Military Review

Missile hunters and floating airdrome killers

120
Missile hunters and floating airdrome killers



The Navy is considered to be the most expensive type of armed forces, requiring constant and serious attention from the national military-political leadership and society as a whole. The Soviet Union and Russia are no exception. In the article “We are ours, we will build the old fleet”, published in NVO No. 38 for 2014, the author has already briefly reviewed the views on construction fleet such representatives of the Soviet military-political leadership as Khrushchev, Gorshkov and Ustinov, and also tried to uncover the reason for the high accident rate of the domestic fleet as a result of the implementation of the "Gorshkov and Ustinov doctrine."

In this article, we consider another important issue - the ability of the Soviet Navy to solve those basic tasks that were assigned to it. As already mentioned in the previous article, the three main tasks of the USSR Navy were set forth in the closed book of the Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Sergei Gorshkov “The USSR Navy” and in the closed version of the Sea Collection journal. The main task is the retaliatory strike by nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), the second most important task is the destruction of enemy SSBNs, and finally the third most important task is the defeat of enemy surface groups by striking anti-ship missiles (RCC) with nuclear warheads (nuclear warheads) from nuclear submarine missile cruisers (APRK) in conjunction with the forces of the marine missile aviation (MPA). Moreover, the fleet’s participation in local conflicts was not considered at all, therefore the fleet did not prepare for them.

THE MAIN TASK

The task of the Soviet SSBNs was similar to that in foreign fleets and was to guarantee a nuclear missile strike. Therefore, the main requirement that they had to meet was the possibility of a long imperceptible patrol in remote corners of the ocean with the readiness to deliver a “retaliation” every minute.

The Soviet Union began to compete with the United States in the obviously unfavorable conditions of the general post-war scientific and technical gap. Our first SSBN of the 658 project with three ballistic missiles (BR) P-21 in all respects was significantly inferior to the first American SSBN of the type George Washington with the 16 MRSB Polaris A-1 that were being built at the same time. And only seven years later, in 1967, we got the SSBN of the 667 project with the 16 MRBP P-27, equal to the first American underwater strategic rocket carriers. But by this time the Americans already had Polaris A-3, which again made our SSBNs an outsider. Only seven years later, we had an intercontinental ballistic missile P-29, outnumbered by the latest American MRSD Poseidon C-3, and a new carrier - SSBN project 667B (BD) with 12 (16) missiles P-29. From this point on, the Soviet SSBNs went head to head with the American nostrils.

Assessing in general the capabilities of the Soviet naval strategic nuclear forces (NSNS), it is necessary to recognize a number of technical flaws, which, however, were not decisive, because the flaws in one were filled with superiority in the other. So, before the launch of the 941 project missile carriers and the 667BDRM project, our SSBNs were inferior to the US in such an important indicator as noise. But our adoption in 1974 of the year, five years earlier than the Americans, using naval intercontinental ballistic missiles, freed our SSBNs from the need to break through NATO’s anti-submarine frontiers and allowed them to carry combat service under the Arctic ice or in close proximity to our coast under the cover of coastal aviation, which eased noise requirements.

Yielding to the accuracy of the guidance, the Soviet designers were forced to place more powerful YBCh on the rockets, which reduced their number on each individual rocket. For example, in the 1980 year, the United States USSL had about 4800 YABCh, of which around 2800 - on duty, and the USSYA of the USSR only on intercontinental ballistic missiles - YABCH, respectively. However, according to the calculations, the US needed 1400 BU to cause “irreparable damage”, therefore the available 420 BL was enough for a retaliatory strike.

Thus, it should be recognized that the Soviet NSNS fully fulfilled the task set before them to strike back.

Another question is how this was achieved? The answer is expensive.

By the 1985 year (S. Gorshkov’s resignation), the Soviet NSNF included the 72 SSBNs, of which up to 22 were on duty, while the USNEWS had 40 SSBNs, of which on duty — up to 24. The reason for the lower operating voltage ratio (KOH) of the Soviet SSBNs is a weak coastal infrastructure. But, maybe, having extra boats is cheaper than developing bases?

With respect to the USSR, such analyzes can be done by no means always. The fact is that we only reliably know the cost of the finished products (aircraft, tank, ship, etc.), but we often simply did not exist such a thing as a “program of something”. So even the first, the last one, the president of the USSR could not understand how much we spend on defense. Therefore, let us turn to the American experience, since they know how to count their own money.

Creating the SSBN, the Americans conducted such an analysis and determined the optimal KOH = 0,6. A larger KOH will shorten the service life of a SSBN, a smaller one will increase the cost of the entire program. And now - the same in numbers. A year of operation of US SSBNs costs about 2,5% of its sales price, with an average lifetime of the first SSBNs - 30 years. If you save, as it did in the USSR, on the coastal crew and repairs, then the costs will be 1,5%. In this case, the operation of “Soviet-style” 72 SSBNs will be 49% more expensive than the operation of 40 SSBNs “American-style”. If we consider that the SSBN in the USSR cost an average of about 250 million rubles, then we get an overrun of the order of 8,6 billion rubles.

But that's not all. By 1985, the YSLR of the USSR consisted of 31 SSBNs with MR-R-27 (projects 658М and 667А). Lacking proper secrecy, they were also forced to act in the areas of anti-submarine defense (ASW) of NATO. Each such SSBN constantly passes its Los Angeles, ready to destroy it on the first team. Therefore, these boats and were not intended to retaliate. Then why were they kept as part of the NSNF? I do not know, perhaps, to save the admiral's posts or something else, but I know for sure that it was possible to save on this twice. First, simply write off the 658M submarines, and second, upgrade the 667A project by hitting a new missile bay to the level of the 667Б / БД project, instead of building new (22 units) SSBNs of these projects.

Although the modernization of ships in our Navy was not honored, as was already mentioned in the previous article of the author, the first Central Research Institute on the automatic design system (CAD) carried out such calculations and ultimately determined that if the power industry and the ship-wise system of the surface ship were not seriously affected ( NK), and on the submarine (PL) only the new missile compartment crashes and provided that the NC is not older than 15, and the PL is not older than 10 years, then upgrading is still cheaper than building a new ship. At the time of the construction of the 667B / BD project, all submarines of the 667A project were younger than 10 years, and if instead of building the 22 submarine of the 667B / DB project, we would upgrade the 22 of the 667A ship to the B / BD level, we would save approximately 1,65 billion rubles.

But that's not all. It is necessary to recall here the unjustified expenditure on heavy submarine strategic rocket carriers of the 941 project with the P-39 rocket, and, as a result, the modernization of Sevmash. The whole of this epic was in 2,5 times more expensive than the construction of an additional nine SSBNs of the 667BDRM project, that is, the overrun amounted to approximately 4,72 billion rubles.

In total, the Soviet taxpayer overpaid about 14,97 billion rubles to the NSLR. Is it a lot or a little? Well, in order to make it clearer, these are about four “cotton cases” or 20 ships of the 1143.7 project. Who is closer. Of course, the calculation is quite conditional, but the order of numbers is as follows.

WHY IS THE SAME IS OUT?

The commander-in-chief of the USSR Navy, Sergey Gorshkov, loved to build all new types and even classes of ships: SSNR, MPLATRK, PLAT, APKRRK, TRPKSN (TAPKR), TAAVKR, TAKR, TARK, etc. In this diversity, we are far ahead of the United States. For example, in the 1985 year, we built five types of submarines, while the Americans at the same time - only two, we - seven types of large combat NK, and they - only four. At the same time, the repair was almost, and the modernization was not at all interested in it, as already mentioned in the previous article. The industry is more than satisfied. For repairs, you will not receive anything other than quarterly and 13 premiums, but for implementation, construction of the lead ship, etc. Real rain poured in the form of Lenin prizes, orders, the Volga and secretaries.

What did the officers think about this? I’ll not say for everyone, but the officers of the first Central Research Institute, according to the recollections of my father, the retired rank of captain 1, Vladislav Ivanovich Nikolsky, a former employee of the first Central Research Institute of Defense and a leading expert on the CAD system of surface ships, in the smoking rooms only spoke with this language. But by letting off steam and returning to the workplace, they obligingly justified the fact that they were vilified in the kitchen. Commander, reading these rationales, was strengthened in the opinion of his own infallibility. Doesn't this remind you of anything?

LOVE, PLARB LARGE AND SMALL

The Soviet Navy began to monitor the American SSBNs from the very beginning, but nothing really came of it. This is not surprising. Our lag in PLO was neither in a fairy tale to say nor a pen to describe. Back in the late 1950s, the US and NATO surface ships began to be equipped with a new generation of hydroacoustic stations (GUS) —powerful, low-frequency, with a detection range of up to 25 km. Until the end of 70, we could only do high-frequency power systems with a detection range of up to 10 km. Our passive power stations for submarines and radio-acoustic buoys (RGAB) were an order of magnitude worse. And if we add to this the high noise level of our nuclear submarines (APL), then it becomes clear why the American SSBNs evaded tracking.

In order to at least somehow rectify the situation, we took up “surrogate” methods of searching for submarines, in particular, following the wake trail, and subsequently succeeded in doing so that we would not even call it “surrogate”. The situation changed only at the beginning of the 80-s, when we reached, and in some ways exceeded the US PLO level. But by this time, the United States already had Trident I, and their SSBNs went to the equator. Now, the task of detecting and subsequently tracking the enemy SSBNs could be carried out only by the nuclear submarine, and it was at this time that the navy began to receive submarines, which for the first time were not only equal in concealment with the American ones, but also surpassed them. I mean the submarines of the 971 and 945 projects. Theoretically, these boats could, using GAS Skat-3, detect Ohio at the exit from its base and, remaining unnoticed, “hang” on its wake through the use of the Tukan-2 system. But in order to track all the 24 submarines of the Ohio type, which were supposed to be built for the US Navy, the submarine of the 31 project and the 971A (AB) project was planned to be built for the Soviet 945 fleet. And the Americans were preparing new ways to protect their SSBNs.

Therefore, we have to admit that, despite all the resources spent, the Navy could never be guaranteed to track down and destroy American SSBNs, and the reason for this was not even the initial technical backwardness (after all, the Americans also could not overfill all our SSBNs) comparable to the construction of communism in a single country.

THE MOST "TASTY" TASK

The defeat of the enemy’s surface groups, namely the US Navy’s carrier strike groups (AUG), is indeed the most interesting task, since, unlike the first two, it breathes the spirit of a naval battle. And therefore she was the most beloved for Gorshkov and remains so for the majority of Russians interested in the fleet. That our “patriotic” websites and media outlets feel sensitively, rewarding more and more weapons with the term “aircraft carrier killer”. If it goes on like this, then soon this term will be awarded to army self-propelled artillery systems. And what, really, if an aircraft carrier approaches Kronstadt, then we will kill it with a cannon, so why not a “murderer”? But unlike the modern rulers, the Soviet leadership did not think of using the army as a clever PR and was therefore going to really fight AUG.


American strategic missile-carriers of the type “George Washington” allowed the US Navy to make a qualitative leap in the development of strategic nuclear forces. Illustration from the site www.navylive.dodlive.mil


WHAT FOR?

The fact is that an aircraft carrier is a floating airfield, moving at a speed of up to 60 km / h or long - up to 52 km / h, and therefore, unlike a stationary airfield, it is not afraid of ICBMs and BRSD. As for the flight time, he will have time to go to a safe distance, especially considering the accuracy of the then ICBMs and MRBDs. Therefore, even in the event of a preemptive nuclear-missile strike on NATO airfields, aircraft carriers could launch a sensitive nuclear response. That is why the destruction of AUG from the very beginning gave great importance.

The fight against AUG acquired even greater significance after the signing of SALT-I, when the concept of limited war was adopted by the leadership of the USSR at the suggestion of Dmitry Ustinov. Now, the Navy was tasked with preserving the NSNF in conditions of limited use of nuclear and unrestricted use of conventional weapons.

Even with less sophisticated PLO weapons, the Soviet Navy could quite effectively prevent American submarines from tracking our SSBNs armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles. But it is in peacetime, and if the war and the Americans hit first? Then everything collapsed like a house of cards. And the matter is that the deck aircraft of the enemy.

For our part, the fighters of the air defense forces, who did not want to develop refueling in the air, limited the radius of their operation to approximately 500 km (until the middle of the 80-s). As a result, the E-2A Hawkeye DRL aircraft could be on duty in 300 miles from our coast, seeing everything on 200 miles. Since we did not have “our E-2”, our fighters, deprived of guidance over the sea, would be ambushed, like American pilots in the skies of Vietnam, with all the ensuing consequences. What almost excluded the use of our PLO aircraft and, on the contrary, American PLO and NPS aircraft could operate freely, dangerously reducing the patrol zone of our SSBNs.

The situation began to improve only in the second half of the 80-ies with the arrival of the serial Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters, which had a large combat radius and more long-range missiles. But by this time, aircraft carriers began to receive universal F / A-18, which doubled the number of fighters on the aircraft carrier (from 24 to 48). And if we add to this the inadequate production of the Soviet aircraft RLDN A-50 and the improvement of Hawkeye, then it becomes clear that the AUG were still dangerous and were subject to early destruction.

And the Navy, creating anti-aircraft forces (PAS), was preparing to solve this problem. However, there were many problems with its implementation, and we will start with the main, if I may say so, Achilles heel of the Soviet Navy.

I mean targeting (DD).

To begin with, the requirements for the control center in the Navy were always stricter than in the US Navy. The American admiral had the right to make a mistake, his planes, in the event of an incorrect CC, could return to the decks, refuel, replace the ammunition and strike again according to the new CC. The Soviet admiral was deprived of this possibility, reloading of the APRK was possible only in the database, and the number of very complex and therefore very expensive Soviet anti-ship missiles was limited. Therefore, for the Navy of the USSR, correct target designation was required for all 100%.

Initially, this was not a problem for the Navy. AUG was constantly monitored, Tu-95RC was hanging over it, a BOD duty officer was walking alongside, and the APRK was in full swing under water. And each of them independently followed the aircraft carrier. All this provided the very coveted 100%, true to the control center for a preemptive nuclear strike. But that all changed when the concept of limited war was adopted at the beginning of 70's in the USSR. Now the Navy had to withstand the preemptive strike of the NATO Navy, and the counterattack was mostly non-nuclear weapons, defeat the enemy. And immediately there was a problem for the CO. The low-noise course of the APRK of that time did not exceed 8 – 12 nodes, while the minimum stroke of the AUG did not exceed 20 nodes, and the normal course of the AUG was 24 – 26 nodes. Therefore, following the AUG with the 20 – 26 nodes, the APRK was always monitored by the PLO AUG, which was tolerable earlier and became intolerable under the conditions of the new concept. This immediately brought the 661 project and the 670 (M) project to APRK, armed with not long-range anti-ship missiles. There remained the APRK of the 675 project, which could strike from outside the PLO AUG, but at such a distance they could not independently detect the AUG, someone had to give out the command center. But who? Nothing prevented the US Navy, in anticipation of aggression, with the 30 hub move getting out of the PAS coverage area, cracking down on defenseless tracking and returning to strike on Soviet territory. In this case, it was guaranteed that there was nothing to detect the approaching AUG.

The Tu-95РЦ could “see” the AUG up to the radio horizon line - around 400 km, but the single-target interception line of the E-2A / F-4 bundle reached 500 km, which excluded the use of the Tu-95РЦ. That is why the mass production of the Tu-95РЦ, started in 1963, lasted only until 1969, and was limited to 52 machines. APRK alone could detect AUG only by chance - if the AUG itself stumbled upon a hidden APRK, which was unlikely. Therefore, I had to invent something, and invented the space system of the CO (MKRTS).

The MKRTS system consisted of two US-A radar satellites and a US-P with RTR, the first of which was a nuclear power plant. The US-A radar has a detection range comparable to that of the Tu-95РЦ radar, but it weighs three times less and consumes ten times less energy. Since engineering is the science of the possible, it was possible to achieve this by switching to the meter band, used at the dawn of radar, with all the ensuing consequences. Therefore, with all the other problems, US-A was guaranteed to "see" only a target the size of an aircraft carrier, but it could not classify whether it was an aircraft carrier or a container ship.

But that's not all. Americans constantly practiced the creation of false AUG. To do this, AUG was divided into three groups: led by an aircraft carrier, led by universal supply transport, and led by a squadron tanker. And there was also the option of installing corner reflectors on cruisers, after which their EPR reached the aircraft carrier. The US-P was supposed to understand this puzzle, but there was a problem here too. The aircraft carrier was able not only to “multiply”, but also to play “silent”. Following as part of AUG, he could not use his radio equipment for a long time. And the level of the then satellites of the RTR was far from the current perfection. To this we must add the high cost and unreliability of the entire MKRTS, with the result that even in the best periods there were no more than four MKRTS satellites in space at the same time, which provided coverage of the same area no more than once every two days and no longer than a minute and a half! And US-A regularly fell, fertilizing the ground, including Canadian, with uranium-235. Therefore, when the main ideologists of the project of Ustinov and Gorshkov did not, the MKRTS quietly turned off - only US-P remained in orbit. What, then, did Gorshkov hope for? Yes, the fact that the Soviet engineer is smarter than the capitalist by definition, and he is able to create a miracle. In the meantime, a miracle, like communism, did not work at all, Gorshkov relied on the main striking force of the fleet.

IF IF NOT ...

Do you think I'm about APRK? Indeed, including in my school on the walls hung photos of APRC with the caption: "the main shock force." However, even Gorshkov did not think so. Judge for yourself. In the 1980, the Northern and Pacific fleets included 42 submarines capable of launching 284 long-range anti-ship missiles. At the same time, the MPA had 380 rocket carriers capable of producing, depending on the range and flight profile, 450-850 long-range anti-ship missiles. But that's not all. The boats were armed with extremely unsuccessful P-6 missiles, while the Tu-16, Tu-22 and Tu-22M carried terrible for the Americans the DAC-5 and still in service with the X-22. Unlike the boats distributed between the two theaters, the MRA could overwhelm the entire 2 fleet of the US Navy, and the next day, having flown to the Far East, hit the 3 fleet. But the main thing was that the MRA, like the American carrier-based aircraft, did not need “one-hundred-percent target designation,” MKRTS and Tu-95РЦ. The tactic of using the MPA implied the formation of search and attack groups that themselves conducted reconnaissance and, using their own DD, delivered a strike, that is, just like the American carrier-based aircraft.

Now, I hope, it is clear who was the main striking force of the fleet. It was precisely this force that Gorshkov hoped for, and everything would be fine if it were not for ... Tomcat!

To his cursed. When the Americans began developing the fighter F14, our specialists thought that the US would not succeed. When the Grumman experts conducted tests, we decided that their statements were empty chatter. But the GRU finally got a closed report - and what began here! My father, while studying at the Naval Academy (1976 year), became an unwitting witness to this drama. It turned out that the US Navy conducted large-scale tests in 1973 year, during which F14 with a probability of 88% at a distance of up to 134 km hit targets at altitudes from 15 to 22 000 m and target speeds from 0,6 to 4M.

The calculations carried out at 24 NII Navy were depressing. The two F14 air patrol together with the AUG cruisers managed to knock down the 15-20 of the Amethyst / Malachite PKR, which made it impossible to use single APRKs of the 661 project and the 670 project. In 13 flight time minutes, the anti-ship missiles P-6 (distance 350 km, flight altitude 7 km) had time to rise up to twenty F14 into the air, two more - this is an air patrol. And these 22 fighter F14 shot down to 110 missiles P-6, plus 20 missiles P-6 shot down cruisers, a total of 130 shot down by P-6. It turned out that 17 from 29 of existing XRUMX APRKs with “atomic” П-675 or 6 - with usual П-18 should be aimed at one AUG!

But most of all the nuts went to the MRA. AUG did not go one by one. As a rule, at a distance of several tens of miles, up to five AUGs could maneuver, which allowed them to push air patrols in the E-2A and two F14 to the dangerous directions. Usually such a patrol was located in 320 km from the aircraft carrier and could detect the Tu-16 at a distance of about 370 km, that is, in 690 km from AUG. In order to detect the AUG and launch the KSR-5, the Tu-16K had to fly another 310 km, which took more than 19 minutes. During this time, all 24 F14s rose into the air, and 18 of them managed to knock down the 70 – 90 of the Tu-16 planes before launching their DAC-5. The remaining six F14 30 knocked down the DAC-5 missiles, another 10 missiles hit the cruisers. It turned out that one AUG required 100 – 120 of Tu-16 rocket carriers, two thirds of which died during the attack! The Tu-22K also did not save the situation - they needed 12,5 minutes to launch their X-22, but during that time they also managed to take off all the 24 of the F14 fighter, and 10 of them managed to knock down the 40-50 of the Tu-22K fighters, which were in the composition of the MPA was less than 80 units.

The presence of EW aircraft such as the Tu-16P and Tu-22PP somewhat alleviated the situation, but it was unclear if they could cover the missile carriers. And finally, there was no doubt that if the actions of the Tu-16P and Tu-22PP were effective, then F14 would be engaged exclusively in our anti-ship missiles and, together with the cruisers, shot down the 130 KCR-5 / X-22 missiles. Since, in the event of war, at least five AUGs would cover each other in the Norwegian Sea, it turned out that a simultaneous strike at a distance of more than 1000 km required at least 700 rocket carriers, not counting EW aircraft. But that amount was not in the entire MRA! Of course, you could catch a carrier when he did not have all the F14 in 5-minute readiness. But, firstly, it was difficult to guess such a moment, and secondly, the AUG was required to be destroyed in any tactical situation.

So it was something to get used to, but the pilots encouraged the Commander-in-Chief, saying that the Tu-22М3, which can break through to the launch line before the F14 attack, began to enter the MRA. But it was not long to indulge in this thought, for it appeared above the sea ... AWACS!

And again repeated история with tomcat. Well, because they warned - and again they did not believe. And when they believed, it was too late. Having a long flight duration and operating from coastal airfields of NATO and Japan, the E-3 Sentry aircraft, starting from 80-s, often began to “light up” the Soviet coast. And it was absolutely clear that in the event of a third world war, E-3 would also be covered by carrier-assault groups. The E-3 was “seen” by the bomber up to the radio horizon line (but not further than 600 km), against 370 km at E-2A, which made impossible the unpunished supersonic breakthrough of the Tu-22М3.

A joint meeting of representatives of 1, 24 and 30-th scientific research institute, in which my father took part, was enlightened to this urgent problem. During this memorable meeting, the pilots (30 th Scientific Research Institute) demanded the construction of aircraft carriers so that deck fighters would cover the MRA. The sailors (1 and 24 research institutes) reasonably stated that if deck aircraft can overcome all F14, then it can cope with AUG without an MRA, so why waste resources on MRAs, let's build aircraft carriers. The discussion turned into a scream, a dispute - into a battle.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2014-11-07/10_avianostsy.html
120 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Very old
    Very old 9 November 2014 07: 17
    +6
    Articles of volume 12 or higher in the morning?
    Interesting and necessary. But it’s better to leave it for the evening, and now - print and save
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 9 November 2014 07: 21
      12
      Quote: Very old
      since morning ?

      that old, "mosk" isho did not wake up ??? wassat hi Valentine ... hi
      1. Very old
        Very old 9 November 2014 09: 05
        +4
        Hi Andrew ! I always leave such articles that require thoughtfulness and attention for more free time - "mosk" reliably assimilates drinks
      2. Sergei1982
        Sergei1982 9 November 2014 10: 36
        20
        I don’t understand the praise of the cool f-14 during the 1991 Iraqi f-14 attack several times attacked the Mig-23 and Mirage-1 missiles all missed, but the author calmly knocks down the Kh-22 (speeding at a speed of 5m), he has everything how the game turns out.
        1. Starley from the south
          Starley from the south 9 November 2014 19: 40
          0
          Correctly! And then we’ll do TU-22М3 for hell, they’ve become obsolete long ago, according to the author! Or is this article not the last in a series?
        2. bif
          bif 9 November 2014 23: 31
          +3
          Quote: Sergei1982
          and with the author, he calmly knocks down the x-22 (speeding 5m), he has everything as in the game.

          The author rolls right and left figures taken from the ceiling and, relying on them, gives out dubious / undeserved compliments to state armaments ... Article minus
          1. Zuborez
            Zuborez 10 November 2014 05: 36
            0
            Quote: bif
            the second one rolls right and left the numbers taken from the ceiling and, relying on them, gives out dubious / undeserved compliments to the state armament ... Article minus

            This is the second article.laughing
            It would be better if the author -> author -> the author of the hand took something else.
        3. user
          user 10 November 2014 18: 59
          +3
          To detect the AUG and launch the KSR-5, the Tu-16K had to fly another 310 km, which took more than 19 minutes. During this time, all 24 F14 rose into the air, and 18 of them managed to shoot down 70–90 Tu-16 aircraft before launching their KSR-5. The remaining six F14 shot down 30 KSR-5 missiles, another 10 missiles shot down the cruiser. It turned out that one AUG required 100-120 Tu-16 missile carriers, of which two-thirds died during the attack! Tu-22K also did not save the situation - it took them 12,5 minutes to launch their X-22s, but during this time all 24 F14 fighters also managed to take off, and 10 of them managed to shoot down 40-50 Tu-22K aircraft, of which only something in the composition of the MPA was less than 80 units.


          Honestly, I read it and I don’t want to read further, such nonsense "gray mare" mixed with all kinds of numbers has not read for a long time. I have nothing against the "academic" view of military operations, I sat down at the computer and let them shoot them down and go to the next level, but still, to lift 24 F-14s, having a duty unit on deck in readiness 1, how long does it take, or all 24 aircraft are already standing and waiting in READY # 1, well, there are a lot of such questions, and this is just a shot.
    2. Siberian German
      Siberian German 9 November 2014 09: 08
      +2
      Old - you’re right from me half a liter of peach juice, but in the evening for a cup of tea it’s easy, but there’s a question if we were so bulky why did you cut everything and it could be stored
      1. igor.borov775
        igor.borov775 9 November 2014 13: 02
        +3
        You forgot paid for it in US green.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Giant thought
      Giant thought 9 November 2014 09: 59
      +2
      There is a lot of information in the article, it takes time for this to calm down in the head, to be systematized, the question, of course, is interesting, it suggests the possibility of moving the brain.
      1. gispanec
        gispanec 9 November 2014 12: 23
        +3
        Quote: Thought Giant
        suggests the ability to move the brain.

        what so? .. usually you give out with a bang .....
    5. Rus2012
      Rus2012 9 November 2014 10: 36
      +8
      Quote: Very old
      Articles of volume 12 or higher in the morning?

      ... not everything that is given is reliable.
      There are frank blunders and
      at least these -
      The US and NATO surface ships at the end of the 1950-s began to be equipped with a new generation of sonar stations - powerful, low-frequency, with a detection range of up to 25 km. Until the end of the 70’s, we could only make high-frequency GUS with a detection range of up to 10 km. Our passive ASGs were an order of magnitude worse. for submarines and radio-acoustic buoys (RSAG).

      ORDER in the exact sciences - means on 10 times, and here in the best case 2,5 times ...

      ... no less surprising, if not illiterate, and gives it back -
      Therefore, even in the case of a preemptive nuclear missile strike at NATO airfields aircraft carriers could deliver a sensitive retaliatory nuclear strike.

      Interestingly, this is what? Deck aviation, after a massive missile-nuclear strike against all the more or less movable and non-movable targets, in the conditions of the complete absence of any communication and the impossibility of on-board electronics from exposure to electromagnetic radiation?
      Do not forget, the Arctic Ocean is not intended for the actions of any fleets. And in the World Cup - do you get the hell ...
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 9 November 2014 11: 02
        16
        ... in short, IMHO, the article in HBO is basically not a reliable crap of the son of a caperang based on rumors and "mate in the smoking rooms".
        officers of the first Central Research Institute, according to the recollections of my father, a captain of the 1 rank, retired Vladislav Ivanovich Nikolsky, a former employee of the first Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense and a leading specialist in the CAD system of surface ships, only talked about this in smoking rooms.


        The only message with which I can agree is the Soviet Union’s unpreparedness for local actions against the United States on some military operations without the use of nuclear weapons. And then with a reservation, because in Vietnam (a local theater of operations, where the USSR Armed Forces partially participated), the Yankees screwed up to the maximum, although they had the maximum advantage in everything and used almost everything - AUG, strategic aviation ...
      2. mpa945
        mpa945 9 November 2014 11: 18
        13
        I will add, dear Rus!
        The article is never an analyst of the real state of affairs. And, as it were, analytics of tales from the smoking room of 1 research institute.
        But the GRU finally got a closed report - and what started here! My father, studying at the Naval Academy (1976), became an unwitting witness to this drama. It turned out that the U.S. Navy carried out large-scale tests in 1973, during which the F14 with a probability of 88% at a distance of 134 km shot down targets at an altitude of 15 to 22 m and a target speed of 000 to 0,6M.
        Yes, huh? And there’s nothing that still hasn’t made a missile defense, which is guaranteed to bring down an attacking target? And in the 70s they could ... lol But ... the secret, apparently lost. repeat And in the smoking room of 1 research institute, the men (Nikolsky) do not even know. good
        And I liked the basing. Especially the evaluation method by analogy ... They didn’t hint at the smoking room, why didn’t they build submarine bases in Alaska? Are they really afraid that they will have to return Alaska according to the results of the referendum? Or in the smoking room before discussing the dock operation in severe ice conditions did not go down?
        1. 73bor
          73bor 9 November 2014 22: 17
          +1
          Another interesting horror story about the rise of 13 Tomkets in 22 minutes, I think it will take at least an hour or more, and the patrolling fighters have already run out of fuel and will return to the aircraft carrier, so even by this parameter, the complete defeat of our fleet is not guaranteed.
    6. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 9 November 2014 11: 15
      20
      There is nothing new. The whole ardor of the article is aimed at one problem. As if we didn’t know her before. They reproach us, but the USA does it differently. They do it out of their means. Even in the heyday of the USSR, we were much inferior to the USA economically. How many cars we could produce in that far 80th year. Here it is. The possibilities are small compared to the United States. And the entire budget of the Soviet Socialist Republic could be no more than 38% of the American. Yes, and do not take any product, we always conceded to them. Although I must admit the Yankees are able to advertise their goods. Our BelAZ was in many ways superior to the American KET, but the Yankees said it was better means better without any comparisons and other crap. And our liberals almost dolomized what we let out where we had no equal. We could build what the budget of the country and the possibilities of industry could allow. Of course you can argue to the hoarseness that we can do this, but the possibilities pose such problems that they simply cannot be solved. I recall the very recent past where the Prime Minister insisted with might and main that it was better to buy an airplane than to build his own. And as soon as the lukoster was punished, he changed his attitude. We must build our own. Just think, he changed his mind. And the US is not stupid, they are closely monitoring our economy. And sanctions drive exactly. They beat those who raise the economy of the country. It was the same before, and the US will find the cause, be sure. There, the senators started talking about enforcing the sanctions by law. And then they started fussing around around one of the armed forces. The president said clearly we won’t go to compete with the USA. We will build what we need and what fits into our plans for building a fleet. We will proceed from this. There is nothing to argue about. You need to argue about new ships and new weapon systems. This is an interesting field of controversy, and this we have already experienced.
      1. samuil60
        samuil60 9 November 2014 20: 13
        +6
        I wonder what the Americans were afraid of all these decades? If the nuclear submarine is, the surface fleet is even more so, and our officers are only helpful Chaldeans at the command? All this reminds of the phrase of the idol of liberals Brodsky (by the way, also the son of a naval officer): "The Russian and Soviet navy only knew how to sink heroically." You bastard ... Any problem, any aspect of politics (as well as the state of arms and the army in general) can be illuminated from different, often opposite, points of view. And this point of view depends on the political views of the author - including. The author praises what he likes and scolds what is not cute. Apparently, he wanted to emigrate, but it didn't work out - he was not allowed to leave. Here he pours bile.
    7. Denis fj
      Denis fj 9 November 2014 14: 04
      +5
      Attention should be paid to the mathematical abilities of Alexander Nikolsky: “... with a detection range of up to 25 km. Until the end of the 70s, we could only do high-frequency GAS with a detection range of up to 10 km. Our passive ASGs for submarines were an order of magnitude worse. ” Who doesn’t know "by an order of magnitude" this is 10 times, and if 25 is divided by 10, then it will turn out 2.5, not 10. If we compare the real indicators of passive ASGs for US and USSR submarines, then 2.5 is a more accurate figure.
    8. VAF
      VAF 9 November 2014 15: 18
      17
      [quote = Very old] Interesting and useful. [/ quot

      very very controversial! soldier Now there’s just no time, BUT here ... briefly.
      I set the MINUS:
      1. Not only the MPA was engaged in the destruction of AUGi AUS, but also VA YES soldier
      2. "Supersonic Breakthrough" belay .. yes, and "the pilots said" wassat ..author .. KILL THE WALL !!! soldier
      Supersonic when starting (attacking) is SUICIDE, because. REDUCES TIME FOR DETECTING AND IDENTIFICATION OF TARGETS, PERFORMANCE OF AIMING, "SMOOTHING" PIM, not to mention the PRM .. while everything happens in conditions of active counteraction by means of REP by enemy ships and aircraft.
      3. All "Bouquets" and "Azaleas" on Tu-16P and Tu-22P / PD .. "Dead poultice" against the radar of ships soldier ..only if .. help them lol in earlier detection of shock groups by .. rashes from any AMS and ASO dipoles and tapes lol

      Especially since the Tu-16P flew the only floor in the USSR Air Force 226 in Poltava, and the Tu-22p / pd were only in reconnaissance regiments .. in the 3rd squadron. soldier
      Well, in short ... there are still a lot of all kinds of 2 labudas in the article ".. so MINUS !!!!

      Well, about the "shooting down" of the KR, what is the DAC, what is X .. this is generally ... a "song" .. a rocket going under the 4th sound. And on a dive generally under 5 ... yes even a dense stream ... the author ... the cameras will be tortured .. to swallow dust " soldier
    9. Army1
      Army1 9 November 2014 16: 55
      +1
      With the advent of a space targeting system, low-noise submarines and, in the near future, hypersonic anti-ship missiles, "the power of an aircraft carrier is decreasing a little."
      1. zennon
        zennon 9 November 2014 20: 07
        +1
        Quote: Army1
        With the advent of a space targeting system, low-noise submarines and, in the near future, hypersonic anti-ship missiles, "the power of an aircraft carrier is decreasing a little."

        And not a little! The appearance of hypersonic anti-ship missiles puts a fat cross on AUG! As Sergey (vaf) noted a little higher:
        a rocket going under the 4th sound. and on a dive in general under 5 ... yes even with a dense stream ... the author ... the cameras will be tortured .. to swallow dust "

        Well, it’s simply not realistic to shoot down a warhead maneuvering at a speed of 6-7M! You won’t hide a 300-meter galosh. It moves in 2 planes. Its speed is relatively small, and it’s difficult to maneuver such a cart. And the aircraft carrier itself costs about $ 5 billion. Yes, plus a warrant, service! So as soon as the anti-ship missiles maneuvering on hypersound appear, the era of aircraft carriers will end.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 9 November 2014 20: 47
          +1
          Quote: zennon
          Well, maneuvering at a speed of 6-7M to shoot down a warhead is simply not realistic!

          Burn out the brains of the microwave warhead. They, too, are not made with a finger, they are aware of the threats and actively counteract them
          1. zennon
            zennon 9 November 2014 22: 03
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            They, too, are not made with a finger, they are aware of the threats and actively counteract them

            Of course! This is normal.
            Quote: Spade
            Burn out the brains of the microwave warhead.

            Microwave radiation can be shielded. Well, let's say plasma. In any case, physically it is possible. I mean that shielding microwave does not contradict the laws of physics. You, a sword is always stronger than a shield.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 9 November 2014 22: 25
              +2
              Quote: zennon
              Microwave radiation can be shielded. Well, let's say plasma. In any case, physically it is possible. I mean that shielding microwave does not contradict the laws of physics.

              This is difficult ... If at the moment it is possible to burn actuators of mines and IEDs in hundreds of meters, then what can an atomic aircraft carrier with its energy achieve.

              Quote: zennon
              You know, a sword is always stronger than a shield.

              On the contrary. A modern tank in the forehead can devote a very limited number of fire weapons.
              1. zennon
                zennon 9 November 2014 22: 49
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                It's hard ...

                No one promised it would be easy!
                Quote: Spade
                If at the moment it is possible to burn actuators of mines and IEDs in hundreds of meters, then what can an atomic aircraft carrier with its energy achieve.

                Well, it still needs to be used! Yes, now there are Electo Magnetic guns that accelerate the projectile on rails to crazy speeds. But the dimensions of the capacitors are such that you can’t even dream of using it even on large ships! It’s possible that such installations, even on avik, they will be very cumbersome, and the most acute shortage of time (you can attack from the nearest space, just 200 kilometers at a speed of 6-7M, but with a maneuvering warhead!) simply will not leave the opportunity to track them and deploy them in combat readiness.
                Quote: Spade
                A modern tank in the forehead can devote a very limited number of fire weapons.

                Well, firstly it’s possible, and secondly, why is it necessary to face it? There are towers bouncing and hitting the lid. There are parachutes that can be rotated due to misalignment and scan a circular surface. If we talk about ACG, then it’s possible multidirectional attack by several warheads simultaneously. Even calculating the direction, speed, angle of 4-7 warheads will be incredibly difficult, not to mention intercepting. There are long-range nuclear warheads that fit perfectly in a 203 mm projectile. Power is 0,1 kT. These are two cars I spent at the last MAKS, I saw a model of a plasmatron for the T-50. I talked with the guys representing it. They say that the installation MISSES the radio waves, reducing its visibility by 2 orders of magnitude. That is, 100 times !!! I don’t know how they achieved synchronization with their own radio systems, but they say have achieved.
    10. starshina78
      starshina78 9 November 2014 19: 21
      14
      I served in the Navy in the mid-seventies, just when the Vanka Washington was in service (16 missile, they were called so that they were very similar to George Washington), there were 12 missile with multiple warheads - 4 each ... And multipurpose, among which there are "roaring cows". I served in Kamchatka, where the "Wasp's Nest" is located. That is how the Americans called the Second Flotilla of nuclear submarines, based in Vilyuchinsk. I think that the author painfully painted everything black. Yes, we had several types of surface ships: destroyers, BODs, SKRs, missile cruisers, aircraft-carrying cruisers, but they were all designed for a specific task. The purpose of each to describe for a long time, and who knows will understand, and who does not know, may not understand. And what were our ships bad? When the first BOD (then they were BOD, then they were transferred to the TFR) "Razumny" came to us in Kamchatka, then immediately the exercises went - and the detection of nuclear submarines, with firing at low-flying targets. All at the highest level . Even the Americans recognized these ships (series 1135) as the best. And here is an excerpt from an article by Harry Allendorfer, captain of the first rank of the US Navy, a specialist in the sea power of the USSR: "Whenever you enter a foreign port and cannot immediately see the national flag on the mast of the ships standing there, choose the newest one , beautiful, clean and well-groomed. Nine times out of ten, you can't go wrong - these will be Russian ships. "This recognition is worth a lot. Although it concerned the seventies. As for S.G. Gorshkov, then if it were not for him, then there would be no Navy in the USSR. Or it would have been coastal and weak.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 9 November 2014 21: 36
        +2
        Quote: starshina78
        As for S.G. Gorshkov, if it had not been for him, then there would have been no Navy in the USSR.
        The Soviet Union did what it could, the author of the article recognizes the achieved parity, but immediately notes, - "Another question - how was this achieved? The answer is costly." Many times I have already heard about the "extensive" economy of the USSR and the "intensive" economy of the West. Yes, all this looks logical in reasoning, but when during the Second World War the industry was evacuated beyond the Urals, or when the cavalry tried to somehow compensate for the lack of tanks, the choice was not between intensive and extensive, but between life and death of our country. Undoubtedly, there were mistakes, but the Soviet Union was considered, and the mistakes, probably, cannot be compared with the "mistakes" of Serdyukov's reforms or our other intensive "reformers" and "effective managers." In the capital work of V.P. Kuzin and V.I.Nikolsky "The Navy of the USSR 1945-1991", calculations are given, according to which, instead of building forces to combat the AUG, for the period from 1960 to 1990, it was possible to build up to 20 aircraft carriers similar to the United States and move from the task of destroying aircraft carriers to the task of gaining air supremacy (infrastructure and escort are not emphasized) ... To be honest, I am a supporter of aircraft carriers, as carriers of a promising and demanded type of weapon - carrier-based naval aviation, but one cannot but understand differences in priorities and opportunities. It is one thing to have a full-fledged fleet, capable of performing all possible tasks at sea, which implies the presence of all classes of ships in its composition, it is another thing to try to catch up (or overtake) the United States and NATO in the number of aircraft carriers. Russia needs a strong and full-fledged fleet, but in which not everything should be like that of the Yankees, first of all, this concerns the development of our boats with VNEU, which the United States has so far generally "hammered" in its fleet. We cannot do without a certain amount of asymmetry, as well as without various doctrines in relation to national interests and geographic characteristics, maybe it's time for the author to admit this?
  2. Strashila
    Strashila 9 November 2014 07: 39
    11
    “In order to somehow rectify the situation, we took up the“ surrogate ”methods of searching for submarines, in particular, by the wake trail, and in the future we succeeded so much that you can't even call it a“ surrogate ”." ... for this we have here there has always been an operating space station with astronauts on board, they coped with this task perfectly well.
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 9 November 2014 20: 38
      +2
      What was the "permanent station with astronauts" before the early 70s? Learn materiel
  3. Leonidych
    Leonidych 9 November 2014 07: 42
    +2
    aircraft carriers are needed only in local conflicts, in full-scale ones - this is just a good target ... during World War II they were drowned in batches, and even with modern rocket science, the aircraft carrier is a convenient target, which, according to the military’s calculations, after the attack on it was announced, more than an hour ...
    1. Sergei1982
      Sergei1982 9 November 2014 10: 51
      +6
      An aircraft carrier is certainly a good thing, but why does the author examine the actions of aviation or submarines separately, why didn’t anyone think that at the same time 6-8 nuclear submarines can operate against an aircraft group, and up to 50-60 planes + a squadron of surface ships under the cover of coastal aviation (or an aircraft carrier near The USSR was 5 really peculiar, but nevertheless they could provide cover for the poor), then what the AOG will do (or 2-3) part of the ships will be involved in tracking the fight against nuclear submarines, hokai is certainly good, but when the attack is from different directions + EW, + a possible strike by the NK squadron, so it’s not all clear, the Falkland warrior showed a lot the Anglicans had complete superiority at sea and parity in the air, but the losses were nevertheless large, and if we imagine that the higher-level formation attacked the English fleet, I think it would be all was sunk, I understand that the amers had better ships at that time but everything is so simple.
      1. nedgen
        nedgen 10 November 2014 00: 23
        +2
        Well, actually, the British fleet in the Falklands and the USA AUG, to put it mildly, are two big differences smile In general, Britons on Falklands are more likely Soviet TAKRs with fighters (albeit subsonic but with radar) and without AWACS on board, which was the reason for the large losses. Although the Soviet TAKR had avaxs, although by helicopter, but still the Yak-38 is by no means a fighter, it doesn’t have a radar at all and the R-60 missiles aren’t god knows that they’re not even against the Mig-23x or F-4 they could lead any successful battle without speaking about fighter interceptors like F-14 or Mig-25 and for Mig-31 or even Su-27 they are practically training targets. And they were called all that deck-based attack aircraft. They were essentially nothing more. And as attack aircraft they were inferior to the Su-25. So if at least the helicopter avax would be on board at the shavers, Sheffield and the company would not have to keep a watch in the radar and it would be impossible for ships with anti-ship missiles and bombs to go unnoticed. About shooting down anti-ship missiles flying at speeds of 3M and 4M in the 70s, of course the Amer duck BUT the fact that the F-14 paired with the E-2 could serially thin out the RCA is a fact. All the same, even a supersonic bomb is not RCC.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 9 November 2014 14: 53
      0
      And how to direct a rocket?
      1. nedgen
        nedgen 10 November 2014 00: 53
        +3
        My idea was that a massive attack from one direction on ONE AUG could be successful BUT it would be very expensive. If the T-22M3 at least a few of them succeeded in launching anti-ship missiles, they would have a high chance of success BUT the question is how many carcasses could launch anti-ship missiles and not only release but also successfully escape. All the same, if you are halfway to the turn of the launch of anti-ship missiles, interceptors are waiting for you, and even with the Phoenixes ... besides, guided by AWACS ... I would not want to be in the cockpit of a bomber in such conditions. The attack resembles the Russian roulette only in the drum, not 1 but 3 or even more cartridges.
  4. A1L9E4K9S
    A1L9E4K9S 9 November 2014 07: 48
    +9
    Something is not joyful morning, from the very early morning all articles are written so that it scares, China is not a friend of the article, but the partner is terribly horrible about the Pacific Ocean, now this is about the fleet, the authors agreed to scare us with Russia is doing badly, drain the water, and nothing shines for us in the future, interestingly.
    1. Andy1967
      Andy1967 9 November 2014 11: 13
      +2
      Well, yes, and on the "Military Files" there was also an article with the commentary of the omniscient Mr. Korotchenko that the French would not return the "Mistral", nor would they pay fines ...
      1. nov_tech.vrn
        nov_tech.vrn 9 November 2014 13: 24
        0
        as you said Mr. Korotchenko? but didn’t miss the letter o?
    2. Breard
      Breard 10 November 2014 09: 04
      0
      Hmm .. yes, no one scares you ... this is a depressing reality that the "current in power" through the "patriotic media" and kremlebots are trying to speak: "Yes, WE! only when we will adjust the sorting and we will wet "
      .... But the reality is different! YES, you can stick your head in the sand .... and say "we have everything, but that does not mean thinking"
      And you can .. and NECESSARY! think ... by whom? and what to create !? There is practically nothing left of the USSR military-industrial complex! "mistralki" to buy! but this will NOT work either! The USSR had a general education, military-industrial complex, military science! So there was a real FLEET ... but it was very difficult for him to compete ...
      ... now (just in quantity, not in quality, the number of warships has become 22 TIMES !!!!!! almost ALL ALL new Soviet Union according to international data - 7%) - there is no fleet, there are several warships, they hang out. ..and show in turn
      And about China .. in general, the best to be silent.
  5. Mefodi5124
    Mefodi5124 9 November 2014 07: 54
    0
    have to re-read in the evening
    Quote: Old very
    Articles of volume 12 or higher in the morning?
    Interesting and necessary. But it’s better to leave it for the evening, and now - print and save

    I agree, somehow not comme il faut
  6. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 9 November 2014 08: 07
    +3
    In principle, an attempt to analyze the state of affairs in the structure of the Navy. Commendable article plus.
    The author is right that we are really developing a defense industry with some distortions. They built a lot for parity, but did not have high-quality maintenance. That poured a pretty penny and had low operational reliability. Simply put, they bought a car, but did not have a garage. And if under the Union it was still possible to block some miscalculations with a financial injection, now everything needs to be developed in a complex. To build together with the ships and bases for their functioning and support, and enterprises for modernization and repair.
    1. koshh
      koshh 9 November 2014 23: 13
      0
      Quote: Rurikovich
      In principle, an attempt to analyze the state of affairs in the structure of the Navy.


      All right, try. But the attempt is unfinished. There should be a continuation with analysis at least until 2010.
  7. Sergey Sitnikov
    Sergey Sitnikov 9 November 2014 08: 19
    +3
    I always respected the naval - they are like from another planet, the planet of heroes!
  8. Nelepost
    Nelepost 9 November 2014 08: 27
    +1
    Well, why share the comments that you really are not comfortable reading this, maybe write directly to the author so that he doesn’t write in the morning :)))
  9. Ivan 63
    Ivan 63 9 November 2014 08: 31
    -4
    Or maybe it makes sense to place on some skyscrapers of mattress mats unaccounted for charges, let's say, of a megaton class, not retrievable and waiting for the command, and then whoever accidentally, casually drops this information, and for convincingness wherever it will "crash", but The "gift" will remain a secret - maybe ISIS, or maybe ...?
  10. SPACE
    SPACE 9 November 2014 08: 35
    18
    Aftar article conclusion: All around are idiots, one my dad is smart)))
    Apyat this notorious aircraft carrier was dragged onto the stage))) Well, the whole point of life is to prove and get hold of such an expensive radioactive trough and the coolest thing is that the main task of the military, the author, puts the destruction of his kind, yeah an aircraft carrier on an aircraft carrier)) ) Here is more contradictory nonsense is difficult to find at all. The probability of the outbreak of War today is comparable to the multiplication factor of neutrons in a nuclear chain reaction, less "<1" will not go "> 1" is already a nuclear explosion, the line is very thin. The operational use of an aircraft carrier in a total nuclear war is practically zero, which means that in such conditions its value is equal. And if, nevertheless, the possibility of a limited war is allowed, then the use of fast nuclear weapons in neutral territory, such as in the open sea, in the air, next to the AUG, will completely nullify its outstanding abilities. In coastal waters, ground aviation will crush him once or twice. Conclusion: AUG is a means of deterring banana republics, i.e. colonies. And the state, which has at its disposal the entire spectrum of nuclear weapons, does not need it 10 times. Bottom line: The Russian Navy needs two types of Borei class nuclear submarines, 8 units and Yasen, 30 units, and a surface cruiser fleet with powerful strike, anti-aircraft defense and air defense capabilities, in conjunction with a satellite constellation. At the same time, the first and most important task of the fleet should be the search, tracking and, if necessary, the preventive destruction of all the enemy's strategic nuclear submarines, no later than 5 minutes after the order, this is what we should strive for, everything else is dreams and pink snot!
    1. Iline
      Iline 9 November 2014 09: 50
      12
      I agree with you. At different times, the armed forces had different tasks and there were different opportunities for their implementation. And so they had what they had. And the scam with the F-14 Americans failed. The author only modestly kept silent that the declared characteristics of the F-14-Phoenix pair did not actually correspond to reality. But we got a MiG-31 in reality.
      Well and so on ... Like history - spiral development.
      1. koshh
        koshh 9 November 2014 23: 41
        +1
        Quote: Iline
        At different times, the armed forces had different tasks and there were different opportunities for their implementation.


        In the USSR, everyone was faced with only one task: "To catch up and overtake the USA." And the army and navy are faced with the task: "To stop or prevent the enemy's attack and to strike back with a devastating blow." And this, I believe, is achieved by technology capable of performing this task. Let it be at least "T-92MLV Flying on the Waves", the main thing is that it would 100% fulfill the task assigned to it. The modernization of our Navy should go its own way, not being compared with the Americans, who have a longer one, but opposing them with completely new equipment that has no analogues.
    2. 00105042
      00105042 9 November 2014 09: 59
      +3
      I’ll only add that since the mid-80s, nuclear carriers in general and the AUG in particular have completely lacked any nuclear weapons (except for the multi-purpose nuclear submarines that go on the warrant), this is a purely tactical means and in terms of atomic warfare its dubious value.
  11. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 9 November 2014 09: 05
    +4
    I'm waiting for the refueling system in the air to be returned to the Tu-22 ...
    1. Terrible ensign
      Terrible ensign 9 November 2014 09: 46
      0
      And what is she not? It used to be like ..
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 9 November 2014 09: 53
        0
        Filmed under a contract with the Yankees. those bricks laid down so much. Fear of ecology.
    2. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 9 November 2014 13: 19
      0
      Do not return. The agreement has an article prohibiting the refueling system. The USSR has signed the treaty, there is even the exact number of planes. Not more than 30 pieces. So don’t even dream.
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 9 November 2014 16: 00
        +2
        Any contract can be reviewed and rewritten. It should be noted that there were already stuttering about the revision of the agreement of the RMND. How to bask is not immediately so gradual.
        1. Tektor
          Tektor 9 November 2014 17: 32
          0
          Any contract can be reviewed and rewritten.
          So I’m thinking about the same thing: why comply with the agreement, if they can be circumvented? Let them check. Well, we need to take care of compliance with 1550 YABG? Let it be 5550, and let them prove that they are not 1550. But, if, suddenly, they prove, then you will have to withdraw from the START-3/4 treaty.
          1. Shadowcat
            Shadowcat 10 November 2014 02: 25
            0
            Because there is such a thing as a reputation. Maybe in the eyes of the European Commissioners we look like fools, but as for me it’s better to be an honest fool than a lying cattle.
  12. igor.borov775
    igor.borov775 9 November 2014 09: 41
    +7
    Hello !! Every past year always repeats one truth. What was considered impossible last year in the new there is always a serious argument that will turn everything upside down. There are many examples. Now other ships are starting to take on the first roles. They are not as huge as an aircraft carrier, but they carry such a large system of weapons that they just relax. The last 20 years, the U.S. Navy has shown to the whole world that the cruiser and destroyers stuffed with missiles are delivering the first and most terrible blow. like watermelon seeds. And most importantly, attacks on the enemy were carried out from very large distances. They are uncomfortable for aircraft carrier aircraft We are already used to launching missiles at a distance of 1000-1500 km from the enemy. This suggests that. that a lot of what was previously possible is completely blocked today. I’m talking about the possibility of quietly breaking into the aircraft carrier’s order. A circle with a radius of 500 km is tightly covered and possibly there is an AUG defense circle. Techniques are rapidly evolving but opportunities are increasing by a factor. And in military affairs, there’s practically faster all the possibilities of the state are realized. And it’s very expensive. Aviation warfare systems are becoming more expensive and very impressive. And the main question is how to use them. It’s worth noting that all weapons systems are becoming more expensive. Very soon fully autonomous machines will enter the stage at sea. Now the Yankees are gaining experience looking for a niche where they will reign supreme. It is not for nothing that drones drag aircraft carriers. Now everything is changing, and most importantly, the views on the use of the armed forces. Already, changes are visible now and then even making up is somehow uncomfortable. Too fast dreams come true.
    1. pr 627
      pr 627 9 November 2014 13: 42
      +1
      The evolution of political views on military doctrine sets in motion mechanisms for responding to the strategy and tactics of armed struggle. This leads to the emergence of either new types of weapons or a change in its qualitative characteristics. Then the military doctrine changes in a closed circle. The one who is more visionary and pragmatic will win whose interests of their country are higher than the interests of all mankind.
    2. 9lvariag
      9lvariag 16 November 2014 23: 40
      0
      1) Machine guns cannot and for a long time will not be able to conduct a maneuverable battle! and it’s not automatic machines at all, but simply robotics and drones.
      When the automata learn something worthwhile, it will be the end of mankind, or its slavery - have you personally not read The Terminator and Sabarkhainen's cycle of books?
      2) Well, they redid the focus from one-time third-generation anti-ship missiles, to reusable robots, so what? They are completely reconnaissance and front-line aviation. Why do we need them? To frighten with garlands of pendants, dill, cantrops and Estonians, at our borders?
      3) Let's calculate how much penny the Russian Federation will fly, the exploitation of the orbital group for these amusements with the bombing by Papuan robots?
      4) Is it not easier to launch platforms with missiles and bombs (not even nuclear) into space, which will completely discourage the desire to approach the shores of the Russian Federation? Was there Geronimo? And also to revive the powerful STELS mosquito fleet in the Baltic and Black Sea basins.
      4) the only region where the Russian Federation can and should contain AUG is KTOF. In the seas and in the North, you can limit yourself to the use and construction of TAKR. It would be better if icebreakers and underwater transports were built for the northern grouping.
  13. LvKiller
    LvKiller 9 November 2014 09: 51
    +6
    When everyone around me starts to chant: "Everything was bad, terrible, lame, like in Nigeria", it is enough to simply evaluate the result of what was described. So what, they attacked us, bombed us? No. Maybe because the Americans were so kind? Oha, the food is fresh, yes ... it's hard to believe. So why? The answer suggests itself: they did everything right, that's why they are alive. And ungrateful descendants should not pour shit on the heads of their ancestors, if only because these very descendants of yours are alive now only thanks to them ...
  14. cerbuk6155
    cerbuk6155 9 November 2014 09: 51
    -1
    And with great pleasure I read the article. I must say, very interesting, I liked the article. soldier
  15. sv68
    sv68 9 November 2014 09: 53
    0
    a short article, the author did not finish how it all ended. I understood that Mr. Nikolsky was trying to prove to us that the aircraft carrier is such a hole about which even to think that it can be drowned is stupidity and crime.
  16. lance
    lance 9 November 2014 10: 15
    0
    who can clarify whether the instant 31 is able to work on naval targets?
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 9 November 2014 10: 36
      +4
      Quote: Lance
      who can clarify whether the instant 31 is able to work on naval targets?

      why would he? are there few stratospheres? interceptor on naval targets ... ek you suffered ...
  17. 9lvariag
    9lvariag 9 November 2014 10: 16
    15
    Well, let the author explain why such orphans and wretched Russian could do such things that advanced residents of the pi @ camp, only copy in their design bureaus.
    1) why such advanced reconnaissance means failed in 2002 during a fly-over of the Tomkat aircraft carrier, when, even after the old Su-24 MR and Su-27 were discovered, they managed it within 45 minutes. torment the aircraft carrier and the AUG.
    Question: what if it were TP and / or practical launch?
    2) why did the vaunted Caesar system fail when our SSBN surfaced near Manhattan?
    3) why did they pass so much, the same F-4 / F - 14, when flying as tanning agents, our scouts?
    Just tired of the exaltation of the long-worn and lost American power.
    It turns out:
    "My father swore when he learned about the order of our commander-in-chief of the Navy!"
    And then he shut his mouth shut because he wanted a Volga himself, a title, a position, an apartment, a summer residence and a good pension ?! So what?
    And other personal campaigners, "fathers and grandfathers", were buried in dozens, because we have "rubber jackals" and "rear rats" in our headquarters? Who could only drink with the women upon arrival at the garrisons and look after themselves what is bad where? So what?
    I seriously thought that this was a good article about the military accomplishments of the past days, and after reading it I minus!
    PS: the author at our monument K-5 has been hanging like 40 years! There were K-10 and K-15, KSR, X-10, X-15 during this time. And you all the time about her and the P-6 (and the P-15 has long been withdrawn from service).
  18. Zomanus
    Zomanus 9 November 2014 10: 47
    -6
    Good article. And sometimes we sometimes have such that the Soviet fleet was better than anyone and that we could defeat all enemies in one moment. It turns out that we lost to the amers by means of reconnaissance, detection and target designation. Well, now they have begun to restore order in this area. True in terms of damage and disruption of enemy reconnaissance and target designation.
  19. vass
    vass 9 November 2014 10: 53
    -3
    The article is very interesting and informative. But it only indicates that natural selection does not exist without dead ends. However, the saber-toothed for some time were scary and dangerous. Now we are reasoning very correctly why they lost, and then it was hard to believe. Our country is huge and there is no need to completely counter-extend the oceans. True, if we want to control the whole world, then another question. If we are enough to develop coastal defense and pre-emptive systems based on it, then it will be difficult for any missile carriers and aircraft, including those, to be in this zone. We cannot bang a lot of money for the game of sea hunters. For this, it is easy to create a grouping of a breakthrough of naval defense of the enemy’s coast. Moreover, we have all the fragments - Tu, submarines (of all types and purposes) and powerful surface ships for delivering our missiles as close to the coast of the enemy as possible and a massive attack on the cities of the coastal and structural zones. It is urgent to create them (groupings). Work out the techniques, tactics and strategy of combat use. Today enough funds are available. In fact, apply the practice of the Reds during the civil war - instantly provide a numerical superiority in the necessary areas. Together with maces and poplars, it will be like a blow with a crowbar and an ax. But there are no methods against scrap yet ...
  20. askort154
    askort154 9 November 2014 11: 16
    +6
    I read the article - the sediment is not pleasant. Not a specialist in these matters, but logically, if we have always been so bad that we are constantly trailing behind the advanced US military technology, then why were they so afraid of us.
    And that they were afraid is a fact! Therefore, Dad's stories behind the stopar in the kitchen look more like the whining of a "strategist analyst" offended by his career. My personal conclusion is the "defeatist" article!
  21. sevtrash
    sevtrash 9 November 2014 11: 21
    -3
    It seems that there were people who calculated the balance between efficiency and the cost of weapons, but it turns out that the decision-making system itself was flawed, non-professionals in power. Now the system has been modernized, to the extent that only for the better, now the "cutting", "assimilation" of budgetary funds is in use.
    As an indicator of efficiency - have you decided to upgrade the Nakhimov TARK, will it be cheaper than writing it off? Probably not, although who knows. The Navy needs, first of all, other ships. The effectiveness of non-nuclear submarines with air-independent engines has been proven that in Russia there is no theater of military operations for them. Yes, all the surrounding seas, including in the north, to ensure the safety of their SSBNs. But "Nakhimov", of course, looks more noticeable, unlike the PL. They could have spent funds to bring to mind at least "Lad". Or weapons for corvettes. Creation of BIUS type "Aegis". RIM161SM3 missiles.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 November 2014 13: 22
      +7
      Quote: sevtrash
      As an indicator of efficiency - have you decided to upgrade the Nakhimov TARK, will it be cheaper than writing it off? Probably not, although who knows. The Navy needs, first of all, other ships

      But the pros think differently.
      Quote: sevtrash
      The effectiveness of non-nuclear submarines with air-independent engines has been proven that in Russia there is no theater of war for them

      There is, therefore, they are being created now.
      Quote: sevtrash
      But "Nakhimov", of course, looks more noticeable, unlike the PL

      And so we need him. No submarine squadron (even nuclear submarines, even with non-volatile engines) could provide the support to Syria that a surface squadron gave.
      Quote: sevtrash
      They could have spent funds to bring to mind at least "Lad".

      They already bring to mind
      Quote: sevtrash
      Or weapons for corvettes

      Where more? !! You take a look at 20380 - the nomenclature of military equipment like a space battleship.
      Quote: sevtrash
      Creation of BIUS type "Aegis".

      Sigma
      Quote: sevtrash
      Missiles of the type RIM161SM3.

      First, rockets for destroying targets in near space are created as part of the C-500 complex. Secondly, why are they needed on ships? !!
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 9 November 2014 20: 39
        -2
        Andrey, don't you understand the meaning? There is never a lot of money, even from the Americans and the Chinese, to say nothing of Russia. It is doubtful whether the modernization and maintenance of the Nakhimov is more profitable for the fleet than the allocation of these funds to upgrade 20389 (Polyment, engines, air defense), Lad. Do you think Sigma is equal to Aegis? The RIM161 SM3 is a missile defense system that, among other things, can shoot down ballistic missiles outside the atmosphere, in the Block 2a version, the range is up to 1000 km. The point is not even this, but in the creation of the Aegis complex - the Standard of various modifications capable of providing anti-missile defense based on sea / ground forces.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 November 2014 16: 19
          +2
          Quote: sevtrash
          Andrei, do you really not get the point?

          I understood and answered
          Quote: sevtrash
          There are not many funds, even among Americans and Chinese, to say nothing of Russia.

          Therefore, we must use them wisely. And the idea of ​​restoring NAhimov fits perfectly there
          Quote: sevtrash
          It is doubtful whether the modernization and maintenance of the Nakhimov is more profitable for the fleet than the allocation of these funds to upgrade 20389 (Polyment, engines, air defense), Lad.

          My question is - why do you always contrast funds for Nakhimov with funds for fine-tuning 20389, Lad and so on? After all, today And to fine-tune the corvettes (although I wouldn’t do this) and enough money for the frets and the Nakhimov.
          Quote: sevtrash
          Do you think Sigma is equivalent to Aegis?

          This is unknown to me - but the very fact that the Sigma appeared suggests that the development of the BIOS is underway. Well, whether they are equal or not - in essence, Aegis’s dignity as a BIUS lies in the fact that it combines actions with different weapons for different purposes, and also distributes targets for one type of weapon (for example, air targets for missiles). I believe Sigma is doing the same.
          Quote: sevtrash
          RIM161 SM3 is a missile system that can also destroy ballistic missiles

          Error. The SM3 has no "everything else" - it is a specialized missile for hitting targets in near space.
          Quote: sevtrash
          It’s not even the point, but the creation of the Aegis - Standard complex of various modifications capable of providing missile defense based on naval / ground forces.

          No one in their right mind and sober memory will ever hammer ballistic missiles at surface ships (do not get there) And intercontinental ballists (and not only them) fly much higher than 1000 km. In total, the meaning of the SM3 missiles is visible - either if the destroyer is not far from the enemy’s SSBN (and even ours will not let him in, well, we don’t need to patrol the enemy SSBNs.) Or to stand in our coastal city and try to intercept our warheads ballista (it’s almost surreal, and you don’t need a ship for this) Or the demolition of spy satellites from low orbit. But this is also nonsense, because if you know that this particular satellite is a spy, just wait until it flies over the territory of your country and calmly kill it.
          The Americans did their SM3 not because they needed it, but because American industry generally adores doing a complete heresy and passing it off as an utter deed :)))
    2. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 9 November 2014 13: 44
      +1
      Quote: sevtrash
      sevtrash

      You wrote complete nonsense. Nobody will get lucky on their lands. It’s harder for us in this matter .. And while we have a military fist they don’t run into us. dangerous. And the article is purely liberal; there is no exact data; there is nothing but the author’s statement, which is far from what he writes about. How many devastating articles we have already read. How much water can be crushed. And you don’t have to carry nonsense. Our scientists and designers found a worthy response to the weapons of a potential enemy. He sprinkled it with digits to make it worse what kind of spenders we are. Something does not match your digits, but now it’s just the cuts. It’s 90 articles far from there now. You are excited means there is something.
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 9 November 2014 20: 44
        0
        Quote: igor.borov775
        Something doesn't match your numbers

        This is all determined by the desire / unwillingness to recognize reality. If there is no such desire, then it is useless to prove something, and any numbers will not help.
  22. saag
    saag 9 November 2014 11: 21
    +4
    Quote: 9lvariag
    1) why such advanced reconnaissance means failed in 2002 during a fly-over of the Tomkat aircraft carrier, when, even after the old Su-24 MR and Su-27 were discovered, they managed it within 45 minutes. torment the aircraft carrier and the AUG.
    Question: what if it were TP and / or practical launch?


    But was the Russian Federation and the United States in conflict at that time?

    Quote: askort154
    why they were so afraid of us.

    because a nuclear bomb
    1. askort154
      askort154 9 November 2014 12: 34
      +1
      saag .... because a nuclear bomb.


      This is understandable, but not a fact, it still had to be delivered to the target. England, France, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, and Korea already possess nuclear weapons. But not everyone can deliver it to the United States. Therefore, when us appeared
      rocket carrier (based on R-7), USA swelled. True, Khrushchev's mistake followed, on this basis he "cut" not only long-range aviation, but also the wings of all aviation. Reduced 1200000 pilots! But that is another story!
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 9 November 2014 14: 09
        +7
        Quote: askort154
        . Reduced 1200000 pilots! But that's another story!

        I ... understand correctly? one million two hundred thousand pilots reduced ??? belay yes you so soon surpass !!! wassat
        1. askort154
          askort154 9 November 2014 15: 16
          0
          Yes, that's exactly what it was. Abbreviated (officially in 1960) ONE MILLION TWO THOUSAND. This was advertised in the open press. Part of the flight crew was received by Aeroflot, and part of them dispersed across the expanses of the USSR for the national economy or for a glass. They were called so - "millionaires".
          It was the worst blow of Khrushchev to the USSR Air Force.
      2. Demetry
        Demetry 9 November 2014 14: 44
        +2
        Quote: askort154
        Reduced 1200000 pilots!

        How many pilots ??? smile smile smile
        1. askort154
          askort154 9 November 2014 15: 51
          -2
          Demetry .... How many pilots ???

          In 1955, in the USSR there were more than 5! million pilots. Khrushchev reduced in two stages: from 1956 to 1960 (more than 800000 first, then 1200000 second stage). I think that my memory did not fail me.
          The last reduction was "promoted" (in modern terms) to the whole world. Khrushchev is a peacemaker!
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 9 November 2014 16: 10
            +2
            The strength of the army as of January 1, 1945 was approximately 5.7 million.

            The total number on the same date is 12 million people, including the wounded in hospitals. Plus half a million fleet. You are confusing something.
          2. Demetry
            Demetry 9 November 2014 16: 12
            +3
            Quote: askort154
            In 1955, in the USSR there were more than 5! million pilots. Khrushchev reduced in two stages: from 1956 to 1960 (more than 800000 first, then 1200000 second stage). I think that my memory did not fail me.
            The last reduction was "promoted" (in modern terms) to the whole world. Khrushchev is a peacemaker!

            You know, I won’t argue. I did not reduce these pilots. But as for me, at least 5 MILLION PILOTS need at least million planes. Otherwise, what's the point?
            I very much suspect that these are millions AT ALL of the ARMY. You are talking about PILOTS !!! And what was the army then if the percentage of PILOTS in any army is insignificant ??? 100 millionth army? Check pzhl numbers. Well, or give a link.
            I would like to see what FIVE MILLION looks like PILOTS smile smile smile
            1. askort154
              askort154 9 November 2014 16: 44
              0
              Demetry ..... You know, I will not argue. I did not reduce these pilots. But as for me, 5 MILLION PILOTS need at least a million airplanes. Otherwise, what's the point?

              I understand you. The numbers are shocking, especially for the ignorant. In your concept, there should be 1 plane for each pilot (such as 1 car for a motorist now). But in aviation, this is too expensive. Therefore, there is a different ratio. In fighter aviation
              for one plane - 5-8 pilots, in BA and TA for 4-5 crews (in a crew of 5-8). In addition, the command and instruction staff (for 1 pilot - about a dozen). The numbers are approximately generalized. Therefore, that's all really for those times.
              1. Demetry
                Demetry 9 November 2014 17: 08
                +1
                Quote: askort154
                The figures are roughly generalized. Therefore, everything is real for those times.

                I would say more than generalized. But even according to your reasoning, the composition of the air fleet should have been measured by HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND AIRCRAFT. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS!!!.

                But you didn’t provide links, so I decided to dig it myself. Wikipedia is the fastest. I give a link to the GENERAL ARMED FORCES of the USSR for 1960 and to the entire reign of Khrushchev:
                As of August 12, 1955, the staff number is 4 people. In fact, the list contains 815 people; [870]
                On February 9, 1956 it amounted to: 4 people, 406 people on the list; [216]
                For 1960 - 3 people [source not specified 623 days].


                So I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you just made a mistake. Well, we have never had (and not only in but also in any other country) 5 pilots !.
                1. askort154
                  askort154 9 November 2014 17: 28
                  +2
                  Demetry ..... So I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you just made a mistake. Well, we have never had (and not only in but also in any other country) 5 pilots!


                  Lots of apologies! I'm certainly wrong. I hoped for a memory. "Lemon two hundred"
                  this figure then went around among the people for a long time, and the pilots who fell under these "two hundred lemon"
                  for a long time we flew to GA. In fact, the Army was reduced by "two hundred lemon", including the Air Force.
                  He got excited, and didn’t even hear himself, he laughed! Thank you for the truth!
                  1. Demetry
                    Demetry 9 November 2014 17: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: askort154
                    He got excited, and didn’t even hear himself, he laughed! Thank you for the truth!

                    It happens to everyone drinks
              2. fleks
                fleks 9 November 2014 20: 26
                0
                you confuse it with civil aviation, where for one plane there are 3-5 crews; in the Air Force the ratio of crew is much less-1k 1.3
          3. The comment was deleted.
    2. 9lvariag
      9lvariag 9 November 2014 21: 47
      0
      Do not jerk if you are not in the subject.
      Especially not in the topic of the Air Force of the Russian Navy and not in the topic of the state of affairs in these forces.
      According to your question:
      In 2002, the US Navy conducted exercises at 300km. from our territorial waters in the area of ​​responsibility of the Pacific Fleet. And praise to the officers of the Navy, for planning such a brilliant operation that sent the crew of the aircraft carrier to the entire US Navy. After all, in 35 minutes, one E-2 soared, it’s just a disaster. And in the 80s, it was tantamount to suicide AUG!
      What do you think, the conflict in the 90s between the Russian Federation and the USA that ever stopped?
      Or is it already from the memory that the marines entered Kosovo?
      I’m lying around with you that the MCI and the Navy’s Air Force have ever stopped working on TP for the goals of a potential enemy?
  23. Raskolnik
    Raskolnik 9 November 2014 11: 48
    +2
    Quote: Rus2012
    ... in short, IMHO, the article in HBO is basically not a reliable crap of the son of a caperang based on rumors and "mate in the smoking rooms".

    The only message with which I can agree is the Soviet Union’s unpreparedness for local actions against the United States on some military operations without the use of nuclear weapons. And then with a reservation, because in Vietnam (a local theater of operations, where the USSR Armed Forces partially participated), the Yankees screwed up to the maximum, although they had the maximum advantage in everything and used almost everything - AUG, strategic aviation ...
    It's all about motivation. The Yankers have a professional army (though practically the whole NATa) i.e. for soldiers, this is a job for which they receive loot and, accordingly, that must be spent drinking whiskey in their Aklahoma. And in the war with Russia, monstrous losses of personnel are assumed, but this is just what the valiant American contractor does not like. Why would he die for a congressman who voted for the war and sits in his warm office?
  24. coffee
    coffee 9 November 2014 12: 22
    0
    So I say it was "Mistral" became a floating "Sarai", we must pay tribute to this scenario. Whatever you call it, you will float. There will be something to hunt for.
    Russia will not receive from Paris neither Mistral nor fines for the failure of the contract
    http://warfiles.ru/show-72867-rossiya-ne-poluchit-ot-parizha-ni-mistral-ni-shtra
    fy-za-sryv-kontrakta.html
  25. 31rus
    31rus 9 November 2014 12: 32
    +1
    Not an expert in this matter and not a sailor, but I liked the article how you can turn over, recount, economically justify our not foresight, almost wretchedness, I want to ask you lived at that time, you or your father made decisions and embodied them, it seems to me we built the fleet as far as our economy allowed us and, of course, with answers to calls from the United States. But for some reason even our "old" fleet, when it comes to the same shores of Syria, reckons with it, maybe it's not just about ships.
  26. Tjeck
    Tjeck 9 November 2014 12: 39
    +4
    An article without any specifics. The author at least in fantasies analyzed before writing. No one in the 60e nuclear submarine without the support of at least one nuclear submarine and 1-2 destroyers never let out of the surrounding areas. Later, as the less noisy boats came out, they began to practice maneuvers alone (even the legend went that they went into the waters of the USA).

    About the F-14 just do not understand .. And where is the plane? Here we are talking more about powerful radar and missiles.

    It is also not mentioned about such an aircraft as IL-38, which in essence was supposed to work in tandem with the 95RC. And even more so, cruise missiles have already kept up with that time.
  27. trahterist
    trahterist 9 November 2014 12: 40
    0
    And again, the author clearly has an ode to the aircraft carriers between the lines fool Does Russia need them, at least in such quantities as the United States? Matrasia is all the same, although large, but in fact an island, hence the main emphasis of their military doctrine is placed on a powerful aircraft carrier fleet, they simply cannot reach potential "friends" otherwise (except for ICBMs, of course), geography, however what In Russia, as far as I remember the same geography from school, the situation is somewhat different, and therefore the defense tasks are somewhat different, aren't they?
    What is an aircraft carrier in fact? A floating airfield with very dead weapons to defend itself, hence the large number of combat guard vessels, so that they would not be drowned like some kind of longboat at the first serious clash ... You can even call this type of vessel an aggressor’s weapon, its defense is In my opinion, it is very doubtful. As correctly noted more than once in the comments, different bantustans scare, that's his lot.
    And for the cost of building and maintaining aircraft carriers, there is one military joke - "If you want to undermine the country's budget, start building aircraft carriers (as an option, give the country an aircraft carrier, yyy)".
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 November 2014 13: 27
      +2
      Quote: trahterist
      What is an aircraft carrier in fact?

      Learn at your leisure :)))
  28. andrew42
    andrew42 9 November 2014 13: 31
    +2
    As I understand it, the article is all about the creation of an AUG in the Russian Navy. So this is initially manilovism. Firstly, we have never used this concept. There is no point in starting. Even if the budget could allow the creation of 2 AUGs (one hundred is already fantastic), the costs would increase geometrically, since they would constantly run into a rake that the Americans went through a long time ago. Secondly, His Majesty BUDGET will generally address this issue. Thirdly, given the geographical borders of Russia, in any theater of operations in the northern hemisphere, it is possible and should create land-based, not floating airfields. The only question is the performance characteristics of the detection equipment and the aviation itself. I hope Russia is not going to conduct hostilities off the coast of Argentina and Australia, whether to start a battle for Antarctica. In this regard, the concept of the development of SSBNs and SSBNs - autonomy, low noise, equipment with new carriers with nuclear warheads - is quite reasonable and sufficient. We need to do what we can do best, and not get into the unknown jungle of "AUG-Sciences", which we will not pull for a dozen different reasons. From the point of view of a local conflict or prevention of such (that is, there is also the function of demonstrating presence, which is fundamentally different from the concept of the submarine fleet), then 2-3 groupings, the core of which is a Peter the Great class ship, together with frigates, are quite enough. One each in the North, Pacific Ocean, and the third, ideally in the Mediterranean / Black Sea. You don't need more. The rest can be more than offset by coastal support and defense. Of course, I would like each such surface group to have an aircraft-carrying cruiser (with a small amount of carrier-based aircraft), but this is already a sufficient condition, not a necessary one. In short, to hell with AUG. We are going the right way. All you need is money.
  29. ups
    ups 9 November 2014 13: 32
    +1
    I'm not special in the field of armaments, but they always talk about hundreds of missiles, and at least once the AUG got this hundred in their direction ... no, the maximum that they checked the pin .. dos are one or two, the last time one pierced their side, this many of us remember. And this is why the main thing I want to say is that fear has big eyes, and pin ... dos very often believe in their exclusiveness, forgetting that everyone walks under God. But I'm not saying that we need to reap those laurels that we have, we must work.))))
  30. andrew42
    andrew42 9 November 2014 13: 38
    +1
    Moreover, the author himself raised the most important issue - the timeliness of detection and constant tracking. How hypothetical Russian AUGs can help here is not clear. In addition, it will be necessary to decide on the timeliness of detecting an attack on these very AUGs. We'll tear your pants. In 1944, if the Japanese formation of aircraft carriers had discovered the Americans first, then the outcome of the war in the Pacific could have become completely different, the opposite - unlikely, but different for sure. Thus, the main thing is the development of means of tracking and protection of these means, and the rest can be provided on the giant mainland "Russia", more reliable, more cost-effective, and with the possibility of fairly easy modernization of ground weapons.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 November 2014 13: 48
      +3
      Quote: andrew42
      Moreover, the author himself raised the most important question - the timeliness of detection and constant tracking. How hypothetical Russian AUGs can help here is not clear.

      Aircraft AWACS and the cover of the same A-50 (or A-100), operating away from the coast.
      Quote: andrew42
      In 1944, if the Japanese formation of aircraft carriers found the Americans first, the outcome of the Pacific War could have been completely different, the opposite - unlikely, but different for sure.

      Is this about the battle of the Mariana Islands? laughing
      I will reveal a military secret - ALL DAY the Japanese hollowed out an American warrant, and the Americans did not know where the Japanese aircraft carriers were :))))) We found them only in the evening.
      Quote: andrew42
      Thus, the main thing is the development of means of tracking and protection of these means, and the rest can be provided on the giant mainland "Russia", more reliable, more cost-effective, and with the possibility of fairly easy modernization of ground weapons.

      Calculate how much the infrastructure will cost, allowing you to use massive air raids anywhere in the danger zones (from where ACGs can attack) and compare with the cost of aircraft carriers :)))
      1. andrew42
        andrew42 9 November 2014 16: 47
        0
        Sorry for the typo. Of course, 1942, not the 44th. Meant Midway, where the Japanese lost 4 aircraft carriers. The parties unsuccessfully tried to find each other for a long time, the departure of the air groups went idle, but the Americans reached the target with large forces. Then there was an exchange of raids, including taking into account the resumption of the enemy’s readiness for the next attack. As a result, who made the first real attack, he won, that is, the United States.
  31. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 November 2014 13: 44
    +3
    Quote: andrew42
    Firstly, we have never used this concept.

    And the sailors asked before the war.
    Quote: andrew42
    Even if the budget could allow the creation of 2's AUG (one hundred is already fantastic)

    The budget allows. The budget allowed to spend about 50 billion dollars for the Sochi Olympics, which is almost equivalent to the cost of two state AUGs. It should be borne in mind that we will build 2 AUGs at least twice as long as they were built in Sochi, i.e. load on the budget of the Russian Federation, she proceed to the construction of the AUG, on average per year will be half the olympiad
    Quote: andrew42
    Secondly, His Majesty BUDGET will generally hear this question.

    Before you write something (especially in capital letters), try to at least a little count. It can be useful.
    Quote: andrew42
    From the point of view of a local conflict or prevention of such (that is, there is also the function of demonstrating presence, which is fundamentally different from the concept of the submarine fleet), then 2-3 groupings, the core of which is a Peter the Great class ship, together with frigates, are quite enough.

    Such a group can certainly indicate a presence, but to carry out a projection of force - no, since there is no weapon, seriously hit the shore.
    Moreover, these groups will be practically useless in a big conflict.
    1. ups
      ups 9 November 2014 14: 09
      +1
      Have you seen how Sochi was transformed after the Olympics, how did it become comfortable and cool there?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 November 2014 14: 38
        +5
        Quote: ups
        Have you seen how Sochi was transformed after the Olympics, how did it become comfortable and cool there?

        For 50 something billion? No doubt laughing
        So what?:)
        1. ups
          ups 9 November 2014 15: 08
          -2
          No, in your case, not what ...
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 November 2014 15: 40
            +2
            And in yours? :)))
  32. TOR2
    TOR2 9 November 2014 13: 53
    +4
    To which the sailors (1st and 24th research institutes) reasonably stated that if carrier-based aviation can overcome all F14, then it can cope with the AUG without an MPA, so why waste resources on MPA, let's build aircraft carriers better. The discussion turned into a cry, the argument into a battle.

    The more emotions the farther the truth. In such cases, everyone is usually kicked out for a smoke break.
    In today's situation, the AUG can be attacked from near space. Their "aegis" is tortured to separate false goals from real ones. It is not necessary to attack the AUG with standard means. How about warheads that, when detonated in water or over water, will create a good directed wave. Well, then, like in a fairy tale, "everything in the hut thundered as if there was a struggle." The creation of climatic weapons is far from a fairy tale, and the AUG is sensitive to this. How about the fact that uninvited guests chatting at our shores and pretty much ditching the deck will get away.
    1. 9lvariag
      9lvariag 9 November 2014 22: 01
      0
      I agree with you in the book "Space Wings" it is clearly written about an attempt to create on the basis of the R-36M2, in the OKB. named after Yangel, a rocket for work on maneuvering targets.
      And it is said that for this they used the maneuver technology worked out on the "Bor-5".
      And it is clearly stated that all the experiments were carried out under the R-36ORB with a new CBF in the warhead rocket (this would make the whole doctrine of SSBNs and AUG useless.
      Because upon adoption, such RSs would be weapons of an offensive, not a "retaliatory strike" and would not have a launching corridor, i.e. would be without trajectory - hello "Aegidam", "Nike-Zeus" and other golimatier.
      Such a missile could even destroy SSBNs, due to the power of the KBCH with 17 - 26 separable elements!
      PS: There are a lot of interesting facts in the book, and I tend to believe its consultants. people are all venerable and influential - they don’t throw words into the wind.
  33. andrew42
    andrew42 9 November 2014 16: 56
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Calculate how much the infrastructure will cost, allowing you to use massive air raids anywhere in the danger zones (from where ACGs can attack) and compare with the cost of aircraft carriers :)))

    A moot point. Drawing an analogy, do you think the capabilities of a laptop upgrade are equal to a stationary computer? Is AUG defense no more difficult than shore protection? Again, I repeat, I wrote everything based on the real capabilities of our military-industrial complex, and not on mythical ones. Ground infrastructure is difficult to burn to the ground, but irrevocably drowning an aircraft carrier is much easier. By the way, the carriers themselves fascinate me, but let's look at things more realistically. Danger zones are not long-range theater of operations for the sake of which AOG is being created.
    1. TOR2
      TOR2 9 November 2014 17: 23
      +1
      Quote: andrew42
      Again, I repeat, I wrote everything based on the real capabilities of our military-industrial complex, and not on mythical

      Everything is real
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 November 2014 18: 08
      +2
      Quote: andrew42
      A moot point. Drawing an analogy, do you think the capabilities of a laptop upgrade are equal to a stationary computer?

      You see, it may be that they are not equal. In the sense that for the money that a laptop costs, you can purchase a more powerful system unit + monitor. But if you are forced to move between several cities, then the purchase of many system units (for each city where you happen to be) will come out significantly more expensive than a laptop :)))
      Quote: andrew42
      Is AUG defense no more difficult than shore protection?

      AUG protection (due to mobility) is much easier than shore protection.
      Quote: andrew42
      Again, I repeat, I wrote everything based on the real capabilities of our military-industrial complex, and not on mythical ones.

      And what is mythical in the construction of an aircraft carrier?
      Quote: andrew42
      It’s difficult to burn down ground infrastructure, but irrevocably drowning an aircraft carrier is much easier

      Ground infrastructure banging is generally easier, because ground infrastructure has coordinates that are known in advance.
      Quote: andrew42
      Danger zones are not long-range theater of operations for the sake of which AOG is being created.

      What are the far zones? We are on the Kuril Islands as a guest due to the presence of sufficiently powerful Japanese aircraft.
  34. Reasonable
    Reasonable 9 November 2014 16: 57
    +4
    The selection of statues to suppress psychologically and the futility of resistance to zebra starlets.
    Very competently focused on a relaxed Sunday audience.
    I wonder who it is they skillfully groups them and shoves them onto the site?
    The mood of the article in the early 90's ... How bad everything is and how good it is there.
    It seems he has already surrendered and is in captivity with them, and from there he writes.
    1. fleks
      fleks 9 November 2014 20: 14
      +4
      I absolutely agree with you. I would also like to say that the main argument in the superiority of star-mattress is "DAD said"
  35. andrew42
    andrew42 9 November 2014 17: 05
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The budget allows. The budget allowed to spend about 50 billion dollars for the Sochi Olympics, which is almost equivalent to the cost of two state AUGs. It should be borne in mind that we will build 2 AUGs at least twice as long as they were built in Sochi, i.e. load on the budget of the Russian Federation, she proceed to the construction of the AUG, on average per year will be half the olympiad

    Regarding Alempeada, I completely agree. Money down the drain and afford. But this does not apply to the question of what they could be spent on. Give you aircraft carriers, but I believe that this is a minor issue, and a pair of aircraft carrying seats in the Soviet classification would be enough, and then in the long run. Now is not up to fat.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 November 2014 17: 57
      +2
      Quote: andrew42
      Give you aircraft carriers, but I think this is a minor issue

      I understand that the issue is debatable - you have your own opinion, I have my own :). But here is the fact that if we made such a decision, then money for a couple of AUGs could be found without overextending the budget - this is perhaps the fact
  36. EREMA
    EREMA 9 November 2014 20: 08
    0
    judging by the comments on this article, we will throw NATO aircraft-carrying strike groups with their hats, and at the US headquarters there are generals who, unlike us, know nothing about modern weapons. Thank you, friend commentators, enlightened ...
  37. fleks
    fleks 9 November 2014 20: 10
    +1
    The article is clearly phobibian to the armed forces of the Soviet Union and the rise of the capabilities of the Americans, isn’t it disgusting? But where does such a belief in the superpowers of f14 and f18 --- apparently the pope said so in the smoking room? -All article- nonsense of pure water - only real clash with f14 of our aviation could confirm the author
  38. xtur
    xtur 9 November 2014 20: 51
    +2
    http://nvo.ng.ru/forces/2014-10-24/8_flot.html
    a phrase from Nikolsky's article: "Society, transformed into meek sheep, gave birth to ram leaders, and rams produced sheep. So the circle closed. "

    What could be an objective assessment of the Soviet inheritance with a similar attitude to the Soviet people and leaders of the state.
  39. xtur
    xtur 9 November 2014 20: 57
    +3
    > So even the first, he is the last, the president of the USSR could not understand how much we spend on defense. Therefore, let us turn to the American experience, they already know how to count their own money.

    Nikolsky is simply illiterate, blinded by hatred of the USSR, who does not know that the Americans spent several tens of billions of dollars in different decades on scientific research (according to S.G. Kara-Murza), in order to understand the real size of the Soviet military budget, and so on they didn’t understand in the end, this could be judged by the opinion of a person who really knew the Soviet military sector - we are talking about Shlykov.

    T.ch all financial calculations Nikolsky can be thrown in the trash
  40. Talgat
    Talgat 9 November 2014 21: 05
    +2
    Recently there was news (and here on the site also) about the new optical (if not mistaken) targeting satellites of Lian, and these satellites are already launching into orbit. That is, after a long break after the nuclear satellites of the legend, there is again the possibility of aiming strike means at the enemy aug. True, it’s not the USSR now and it’s not a lot with striking means - but as we know, Ash-trees are being built, these pieces 30 Tu22 upgraded if there is a new rocket they can do the same, the Chinese are experiencing ballistic RCC in general - it will be interesting if it works out
  41. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 9 November 2014 21: 46
    +6
    Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants! (with)
    I read the article and comments. Much is correct, they talked about all this and did the calculations at the academy. But there was no such oppressive feeling, such a "hot" picture as the author painted. Yes, the states were a strong enemy, but we, straining all our forces, narrowed the gap. I remember how we rejoiced at each new ship, new weapon ... And here the author rejoices only in the state one, he even called the AOKS obscenity, although it was a breakthrough in the non-acoustic detection of submarines ...
    But then something more! We caught up with and surpassed the Yankees in terms of submarine noise, on the intelligence of anti-ship missiles (Onyx), in their ability to strike outside the AUG air defense zone, etc. But by the way - silent! And pr 949 / 949A never mentioned, and the fact that the C-300 (Fort, Reef) appeared on the cruisers - too. Well, God be his judge!
    About what I disagree with.
    1. the outfit of forces is somewhat different, which is required to disrupt (disable AVU) the tasks / destroy AVU.
    According to the tactical standards of the mid-80's, an outfit of forces was envisaged for guaranteed destruction of the AUG - 80-100 anti-ship missile systems (i.e., 2 anti-ship missile systems of the 949 and 2 MPA regiments) when using nuclear weapons.
    To disable AVU, it was necessary (according to the Yankees!) 6-12 anti-ship missiles (we are 5!), And drowning to 20 anti-ship missiles (we are 10-12!). And this is without SBP!
    2. The author’s calculation on the success of the use of Raman scattering with a PRNX 675 is naive. Start - surface! As long as you launch all 8 units, there will be no time to evade patrol aviation.
    3. Touched by the frustration in the radio silence of AVU! Apparently the author is not in the house, that the KNS ran not for a squadron tanker (called "squadron"!), But for an aircraft carrier. And a sharp change in the nature of maneuvering, the type of d-ty was immediately reported to the Central Command Center of the fleet. Then, I would have looked at the eyes of the pilots who, in conditions of complete r / silence, are lifted from the deck, and even at night! (Probably Stirlitz, having penetrated the AVU, specially chopped off the Drive r / s and forbade r / exchange with the UPC)
    4. The F-14 / AWG-9 / Phoenix system was undoubtedly a breakthrough! But not everything is as "beautiful" as the maestro sang for us! What are the 134km D of interception !? Statistics: 1st interception - D = 65km; 2nd: 1st - hit, 2nd - miss! Group application: D obn = 110 km, launch from 56 (!) Km. Of the 4 AIM-54s, only one direct hit, the rest, like, by shrapnel! But our "cow" (TU22m) from below, against the background of space, then yes - hit at D = 134 km (Hurray !!!) But everyone is silent about the fact that this was done by the company's test pilots! with the AIM-54 manufacturers! not combatant flyers! That is why, at the congressional hearings, the admiral said that there were no statistics (they did not shoot, it was expensive: $ 980! One rocket), in the best case, you can count on 000% success. But the media - 50%, and ours - in VIKI !, as the ultimate truth.
    This is a matter of selecting facts! and the author’s position in their coverage. (to be continued)
  42. I think so
    I think so 9 November 2014 22: 06
    +2
    The author is too "clever" IN HIS MIND ... Today Russia has produced a lot of such "specialists" ... , but they themselves do not even hold a candle ... But the saddest thing is that such a g .. but is in the leadership of the country and makes decisions or advises the government goofs "how to build the fleet correctly ...". It seems it's time to stop visiting this lousy resource ... it has become too much a trash heap for CORRECTIONS of "specialists" like the author of the article ... Yes ... any good resource in the past can be turned into a trash heap ...
  43. RADIOACTIVE
    RADIOACTIVE 9 November 2014 22: 12
    +1
    Not an article, but bullshit, where the figures are not clear, some speculation
  44. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 9 November 2014 23: 26
    +6
    Read more.
    5. The author anointed the sailors from the heart ... uh ... black paint. Is it deserved?
    Ekivok about the fact that the Yankees didn’t particularly discover our BDRMs is accepted for recognizing the merits of the submarine to the country and people.
    Only, somewhat touches the liberty in the interpretation of the degree of readiness of the RPKSN to use the main weapon. Well, there is no such thing as "every minute readiness to strike"! On the deployment route, the carriers with records of the coordinates of targets within the reach of the complex were changed, if the radio communication mode was changed up to the command: "Stand in places under the Paravan!" - then - yes! The faces were harsh, the point was on the machine gun, laughter was not heard, conversations in a half-whisper ... This is called hanging on a wire (we said - on a paravan) waiting for a command signal. Both computers worked in parallel. This is - every minute readiness! And it was determined by foreign policy factors, and not by the desire to "flash ICBMs."
    6. What, nafig, "breakthrough" of the PLO line? "Strategist" sneaks, crawls on his belly, like a scout crossing the front line. This is what is called "crossing the Plo line", and even with a passing dry-cargo ship or a tanker it is desirable to hide behind ... And a breakthrough is with the use of force, like NT-3 - an attack of an anti-submarine ship with a breakthrough of the PLC.
    7. I'd like to ask the author a question: "How did the R-29 ICBM ease the requirements for the noise level of the RPKSN?" Strictly speaking, it’s like saying blue contributed to precipitation! No, just to tell: the launch range of the R-29RMU allowed the use of ICBMs from an anti-aircraft missile system, guarded by PLO forces and located behind the line of stationary GABs.
    8. The Americans are more and more concerned about the "unacceptable" damage for themselves, in contrast to the author who is trying to impose his "irreparable" damage on them!
    9. Controversial (at least) is the statement about the dependence of the KOH on the state of the infrastructure of the Base Point. The boats were in a "cycle": pre-voyage, loading, control, autonomous, hull delivery to other crew. post-campaign PPO and PPR, delivery of tasks (confirmation of linearity), and again preparation for autonomy. All those. They tried to comply with the conditions ... But that was until something significant came out ... That's when - YES! They were great repairmen! So it would be more correct to talk about the re-base and the ship docking system, and not about the combat infrastructure!
    10. The message about SECRETARS smiled in addition to the Volga and Lenin Prizes! Well, where have you been before !? Yes, for such an "award", our Ministry of Medium Machine Building, together with the Sudprom, would reach space heights in socialist competition!
    Why am I talking about all this?
    Besides, it’s not enough to have material, daddy’s stories, you also need to know the subject about which you are writing. And also with respect to people who spent their best years in a solid corps, so that people like the author could talk about the intricacies of the state approach to the problems of building the Navy, after listening to the "Svoboda" district station and rubbing this news in the kitchen ...
    "The polar lights and the piercing northeast add pepper to our blood!" (C)
    And so - the article is good, only pro-Amerian! IMHO.
    1. xtur
      xtur 10 November 2014 10: 38
      +1
      > Besides, it is not enough to have material, daddy's stories, you also need to know the subject you are writing about. And with respect to people who have spent their best years in a solid caseso that people like the author could talk about the intricacies of the state approach to the problems of building the Navy, having previously listened to the "Svoboda" district station and rubbed this news in the kitchen ...

      I quoted above from his articles under discussion, in which he considered the whole Soviet people to be sheep, and the country's leaders as rams - here he is in his article and proves the thesis expressed in advance
  45. 1536
    1536 10 November 2014 00: 42
    +1
    It seems that such would-be analysts surrounded M.S. Gorbachev. After reading dozens of similar reports, he out of fear decided to surrender to the mercy of the winner in order to "save" the people, the army and the navy from the attacks of the F-14 Tomcat and Bombcat. But it is not even this that is striking, but the fact that the author so naturally and with "knowledge of the matter" imposes on us his opinion about the incompetence of Ustinov, Gorshkov, etc., about the lag of the defense industry, the stupidity of its leaders. Indeed, why waste time, money and time to make weapons for defense against the brazen NATO gangs, the aggression of the US army and navy. "After all, we have no interests that would not coincide with the interests of the US and the EU." I've heard it somewhere.
  46. The comment was deleted.
  47. Tiamat2702
    Tiamat2702 10 November 2014 02: 12
    +1
    What struck me the most was that in 12,5 minutes 24 tomcat will take off. The author is a complete sucker. The aircraft carrier has three steam catapults in total. And it takes quite a long time to restart them. Thus, in just 12,5 minutes, only 3 tomkats will take off, and not at all 24. And the likelihood of a Phoenix defeat, which is far from 100% on the tomkets, and there are 4 of them on each plane. That is, no more than 8-10 goals can knock down tomkets raised from one aircraft carrier in 12,5 minutes, and not 120, as the author claims.
    1. kplayer
      kplayer 10 November 2014 18: 47
      +1
      I’ll clarify a bit - How many UR AIM-54C Phoenix (150km) could F-14A / D Tomcat / Super Tomcat carry?


    2. kplayer
      kplayer 10 November 2014 18: 47
      +1
      I’ll clarify a bit - How many UR AIM-54C Phoenix (150km) could F-14A / D Tomcat / Super Tomcat carry?


      1. Tiamat2702
        Tiamat2702 10 November 2014 23: 05
        0
        Quote: kplayer
        I'll clarify a little - how many UR AIM-54C "Phoenix" (150 km) could carry the F-14A

        Thanks for the info, I didn’t know about this suspension option before. I thought that there were 4 phoenixes and two sparrows and a sidewinder each. It turns out - the potential of the tomkets took off in 12 minutes from one aircraft carrier 10-13 targets, well, still not 120, as in the article.))))
    3. kplayer
      kplayer 11 November 2014 19: 45
      0
      How would you know about the potential for erroneous data.
      Quote: Tiamat2702
      The aircraft carrier has three steam catapults in total.

      4 steam catapults of type C13-1, each with a minimum interval of 20 seconds. provide consistent take-off of aircraft weighing up to 43 tons (300km / h) *, but aviation technical personnel on deck cannot keep up. But I think that in the notorious 12 minutes a dozen (esc) F-14s could take off, at least with well-trained personnel working on the take-off deck.

      * "Foreign Military Review" №10 / 1995
      1. Tiamat2702
        Tiamat2702 14 November 2014 02: 14
        0
        Quote: kplayer
        How would you know about the potential for erroneous data.
        Quote: Tiamat2702
        The aircraft carrier has three steam catapults in total.

        4 steam catapults of type C13-1, each with a minimum interval of 20 seconds. provide consistent take-off of aircraft weighing up to 43 tons (300km / h) *, but aviation technical personnel on deck cannot keep up. But I think that in the notorious 12 minutes a dozen (esc) F-14s could take off, at least with well-trained personnel working on the take-off deck.

        * "Foreign Military Review" №10 / 1995
        Thanks for the hint - the catapults are really 4. But 20 seconds, this is the interval between the launches of different catapults, and not the same one. And even if each of the catapults could start every 20 seconds, then .... towing the aircraft to the starting position, starting the engines, minimal warming, etc. Those. I insist that each of the catapults in 12 minutes will be able to work only once. Those. 4 Tomcat will take off.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Tiamat2702
        Tiamat2702 14 November 2014 11: 46
        0
        Quote: kplayer
        How would you know about the potential for erroneous data.
        Quote: Tiamat2702
        The aircraft carrier has three steam catapults in total.


        Well, your potential is generally more than modest:
        1. If there is a full air wing (72-80 aircraft), one of the nose catapults is unavailable (there are airplanes on it, since the Germans' internal hangars contain only about 50% of the full-time air wing), even if a pair of EW aircraft and a pair of Hokkaev are patrolling in the air, yes even a couple of cats. Therefore, the first tomkets for combat alert will start even with three catapults, and not with four.
        2. watch the video and everything will become clear: http://www.technonavigator.com/6457-nekotorye-osobennosti-ispolzovaniya-palubnoy



        -aviacii-superavianoscev-tipa-nimitz-ch1.html Here, on average, about one and a half minutes per plane during the operation of two catapults. And this is provided that all the planes that participate in the sortie are fueled with fuel / weapons, are built on deck in take-off order and with running engines. Yes, in wartime, you can keep the squadron (12 cats) constantly tucked up and with weapons hanging, but not on decks in the order of take-off. Otherwise, they will make it impossible to use (block the takeoff and landing) hockeys. Namely, they should ensure the timely detection of attacking Tu22M3 and flying Soviet anti-ship missiles. And the engines were constantly started too absurd, and the Soviet side was hardly going to report the exact time of the attack.
        What we have in the end: yes, 4 catapults and Nimits service personnel are able to ensure the start of cats with an interval of 45-50 seconds. But this is provided that all of them are free, all smolts are refueled, armed, built on decks (bow and corner) in take-off order with working engines. BUT .... since the detection of a clear mass threat of attack from the USSR Armed Forces, 12-3 cats will rise in the first 4 minutes, and nothing more !!!
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. 9lvariag
      9lvariag 13 November 2014 20: 41
      +1
      May they not fly up.
      In 12, 5 minutes, only 2 traveling security orders for 3 aircraft can take off, and then if it is known in advance that the AOG will be hit, or the AUG itself will detect the target / targets.
      Apparently, the author had in mind the% defeat of goals. in greenhouse conditions. And not in a real battle with the included software, powerful EW interference. and a large number of false targets and discarded tons of stanioli and aluminized glass thread.
      And even more so, the attempt to hit the aircraft carrier itself, separately from the rest of the warrant, looks stern.
      This is all one that trying to hit any enemy object without connecting its air defense and missile defense, either looks like an attempt at sheer suicide, or stupid populism.
      Yes, aircraft carriers have a duty unit or a squadron on duty. But in general. remembering the specifics, any emergency, or a stalled airplane engine on the runway. Or an airplane hovering on a lift or special. means - and the flights are foiled.
      And let's add ships, troubled sea or fog. And we get a plus to the deployment time of the AUG aviation group.
      I have written more than once that AUGs are good at driving Papuans who have no air defense and missile defense systems.
      The war for the Fonkleda proved all this well.

      I want to say a little about something else - no matter how frightened Yeltsin was drunk, he removed from the submarine, all the "Blizzards" located there and ordered them to be transferred for storage. This is the one that was called "Can opener" for submarines and other floating objects.
      Is this not the fear of the Yanixes that the USSR and later the Russian Federation could have armed weapons that would make all their power just cardboard?
  48. Zuborez
    Zuborez 10 November 2014 05: 49
    0
    Quote: igor.borov775
    . And do not take any product, we always conceded to them.

    Not "everything is so simple" (c).
    On V-V rockets: first, intelligence was dragged to our engineers, ours copied what they could.
    Then intelligence dragged it, science compared the insides and was surprised)) - already the Shtatovs began to copy elements and nodes laughing
    Yes, and all this talk about "lagging behind", IMHO, is being conducted at the suggestion of our sworn "friends." The whole world worked for the USA, but they could not achieve guaranteed technical superiority. Here they are "sausage" laughing
  49. Horn
    Horn 10 November 2014 07: 16
    +1
    The eternal struggle of armor and weapons. But I must say that all these are theoretical fabrications. The queen of evidence is practice. God forbid, of course.
  50. freedmen
    freedmen 10 November 2014 07: 56
    -1
    During this time, all 24 F14 rose into the air, and 18 of them managed to shoot down 70–90 Tu-16 aircraft before launching their KSR-5. The remaining six F14 shot down 30 KSR-5 missiles, another 10 missiles shot down the cruiser.

    I am very embarrassed by such calculations.
    1. Even if two fighters simultaneously from two runways rise simultaneously, then in only 2 minutes.
    2. The rest of the 22-mind needs 4,5-5 minutes. Accordingly, even if it takes 4 minutes to prepare the catapult + roll out and install + warm up and spin up the engines + take-off (start), and all this without emergency, then: 4 min. * 22 F14 = half an hour.
    The question arises. Where does this author get the numbers from and what cancer does he think ???
    Only one phrase outraged me !!! And he has a lot of such flaws in the text. And in particular rockets!
    And I am silent about the characteristics of F14. it was not in vain that the Americans removed them and created F14 on the basis of F15, because the previous model did not correspond much to the characteristics of a carrier-based fighter. Accordingly, they still have on the decks F16 and F18.
    The person who wrote this article is already very incompetent. Or it is, as they like to say now "pure fake".
    1. Tiamat2702
      Tiamat2702 10 November 2014 10: 35
      +2
      Quote: freedmen
      And I am silent about the characteristics of F14. it was not in vain that the Americans removed them and created F14 on the basis of F15, because the previous model did not correspond much to the characteristics of a carrier-based fighter. Accordingly, they still have on the decks F16 and F18.

      Man, such a healthy start in your comment, and such a crazy ending: F15 wasn’t created on the basis of F14 (they even have different companies-creators: F15 - McDonnell Douglas, F14 - Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation). Well, the F16 was never on deck.