved by aircraft carrier groups, i.e. it is necessary or not necessary to have them. If the answer is YES, determine which aircraft carriers and ships the warrants should be. Then all other topics, including how many years we will reach the target state and how by this time the views on the conduct of military operations and other operations will change.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex April 21 2014 15: 50
    0
    On the topic of the article.
    The author flirts slightly. No conflict by non-nuclear forces between the Russian Federation and NATO makes sense to the Russian Federation. Just the economic potential is incomparable. Even if we withstand the first blow, then we will simply be crushed due to the incomparable pace of replenishment of equipment and manpower. In our case, in the war with NATO, either immediately surrender or use nuclear weapons.
    Again, why bother with the recurrences of "Iraqi thinking"? Russia is not Iraq, it can and must destroy not arrows, but shooters, that is, destroy infrastructure war. Not to hunt for AUGs, but to burn off naval bases, supply points, NATO airfields in Europe, oil storage facilities and military depots. And in the US, first of all, it is necessary to destroy long-term storage bases, factories of Boeing, Northtrop and other military-industrial rubbish. And do not withdraw the fleet with keels measured. Therefore, the best protection against the US Navy will be at AUGi, and special delivery vehicles. Warheads in the United States. Only in any way.

    Therefore, missile submarines of strategic nuclear forces should be prioritized over aircraft carriers.

    The author correctly noted that it would take many decades to build an adequate Russian carrier fleet. So why do this garbage? In the USSR, an asymmetric answer was found — supersonic high-power cruise missile anti-ship missiles deployed on ships, submarines and high-speed delivery vehicles (aircraft and ekranolets). And while no one could find protection from this scourge. So we need to develop this concept, here we are at least leaders. And if a floating airdrome is required within its framework, then do it as you need, otherwise I doubt very much that for a KMG capable of firing off fifty Granitov and Vulkanov 500 km in a salvo, supported by a division of bombers with Onyxes and a submarine division the presence of 28 carrier-based fighter aircraft is critical. This meeting most likely needs an airfield for AWACS, RER and EW aircraft, and not for fighter-bombers.
    1. mark2
      mark2 April 21 2014 19: 41
      +1
      I fully support! Repeating for the USA is a futile exercise. They all the same will rivet aircraft carriers faster than us! Missiles, ekranoplanes, strategic missile carriers in the sky - these are quite asymmetric answers! and are cheaper and decent performance!
  • indiggo
    indiggo April 21 2014 16: 02
    0
    I did not like the article, especially the conclusions. the author proposes to reduce the NK that are not able to fight and AUG, I would like to speak. all modern Large NKs have in fact the ability to deal with any food, including AB. take project 11356, UKKS opportunity to release 8 onyx. if at least
    4 achieved the goal then the damage will be decent. I don’t even write about 22350, there are UKKSK for 16 missiles.
  • ar-ren
    ar-ren April 21 2014 17: 37
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Submarine forces often operate far ahead without the support of other friendly forces. This means that submarine forces are often the only real forces in these areas.


    correct the link, please! correct - http://topwar.ru/36395-undersea-warfighting-kodeksa-podvodnika-vms-ssha-chast-1.
    html
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe April 21 2014 17: 42
      -1
      I have written so
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 April 21 2014 18: 23
    0
    You can argue what is needed to defeat the Americans and NATO countries at sea indefinitely. In my opinion, something else is important. I personally believe that our armed forces should be built harmoniously in their entirety so that the objective function is the complete refusal of our enemies to be the first to attack our country and the sea and land, bearing in mind that their guaranteed destruction will be inevitable and will follow inevitably.
  • Zheka Krasnoyarsk
    Zheka Krasnoyarsk April 21 2014 18: 55
    +1
    Happiness must be sought in SPACE!
  • chudoudodelt
    chudoudodelt April 21 2014 19: 25
    0
    so you need to remember that they will fight not only from the usa, but also with nato and with all pawns of the usa that are not part of nato) well, there’ll be enough aircraft carriers a hundred)))
  • mark2
    mark2 April 21 2014 19: 38
    +1
    Aircraft carriers are needed to defend Russia's interests anywhere in the world. As a combat unit, it is a useless, expensive tub. Why does the Russian Federation strive all the time to adequately respond to "sworn" friends? Maybe you should start doing inadequately? Can create something that will sink these sea airfields from our mainland? Launched the rocket and forgot. Our rocket armament has always been ahead of the rest. Intercontinental hypersonic missiles, guided by their own system, different from GPS-navigation - that would be the very thing! They scare us with aircraft carriers, and we drown them at distant approaches!
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 April 21 2014 23: 26
      +1
      Recently, the American fleet tried to approach the coast of Syria and the Russian Federation had to urgently drive all the ships that were found there. The Americans retreated. No one shot at anyone, but we achieved our goals. Suppose that instead of supporting these not the newest ships in a combat-ready state, Russia would invest all the money and resources in super-missiles. The question is what would be done then? Start a war right away?
  • Praetorian
    Praetorian April 21 2014 20: 31
    0
    I quit reading, after a hypothesis about 47-48 aircraft carriers.
    1. santepa
      santepa April 21 2014 21: 12
      0
      Yeah! Here you can laugh for a long time! The author generally spread his thoughts on the tree
  • anfil
    anfil April 21 2014 21: 06
    0
    Quote: klaus16
    Well, at least for intimidation. Controversial this situation.

    We can scare without aircraft carriers:
    "... the events took place in the Korea Strait area on October 17, 2000. Two Su-24MR reconnaissance aircraft and a su-27 interceptor fighter-interceptor unit from the 11th Air Force Army participated in the flyby of the American multipurpose aircraft carrier" Kitty Hawk " Air Defense According to the then Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force Anatoly Karnukov, “it was planned reconnaissance, during which, however, unusual tasks were solved.” At the same time, the Russian side did not violate any international agreements.

    It should be noted that the American naval maneuvers took place only 300 km from the Russian coast, which in itself could not be regarded as a friendly act in relation to our country. Therefore, the actions of Russian aviation were completely justified and lawful.

    According to the Commander-in-Chief, the intelligence results "were impressive." Su-24MP performed several calls to the aircraft carrier, photographing everything that happens on the flight deck. The panic on board the ship was recorded in the pictures: the sailors urgently cut hoses connecting the aircraft carrier to the tanker, which was transferring fuel to the Kitty Hawk at that time.

    The F / A-18 fighters were able to be lifted into the air only after the second call of the Russian reconnaissance aircraft, but the Su-27s were immediately taken away from the ship by a diversionary maneuver, which allowed the reconnaissance aircraft to perform several more flights over a completely defenseless aircraft carrier. According to a press report, the Russian overflight of Kitty Hawk was repeated on 9 November and also proved to be successful. "...
    Full article: http: //www.pravda-tv.ru/2014/01/11/34353
    1. Realist1989
      Realist1989 April 22 2014 15: 42
      0
      If the countries were in a state of war, or in a pre-war state, hell would anyone let these planes "take pictures" .... and what were the reasons for "panic" on the deck, it’s interesting to know, or are such overflights so rare? Or did someone really think that in order to strike an aircraft carrier (sudden, in peacetime), the Russians would fly in to bomb the aircraft carrier with dive bombing, as during the Great Patriotic War? In general, trust such articles, albeit very patriotic ...
  • basmach
    basmach April 21 2014 21: 31
    +1
    The very idea of ​​using an aircraft carrier in operations against a country with developed coastal defense is utopian. Firstly, an aircraft with a large combat radius of at least 500-600 km (not to be confused with flight range) is needed. The presence of a PTB reduces the payload weight. Air defense and an effective strike will require at least a squadron (and it's good if a pair or a link remains of it) .With an intensity of takeoff of 3-4 minutes (a very high indicator, at our airfield they took off alone for 2-3 minutes, maybe a link) to collect the squadron will take almost an hour and all this time the leader will be burning kerosene (the reserves of which are not unlimited). Take-off and landing are possible with the excitement of no more than 3 hbapps (forget about advertising 7-8) at full speed AB against the wind. Landing on a damaged aircraft is practically impossible. The question is, what in general can I do 1-2 AUG against such a coastal defense, and pulling a larger number of atomics will lead to a strengthening of coastal defense.tracked the presence of AUG in Japan and was ready to destroy the aircraft carrier at very distant approaches (although now neither the regiment itself nor the airbase is gone, see the photo report "Vozdvizhenka airbase"). Europe (not Japan, not enough radius)
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa April 21 2014 23: 13
      +1
      Quote: basmach
      Take-off and landing are possible with the excitement of no more than 3 x bapps (forget about advertising 7-8)

      Konstantin! Three points 90 tons will not even feel. I personally observed the rise of a pair of "Hornets" at 000 points. If our anti-ship missiles can be used at 5 points, then why, in essence, the same aircraft, only with a larger wing area, cannot take off and then land?
  • Aleksey11
    Aleksey11 April 21 2014 22: 09
    +1
    Variant of an aircraft carrier (maybe delirium is not a ship) request Something hit my head drinks
    Catamaran. Between the buildings take-off and landing decks.
    Take-off inclined below, and landing above. Airplanes are based between decks.
    1. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 22 2014 04: 32
      0
      There was such a Japanese aircraft carrier.
      1. Aleksey11
        Aleksey11 April 22 2014 07: 29
        0
        what is it? In general, in my opinion, the most optimal layout, the lower inclined one gives an increase in acceleration and savings on the rise of the aircraft and the influence of the wind. The upper one is free and the movement of aircraft is cyclical without crossing routes.
        1. Aleksey11
          Aleksey11 April 22 2014 07: 32
          0
          bothered to look in the internet - the idea is not new)
  • leonidoss87
    leonidoss87 April 22 2014 08: 05
    0
    it is simply amazing how easy it is to talk about a modern large-scale war between states with more or less equal armed forces. It seems that the reasoning is based on the types of weapons and military equipment that were used during the Second World War. Although at that time, not everything was decided only by the amount of military equipment.
  • leonidoss87
    leonidoss87 April 22 2014 08: 20
    +1
    about a possible war with the United States, their quantitative superiority in cruise missiles, and so on. Interestingly, all modern weapons are essentially a computer that can be easily disabled by an electromagnetic pulse, one powerful pulse and the whole, for example, the AUG is nothing more than pieces of floating scrap metal that cannot reach the nearest base if the AUG command does not know how to use "ancient" means of navigation.
    GPS, GLONASS and Galileo were primarily created for military purposes, but in the event of a large-scale war, in my opinion, all these systems will be destroyed, only one trash will remain from the satellites.
    1. Realist1989
      Realist1989 April 22 2014 18: 10
      0
      And for how long will the EMP disable their electronics? And what power should there be such an impulse? And how to deliver it to AUG? I think if everything was so simple, then such a weapon would not only have been created, but also placed under appropriate supervision and restrictions, like all kinds of missile defense and missiles, because it would be too serious a thing ...
      1. anfil
        anfil April 24 2014 16: 36
        0
        According to experts, enough 30 missiles for one AUG.
  • Realist1989
    Realist1989 April 22 2014 16: 21
    0
    Aircraft carriers are certainly needed by the fleet of a state that claims to be the strongest and most influential in the world. It is clear, of course, that many do not consider Russia as such a state, even in Russia itself ... but this will not last long, the influence of the Russian Federation, although slowly, is growing, therefore, interests abroad, the absence of which many justify the rejection of the oceanic fleet (and aircraft carriers as a necessary element of the ocean-going fleet) will also appear and expand. If someone believes that Russia cannot have interests in Africa or South America, for the protection of which a strong fleet (including an aircraft carrier, and with UDC) can be useful, he is cruelly mistaken, deliberately or not limiting the economic expansion of his country , expansion to resource-rich continents, where the redistribution of "new-old colonies" will soon begin (in which both old colonists from Europe-America and new ones from Asia will participate). Of course, the number of aircraft carriers required for the Russian ocean-going fleet (real, not semi-finished products with a springboard and useless anti-ship missiles under decks) is incomparable with that of the Americans - IMHO, 4-6 for two fleets (Northern and Pacific) is quite enough. But they are NECESSARY. They are needed to protect economic interests overseas and to effectively intimidate and punish the Papuans (and there is no need for "anti-colonial" chatter about Russia's lack of interests - any strong state inevitably has such in its economic and political expansion). They are needed to enhance the stability of the fleet in a collision (even if it is very unrealistic) with a serious enemy - no anti-ship missile salvo can be compared in radius and quantity with the effectiveness of combat aircraft, and no carrier-based air defense systems can be compared in the same range with fighters + AWACS. Needed for the stability of SSBNs in a global (God forbid, of course!) Conflict. For all this, AIR CARRIERS are NECESSARY. And for some reason, all states with more or less developed navies, even with smaller military budgets than Russia, even with fewer outlets to the seas and oceans, are trying to build or acquire aircraft-carrying ships for themselves (such as the Juan Carlos UDC), or small aircraft carriers such as Vikramaditya, Vikrant, Kavur, Shi Lan (Varyag). This means the former USSR, as well as the British, French, Italians, Spaniards, Australians, Turks, Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, Indians - all fools-colonizers with extra billions, and now we are the smartest, most cunning and peaceful people. And the poor.
  • bk0010
    bk0010 April 22 2014 20: 13
    +1
    Auto RU:
    Quote: Gennady Senyugin
    Total - until 18-19 AB

    You think badly: in my memory they have never had more than 4 combat-ready aircraft carriers (campaign against Iraq) at the same time. And the reserve is only for a decade-long war.
    Quote: Gennady Senyugin
    The number of US Air Force combat aircraft will be limited to 2157 ... 32 TU-95 ...

    Aircraft are different: Americans say that one B-2 flight is equivalent to 80 carrier-based (or assault?) Sorties.
    Quote: Gennady Senyugin
    For the equality of forces in aviation ...

    If you correctly formulate the task, it may turn out that equality of forces in aviation is not required.

    Regarding the Falkland conflict: everything was decided by the English nuclear submarine. She locked the Argentine fleet at the bases, which allowed for a successful landing operation. The work of Argentine aviation at the limit of range is just an attempt to do at least something.
    Further, how to determine whether we need aircraft carriers, if so, which and how much.
    We open the military doctrine. Proceeding from it, we define the tasks of the fleet (something like "Ensuring the stability of SSBN patrols", "Guarding the coastline", etc.). Next, we will figure out the means to solve them, trying to minimize costs. "We need an aircraft carrier" is not an argument. Let's say you really need an aircraft carrier. Then we determine which one. Aircraft carriers are divided into different types: shock, air defense, anti-aircraft defense, etc. But it is really important to determine whether the aircraft carrier will be the core of the fleet or not. If not, then the aircraft carrier is an auxiliary ship and its purpose and device can be very different. The main task of such a ship is to create problems for enemy admirals, so that in all operations they provide forces and means to neutralize it (like "what if they reinforce the Kuznetsov squadron? We also need an AUG to neutralize it"). If an aircraft carrier is the core of the fleet, then its aviation is assigned tasks (PLO, air defense, reconnaissance, work against the coast, work against the fleet), which would otherwise have been carried out by separate ships, and the escort ships are used to ensure the stability of the AUG.
  • bk0010
    bk0010 April 22 2014 20: 14
    0
    If you estimate the characteristics of such an aircraft carrier for Russia, it turns out this:
    1. Aircraft carrier catapults must be electromagnetic due to basing characteristics. Even the Americans do not have them, but they or their analogue are needed. The steam catapult does not work well in the cold, and the springboard excludes the deployment of PLO, AWACS and other non-fighter aircraft, in addition, the mass of fuel and ammunition is reduced.
    2. From paragraph 1 it follows that the aircraft carrier must be nuclear. In addition, we do not have bases around the world, so there will be nowhere to refuel an ordinary aircraft carrier.
    3. Due to the peculiarities of basing, an aircraft carrier must be of ice class.
    4. The aircraft carrier must be large: the utility of the aircraft carrier with a decrease in size decreases much faster than its price.
    5. Since an aircraft carrier is the core of the fleet, there should be at least 8: 4 for Pacific Fleet, 4 for Northern Fleet. Then it is possible to ensure the continuous functioning of 1 AUG in peacetime and 2 in an endangered period. If all the aircraft carriers will be repaired, there will be no fleet: there are no ships to solve the tasks of the aircraft carrier: they have not been built.
    6. It is necessary to prepare basing facilities for 4 aircraft carriers in each fleet, and geographically distributed, so as not to cover one combat unit.
    7. Ships must be created. They must be atomic: we are not Americans (they have bases around the world), there is nowhere to refuel.
    8. Support ships with a nuclear power plant should be created, which would carry additional fuel and ammunition for an air group (usually 2-3 full take-offs on an aircraft carrier).
    9. Support cruisers should be created with a conventional power plant (they don’t allow much to get into the nuclear power plant, and they’re expensive), which are an ordinary support ship, but capable of flying AUG port without a convoy (that is, they independently decide to protect themselves from aircraft, boats and individual enemy ships). Its task is to supply AUG supplies.
    10. Deck planes PLO, AWACS, tankers, etc. should be created.
    It turns out very expensive. But it will not work out cheaper - the whole idea will lose its meaning.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Realist1989
      Realist1989 April 22 2014 22: 18
      +1
      About 8 aircraft carriers at least is debatable. About atomic escort ships - even more controversial - what for? All the same, there will not be enough food supplies for them, and you will need to "reload" them anyway, as well as fuel. Cruisers-supply-escorts ?! Seriously? =))))) And let's have atomic tankers with strategic ballistic missiles and atomic landing minesweepers? =)))
      Further about catapults ... What are such features of basing?
      About the myth about "The steam catapult does not work well in the cold":
    3. ar-ren
      ar-ren April 22 2014 22: 54
      0
      Quote: bk0010
      If you estimate the characteristics of such an aircraft carrier for Russia, it turns out this:
      1. Aircraft carrier catapults must be electromagnetic due to basing characteristics. Even the Americans do not have them, but they or their analogue are needed. The steam catapult does not work well in the cold, and the springboard excludes the deployment of PLO, AWACS and other non-fighter aircraft, in addition, the mass of fuel and ammunition is reduced.


      The catapult warms up to 180-200 degrees before launches, and it warms up to 50 degrees the deck itself.

      Quote: bk0010
      2. From paragraph 1 it follows that the aircraft carrier must be nuclear. In addition, we do not have bases around the world, so there will be nowhere to refuel an ordinary aircraft carrier.


      It only makes sense for 4 ejection aircraft carriers. But there is a joke about which later.

      Quote: bk0010
      3. Due to the peculiarities of basing, an aircraft carrier must be of ice class.
      4. The aircraft carrier must be large: the utility of the aircraft carrier with a decrease in size decreases much faster than its price.

      3. It makes sense, yes. But should not be an icebreaker. Icebreakers have low speed due to the specific shape of the hull.
      4. But this is not so. A historical example is the actions of the US Navy in 1991. Various aircraft carriers were used there, including the Nimitz nuclear class of 100 thousand tons of displacement and the non-nuclear Midway produced in 1945 (!) With a displacement of 65 thousand tons. So what? And the fact that the best (!) Of 3 nuclear gave an average of 96 sorties / day, and Midway - 76 sorties a day! That is, a 35% lighter aircraft carrier gave only 20% fewer departures! With the simply incomparable cost of their production. 2 Nimitsa is 200 thousand tons. Three Midway - the same 200 thousand tons. 2 Nimitsa - this is 196 sorties per day, and three midway - 228 sorties per day!

      It was the war in the Gulf that made England's choice in the production of Avinos. Queen Elizabeth has ... 65 thousand tons of displacement and does not have a reactor, although catapults were planned.

      Quote: bk0010

      5. Since an aircraft carrier is the core of the fleet, there should be at least 8: 4 for Pacific Fleet, 4 for Northern Fleet. Then it is possible to ensure the continuous functioning of 1 AUG in peacetime and 2 in an endangered period. If all the aircraft carriers will be repaired, there will be no fleet: there are no ships to solve the tasks of the aircraft carrier: they have not been built.

      If the aircraft carriers are non-nuclear, then the downtime will not exceed the downtime of the ships of the commercial fleet.
      Quote: bk0010

      6. It is necessary to prepare basing facilities for 4 aircraft carriers in each fleet, and geographically distributed, so as not to cover one combat unit.

      Distributed defend harder. Therefore, the United States has two ports for aircraft carriers, one each in the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean.
      Quote: bk0010

      7. Ships must be created. They must be atomic: we are not Americans (they have bases around the world), there is nowhere to refuel.

      Expensive and pointless.
      Aircraft carrier is the cherry of the fleet! As long as you do not have a submarine, satellite constellation, NK escort, UDC for the landing, it simply does not make sense to make an aircraft carrier.
  • bk0010
    bk0010 April 23 2014 00: 47
    -2
    Quote: Realist1989
    About 8 aircraft carriers at least - is debatable.

    The minimum is 4. But then one fleet will be very different from the second, unification is lost and the aircraft carriers of one fleet and the ships of the second become much more expensive. If you mean that to ensure the combat readiness of one AUG, you can have fewer aircraft carriers, then look how many amers have AUG on duty at the same time if there are 11 aircraft carriers. It is unlikely that we will be better: a very complex ship. Or compare the times of "Kuznetsov" campaigns and repairs.
    Quote: Realist1989
    About atomic escort ships - even more controversial - what for? All the same, there will not be enough food supplies for them, and you will need to "reload" them anyway, as well as fuel.

    About nuclear-powered ships, escorts are needed in order not to shackle the nuclear aircraft carrier. Imagine: the Cuban missile crisis, an aircraft carrier guards the coast of Cuba, and escort ships rushed to Murmansk to refuel a week later. Food is such a trifle ... The main problem is fuel for ships, the second is for the air group, the rest is pennies (except for anti-ship missiles of the main caliber, such as Granites).
    Quote: Realist1989

    Cruiser-escort-escorts ?! Seriously? =))))) And let's get atomic tankers with strategic ballistic missiles and nuclear landing minesweepers? =)))

    Yes, supply cruisers. The option with a conventional support ship will require the creation of a convoy of escort ships, which will attract much more attention and strength in the endangered period than a single ship.
    Quote: Realist1989
    Further about catapults ... What are such features of basing?
    About the myth about "The steam catapult does not work well in the cold":

    If a myth, then good. But the American aircraft carriers do not scoop up on silver.