Is the Russian fleet capable of fighting the US Navy aircraft carriers?

231
Is the Russian fleet capable of fighting the US Navy aircraft carriers?


On December 20, an article by Dmitry Yurov, “The Bitter Truth About the“ Instant Impact ”of US Carriers, was published on VO. In the publication, the author, in his characteristic manner of neglect of American military equipment, tries to prove that American aircraft carriers are not a particular threat and, they say, in general they are outdated and can easily be neutralized by Russian forces fleet. For example, Dmitry Yurov writes: “AUG is nothing more than a demonstration of power, which, in general, does not exist.”

But, apparently, in the Soviet Union thought differently. To combat the "floating airfields" spent very significant funds and resources. Not being able to build and maintain aircraft carriers comparable to American ones, they created an “asymmetrical response” in the USSR. Soviet naval commanders relied on anti-ship missiles and long-range missile carrier bombers against American aircraft carrier strike groups (AUG).

The emergence of sea-based anti-ship cruise missiles (RCC) made plans to use US attack aircraft carriers against the territory of the USSR difficult to implement.

At the end of the 80s, the USSR Navy had 79 submarines with cruise missiles (including 63 nuclear) and 80 multi-purpose torpedo nuclear submarines.

The first anti-ship missile P-6, launched from submarines, entered service at the beginning of the 60-x. Rocket of this type armed with large diesel submarines of the project 651 and nuclear project 675. However, a major drawback of the P-6 complex and the first generation RCC carrier boats was that the missiles could only be used from a surface position.


SSGM Ave 675 with raised containers of cruise missiles


This deficiency was eliminated in the Amethyst anti-ship missile missile, it became the world's first cruise missile with a wet underwater launch. The Amethyst complex, which was put into service in 70, was armed with submarines of the 1968 project and the 661 project.

The next qualitative step forward was the development and adoption of the RKP-1983 Granite in the 700 year. This missile, primarily intended for nuclear submarines of projects 949 and 949А. When creating the complex for the first time, an approach was used, the basis of which is the mutual coordination of the 3-x elements: means of targeting (in the form of spacecraft), carrier and anti-ship missiles.


SSGM Ave. Antey Ave.


In addition to submarines with anti-ship missiles, numerous naval bombers were a serious threat to aircraft carriers aviation Tu-16K with missiles K-10S, KSR-2 and KSR-5 and Tu-22M armed with anti-ship missiles X-22. Their actions were to provide several reconnaissance aircraft regiments on the Tu-16R and Tu-22R. As well as electronic reconnaissance and suppression aircraft Tu-16P and Tu-22P / PD. By the beginning of the 90s, the Tu-22M2 and M3 alone included 145 units in the naval aviation of the Russian fleet.


Missile cruiser "Admiral Golovko"


A full-fledged ocean surface fleet was created in the USSR. It consisted of: missile cruisers of 58 and 1134 projects with anti-ship missiles - P-35, 1144 project with anti-ship missiles - P-700, 1164 projects with anti-ship missiles - P-1000, and missile destroyers of 56-М and 57 projects with anti-ship missiles - KSSC and the 956 project with PKR - P-270. Even Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers were equipped with anti-ship missiles, the ships of the 1143 project were armed with anti-ship missiles - P-500.


Rocket cruiser "Varyag" (photo of the author)


During the years of the "cold war", Soviet surface combatants on a permanent basis carried out combat service in various parts of the world ocean, tracking and accompanying American AUGs.

To ensure the repair, supply and recreation of the crews, the Soviet Navy had foreign bases and technical service centers in Syria, Ethiopia, Yemen, Angola, Guinea, Libya, Tunisia, Yugoslavia and Vietnam.

The Soviet Navy had a large number of reconnaissance ships of various types. After the war, the first reconnaissance ships were small vessels converted from conventional fishing trawlers and hydrographic vessels.


861 Medium Jupiter Reconnaissance Ship


Subsequently, according to specially developed projects, medium and large reconnaissance ships were built with increased autonomy and extended special equipment. One of the main tasks for them was tracking the US aircraft carriers. Every day, at least two dozen “reconnaissance trawlers” collected information and followed the fleets of potential adversaries. At the time of the collapse of the USSR, there were more than a hundred reconnaissance ships of various classes.

However, the detection and tracking of AUG remained an extremely difficult task. American aircraft carriers and escort ships are able to move in the ocean at a speed of 700 miles per day.



The main concern was the task of timely detection and observation of aircraft carriers. The intelligence and observation tools available at the beginning of 60's did not reliably solve this problem. The problem was in reliable over-the-horizon detection of targets, their selection and ensuring accurate targeting for incoming cruise missiles. The situation has improved significantly since the introduction of the Tu-95РЦ (“Success-U” system) into service. These aircraft were designed for reconnaissance and search in the world ocean of American AUG, as well as data transmission and targeting for targeting anti-ship missiles at them. Total built 53 machines.


US F-15 57 Fighter Fighter Squadron, deployed in Iceland, escorted Tu-95РЦ

Economical turboprop engines, spacious fuel tanks and an in-flight refueling system provided the Tu-95РЦ with an extremely long range. Under the fuselage in the radio transparent radome there was a search radar, with a range of detection of surface targets over 300 km. It was used to detect enemy ships, information about which is transmitted through closed channels to missile carrier ships and submarines. Another radar was installed under the nose and was used for missile guidance.

The capabilities of reconnaissance using the airfields of friendly countries have increased significantly. Due to the basing of Tu-95РЦ planes in Cuba, it became possible to detect aircraft carrier strike groups in the West Atlantic that make the transition from the shores of America to the Atlantic coast of Europe. From 1979, in accordance with an agreement with the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the airfields of Danang and Cam Ranh were used. Due to the presence of intermediate airfields, Tu-95РЦ could control any part of the World Ocean. At the time, it inspired confidence that in the event of an emergency, advancing aircraft carriers to our borders would not pass unnoticed.



However, in wartime, any Soviet reconnaissance aircraft who risked approaching the AUG would inevitably be shot down by deck interceptors many hundreds of miles from a warrant carrier order. In addition, the aircraft took many hours to arrive in a given area of ​​the oceans. The Ka-25РЦ helicopters, also used to issue target designation, had a short range and were even more vulnerable than reconnaissance aircraft.

In addition to the TU-16P and TU-95РЦ, reliable means of tracking for AUG were required, invulnerable to anti-aircraft weapons and interceptors, capable of viewing large portions of the World Ocean.

Such a tool could be a space reconnaissance system capable of real-time reconnaissance and target designation. In 1978, the Maritime Space Intelligence and Targeting System (MKRTS) - "Legend" as part of a group of satellites of radio and radar reconnaissance satellites and a complex of ground equipment was adopted. In 1983, the last component of the system was adopted - the supersonic anti-ship missile P-700 Granit.

The space component of the Legend system consisted of two types of satellites: US-P (Managed Satellite - Passive, GRAU 17F17 index) and US-A (Managed Satellite - Active, GRAU 17F16 index).

The first was a complex of electronic reconnaissance, created for the detection and direction finding of objects having electromagnetic radiation, it recorded the work of radio technical means of AUG.


US-A (Managed Satellite - Active)


The second was equipped with a two-way side-looking radar, providing all-weather and all-day detection of surface targets. The radar required the closest possible location to the observed objects, and therefore a low orbit (270 km) for the satellite. Insufficient generated power did not allow the use of solar batteries as a source of energy to power the radar. Also, solar panels do not work in the shadow of the Earth. Therefore, in the satellites of this series, it was decided to install an onboard nuclear power plant.


RI of surface situation in the Strait of Gibraltar with observation of wake trails


After the completion of the work, the special upper stage had to bring the reactor to the “burial orbit” at an altitude of 750 ... 1000 km from the surface of the Earth, according to calculations, the residence time of objects in such orbits is at least 250 years. The rest of the satellite burned when it fell in the atmosphere.

However, the system did not always function reliably, after a number of incidents related to the fall of the reactor block to the earth’s surface and radioactive contamination of the area, further launches of US-A satellites were stopped.

The MKRTS Legend system operated until the middle of the 90s. In the period from 1970 to 1988, the USSR launched into space more than 30 exploration satellites with nuclear power plants. US-A spacecraft for more than 10 years have reliably controlled the surface conditions in the oceans.

Since the collapse of the USSR, a lot has changed; during the “years of reform,” the numerical strength of the Russian military fleet has decreased significantly. Due to inadequate maintenance and underfinancing of repairs, quite a few warships were lost, which did not serve even half the time. Moreover, a significant part of them was written off not “in the dashing 90-e,” but in the “well-fed” years of “rebirth and stability”.

Initially, the 2000-x eliminated the Russian military bases in Cuba and Vietnam. Many are now openly perplexed - how was it possible to break off relations with such sincere and loyal friends. It should not be under any pretext to withdraw our air units from Cuba and Vietnam, and, moreover, should have the most modern aircraft there. Unfortunately, the recent events in the world confirm the erroneousness of the decisions of our leadership regarding the liquidation of foreign Russian bases.


Heavy nuclear missile cruiser "Peter the Great"


As of 2014 year, two 1164 “Moscow” (Black Sea Fleet) and Varyag (FF) project cruisers, one of the 1144 “Peter the Great” nuclear missile cruiser , three destroyers of the 956 project, three submarine missile carriers of the 949A project. In June 2014 of the year, the head submarine of the 885 project - K-560 "Severodvinsk" was accepted into the Russian Navy. The main weapons boats are missile systems P-800 "Onyx" and 3-54 "Caliber".


Launch of the P-700 "Granit" rocket from the Peter the Great missile cruiser, 1144.2 av.


The fleet also has about 25 serviceable diesel and nuclear torpedo boats. The plans include the re-equipment of all diesel and nuclear torpedo submarines, which are being renovated or planned by the Caliber 3M-54 rocket complex. This will certainly increase in the future the ability to combat AUG.

The list of means of fighting aircraft carriers deliberately does not mention coast-based complexes and “mosquito fleet” - rocket boats and small rocket ships. Since their main purpose is to protect their own coast from naval assault forces of the enemy. In addition, the stability of the "mosquito fleet" from the actions of aviation is not very great.

Modern Russian naval aviation is currently in a deplorable state. Its ability to timely detect and attack AUG is minimal. In the middle of 90-x all long-range reconnaissance Tu-95РЦ were written off.


Tu-22М3 aircraft “in storage”, Vozdvizhenka airfield


Sea rocket-carrying aircraft had already been liquidated under the current leadership of the country. All "conditionally serviceable" (prepared for a single distillation) aircraft of the Navy in 2011 year transferred to the Long-Range Aviation. The remaining Tu-22M even had minor malfunctions, but suitable for restoration, were cut into metal.


Satellite image Google earth: cut into metal Tu-22M


Of the aircraft of naval aviation capable of carrying out long-range reconnaissance flights in the flying state remained about 20 Tu-142 and IL-38.

As part of a separate 279 th ship regiment, assigned to Kuznetsov, there are about 20 deck fighters Su-33, of which half of them are capable of performing the combat mission. The rest are in need of repair.

Su-33 is the main aircraft of carrier-based aviation of the Russian Navy and is intended mainly to cover its own fleet from air attack weapons. The aircraft’s avionics does not allow the anti-ship missile to be used from it, and it’s naive to hope that the enemy will allow strikes on its NAR ships and free-fall bombs.


Deck MiG-29K


The situation may change after the re-equipment of the wing of our only aircraft carrier, the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov, with modernized MiG-29K fighters, whose procurement contract has already been signed. In addition to air combat missiles, the updated MiG-29K, after being put into service, will be able to carry and use anti-ship missiles X-31А and X-35, which will significantly enhance the anti-ship capabilities of carrier-based aircraft.

The possibilities of timely detection and tracking of AUG remain very weak. Perhaps in the next few years, this situation will change. In 2013, it was reported that the Ministry of Defense and Roscosmos had begun an unprecedented joint development of a multi-position satellite reconnaissance system. The project, called "Watercolor" is designed for a period of at least five years. "Watercolor" will be the most ambitious intelligence system of Russia for the entire history. The complex of receiving and transmitting stations is planned to be scattered throughout the country. Coordinates of targets should be transmitted to the command post, where a virtual real-time map will be formed.

At the first stage, the reconnaissance system will operate mainly in the interests of the Russian Navy. The complex “Liana”, which is being created in parallel, is mainly intended for detecting ships. The orbital grouping of this project will consist of four radar satellites "Pion-NKS" and satellites of radio-technical intelligence "Lotos-S".


Satellite "Lotos-S"


The first Lotos-S type satellite was launched on November 20 2009 of the year, it had a simplified configuration and was designated as 14Ф138. After the apparatus was put into orbit, it turned out that about half of the onboard systems did not function with it, which required a delay in launching new satellites to refine the equipment.

In 2014, the successful launch of the radar reconnaissance satellite Pion-NKS 14F139 took place. In total, to maintain the Liana system in full, four radar reconnaissance satellites are needed, which will be based at an altitude of about 1 thousand kilometers above the surface of the planet and constantly scan the land and sea surfaces.


Google Earth satellite image: US Navy aircraft carrier George Washington parked in Singapore


But even after commissioning this badly needed intelligence and monitoring system, our ability to counter the US fleet will remain quite modest. In this connection, developments in the field of coast-based anti-ship ballistic missiles are of interest.

Work on this topic was conducted by designer V.P. Makeev in 60-70-s in the USSR based on the SLBM P-27. The target designation was provided by two radio engineering systems: the satellite system of the maritime space reconnaissance and target designation (MKRTS) "Legend" and the aviation "Success-U".
On tests that ended in 1975 from the 31 launched on the P-27K (4K18) missile, the conditional target hit the 26 missiles. One diesel submarine with these missiles was in trial operation, but for a number of reasons the anti-ship complex with the P-27K missiles was not put into service.

The characteristics of modern Russian mobile ballistic missiles make it possible in a fairly short time to create anti-ship missiles at their base, located at a considerable distance from the coastline, outside the range of impact deck-mounted aircraft. Modern technologies make it possible to equip a ballistic missile warhead with a radar or an optical guidance system, which ensures the confident defeat of large moving targets with a non-nuclear warhead. Detection of AUG and target designation for combat units should be carried out from the Aquarel and Liana reconnaissance satellite systems. The use of such missiles will destroy aircraft carriers, despite the powerful air defense of the ship connections.

Work in this direction is actively carried out in China. According to representatives of the US Department of Defense, China has developed and reached the stage of initial operational readiness of a ground-based missile system with anti-ship ballistic missiles based on the DF-21 medium-range mobile missile complex in conventional equipment.



DF-21D maneuvering warheads can be equipped with various types of guidance systems. Such missiles were tested in 2005 — 2006. According to American analysts, DF-21D is capable of penetrating the protection of aircraft carriers and that it has become the first threat to the global dominance of the US Navy since the days of the Cold War.

The warheads of these missiles have stealth characteristics and are located on highly mobile launchers, have a firing range of up to 1800 km. The flight time is no more than 12 minutes, the dive to the target is made at a very high speed.



So far, the main obstacle limiting the use of ballistic anti-ship missiles is the underdeveloped grouping of Chinese intelligence satellites. To date, there is one optical-electronic satellite, Yaogan-7, one radar satellite with aperture synthesis, Yaogan-8, and three radio-electronic reconnaissance satellites, Yaogan-9.

At present, Russia is lagging behind China in the development and deployment of this type of weapon. And the most effective of our "anti-ship missiles", which keep American AUGs from "instant strike" in Russia, remain the Topol and Yars ICBMs.

Based on:
http://army-news.ru
http://www.designation-systems.net/
http://www.defense-update.com/
http://www.militaryparitet.com
231 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. vladsolo56
    +25
    24 December 2014 07: 05
    Is everything already feared? the author so wants to convince us that the AUG is simply an incredible weapon in terms of power against which Russia simply has no objection. Who else agrees with him? I personally do not.
    1. +51
      24 December 2014 08: 13
      Quote: vladsolo56
      Who else agrees with him?

      An objective analysis of the current situation. To the author +, cheers-patriots, another reason to brand and sprinkle with saliva.
      1. +52
        24 December 2014 11: 27
        Quote: Bayonet
        An objective analysis of the current situation

        I agree. Especially in the part relating to Naval Aviation (I served in it for 28 years) - the truth is 100%. In Soviet times, the Navy included 6 reconnaissance regiments and 2 odrae (separate long-range reconnaissance squadrons) with a total number of 146 aircraft. Now there is not one! Target designation went into oblivion with the destruction of the Tu-95rts. On opening the surface situation (prof. Term) Dies fly EPISODICALLY. As a former intelligence officer, I report: we do not have aerial reconnaissance on marine and oceanic theater of operations! And intelligence, as you know, is the main (main) type of combat support. And they cut all this former power and beauty of those who are now in power!
        1. GDP
          +22
          24 December 2014 11: 28
          The analysis is objective, but not quite ...
          It is clear that our military power is not the same as under the Soviet Union, but we cannot say that we are as vulnerable as the author wrote ...
          Let's start with the ship grouping of Russia:
          As of 2014 year, the fleet of ships capable of actually fighting AUGs using long-range anti-ship missiles left two cruisers of the 1164 project Moscow (Black Sea Fleet) and Varyag (Pacific Fleet), one heavy nuclear missile cruiser of the 1144 project Peter the Great , three destroyers of the 956 project, three submarine missile carriers of the 949 project. In June 2014, the head of the Russian Navy was the lead submarine of the 885 project - K-560 Severodvinsk


          Strategic nuclear submarines - 14
          multipurpose, torpedo and special-purpose submarines - 36
          Diesel - 28
          The fleet also has about 25 serviceable diesel and nuclear torpedo boats.

          25?

          Heavy Missile Cruisers - 3
          Missile Cruisers - 3
          Aircraft Carriers - 1

          only 2 cruisers?

          Far Destroyers and Sentinels - 20
          frigates, corvettes, MRK, BOD, IPC - more than 56

          I note that dozens of ships also undergo active modernization and rearmament at the same time.

          The list of means to combat aircraft carriers deliberately does not mention coast-based complexes and “mosquito fleets” - missile boats and small missile ships. Since their main purpose is to protect their own coast from enemy naval assault forces.


          Oh oh Ships equipped with 4's to 8 supersonic anti-ship missiles Mosquito, Onyx and Caliber, with a range of 200 to 500 km, capable of halving a cruiser do not need to be taken into account?

          Are these coastal complexes capable of sweeping through the black and Baltic seas do not have to be taken into account?


          What the author is right ...

          It seems to me that not a single country in the world, except Russia, including its NATO allies, is able to successfully counteract the US fleet, including the AUG.
          For example, China, while its naval power is significantly inferior to Russia both qualitatively and quantitatively, do not believe me, I can show a table of comparative characteristics ...

          Russia in the Black, Baltic, Barents and partly Norwegian seas will destroy any AUGs of the USA (the black and Baltic seas are bottles where our ICBOs will destroy any enemy from the coast, and the bulk of our fleet is concentrated in the northwest) Americans will not go to other parts of the Arctic Ocean their ships are very poorly adapted for navigation in ice ...

          The only weak spot is the Pacific coast of Russia.
          Without powerful naval aviation, we are not able to protect this part of our shores ...
          But there are not enough important objects there, and to strike ahead from there across the continent does not work, and then, only in the summer (with the exception of its southernmost part) ...

          Nevertheless, article + for an interesting analysis, even though I largely disagree with him ...
          1. +14
            24 December 2014 11: 33
            Quote: GDP
            Strategic nuclear submarines - 14


            The author wrote about the forces that can counteract AMG. What does the RPKCH have to do with it? They have completely different tasks!
            1. GDP
              +1
              24 December 2014 11: 57
              Quote: Colonel
              The author wrote about the forces that can counteract AMG. What does the RPKCH have to do with it? They have completely different tasks!

              I have listed the Russian fleet as a whole, but even if we discard the strategic nuclear submarines (although they are also capable of sinking ships, after all, after all, 6 torpedo tubes each, capable of firing not only supersonic torpedoes "squall" that can be equipped with nuclear charges, but also anti-ship missiles Caliber 91RE1 91RTE2), there are still 36 multipurpose nuclear submarines and 25 diesel submarines capable of firing both anti-ship missiles and torpedoes ...
              I think you will agree that even 61 is more than 25?
              Only in one northern fleet of 18 submarines equipped with cruise missiles ...
              1. +5
                24 December 2014 12: 08
                Quote: GDP
                all the same, after all, 6 torpedo tubes each, capable of firing not only supersonic torpedoes "squall" which can be equipped with nuclear charges


                What reality do you live in? The Flurry complex has long been withdrawn from service.
                1. GDP
                  0
                  24 December 2014 12: 15
                  there are other torpedoes that are better than a flurry and are also capable of carrying nuclear charges ... And there are rocket torpedoes that are capable of hitting a target from under water beyond 50 km at a superfluous sound ...
                  1. +3
                    24 December 2014 12: 21
                    Quote: GDP
                    there are other torpedoes that are better than a flurry and are also capable of carrying nuclear charges ... And there are rocket torpedoes that are capable of hitting a target from under water beyond 50 km at a superfluous sound ...


                    Well, if you sincerely believe in it - no one can forbid you to do this. But I would like it to be confirmed by something.
                    1. GDP
                      +3
                      24 December 2014 12: 28
                      Quote: Bongo
                      Well, if you sincerely believe in it - no one can forbid you to do this. But I would like it to be confirmed by something.


                      Torpedo APR-3ME carrier - rocket 91RE1
                      Firing Range 50 km
                      Airspeed M = 2,5

                      Torpedo MPT-XNUMHUME
                      Firing Range 40 km
                      Airspeed M = 2

                      link:
                      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%E0%EB%E8%E1%F0_%28%EA%F0%FB%EB%E0%F2%FB%E5_%F0

                      % E0% EA% E5% F2% FB% 29
                      1. +4
                        24 December 2014 12: 31
                        Quote: GDP
                        Torpedo APR-3МЭ


                        Is she in service?
                      2. GDP
                        +8
                        24 December 2014 13: 10
                        Quote: Bongo
                        Is she in service?

                        Yes it is! Although I had to spend time finding it ...

                        91РЭ1 - Year of development: 2000

                        The Kalibr-PLE missiles are launched from the standard submarine torpedo tubes of 533 mm caliber, and the Caliber-NKE complex - from the under-deck unified vertical launchers 3S-14E or deck inclined ZS-14PE.

                        Today Russia is selling this complex to a number of countries. India became the first foreign customer. The complex is installed on the Project 11356 frigates (Talwar type - see photo), built by order of the Indian Navy at the Baltic Shipyard (St. Petersburg). On July 19, 2000, at the Admiralteyskie Verfi plant (St. Petersburg), a Project 877EKM nuclear submarine, built for the Indian Navy, was launched, on which the Club-S weapon system was installed.


                        The Caliber-NKE complex is part of the armament of destroyers being developed by the Northern Design Bureau (Saint Petersburg).
                        The "Club-S" complex is being installed on submarines as part of their repair and modernization work at the Zvezdochka (Severodvinsk) and Admiralty Shipyards.
                      3. +1
                        24 December 2014 13: 19
                        Quote: GDP
                        Missiles complex "Caliber-PLE

                        Something I don’t understand, unless it was you who wrote:
                        Quote: GDP
                        there is also other torpedoes and better than a flurry and also capable of carrying nuclear charges ... And there are rocket torpedoes that are capable of hitting a target from above under sound beyond 50 km

                        Moreover, RCCs launched through TA, when it came to TORPEDAH?
                      4. GDP
                        +7
                        24 December 2014 13: 32
                        Quote: Bongo

                        And here are anti-ship missiles launched through TA, when it came to TORPEDA?

                        Torpedo APR-3МЭ carrier - rocket 91RE1
                        if you mean classic torpedoes, then for example, mention the TE-2 remote-controlled torpedo ...
                        What do you need to list all torpedoes for me?
                        By the way, although torpedoes with nuclear warheads are not officially in service, but in fact they are also quite operational!
                      5. +1
                        24 December 2014 13: 38
                        Quote: GDP
                        if you mean classic torpedoes, then for example you can mention the TE-2 remote-controlled torpedo ... Do you need me to list all the torpedoes?


                        Damn, how do you jump off the topic request
                        Quote: GDP
                        there are other torpedoes and better than a barrage ...

                        Isn’t it easier to admit that there are no more similar torpedoes working on the same principle and having comparable characteristics?
                      6. GDP
                        0
                        24 December 2014 13: 51
                        Damn, how do you jump off the topic

                        it was actually about torpedoes in general and not just supersonic type barrage ...
                        Supersonic, if anything, is just enough to hit a nuclear warhead with such a big fool as an aircraft carrier. They are too noisy and uncontrollable.
                        Actually, work is currently underway on a new supersonic missile, but it is only at the initial stage ...
                        the same TE-2, in my opinion - much better than a barrage:
                        low-noise, self-guiding, teleoperated speed up to 45 knots, range up to 25 km warhead 250 kg - enough to carry a powerful nuclear charge if necessary.
                      7. lucidlook
                        +5
                        24 December 2014 16: 41
                        Quote: GDP
                        so that on such a big fool as an aircraft carrier hit a nuclear warhead

                        To hit it would be nice to first get target designation. And where to get it if there are no scouts? No, really, where EXACTLY are you going to "strike with nuclear warheads"? Into the white light, like a pretty penny? Maybe where-the thread so we get? So?
                      8. +2
                        25 December 2014 03: 01
                        Quote: lucidlook
                        And where to get it if there are no scouts?

                        Since when do torpedoes need target designation from the air?
                        USET-80
                        Guidance system: two-channel active-passive acoustic channel and channel guidance along the wake of the ship. To detect the wake trace, acoustic waves are scattered by suspended air bubbles.
                        Quote: lucidlook
                        No, really, where EXACTLY are you going to "strike with nuclear warheads"

                        The submarine is quite capable of finding a target for the torpedo itself. RCC is another matter, but the picture drawn by the author is somewhat more sad than in reality. The last Legend spacecraft bent at 98, and at the 13th year the formation of the Liana satellite group (4 satellites) was completed. They are in orbit and are working. The first complexes were delivered to ships in September last year (according to open sources).
                      9. lucidlook
                        +5
                        25 December 2014 19: 08
                        Quote: user1212
                        Since when do torpedoes need target designation from the air?

                        Torpedo - no need. But a submarine - it would not hurt.

                        Quote: user1212
                        The submarine is quite capable of finding the target for the torpedo itself.

                        At a distance of 25km? Are you laughing That is, do you really think that it is so simple - to break through the cordons of anti-submarine aircraft, helicopters, ships and submarines, approach the aircraft carrier at 25 km, make a torpedo volley, and then escort torpedoes along the cord to the target?

                        Quote: user1212
                        RCC is another matter, but the picture drawn by the author is somewhat more sad than in reality. The last Legend spacecraft bent at 98, and at the 13th year the formation of the Liana satellite group (4 satellites) was completed.

                        Did not the author indicate the presence of this system?

                        At the first stage, the intelligence system will work mainly in the interests of the Russian Navy.

                        And further in the text.

                        Without belittling the achievements of Russian designers, I note that 4 satellites (more precisely, emnip, 3.5) are still somehow very, very modest, even in comparison with the ever-memorable "Legend", which had about 30 spacecraft, and which was also just enough. But it is possible, perhaps, that from 1 thousand km they see the entire world ocean in real time. Frankly, I can hardly imagine how this is possible, given that the period of revolution in such an orbit (which is considered to be a low reference orbit) is only about 100 minutes. For comparison, the NAVSTAR / GPS satellites fly 20 times higher in order to cover almost constantly the entire surface of the planet in 30 snouts.

                        And therefore, I tend to agree more with the conclusions of the author of the article that:
                        But even after the commissioning of this urgently needed reconnaissance and monitoring system, our ability to counter the US Navy will remain very modest.
                      10. GDP
                        0
                        25 December 2014 10: 10
                        Quote: lucidlook
                        To hit it would be nice to first get target designation. And where to get it if there are no scouts? No, really, where EXACTLY are you going to "strike with nuclear warheads"? Into the white light, like a pretty penny? Maybe where-the thread so we get? So?


                        in fact, the horizontal viewing range at sea is about 200km, which is much higher than the range of any torpedo, not to mention the fact that almost all torpedoes are equipped with homing systems, or even remote control systems.
                        If you mean not operational target designation but tactical and strategic reconnaissance, then I will never believe that an aircraft carrier accompanied by an AUG can not move noticeably, even without any orbital groupings of the Legend type ...
                        Perhaps you believe in the absolute invulnerability of anti-submarine defense? I will reveal America to you - this is a myth. There is no invulnerable defense of either air defense or anti-aircraft defense either in Russia or in the USA, and practice has long proved this ...
                      11. lucidlook
                        +8
                        25 December 2014 19: 14
                        Quote: GDP
                        Perhaps you believe in the absolute invulnerability of anti-submarine defense? I will reveal America to you - this is a myth. There is no invulnerable defense of either air defense or anti-aircraft defense either in Russia or in the USA, and practice has long proved this.

                        I believe the facts, and they showed very clearly that anti-submarine aircraft can extremely successfully deal with submarines.

                        Yes, modern submarines sink deeper and make less noise (especially at low speed), but after all, the detection tools do not stand still. A patrol plane flying around the AUG and rightly believing that a submarine may appear in the area does not risk anything, dropping another acoustic buoy.
                      12. +6
                        24 December 2014 16: 22
                        Where is it written that specifically the torpedo is in service? The complex - yes, it consists, but torpedoes for it were never purchased.
                      13. +2
                        25 December 2014 03: 16
                        Here's the thing. The volume of purchases of anti-ship missiles and torpedoes is classified, so if the journalist names the exact number of incoming anti-ship missiles or torpedoes, then he is either a traitor because he divulges secret information, or a balabol. there is no official data on this and cannot be.
                2. -1
                  26 December 2014 23: 26
                  Quote: Bongo
                  What reality do you live in? The Flurry complex has long been withdrawn from service.

                  In addition to the Flurry, there are other types of torpedoes with nuclear warheads, even of the standard caliber 533 mm., Which IMHO will sweep any AUG on the sea-edge.
                  1. Kassandra
                    +1
                    27 December 2014 04: 44
                    yeah, only you get to her first to let her out ...
                  2. +3
                    27 December 2014 05: 08
                    Quote: Nick
                    In addition to the Flurry, there are other types of torpedoes with nuclear warheads, even of the standard caliber 533 mm., Which IMHO will sweep any AUG on the sea-edge.


                    Did you write this in order to write something? Read my discussion with a respected GDP from the very beginning. He undertook to assert that we still have "rocket torpedoes" in service.
              2. +8
                24 December 2014 12: 11
                Quote: GDP
                I think you will agree that even 61 is more than 25?


                I understand arithmetic. But the thing is different. Groups of different branches of the Navy have their tasks combat mission... In other words, the forces of the fleet will never solve any one task with the entire composition. Against the AMG, some groupings, to ensure the combat stability of the RPKSN - others, to support the ground forces in coastal areas - the third, etc. So 61 ships "in bulk", with all your desire, will not "pile up" on AMG!
                1. GDP
                  -5
                  24 December 2014 12: 20
                  So 61 ships "in bulk", with all your desire, will not "pile up" on AMG!

                  But AUG will not be used against us all in a crowd. and in AUG different ships solve different problems ...

                  In addition, although it’s stupid to use strategic nuclear submarines against AUG, it’s also not worth them to be discounted. If it comes to the massive use of AUGs, then most likely it will come to nuclear strikes, and after the missiles are shot off, why not use their anti-submarine and anti-ship weapons?
                  1. +7
                    24 December 2014 12: 29
                    Quote: GDP
                    In AUG, different ships solve different problems ...

                    They solve different problems within single plan and plan composed one Group

                    Quote: GDP
                    after the missiles are fired

                    After the strategists "shoot", the end of the war will come! Or maybe the Earth ...
                    1. GDP
                      -6
                      24 December 2014 13: 57
                      Quote: Colonel
                      After the strategists "shoot", the end of the war will come! Or maybe the Earth ...

                      Is not a fact!
                      The war will continue, including offshore, Submarines will survive, part of the surface fleet too, a significant part of the population and large arsenals will be preserved. In Russia, there are entire cities underground with everything you need from millions of tons of food supplies, felt boots, quilted jackets and diesel fuel to grenade launchers, machine guns and even possibly tanks ...
                      Here, everything that remains after a nuclear strike, including RPKSN torpedo tubes, will go into action ..
                      1. +8
                        24 December 2014 14: 06
                        Quote: GDP
                        In Russia, there are entire cities underground with everything you need from millions of tons of food supplies,

                        Strategic NZ of the country? And what is left of him, in the know?
                        Quote: GDP
                        All that remains after a nuclear strike will be used

                        Including slingshots and batons fool
                        But seriously, the control and communication system will not be able to provide any further effective planning and maintenance of the database.
                      2. GDP
                        +8
                        24 December 2014 15: 20


                        Strategic NZ of the country? And what is left of him, in the know?

                        Strategic reserves remained intact - almost ...
                        in 90, during a general mess and lack of accounting, some of the goods entered the market and shops, however, in the future, the losses were replenished ...

                        Russia's strategic reserves are important not only in the event of a nuclear war, but also, for example, in the event of a crop, natural disasters, etc. Russia is the most protected country in this regard.

                        Including slingshots and batons

                        I don’t want to give names and cities, but, for example, in one small city underground, you can say almost in the center of the city are two million Kalashnikovs and those who live 50 meters from these warehouses do not know about this, most of those who it works there, in general, they don’t really protect it, or rather, it’s not the weapon depot that is guarding it, but something completely harmless. I think you can guess that there are underground warehouses where more serious weapons are stored. By the way, this warehouse is considered by Russian standards - small ...

                        There are also large storage facilities. Suppose a friend of mine works there for a very good salary and she spends a significant part of her life there, there is completely all the infrastructure for living underground and there are sufficient supplies to feed, shoe and provide an entire army for a couple of years ...

                        We have a very large territory and a very large number of cities that are located quite far from industrial and military centers, their nuclear strike will not affect, and strategic reserves will allow this part of the population to survive ...

                        But seriously, the control and communication system will not be able to provide any further effective planning and maintenance of the database.

                        There is an alternative command system "perimeter", the command system "kazbek" Developed just in case of a nuclear war and capable of acting independently of each other, even if all the main command centers are destroyed ...

                        Russia will have an army and teeth that can bite very painfully, not only after the first massive nuclear strike, but also after the second.

                        So nothing will end after nuclear armageddon, everything will only begin ...
                      3. +5
                        24 December 2014 23: 05
                        Quote: GDP
                        So nothing will end after nuclear armageddon, everything will only begin ...

                        I completely agree with you. I once watched how they built one building behind a high fence. There was a foundation pit the size of this tall building and engineering structures that an ordinary building does not need. And nearby is the metro line. Ordinary people do not know or suspect anything about shelters. The city is full of small one-story buildings that are shabby, with one blindly closed door. What is it? This is not a heat point and not a transformer booth. No one enters or exits.
              3. +4
                24 December 2014 16: 21
                How many of them are combat ready? Where do you get the data from?
              4. +6
                24 December 2014 17: 50
                Quote: GDP
                only in one northern fleet of 18 submarines equipped with cruise missiles ...

                Of which EMNIP is in repair, seven are under repair and one is in conservation
            2. +7
              24 December 2014 14: 06
              The author wrote about the forces that can counteract AMG. What does the RPKCH have to do with it? They have completely different tasks! [/ Quote]
              The author writes about the AMG as something completely autonomous and independent of the rest of the Armed Forces structure. They will have to fight with in a spherical vacuum.
              Especially touches the statement about increasing the strike capabilities of "Kuznetsov" when receiving MiGs. If we talk about the confrontation with the American AUG, then they will easily put up to five of their own against one of our aircraft carriers.
              Reminds discussions: who was cooler, Yamato or Iowa? Even if you accept that Yamato is cooler - against these two new Japanese units, you get a dozen American ones.
          2. +6
            24 December 2014 11: 56
            Quote: GDP
            Strategic nuclear submarines - 14 multipurpose, torpedo and special-purpose nuclear submarines - 36 Diesel - 28

            SSBN to combat the AUG, as well as "special purpose boats? Let’s write “fighting dolphins” here what Regarding combat-ready 25 (plus or minus one or two) submarines and submarines, if you have doubts, you can find out on your own, the information is in the public domain. As with all other warships, if you wish, count yourself.
            1. GDP
              0
              24 December 2014 12: 12
              Battle dolphins do not carry 6 torpedo tubes capable of firing torpedoes and cruise missiles (total 22 pieces), including those with a nuclear warhead ....
              1. +3
                24 December 2014 12: 33
                Is the SSBN also carrying RCC? Did not know... wassat
                1. Crang
                  -2
                  24 December 2014 12: 43
                  Quote: Bongo
                  Is the SSBN also carrying RCC? Did not know

                  They can carry BR with special warheads designed to strike at sea targets. For example AUG.
                  1. +4
                    24 December 2014 12: 50
                    Quote: Krang
                    They can carry BR with special warheads designed to strike at sea targets. For example AUG.


                    Really? what And how will ballistic missiles with homing missiles be aimed at the AUG? And what means of reconnaissance and target designation will be involved?
                    Some time ago I did an analysis on the SSBN (SSBN)
                    World SSBN
                    http://topwar.ru/37406-mir-plarb-chast-1-ya.html
                    1. GDP
                      +3
                      24 December 2014 13: 41
                      YOMAYO! What do ballistic missiles have to do with it ?! There are cruise missiles launched through torpedo tubes; now about a dozen submarines are simultaneously being re-equipped for them. By the way, including the SSBN "Karelia" - a strategic nuclear submarine!
                      1. +5
                        24 December 2014 13: 48
                        Quote: GDP
                        They can carry BR with special warheads

                        BR is a ballistic missile, warhead, respectively, warhead.
          3. +7
            24 December 2014 13: 36
            Quote: GDP
            Heavy Missile Cruisers - 3
            Missile Cruisers - 3

            The cruiser of the project 1144 "Orlan" - one "Peter the First", "Ushakov" will most likely be cut, "Lazarev" and "Nakhimov" will be modernized
            Project 1164 cruisers code "Atlant" - two, "Moskva" and "Varyag", "Ustinov" under repair, if we squeeze out Nikolaev, then "Lobov" will be a plus if it is not torn apart for parts ...
          4. +3
            24 December 2014 15: 03
            I want to ask experts what is the efficiency of using American AUGs at low temperatures (as I understand the use of a steam gun on aircraft carriers). The question is not idle since we have only one warm sea (or rather, the three Black, Azov and Caspian), but as I understand it, the ACG cannot go there.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. +2
              24 December 2014 16: 13
              Well, if, the Azov and Caspian seas, then we have much more seas laughing It is customary to consider the sea area with access to the Ocean, at least through the straits. And Baikal is the "sacred sea" There are smaller ones, but very large ones.
              1. +2
                24 December 2014 19: 29
                Well, as I understand it, the path was ordered from the Arctic Ocean. The Baltic is sorry, it seems to be nuclear-free and, by and large, like the Black Sea, it is by the standards of the Puddle. So the question remained open Pacific Ocean Far East. from the Sea of ​​Japan, as I understand it, it will not be more expensive to attack us, so how can the AUGs get us
          5. 0
            24 December 2014 16: 07
            In my opinion, we have three cruisers pr.1164, "Ustinov" under repair.
          6. +4
            24 December 2014 16: 20
            Quote: GDP
            Far Destroyers and Sentinels - 20
            frigates, corvettes, MRK, BOD, IPC - more than 56

            Since when did they become submarines?
            Quote: GDP
            For example, China, while its naval power is significantly inferior to Russia both qualitatively and quantitatively, do not believe me, I can show a table of comparative characteristics ...

            Come on ... look at the number of destroyers, corvettes and frigates and the pace of their construction. You will be surprised.
          7. +8
            24 December 2014 17: 46
            Quote: GDP
            Let's start with the ship grouping of Russia:

            Let's start...
            Quote: GDP
            Heavy Missile Cruisers - 3
            Missile Cruisers - 3
            Aircraft Carriers - 1

            The author clearly wrote
            Quote: GDP
            in the combat strength of the fleet of ships capable of really fighting aug

            And you give the TOTAL number of ships in the fleet. You write - heavy missile cruisers - 3, but forget that EXACTLY ONE of these three cruisers is on the move - this, as the author correctly wrote, is "Peter the Great" The second missile cruiser (Nakhimov) is now being repaired and will be included in the PLAN fleet already in 2018 (there is already time for Peter to get repairs) The third nuclear-powered missile cruiser will never enter service - there are no plans to repair it, and the amount of required repair is such that it is easier to build a new cruiser
            Of the 3 Atlant-class missile cruisers, two of them, indicated by the author, "Moskva" and "Varyag", are now on the move, and the third, "Ustinov", is again under repair, moreover, since 2011 and should be tested only in 2015.
            And so on all the ships you listed hi
            1. +2
              25 December 2014 17: 28
              It’s not yet clear with Orlan alone, it looks like they will still be modernizing him, since he recently underwent dock repair in the Far East, most likely the repair will take place at a new shipyard. hi
              1. +3
                26 December 2014 16: 16
                Quote: 1c-inform-city
                It’s not yet clear with Orlan alone; it looks like he’ll be upgraded all the same, since he recently underwent a dock repair in the Far East

                I would be happy if that were so. But, I'm afraid this is still not the case http://flotprom.ru/2014/178567/
          8. +2
            25 December 2014 16: 50
            I fully support you. Aug were invulnerable until a certain point in the development of rocketry. As soon as the missile range was equal to or exceeded the range of carrier-based aviation, 600-800 km, the aug became difficult and in addition, the danger of their use for our country lies only in a small range of the coast. Knowing these weaknesses, it’s quite easy to cover them.
            1. +3
              26 December 2014 16: 10
              Quote: 1c-inform-city
              As soon as the missile range is equal to or exceeds the range of carrier-based aircraft, 600-800 km

              The "Granit" range is about 550 km. Volcanoes have more, up to 700, but this is due to a decrease in flight time at low altitudes, that is, they are more vulnerable. In addition, for the use of such anti-ship missiles at full range, external target designation is needed (Tu-95RTs, AWACS aircraft, etc.), which the AUG has nowhere to take. In addition, a massive launch of such anti-ship missiles is required (i.e., even 2 Atlanta does not guarantee a reliable defeat of the AUG)
              And the range of carrier-based aviation reaches 900 km, as far as I know, after the commissioning of Kuznetsov, the Americans worked out raids with 1200 km
            2. Kassandra
              +1
              27 December 2014 03: 30
              Do you think so?
              No. the range of AUG operations on the NK and submarine ranges from 1700 nautical miles, which exceeds the launch range of the RCC at times ...
              600-800km is a flight to the Tu-22 high-speed interception on alarm from the deck, not a strike mission bully
          9. +1
            26 December 2014 20: 25
            I’m not sure that your conclusions can claim objectivity. Such a naval and naval composition of the fleet, which Russia currently has, can offer resistance, but are not able to effectively protect vast territories, and even more so to win. I hope that the country's leadership will have enough wisdom and will in the near future to turn the tide. Nevertheless, I recall + for maintaining a patriotic spirit and confidence in our victory. PS Personally, I am sure of it too.
        2. +7
          24 December 2014 12: 48
          Quote: Colonel
          I agree. Especially in the part relating to Naval Aviation (I served in it for 28 years) - the truth is 100%. In Soviet times, the Navy included 6 reconnaissance regiments and 2 odrae (separate long-range reconnaissance squadrons) with a total number of 146 aircraft. Now there is not one! Target designation went into oblivion with the destruction of the Tu-95rts. On opening the surface situation (prof. Term) Dies fly EPISODICALLY. As a former intelligence officer, I report: we do not have aerial reconnaissance on marine and oceanic theater of operations! And intelligence, as you know, is the main (main) type of combat support. And they cut all this former power and beauty of those who are now in power!

          As for the Tu-95RTs, back in the 80s and 90s there was a question about the expediency of their use (I am not even talking about the stuffing of these aircraft, all the electronics of the U-1a Uspikh station were based on vacuum radio tubes from the times of Alexander Popov). 300-400 km is a minuscule amount for target designation. Moreover, as soon as the landing gear of these aircraft broke off from the runway somewhere in Kipelovo, Olenegorsk or Severomorsk, the NATO base in Keflavik was put on high alert, and the rare sorties of our aircraft occurred without interception by NATO deck or ground aircraft. So the orbital group is much more effective than aviation in the sense of issuing control commands. Well, our reconnaissance planes will not let adversaries reach a distance at which target designation can be effectively issued.
          1. +13
            24 December 2014 13: 59
            Quote: Koshak
            300-400 km is a minuscule for target designation.

            300-400 km is the detection range of the KUG. The control center was issued at the same distance "back" to the anti-ship missile carriers, which eventually received a "picture" being 800 km away from the target!
            Quote: Koshak
            NATO’s base in Keflavik was put on high alert,

            57th IAE Air Defense Forces of the United States Air Force at Keflavik had at least one pair of F-15s in constant readiness. RLP Vardo took us almost immediately after takeoff with Olenya (rarely when they flew "around the corner" without landing on it). Then the Norgi worked from Bodø, Bardufoss, the British intercepted even further (if we were on the southern route), and only then - the F-15 from Keflavik. In addition, they almost constantly had AWACS on the borders of the North Cape-Bear and Faro-Icelandic ... I remember all this now, even if you wake up at night, after all, for a quarter of a century I "supervised" the adversary, received the RD from the command post of the Northern Fleet Air Force, etc. .d ...
          2. +2
            24 December 2014 15: 49
            I advise many to play real naval simulators, where realistic EW is implemented to understand the essence of the issues. YES, NATO may not allow our planes, but their simple presence, even in empty areas, greatly simplifies the control of the situation. Therefore, I do not agree with the thesis of their futility. And taking into account the commissioning of new fighters with an increased radius of action, the reconnaissance mission is somewhat simplified. Yes, and you can build a more advanced aircraft, especially equipped with passive surveillance tools and elements of STELS technology.
        3. +1
          24 December 2014 18: 35
          Quote: Colonel
          Target designation went into oblivion with the destruction of the Tu-95rts.

          Tricky question. Is it correct that the A-50 is able to fully solve the tasks of the Tu-95RC removed from service? Or not?
          1. +9
            25 December 2014 09: 20
            Quote: Zigmars
            Tricky question. Is it correct that the A-50 is able to fully solve the tasks of the Tu-95RC removed from service? Or not?


            Of course not! These are completely different systems! The A-50 is an analogue of AWACS, an AWACS aircraft, and the Tu-95rts is an aircraft of strategic reconnaissance and TARGETING. The avionics of these aircraft are "sharpened" for completely different tasks. The system "Success" did not control the IA database, but issued the control center to the anti-ship missile carriers. To put it simply, the control center is the broadcast of the radar image of the order of the ships (with the allocation of the main target by the UVHC system) directly to the CD carrier and to the missile seeker. A similar system was installed only on the Tu-95rts and Ka-25ts. Everything that is now called target designation is essentially GUIDANCE! (and these are "two big differences") I finished my report.
            1. lucidlook
              +4
              25 December 2014 19: 30
              Quote: Colonel
              Everything that is now called target designation is essentially GUIDANCE! (and these are "two big differences")

              How monstrous you are right. Alas.
        4. 0
          24 December 2014 23: 41
          in addition to intelligence, there is also intelligence
          infa will be anyway
          1. +4
            25 December 2014 09: 53
            Quote: Siberia
            BUT there is also undercover
            infa will be anyway


            I confirm. At one time, I periodically received encryption from our attaches about the planned exits of AMG from Norfolk, Boston, Philadelphia, etc., about their calls for replenishing supplies and resting l / s to different naval and military bases.
        5. 0
          26 December 2014 23: 00
          Quote: Colonel
          And they cut all this former power and beauty of those who are now in power!

          Shoigu or what?
          1. +2
            27 December 2014 05: 12
            Quote: Nick
            Shoigu or what?

            And you do not know who over the past 15 years has led the country?
      2. -6
        24 December 2014 12: 01
        Quote: Bayonet
        An objective analysis of the current situation. To the author +, cheers-patriots, another reason to brand and sprinkle with saliva.

        Yeah, objective anulingus, that’s what it is.

        And here's a little reality: "... Russian reconnaissance aircraft" opened "Kitty Hawk
        Russian warplanes in the Japanese Sea successfully carried out an operation to overcome the air defenses of the American multipurpose aircraft carrier strike group led by the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk (KittyHawkCV63). Information about this, published by the Izvestia newspaper, was confirmed to Interfax on Tuesday by informed sources in the Russian military department. According to them, this happened twice in the Sea of ​​Japan at a time when the US aircraft carrier group was heading for exercises in the Korea Strait (October 17) and when it was returning from maneuvers (November 9) ... (Interfax November 14, 2000) ... "

        (http://www.agentura.ru/timeline/2000/oblet/)

        ... and you can spray saliva and snot on this occasion, and stigmatize all the cheers.
        1. +6
          24 December 2014 12: 15
          Quote: Bulls.
          And here's a little reality: "... Russian reconnaissance aircraft" opened "Kitty Hawk ... (Interfax 14 November 2000 g.) ... "


          This aircraft carrier was withdrawn from the US Navy 5 years ago and will soon be cut into metal. And somehow your comment on 14 years was late what Was it after so many years that we had no other achievements?
          However, in 2000, the fleet still had Tu-22М3 missile carriers, and there were much more other warships.
          1. -2
            24 December 2014 12: 49
            Quote: Bongo
            This aircraft carrier was withdrawn from the US Navy 5 years ago and will soon be cut into metal. And somehow your comment on 14 years was late. Really after so many years, we had no other achievements?

            Do not bliss, dear!
            Why are these antics ?! After all, it is obvious to any intelligent person for sure that this unfortunate K-X was not alone, but was part of the AUG. Where, by the K-X, there were also cover vessels, including air defense and other "Aegis". And it was all this fraternity, I will repeat for the special ones, all that our pilots opened and destroyed.
            ... so, to cut into scrap metal, it was necessary not only KX.
            1. +6
              24 December 2014 12: 56
              Quote: Bulls.
              Don't be happy, dear! Why are these antics ?! After all, it is obvious to any intelligent person for sure that this unfortunate K-X was not alone, but was part of the AUG. Where, beside K-X, there were also cover vessels, including air defense and other "Idzhes". And it was all this fraternity, I will repeat for the special ones, all that our pilots opened and destroyed.


              Not a supporter "blacklists"but if you continue to communicate in the same way, you will definitely get there. negative You wrote exactly about "Kitty Hawk", and they answered you about it.
              1. -4
                24 December 2014 13: 39
                Quote: Bongo
                You wrote exactly about "Kitty Hawk", and they answered you about it.

                Well, actually not only about KX !!!

                ... Russian military aircraft in the Sea of ​​Japan successfully carried out an operation to overcome the air defense of the American multipurpose aircraft carrier strike group led by the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk (KittyHawkCV63) ....

                ... apparently just someone reads only what he needs and is convenient and profitable.
        2. +5
          24 December 2014 13: 11
          Quote: Bulls.
          ... Russian reconnaissance planes "opened" Kitty Hawk "

          Are you sure that the Yankees did not specifically allow our aviation to this "trough" in order to lull our vigilance and show that their air defense, it seems, is penetrable for our aviation. NATO is also not a sucker. Don't underestimate your opponent. It never led to anything good.
          1. +10
            24 December 2014 14: 46
            Quote: Koshak
            Are you sure that the Yankees did not specifically allow our aviation to this "trough" in order to lull our vigilance

            The Yankees never specifically "admitted" anyone to their ships. IN PEACE TIME, in NEUTRAL waters, any plane can safely fly even on a low level over an aircraft carrier! There is only one hard limitation: IT IS FORBIDDEN to approach the aircraft carrier, who is busy with the reception and release of aircraft closer than 5 km from the sides and closer to 10 km from the bow and stern angles
        3. +7
          24 December 2014 16: 28
          So what? They needed to bring down our planes, or what do you think? In a database, no one would let them in. Therefore, only you are drooling here.
      3. +3
        24 December 2014 15: 20
        And it seems to me, under the guise of the Mig-31BM, our ships in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of the Far East will simply destroy the AUG. You won’t argue that army aviation from the airfield will give more to the mountain than aircraft carriers.
        1. +8
          24 December 2014 16: 08
          we have 40 Megs across the entire Pacific - almost all are worn out. and the combat radius at 31go 700km
          1. 0
            24 December 2014 19: 31
            what data do you have, the old MiG-31BM accompanied the bears to Alaska, the "light elves" were surprised
            1. +2
              24 December 2014 19: 43
              Well, firstly they didn’t fly to Alaska with Vladik, but secondly with refuellers. 2 pieces, and did not fly
              1. +1
                24 December 2014 19: 58
                And the question is what is the radius of carrier-based aviation, not so much more than the MiG-31BM. And another question, and what is the anti-ship armament of an aircraft carrier wing? World War II showed that only torpedoes can sink a battleship bombs for them it is not fatal.
                1. +5
                  25 December 2014 06: 58
                  do we have a battleship? proceed from realities, otherwise the argument loses all meaning
              2. 0
                24 December 2014 20: 08
                MiG-31BM modification
                Wingspan, m 13.46
                Length, m 22.67
                Height, m ​​6.10
                Wing area, m2 61.60
                Weight, kg
                empty 21825 aircraft
                normal takeoff 42400
                maximum take-off 48200
                Engine type 2 DTRD Solovyov D30F-6M
                Non-forced draft, kN 2 x 16500
                Maximum speed km / h
                at high altitude 3000 (M=2.83)
                off the ground xnumx
                Practical range, km
                with PTB 3300
                without PTB 2500
                Combat range, km
                without PTB at a speed of M 1 720
                with PTB at a speed of M 1 1200
                c PTB with a speed of M 1 1400
                with one refueling at a speed of M 1 2000
                The maximum rate of climb, m / min
                Practical ceiling, m 20000
                Crew 1
                1. +3
                  25 December 2014 07: 04
                  C.T.D. - 700km.

                  By tactical standards of the US Navy, the range of counter-
                  go combat aircraft carriers 700 - 1100 km, although in the exercises,
                  the destruction of the alleged enemy - Russian heavy
                  aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral of the Soviet Union N.G. Kuznetsov",
                  the ability to strike
                  bast aviation on a Russian ship from a range of 1600-1700 km.
                  http://www.sinor.ru/~bukren/aviano_3.htm
      4. -1
        24 December 2014 17: 54
        "An objective analysis ... hurray for the patriots another reason ..."

        No need to juggle. This is not an analysis, but another "side view" of another expert. You have here, apparently, a get-together - "the cuckoo praises the rooster for the fact that he praises the cuckoo." Another tro-lo-lo.
      5. +2
        24 December 2014 19: 39
        Quote: Bayonet
        An objective analysis of the current situation. To the author +,

        Objective, in the sense of visible? So, I demand invisible, the author does not say a word about torpedoes, and they, with missiles comparable in warhead, cause much greater damage. An underwater explosion at the side of the ship, much more beautiful than the surface, due to the backwater, plus, then you need to seal the hole what So somehow. Or wake and acoustic, by order of higher authorities canceled as harmful and inappropriate lines of the general and directing? recourse Tady, I'm sorry request
      6. -3
        25 December 2014 00: 36
        > An objective analysis of the current situation.

        the article has more than obvious weaknesses - the situation does not differ in the fight against AUG near the coast and in the open ocean.
        After the advent of the modern generation of ZGRLS, the problem of target designation near its territory does not exist. They see about 3 km, and a possible blind spot of a couple of hundred closest to the shore of km can be seen by another type of the same ZGRLS. Then it remains to make a CD that can fly 000 km with speeds of several M and place them on the shore. You can make a combined BR + warhead which will be a KR and fly 3 km - in half an hour that the BR will cover 000 km the aircraft carrier will not be able to move more than 100 km from an already known place.

        All options for such decisions have already been mastered in principle and they will only need to be adapted for specific purposes.

        But the solution to the task of countering ACG in the open ocean is a completely different task, and the problem of missile defense and flight time here will already arise in full growth. But for the Russian fleet this task is probably not so urgent today.
    2. +22
      24 December 2014 08: 21
      Who else agrees with him? I personally do not.

      I agree. There are no hints of panic in the article, but clearly outlined what happened before and what is now, as well as measures to eliminate the backlog in this matter. But cap-making is not necessary.
      1. sergey261180
        +6
        24 December 2014 09: 03
        Quote: aleks_29296
        as well as measures to eliminate the backlog in this matter

        Measures are certainly not bad. It just doesn’t take into account that the Americans deploy missile defense systems on ships.
        I remember that the Americans had a Pershing-2 ballistic missile, in the final section of the trajectory it was guided with the help of a radar, by the method of correlation using a radio map. The firing range is 1800 km, the mass of the warhead is 1300 kg. It can be used for firing at ships not covered by missile defense.
        1. +4
          24 December 2014 09: 31
          Quote: sergey261180
          I remember that the Americans had a Pershing-2 ballistic missile, in the final section of the trajectory it was guided with the help of a radar, by the method of correlation using a radio map. The firing range is 1800 km, the mass of the warhead is 1300 kg. It can be used for firing at ships not covered by missile defense.

          Why was? Since the Pershing-2 missile has a relatively high hit accuracy (less than 30 meters), it is also planned to install warheads with conventional explosives on it. The charge can be concentrated in one penetrating warhead. At the same time, its mass will be 460 kg. Also considered is the option of equipping the Pershing-2 missile with 76 penetrating warheads weighing 8,15 kg each (charge mass 1,59 kg). Such warheads are capable of penetrating concrete coverings up to 60 cm thick. They can be used, in particular, to destroy runways of airfields.
          1. +11
            24 December 2014 10: 29
            Quote: Bayonet
            Why was? Since the Pershing-2 missile has a relatively high hit accuracy (less than 30 meters), it is also planned to install warheads with conventional explosives on it


            Where does this infa come from? All MGM-31C missiles (and the remaining MGM-31B) were destroyed in accordance with the INF Treaty / All 120 deployed and 127 undeployed missiles were eliminated by mid-1991. /. The W85 nuclear warhead was not destroyed and was used to equip free-falling bombs of the type Mk 61 Mod 10
      2. +15
        24 December 2014 09: 09
        I also agree with the author - I did not see any panic in the article - a clear detailed analysis of how the AUG was opposed in the USSR and how now

        And the fact that AUG is not a "miracle weapon" when operating along the coast is clear - the number of aircraft and sorties is still limited and cannot be compared with coastal aviation and AUG will be dangerous for underdeveloped countries - but not for Russia or China

        But speaking of supremacy on the seas - that’s another matter - the AUG provides its destroyers and cruisers with air cover - can attack ships for hundreds of kilometers - cover patrol areas of strategic submarines from anti-submarine aircraft - and vice versa use its anti-submarine aircraft, etc. P

        As for the means of counteracting the AUG - the USSR and China are probably right - these are space targeting systems, nuclear submarines and long-range aviation with long-range missiles (in the future hypersonic - albeit expensive but less necessary) and ballistic missiles with homing heads
        1. lucidlook
          +6
          24 December 2014 18: 03
          Special attention should be paid to the aircraft-based aircraft carriers EA-18G "Growler" - airplanes of complex electronic warfare (including elements of the control center).

    3. +5
      24 December 2014 08: 33
      arguments that is? like-dislike it is not serious
    4. Orlando
      +3
      24 December 2014 10: 46
      and where do they fear or not, will something change from this? Staying in the pink world of unicorns is more productive?
    5. +5
      24 December 2014 12: 44
      Quote: vladsolo56
      Is everything already feared? the author so wants to convince us that the AUG is simply an incredible weapon in terms of power against which Russia simply has no objection.


      The author did not set himself such a goal hi The goal was to show objectively our current capabilities.
    6. +6
      24 December 2014 13: 48
      Quote: vladsolo56
      AUG is simply an incredibly powerful weapon against which Russia simply has no objection

      IMHO, not this author claims ...
      He considers what was and what is needed now.

      From this point of view, here is the good news -
      The Shvabe holding, which is part of the Rostec State Corporation, has completed the design and technological preparation of the product being developed under a state contract with the Federal Space Agency.
      The Holding’s specialists began to create an experimental model of medium-resolution wide-range multispectral equipment with a capture band of 100-120 km as part of a contract with Roscosmos for the development of a leading edge on-board remote sensing devices for the Earth.
      “Product development will end in 2015. The use of new devices as part of promising Russian spacecraft for remote sensing of the Earth will significantly improve the quality of cartographic information and reduce the backlog of Russia from the EU and the USA in this area, ”said Sergey Maksin, Director General of Schwabe Holding.


      And about the AUG.
      then they are more dangerous for China than for us. Because For the Chinese to survive, it is necessary to have and maintain marine communications just in areas where sea vultures can successfully operate in the form of AUGs.
      We have only a vital internal Northern Sea Route. The Arctic region is contraindicated for aircraft carriers. Of course, there are regions that may be under attack by the AUG: the Far East and the Kaliningra region ... And here it is necessary to deploy defense systems against them ...
      1. -1
        24 December 2014 16: 04
        In general, only a battleship can withstand a good nose. The current aviation weapon is no longer that - only modern tin boats can penetrate, but it is completely powerless against heavily armored ships.
        1. +4
          24 December 2014 19: 03
          Quote: Basarev
          In general, only a battleship can withstand a good nose. The current aviation weapon is no longer that - only modern tin boats can penetrate, but it is completely powerless against heavily armored ships.

          Are you kidding? An X-22 with a high-explosive cumulative warhead, for example, spits out a striking charge-jet of flame 12 meters long. How thick is the link armor needed to defend itself from such an attack? And no armor can save from YBCh.
    7. +2
      24 December 2014 17: 05
      Quote: vladsolo56
      that AUG is simply an incredibly powerful weapon against which Russia simply has no objection

      Yes, for now.
      Quote: vladsolo56
      Who else agrees with him? I personally do not.

      And what is your statement based on? The author says that right now the possibilities of counteraction are minimal and further gives examples of how they can be built up. But he doesn’t say this is impossible and they are invincible forever.
      1. 0
        25 December 2014 01: 56
        For some reason, all the experts forget that there will be no sense in the AUG after the mutual launch of ICBMs in Russia and the USA.
    8. Denis fj
      +3
      24 December 2014 20: 11
      Aircraft carrier? Without nuclear weapons, even tactical? This was not even planned by the USSR. And with nuclear weapons you can drown anything. True, in response, they will also roll it into glass.
      With Granite, it is also cloudy there. Look at the performance characteristics - under what conditions> 600 km.
      And the most important thing. Again, such huge tons of weapons, hundreds of missiles, dozens of bombers ... And without nuclear weapons ?! Stupidity. Such a conflict immediately develops into a nuclear one. By the way, the commander of an aircraft carrier, like nuclear submarines carrying nuclear weapons, has the right to defend his ship using nuclear weapons. Such an American nuclear doctrine.
      In short, some kind of spherical horse in a vacuum.
    9. Denis fj
      +4
      24 December 2014 20: 14
      1. Russia is a large land power, it needs an adequate land army with an auxiliary fleet ensuring territorial security.
      2. Aviation resists air defense. Modern air defense, the basis of security against air attacks.
      3. The Russian fleet, it is better to concentrate on a group of destroyers and Submarines (hunters and strategists).
      4. Russia does not need to threaten the world with aircraft carriers, to terrorize it with bombing, but should provide its presence with strategic aviation and an operational duty group (destroyers + submarines).
      5. Russia should provide for its interests with airborne transport helicopter carriers with marine corps as part of a shock-covering group.
      6. Counterbalance of AUGs can be provided with both subtle submarines and reactive stegs, or deliver missiles / torpedoes / guided bombs using "strategic artillery" (poplar) in a ballistic carrier (as an option).
      7. Carriers: expensive and costly; noticeable and purposeful; requiring a lot of attention in maintenance and upkeep; requiring escort and tasks of aggressive behavior.
      8. With economic and political stability, in order to demonstrate strength (Ponte) you can contain 2-4 aircraft carriers if they combine acceptable speed and stealth with a full-fledged air group.
    10. Denis fj
      0
      24 December 2014 20: 21
      Aircraft carrier - a means of armed struggle at sea. Let's figure it out, fighting with whom? With whom shall we fight so far from our shores that coast aviation is lacking? Do not hold your brains, we only have one such enemy so far - the USA. But firstly, in our realities, we will not be able to achieve parity with them in the near future. And secondly, if we suddenly begin to win at sea, sink their AUGs and approach their shores, then they will certainly launch all their ballistic missiles at us. As well as ours according to them, if their AUGs now begin to bomb our shores. Thirdly, of course, we need to have a non-nuclear instrument of victory over the United States. But, for this, after all, there are other ways besides the construction of aircraft carriers. Moreover, their presence does not guarantee victory. I would suggest that instead of the AUG, hastily design and build serial convert wing plans of the "flying wing" type. In order to be able to quickly carry large masses of troops, including heavy equipment over long distances. And deploy an impressive group of troops in the Far East. And "in which case" through Chukotka and Alaska, with the support of our land and coastal aviation, throw the army to Alaska and beyond. In my opinion, this is a real way to victory - a blow to the den, so to speak. With a powerful, capable of preventing the enemy’s approach to the coast, coastal aviation + coastal missile systems, the above operation can well be cranked up. This is not conceivable except with Australia or Madagascar. Do we plan to fight them? Well then you can talk to them with ballistic and cruise missiles in conventional equipment.
      As for covering the deployment areas of our strategists, this problem can be solved in the North by coastal aviation if there are a sufficient number of air tankers and AWACS aircraft, which are much easier to build than AUGs. By the way, this can be done with aircraft-carrying ships with a small wing and GDP aircraft. For peacetime, this is enough. It is impossible to do this in the Pacific Ocean. But it’s harder to catch a strategist there. In other words, the fleet is precisely the sphere where our country does not have to follow the path of our rivals. The same Peter Romanov beat the Swedes with a fleet consisting mostly of galleys (over this circumstance all Europe was sickened). In turn, Nicholas 2 before World War I decided to invest in the fleet, and not in the army. As a result, we blew PM, not reaching the winning end for just over a year. During the Second World War, our fleet was also not very distinguished. Only at the time of Nakhimov did our fleet reach the level of world superpowers. But it happened just at the sunset of the sailing fleet. But our non-standard solutions at sea always gave a very good result. These are mines (some German naval commander, I don’t remember the name, said at the time of PM that there are only Russian mines and bad ones.), Again, a “dash” is the invention of a Russian engineer. Our submarines at the dawn of them, too, were no worse than others. Again, our fleet was one of the first to use aviation. In short, my personal opinion: We will not be able to acquire a significant carrier fleet. Therefore, we need to use our famous ingenuity and roll out a trump card that not only replaces AUGs for us, but also saves everyone who has these AUGs has an excessive sense of superiority. In order not to have to sink our aircraft carriers now at the entrance to the Sevastopol raid.
      1. 0
        24 December 2014 23: 24
        Quote: denis fj
        With whom shall we fight so far from our shores that coast aviation is lacking?

        A lot and not everything is right. I think that the strategists in the Defense Ministry know better what our army can and what still can not.
        And about coastal aviation. And where to get it in Syria. We don’t have it there. And from Russia generally attack aircraft and fighters will not fly, far and there are no common borders. How to help Assad? So with other countries far from Russia. That is why America has several AUGs so as not to depend on the coast. All aircraft in the hold and on the deck, fuel consumption is minimal, which means you can conduct a long air battle or conduct long-range reconnaissance. One AUG was expended, another fell into its place and is fighting. And the first one is refueling near tankers and transporters.
        1. +1
          24 December 2014 23: 33
          Quote: Алексей_К
          What about coastal aviation


          And what about "Club-K"? Nice alternative!
          1. 0
            25 December 2014 13: 44
            I also recalled a capacious word that terrified the NATO people with its mere presence. This word is ekranoplan.
            1. Kassandra
              0
              27 December 2014 04: 36
              therefore, these ekranoplanes at roissi, like aircraft carriers, as well as vertical aircraft, do not bully
              but the 1st one is even in Iran, the 2nd one is even in Thailand, and the 3rd one is everywhere.

              continue to continue here with the whole trolleybus to make people or ilyots.
      2. 0
        26 December 2014 20: 44
        "An aircraft carrier is a means of armed warfare at sea. Let's figure it out, fight with whom? With whom should we fight so far from our shores that there will be no coastal aviation" While such "strategists" will talk about things that are not accessible to their minds, there will be no sense. Sorry, I could not restrain myself.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          27 December 2014 04: 41
          I'd rather hold back ...
          why then in general what kind of ships besides the feesbe guard watchmen? (well, so that the electorate does not run away) since we are not going to fight with anyone at sea?

          and SLBM too please please all ... here. and when blacks begin to slaughter Russian citizens as in Nairobi, write letters to the UN.
          an American aircraft carrier will come (they can and should) and protect you all ... bully
      3. Kassandra
        0
        27 December 2014 04: 33
        Well, to fight America bombing Serbia or Syria for example. or with Arab princes wanting to cut off the heads of diplomats, or with Negroes who captured the seiner

        in order to drive away NATO / ASEAN base and carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft from our SSBNs in a pleasing period

        air tankers with drills, and cover airplanes must constantly consume resources, burn kerosene and the pilots will not relax. floating airfield - just keeps afloat

        What are the difficulties with the construction of an aircraft carrier (and not AUG - other boats already exist)? it’s just a big pelvis with an elevator in the atoservice. for VTOL aircraft - very small and without catapults with aerofinisher.

        Let's see why you need the Navy to have its own naval aviation? so that he was "funny"?
        the idea of ​​fighting at sea without aircraft as well as on land in 1941 - smiles?
        if so, then to your basement to Lavrenty Pavlovich ... am
    11. Kassandra
      +1
      26 December 2014 03: 56
      try to fight on land without aviation as in 1941 - there will also be sea

      naval strategic nuclear forces, if there is nothing to drive away anti-submarine aircraft from them, do not cost anything under the ice.
      1. +5
        26 December 2014 13: 15
        Quote: Kassandra
        naval strategic nuclear forces, if there is nothing to drive away anti-submarine aircraft from them, do not cost anything under the ice.


        Do not worry. The areas of combat patrolling of our "batons" in the north are outside the range of the US and NATO UAVs, and at the Pacific Fleet these areas are reliably covered from the air, including
        1. Kassandra
          +1
          27 December 2014 03: 24
          the sphere of influence of the Russian Navy ends with a radius of action of Su-27 from coastal airfields
    12. 0
      26 December 2014 20: 05
      What arguments do you have?
    13. kig
      +3
      14 January 2015 09: 48
      the author only wanted to show that the means of dealing with aircraft carriers at the moment are clearly not enough. If you know how to drown an aircraft carrier with three cruisers and three destroyers, then you are welcome to tell us.
  2. +3
    24 December 2014 07: 30
    The question is how this aircraft carrier warrant can stand against sea mines.
    The second question is where does this wonderful carrier warrant come from against Russia. Naum comes only the Pacific Ocean from the Far East. Yes, and here comes the wedge. In addition to Russia, there is China there that is jealously guarding its territories.
    Interestingly, the X102 cruise missile (with special warheads) can work on an aircraft carrier (as I understand it, it is not necessary to get into the aircraft carrier itself next to it). As I understand it, armaments also have torpedoes with a special charge, in principle, they also don’t need to be directly hit, and a shock wave will break in half near or under the ship.
    1. -4
      24 December 2014 07: 35
      Quote: bmv04636
      whence this wonderful carrier warrant can be used against Russia. Naum comes only the Pacific Ocean from the Far East

      And then, what can a hundred other American planes harm to Russia?
      By the way, in the same place, about ten years ago, our pilots conditionally destroyed their group.
      1. +8
        24 December 2014 09: 27
        Quote: Bulls.
        our pilots conditionally destroyed their group.


        You can even destroy a conditional enemy with conventional weapons ... What can easily be obtained during exercises does not always work in a real combat situation ... I know this not from other people's words - I had to see something, as they say, in a past military life ... How said the poet - all that is suitable for parades - not all is suitable for war ..
        PS Not all provisions of the article can be agreed, but it nevertheless deserves a positive assessment ... And the "unenthusiastic way of thinking" demonstrated by the author should not be equated with panic - everyone has the right to their point of view. Disagreement should be argued, not labeled ...
        PPS I hope that the Israeli flag will be replaced with the Russian one as promised ...
        1. -2
          24 December 2014 11: 17
          Quote: ranger
          A conditional enemy can be destroyed even with conditional weapons.

          And who said that the enemy was conditional ?! I didn’t say that. It's about this incident in the Sea of ​​Japan. So, before writing any *** nude, and ascribing it to others, it would not be bad to clarify for oneself what the person is actually talking about.

          http://www.agentura.ru/timeline/2000/oblet/

          http://m.fishki.net/1249799-kak-russkie-istrebiteli-poglumilis-nad-amerikanskim-


          avianoscem.html
    2. +7
      24 December 2014 08: 08
      Sea mines? By conventional means, places are chosen competently and minesweepers are for this))) it’s already dragging a group into mines — such still wasn’t)
      1. +3
        24 December 2014 09: 51
        Quote: Absurdidat
        to dragging a group into mines - such was still not)

        Nuuuu ... in 1991, the Americans twice dragged their amphibious group with cover forces into an Iraqi mine can. And this is with overwhelming superiority at sea and in the air and the traditional gouging and handshaking of the Arabs.
      2. +3
        24 December 2014 11: 43
        Quote: Absurdidat
        Sea mines? By conventional means, places are chosen competently and minesweepers are for this))) it’s already dragging a group into mines — such still wasn’t)

        Yeah - with trawling, the speed of the AUG will be a turtle.

        As for mines, technology does not stand still. Mina can be smart. Imagine a small platform that a submarine leaves in places where the enemy is most likely to appear at a certain depth and waits in the wings. Week, month, year ...
        The platform has sensors and is armed with ordinary torpedoes.
        On command it is activated. If AUG falls into its field of "sight", it aims and fires torpedoes (better "Shkval" laughing ).

        You don't need a lot of batteries for electronics and platform reversal. Yes, and you can also change the power supply once a year "quietly".

        It just came to mind. There are no technical problems with this kind of automation now - moreover, it is not that expensive. You can rivet hundreds of such boxes to fit several torpedoes. And AUG, instead of going "running", will move in small steps, fearing to "get stuck".
      3. The comment was deleted.
    3. +9
      24 December 2014 08: 10
      Quote: bmv04636
      The question is how this aircraft carrier warrant can stand against sea mines.

      Yeah, mine the WHOLE WORLD OCEAN! Even in the Mariana Trench to establish bottom mines, maybe get ...
      Quote: bmv04636
      That's interesting, the X102 cruise missile (with special warheads) can work out on an aircraft carrier

      That's interesting, but do you know about the guidance system of this rocket?
    4. +3
      24 December 2014 08: 38
      mine the Pacific Ocean? or just 500-1000km from the coast?

      on anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, shells, depth charges, mines there are NO NUCLEAR CHARGES! wake up - 2015 on the nose
      x102 Can't
      1. +3
        24 December 2014 09: 12
        Well, what about Rubezh, as I understand it is technically possible to hit the sea and an order not so fast will not be able to quickly escape a nuclear charge at a certain height and all aircraft carrier order is out of order
        1. +6
          24 December 2014 09: 18
          not, well, if you are ready to exchange AUG for Moscow or, say, Peter - please! just do not be surprised that in response to us a thousand units of nuclear weapons will be released.

          though you don’t get anyway
          1. +1
            24 December 2014 09: 35
            And my question is if with the AUG they will bomb Our Far East, that it is not a declaration of war. Okay, besides nuclear weapons, we have something else. How do you like this combat unit TU-160 under the cover of MiG-31BM from a height of 15 thousand meters drop a vacuum bomb on the horde
            1. +7
              24 December 2014 09: 46
              Quote: bmv04636
              Okay, besides nuclear weapons, we have something else. How do you like this combat unit TU-160 under the cover of MiG-31BM from a height of 15 thousand meters drop a vacuum bomb on the horde

              Yes, everything is simple, a volumetric detonating aerial bomb from a height of 15 km. falls three kilometers away from the "horde?"
              1. +3
                24 December 2014 10: 06
                Quote: Nayhas
                in the absence of wind, the crews of the US Navy take selfies against a cloud from a distant explosion ...

                And at this moment, the second and third (control) bombs fall directly on them. A vigorous war begins and everyone does not care for that aircraft carrier and its crew.
                1. +4
                  24 December 2014 10: 31
                  Quote: shuhartred
                  And at that moment the second and third fall right on them

                  From a height of 15 km. aimingly dropping free-falling bombs weighing 7t. impossible. The scatter will be huge.
                  1. 0
                    24 December 2014 19: 50
                    Quote: Nayhas
                    From a height of 15 km. aimingly drop free-falling 7-ton air bombs


                    it means that it will not be free falling, which does not cancel the subsequent scenario.
              2. 0
                24 December 2014 12: 04
                and how sorry the wind should be airplanes take off and will be screwed to the deck?
                1. +3
                  24 December 2014 12: 48
                  Quote: bmv04636
                  and how sorry the wind should be airplanes take off and will be screwed to the deck?

                  Your speech is unrelated, it is impossible to understand what you are asking.
                  There must be some kind of relationship between "wind" and "airplane", I don’t understand what this is about.
                  With regards to the "wind". In strong wind or rain, the cloud of the air-fuel mixture either does not form at all, or dissipates, reducing the volume of the aerosol participating in the explosion.
            2. +6
              24 December 2014 09: 53
              Quote: bmv04636
              How do you like this combat unit TU-160 under the cover of MiG-31BM from a height of 15 thousand meters drop a vacuum bomb on the horde

              This is a very difficult task. Before this process, you need to pay off ships with air defense and all aircraft. Then you can reset. Although if this succeeds, it will be much more efficient to simply hit the remaining targets from the RCC.
              1. 0
                24 December 2014 12: 04
                and what ship air defense will reach 15 thousand meters?
                1. +4
                  24 December 2014 12: 53
                  Quote: bmv04636
                  and what ship air defense will reach 15 thousand meters?

                  RIM-66 Standard. So then the height of 15 km. back in the 60s they became unsafe for aviation ...
          2. +1
            24 December 2014 10: 02
            Quote: Tlauicol
            just do not be surprised that in response to us a thousand units of nuclear weapons will be released.

            though you don’t get anyway

            From now on, it will not matter who got where. The main thing is that it hit the Earth, and not the Moon, for example. All missiles have such accuracy, I think, even North Korean ones.
            1. lucidlook
              +2
              24 December 2014 18: 22
              Why are there little things ?! Yes, to hell target designation! We undermine cobalt ammunition and khan in the stratosphere to all living things on the planet. But how to understand who in this case is the winner?

              I can understand when sacrifices are made to defend their ideals - "for the Motherland", "for the birches", I even understand "for Stalin" (that is, for the idea). But in the event of a global nuclear war, these very birches and this very homeland will no longer exist. What is the use of defending ideals that are guaranteed not to become literally an hour later as a result of these very actions? Where is the logic?
    5. 0
      24 December 2014 09: 49
      Quote: bmv04636
      That's interesting, the X102 cruise missile (with special warheads) can work out on an aircraft carrier

      Probably no. It is subsonic and therefore the possibility of interception is very high. Need over and hypersonic maneuvering missiles.
  3. +1
    24 December 2014 07: 48
    Interest 50 to 50 with the author, you can agree, no more !!! After all, we will not paint the picture that in our army and navy everything is cloudless, but we need to strive for cloudlessness, which is what our leadership of the country has done in recent years !!! Their native army and navy must be fed, re-equipped with modern weapons and equipment, so as not to feed the NATO rabble in the future !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  4. +4
    24 December 2014 07: 58
    In addition to the satellite reconnaissance system, we also need strategic drones (such as the MQ-4C Triton). We still got planes from the Union, and under certain circumstances it will be simply dangerous.
  5. +13
    24 December 2014 08: 06
    Again the caps are flying at the Americans. Yes, the speech in the article is about the state of affairs in our system in general, and there is no shine. We can pinch, but we will not be able to resist the massive attack of the Kyrgyz Republic, aviation, and we can only hope that the "valiant" NATO members will merge after several dozen downed planes and a couple of sunken watercraft, so motivation will not work very well - to climb to the last soldier on the Russian Bear virtually this is one thing, but die in heaven is another. So while the strategic nuclear forces are our everything. And than to blaze a lot of money in an unpromising pursuit of parity with the most powerful NATO bloc, isn't it wiser to spend the bulk of your mind and money on improving our strategic nuclear forces? After all, we were not torn only because of them. And continue to develop the army without hysterics, the example of the PAK FA and its timely appearance is very indicative - due to circumstances, they "waited" for work on the mistakes of the Americans and voila - at least equivalent, and in terms of R&D and in general the cost price it is ten times cheaper.
  6. +10
    24 December 2014 08: 09
    As history has proved more than once, underestimating the enemy can be very expensive, you can not only suvernetet, but also carry out the genocide of the people with impunity. So that the article gives you an extra reason to reflect on the real state of affairs. Reassessing your strength, as a rule, is also good doesn’t bring, and history has proved it.
    1. +2
      24 December 2014 10: 53
      - And history has also proved that Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov took (!) The considered impregnable fortress of Ismail with smaller troops with fewer losses ("That is why it is the story that will not lie a word, not half a word!").
  7. Crang
    +3
    24 December 2014 08: 11
    As of 2014, two cruisers of project 1164 Moscow (Black Sea Fleet) and Varyag (Pacific Fleet), one heavy nuclear missile cruiser of project 1144 Peter the Great, remained in the fleet’s combat fleet of ships capable of actually fighting AUGs using long-range anti-ship missiles. , three destroyers of project 956, three submarine missile carriers of project 949A ...

    Author, why did you list the Project 956 destroyers here? Their strike missile armament consists of only 2x4 launchers - 8 anti-ship missiles "Moskit" or "Moskit-M" with a firing range of only 120-170 km. If they can fight amerovskie AUG, then a whole bunch of MRK projects 1234 and 1239 (14 ships in total), as well as RCA projects 1241 and 206-MR (25 ships in total) can obviously do this.
    At the same time, the author "forgot" about a number of ships quite capable of performing this task, at least no worse than the destroyers of Project 956. First of all, this is the Admiral Kuznetsov strike aircraft carrier. Four corvettes of project 2038.0: "Guarding", "Savvy", "Boyky", "Stoic" - all in the BF. Two RTOs of project 2163.1: "Grad Sviyazhsk" and "Uglich" - all in the KF. Two corvettes of Project 11661-K: "Dagestan" and "Tatarstan" - also in the KF. Project 01090 frigate "Sharp" - from the Black Sea Fleet. BOD project 1151.1 "Admiral Chabanenko" - part of the Northern Fleet. Also, the author did not take into account the multipurpose nuclear submarines and submarines.
    1. +3
      24 December 2014 09: 11
      Quote: Krang
      If they can fight Amer’s AUGs, then a whole bunch of RTOs will obviously be able to

      That's just the point ... IF ... So a torpedo boat can fight an aircraft carrier ...
      1. Crang
        0
        24 December 2014 09: 29
        Quote: Nayhas
        That's just the point ... IF ... So a torpedo boat can fight an aircraft carrier ...

        I didn't write that the Project 956 destroyers can fight the AUG (we have only three of them). But if they can, then MRK with RCA (only 39 ships) will certainly be able to. All these ships are equipped with Moskit, Termit, Uran, Onyx, Caliber anti-ship missile systems with a firing range of 120 to 500 kilometers and have nuclear missiles as well. From the "wolf pack" MRK / RKA, no most powerful AUG will go anywhere. Especially if they are supported by large ships with powerful air defense. And we also have a lot of them.
        1. +3
          24 December 2014 09: 43
          Quote: Krang
          From the "wolf pack" MRK / RKA, no most powerful AUG will go anywhere.

          Yeah, I still see a "wolf pack" of RTOs in the ocean with at least 4 points of excitement without fuel, water and food, looking in vain for the appearance of "smoke" of the enemy AUG on the horizon ...
          1. Crang
            +2
            24 December 2014 09: 50
            Quote: Nayhas
            Yeah, I still see a "wolf pack" of RTOs in the ocean with at least 4 points of excitement without fuel, water and food, looking in vain for the appearance of "smoke" of the enemy AUG on the horizon ...

            No in the ocean, but quite normal in the sea. RTOs are quite large boats. And to search is not their task. They will be led.
            Quote: Nayhas
            And who will let RTOs?

            Why would he climb somewhere? Each will be given in a volley from a hundred or two kilometers away and on leaks at full speed.
            1. +2
              24 December 2014 13: 04
              Quote: Krang

              No in the ocean, but quite normal in the sea. RTOs are quite large boats.

              Which sea? Black and Baltic disappears, there were no aircraft carriers spawn. Only the Pacific Ocean remains. And there are so many places where RTOs will not go either in autonomy or in seaworthiness, and an aircraft carrier with his hand in thousand kilometers. possible and 300 km. from the goal of working without admitting any shell shell like the same RTOs ...
              Quote: Krang
              Why would he climb somewhere? Each will be given in a volley from a hundred or two kilometers away and on leaks at full speed.

              Yeah ... at 35 knots? On an aircraft carrier it means they will wait until at a speed of 50-60 km / h RTOs crawl to them at a distance of 100 km. to get a rocket on board? What naivety ...
              1. Crang
                +2
                24 December 2014 13: 30
                Quote: Nayhas
                And there are so many places where RTOs will not go either in autonomy or in seaworthiness,

                In the deep ocean, yes. But on closer to the coast of the MRK kings.
                Quote: Nayhas
                and an aircraft carrier with his hand in thousand km. possible and 300 km. on purpose to work

                So RTOs (new) can work on an aircraft carrier with 300-500km.
                Quote: Nayhas
                Yeah ... at 35 knots? On an aircraft carrier it means they will wait until at a speed of 50-60 km / h RTOs crawl to them at a distance of 100 km. to get a rocket on board? What naivety ...

                Who is at 35uz, and who is at 55uz. And if there are a lot of them? Pieces 10. And they come from different directions like locusts? Well, one, two, three will bang - the rest will still get wet. And after all, the AUG must first detect these RTOs. What is easier to detect - races concentrated on the sea of ​​RTOs or a whole AUG led by a giant aircraft carrier?
                1. lucidlook
                  -1
                  24 December 2014 18: 43
                  Quote: Krang
                  And if there are a lot of them? Pieces 10.

                  And suddenly, there are also "many" ships in AUG. Pieces 11. smile

                  Quote: Krang
                  And they come from different directions like locusts?

                  What a horror. From different sides? Especially from behind, right?

                  Alas, all this is absolutely impossible. Due to the fact that at distant lines of about 300 km from the warrant (not from an aircraft carrier, but from the warrant), the entire sea surface is illuminated by AEGIS and EF-18G radars, which constantly carry out patrol flights and not only issue command and control equipment for means of destruction, but quite successfully jammed entire radio spectrum. Just in case, what if you have a radar?

                  The control center via the channels of the integrated system AEGIS are issued including to surface ships, submarines and aircraft. Goals are allocated in accordance with priorities, excluding re-and under-aiming.

                  EMNIP, modeling the breakthrough of the AUG defense system required a volley of 100+ supersonic missiles to guarantee the destruction of the entire group. A volley is when all missiles fly more or less at the same time. You can figure out the number of carriers yourself. And this is for one AUG.
      2. +4
        24 December 2014 09: 35
        Quote: Nayhas
        So then a torpedo boat can fight with an aircraft carrier ...

        Only who will let him in!
        1. +2
          24 December 2014 09: 40
          Quote: Bayonet
          Only who will let him in!

          And who will let RTOs?
      3. 0
        24 December 2014 10: 08
        Quote: Nayhas
        So then a torpedo boat can fight an aircraft carrier ..

        It can even sink if it gets right of course.
    2. +4
      24 December 2014 09: 54
      Quote: Krang
      Author and why did you indicate the destroyers of project 956 here? Their strike missile armament consists of only 2x4 launchers - 8 anti-ship missiles "Moskit" or "Moskit-M" with a firing range of only 120-170 km.

      Author, that is, I hiconsidered these ships capable of fighting the AUG, since the destroyers of Project 956, albeit with a stretch, can still be attributed to the ships of the "ocean fleet. Moreover, the" urya-patriots "and other" hat-throwers "would still remember about them.
      Concerning:
      Quote: Krang
      First of all, this is the Admiral Kuznetsov strike aircraft carrier.
      Unfortunately, our only aircraft carrier is difficult to consider combat-ready. It needs serious repair, and indeed, in my opinion, RCC on it are superfluous. Yes

      Quote: Krang
      Four corvettes of project 2038.0: "Guarding", "Savvy", "Boyky", "Stoic" - all in the BF. Two RTOs of project 2163.1: "Grad Sviyazhsk" and "Uglich" - all in the KF. Two corvettes of Project 11661-K: "Dagestan" and "Tatarstan" - also in the KF. Project 01090 frigate "Sharp" - from the Black Sea Fleet. BOD project 1151.1 "Admiral Chabanenko" - as part of the Northern Fleet. Also, the author did not take into account the multipurpose nuclear submarines and submarines.


      BODs are tailored for other tasks. The publication says about the prospects of combating AUG "mosquito fleet", and therefore I will not repeat myself, as well as about nuclear submarines and submarines.
      1. Crang
        -2
        24 December 2014 10: 12
        Quote: Bongo
        since the destroyers of Project 956, albeit with a stretch, can still be attributed to the ships of the ocean fleet.

        Why with a stretch?
        Quote: Bongo
        Unfortunately, our only aircraft carrier is difficult to consider combat-ready. He needs some serious repairs,

        It may and does need repair, but so far it is still afloat, which means it works. Moreover, it is the most powerful surface combat ship in the world.
        Quote: Bongo
        and indeed in my opinion the RCC on it are superfluous

        Why unnecessary? And I think that they are not superfluous. And they are. So why "Kuzya" can't fight AUG? Will be able.
        Quote: Bongo
        BOD sharpened for other tasks

        The strike missile armament of the Admiral Chabanenko BOD is identical to that of the Project 956 destroyers. The BOD is larger and has even more other weapons. Therefore, if Project 956 can fight AUG, then Project 1151.1 will definitely be able to.
        Quote: Bongo
        About the prospects of combating the AUG "mosquito fleet" in the publication said,

        It is said incorrectly.
        1. +3
          24 December 2014 10: 21
          Quote: Krang
          It is said incorrectly.

          Killer argument good Of course I could argue with you on all counts, but something to me crowbars. Yesterday I was preparing the publication until late, but today I was exhausted in the service, and even my wife composes the brain wassat So sorry, refrain request Although, on the other hand, you could prepare your own publication on this topic, I’m sure many would be interested. Yes
          1. Crang
            0
            24 December 2014 10: 40
            You are clearly confusing battleships, artillery times, when aviation was very effective against even the most powerful battleships with modern missile ones. The same RTO with its "Wasp" will be able to stand up for itself. And if a TFR, a cruiser, or something like that with the "Forts" is floating behind, then generally turn off the light. Argentine aviation even had big problems with the Sea Dart. And besides aviation, American aircraft carriers have practically nothing.
    3. Fin
      +1
      24 December 2014 10: 36
      Quote: Krang
      At the same time, the author "forgot" about a number of ships that are quite capable of performing this task, at least not worse than the destroyers of Project 956. First of all, this is the Admiral Kuznetsov strike aircraft carrier.

      And also the cruiser Ustinov.
      Does the main complex work at Kuznetsovo? In my opinion it has been ruined for 6 years already.
  8. +10
    24 December 2014 08: 11
    Kakzhe zadolbali these grief analysts ... That's why compare the USSR and the Russian Federation. The USSR had the task of building world communism, so he was interested in the whole Earth. The Russian Federation does not have such ambitions. Therefore, the question must be asked correctly - can the Russian Federation destroy aircraft carriers near its borders or not? The answer is simple - yes, maybe.
    But apparently, in the region of Madagascar we cannot destroy an aircraft carrier ... But are these problems of the inhabitants of Madagascar? But we have enough of our problems, and we will solve them.
    1. -1
      24 December 2014 10: 26
      I fully agree, it seems that the author and some commentators are not friends with geography and have no idea about the geopolitical reality of our days.

      Something like WOT only in the ocean, in their heads.

      One might ask, how do the authors imagine the attack with the help of ACG on Russia?
      1. +3
        24 December 2014 11: 43
        Quote: Evgeny_Lev
        I completely agree, it seems that the author and some commentators are not friends with geography


        Everything is fine with geography, both political and economic, and what geographical inaccuracies or inconsistencies have you noticed in this publication?

        Quote: Evgeny_Lev
        Something like WOT only in the ocean, in their heads.


        Thank you God never played WOT ...

        Quote: Evgeny_Lev
        One might ask, how do the authors imagine the attack with the help of ACG on Russia?


        Do you completely eliminate this? If so, then you are a big optimist No.
        Our country has not yet undergone "democratization", including with the help of "Axes" and carrier-based aircraft, only due to the presence of its own ICBMs with nuclear warheads.
        1. +1
          24 December 2014 12: 03
          So I did not hear your assumptions regarding the place of a possible AUG attack.

          Let's specifically, directly on the spot, and not in the "depths of the world's oceans", we will model the counteraction with the means available in that area.
          1. +1
            24 December 2014 13: 05
            Quote: Evgeny_Lev
            So I did not hear your assumptions regarding the place of a possible AUG attack.


            This is not for me, ask a question to the command of the US Navy.
        2. 0
          24 December 2014 14: 15
          And yet you did not answer where the AUG can be applied against Russia
        3. 0
          24 December 2014 15: 07
          about carrier aircraft, the question is not idle. As I understand it, they can be expected only in the summer and only in the Far East. Isn't it cheaper to use the light elves bases in Japan and South Korea.
    2. +6
      24 December 2014 10: 36
      Quote: yanus
      Like these sad analysts ...


      So don’t read if it’s not interesting ... but I read it with pleasure good In the publication, not everything is indisputable and unambiguous, but there is a rational grain. At least the author is not a "shapkozakidatel" of which there are a lot on the site (as a rule, they are technically illiterate people) and he feels that he is not indifferent to the development paths of the country and our armed forces. Article "+".
    3. +2
      24 December 2014 11: 36
      Quote: yanus
      Like these sad analysts ...

      Sympathize with you... lol
      Quote: yanus
      That is why to compare the USSR and the Russian Federation. The USSR had the task of building world communism, so he was interested in the whole Earth.

      You confuse the 20-30s with the 60-80s, while world communism was clearly not going to build.
      Quote: yanus
      Therefore, the question must be asked correctly - can the Russian Federation destroy aircraft carriers near its borders or not? The answer is simple - yes, maybe.

      This is precisely what is discussed in this publication ...
      Quote: yanus
      But apparently in the region of Madagascar we cannot destroy an aircraft carrier ...

      Perhaps we can still ...
  9. +8
    24 December 2014 09: 05
    The author is a plus! The article is sensible - to relax and hope for reserves from the Union is not worth it - you have to work and strengthen the defense. The global war will not leave winners, and mattress makers are not so stupid to shoot themselves without achieving their goals. The most important thing for us is intelligence, its normal work will help in time to group the means of protection that are available, and to improve these means, bringing them to mass production, as someone once said, "Democracy comes from the sky."
  10. Dry 45
    +2
    24 December 2014 09: 18
    What what and what about the striped powerful fleet and dangerous. It’s worth noting that they don’t give anyone a nuclear fleet for rent, but we please, who else? INDIA DO NOT RAISE YOUR HAND !!!
  11. +3
    24 December 2014 09: 19
    Let's tell the truth, the main air strike in Iraq was inflicted not by aircraft carriers, but by planes from the nearest air bases. In small local conflicts, yes, an aircraft carrier can be used (a matter of expediency). And in regional conflicts such as Desert Storm (against Iraq) Yugoslavia, the contribution of carrier-based aircraft compared to army (ground-based) aircraft is negligible. I understand carrier orders can be used to block shipping, but this does not threaten us, does it. And if the "light elves" try to blockade China from the sea, then the flag is not in their hands, but in another place.
  12. sazhka4
    +3
    24 December 2014 09: 23
    The article put a plus. Although the painted picture does not add optimism. In any case, it’s better to really look at the World than to shout about the hats we will throw. If you see the problem, this is already a plus. Then we decide ..
  13. +8
    24 December 2014 09: 29
    Article plus. The author gave a very informative and interesting analysis. It is these articles that attract me to the site "Military Review". And who does not agree with the author - argue, "the truth is born in a dispute."
    1. +2
      24 December 2014 09: 42
      the question is where Russia can have a conflict with the American aircraft carrier order. If the "light elves" attack us, they know they will get a fierce response. "Light elves" cannot even squeeze the Crimea. The golden era of aircraft carriers ended in World War II. Although a vigorous bomb has already been used to intimidate there, which showed who can deliver it to the enemy will win, but if the enemy can throw vigorous poop in response and they will reach their goal, then there is no point in starting a butch, so to speak, vigorous parity ...
      1. sazhka4
        +2
        24 December 2014 10: 37
        Quote: bmv04636
        If the "light elves" attack us, they know they will get a fierce response.

        Well, again about the hats .. Did you try to read the article? Or are they able to perceive only in the form of comics? I can recommend Murzilka magazine ..
        1. 0
          24 December 2014 12: 13
          I have a question from which side the AUG can get to our country not noticeably explain from the Far East The Pacific Ocean is doubtful, isn't it? And all these hypothetical comparisons we can not suppress the AUG for nothing because all adults understand that in the event of an attack on us, a vigorous blow is coming. If we hypothetically imagine that the conflict flares up in a third country and hypothetically our ships are attacked by "light elves", as I understand it, their gut is not iron. An excellent evidence of this is Syria, if we diplomatically do not merge, then the light elves do not climb into the breach, there is a war going through third countries, and they do not have AUGs.
          1. +3
            24 December 2014 12: 29
            Quote: bmv04636
            Me the question which side of the ACG can get to Our country does not noticeably explain from the Far East the Pacific Ocean is doubtful as it is?


            Not true ... In a satellite image, the aircraft carrier "George Washington" (George Washington) in the port of Yokosuka. On an ongoing basis in the area are 1-2 aircraft carrier.
            1. 0
              24 December 2014 15: 07
              Well, how is it in winter when minus overboard
              1. GDP
                +2
                24 December 2014 15: 40
                In general, in the winter, for thousands of kilometers along almost the entire Pacific coast of Russia, the sea is covered with ice, unlike Japan ...
                I’m telling you as a geographer ...
                This is how the most southern port of Russia in the Far East looks like in winter, which in principle can be considered not even freezing, to the north there is already a concrete ice shell ...

                And here is the border of continuous freezing of the seas of Russia:


                Here in the summer - please swim and attack ...
                1. +2
                  24 December 2014 16: 13
                  it's time to attack while our fleet is in ice captivity! bad example
                  1. GDP
                    -3
                    25 December 2014 10: 29
                    We have almost all ships - ice class, unlike the United States. So the advantage in the winter is ours ... And the AUG will not even be able to get closer to most of our shores in the winter, only to the southernmost part ....
                    1. +2
                      25 December 2014 11: 30
                      to most of the shores to attack reindeer herders? or land in the taiga? The main Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet bases are easy - the seas do not freeze there 700 km from the coast.
                2. BIG
                  +4
                  26 December 2014 16: 11
                  I’m telling you as a geographer ...

                  Navigation in Vladivostok is all-the-year-round, I am telling you this as a local resident. In the picture you have the ferry "Brigadier Rishko", the age is deeply over thirty, there is no ice class, and still goes to the islands all year round. Japan is washed from the east by the warm current of the Kuro-Sivo, which you as a geographer know, so you never heard of ice there. Excl. Hokkaido. So the conclusion
                  Here in the summer - please swim and attack ...
                  strange.
  14. +3
    24 December 2014 09: 34
    Solid analytics, there are inaccuracies, but generally useful. I agree with those who consider underestimating the enemy can lead to big trouble
  15. +2
    24 December 2014 09: 43
    I can just imagine ... the timid morning sun made its way through the clouds over the quiet okiyan and ... quite unexpectedly, mighty Mercan augi arose off the coast of Russia ... guys ay !!! it's not about throwing hats, but about that maybe enough ash ahead of time to pour the heads of the riots? everything is clear that it is impossible not to underestimate but also not to overestimate. I know I know it's better to perebzdet than not to do it. so in fact you can perebzdet so much that we can’t get up the pants will not give. because it was in the spring on the "Donald Cook" alarm the Russians had a combat approach ... and after all, their augi in a real battle and no one saw when they nightmare those who are obviously weaker and so then ... it will press the code as there will be another grandmother said in two, the warriors from the Merikos, as we have recently seen not so hot ... that's advertising yes !!! but Coca-Cola is also advertised and not everyone dares to drink it ...
  16. -3
    24 December 2014 09: 45
    As practice shows, one plane can cause a lot of trouble for the super modern ships of the Americans, so "do not rush to bury us." Of course, the US Navy currently surpasses the Russian Navy in the number of ships, their carrier-based aviation has overtaken ours by orders of magnitude, both in the number of aircraft and in their modifications, but look at the trends in the development of fleets, our fleet is not "invasive" but defensive, and if necessary, he will fulfill his task perfectly.
  17. -1
    24 December 2014 09: 56
    Who knows what is heard about the X-32? This missile will be able to destroy the enemy’s ACG with its characteristics. And if we take also our other developments, then we will definitely get to the aircraft carrier.
  18. +7
    24 December 2014 10: 07
    "Is the Russian Navy capable of fighting US Navy aircraft carriers?" It is capable and will be, if it happens. True, with what efficiency is the big question so far. It would be nice to remember that the AUG is just one of the means of armed struggle available in the arsenal of the enemy, and how God will know how this arsenal will be used in the event of a major war, although it is unlikely. I agree with the author that the most vulnerable place of the Russian Navy today in terms of combating AAGs is the lack of an aircraft carrier fleet equivalent in number and combat capabilities, as well as the lack of an effective reconnaissance and target designation system that enables the timely detection of AOGs, classifies targets as part of AOGs, and distinguishes them from all targets aircraft carriers and data transmission to active means (RCC, naval aviation, etc.) in real time in order to ensure the destruction of aircraft carriers before they can lift be air in the main part of their aircraft. It is before that, and not after. This problem is not new, they tried to solve it by various methods during the USSR (allocation of at least one multi-purpose submarine for each aircraft carrier for constant tracking and destruction as soon as possible upon receipt of an order, creation of satellite reconnaissance and target designation systems, use of reconnaissance aircraft of the type TU95 and the like, the allocation to the regiment of missile carriers of the type TU22 / TU22M for one aircraft carrier, etc. etc. but in general, the task remained unsolved in full, although neither spared money nor effort to solve it. Today, China is trying to solve this problem by creating ballistic missiles capable of providing an overview of a large part of the ocean when the BR warhead is in the upper part of its trajectory, detecting AAGs, detaching an aircraft carrier as part of AAGs and attacking it. At the same time, China does not count on the destruction of all AUGs. It has a more modest task today - to oust the USA AUG beyond the areas of the oceans that China considers to be a zone of its national interests. At the same time, China believes that the "accidental" destruction of an "unidentified" BR of even one aircraft carrier will be very sensitive for the United States, and they will get out of this zone without further escalating the war with China. And China will show mercy, save the surviving sailors of a drowning aircraft carrier, and those with tears in their eyes (entertained in the video) will also thank their saviors. The scenario is quite possible, especially since the AUG's missile defense assets will be "not enough" to combat such ballistic missiles. Perhaps this scenario is good for China, but it is hardly suitable for Russia. Here the landfill, if it starts, will be more serious and will have to destroy all aircraft carriers located off the coast of Russia within the reach of their air wings and those that would be dangerous for the main combat and auxiliary units of the Russian Navy (nuclear submarines, TAKR, large anti-submarine ships, m supply vessels , etc.) the task is more serious than that of China, and today the Russian Navy still has a lot to solve it. RCCs themselves, no matter how super super they are, without an effective reconnaissance and target designation system tied into a single network with other systems, cannot solve anything. But there is no such system yet, and when it will appear is unknown.
    P.S. Nick's Israeli flag is not mine. I am from Minsk. The site, as always, is buggy.
    1. +4
      24 December 2014 11: 37
      Quote: gregor6549
      But there is no such system yet, and when it will appear is unknown.


      Now in orbit there should be three satellites - two passive and one active. Next year the system will be fully operational. Here they talked about "Aquarelle", it is a more versatile complex than the MKRTs with a ground infrastructure of transmitting and receiving stations geographically dispersed throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. There should be such stations not less than five. They will be tied to all satellite systems previously operating in a highly specialized manner, such as the Peonies and Lotus MKRC, KA SPRN and KA GRU. At the first stage, Aquarelle will work in the interests of the Russian Navy, for which the ICRC system will be at the deployment stage in the future, as the compatibility and universality problems are resolved, the remaining satellite detection and reconnaissance systems will be connected to it.
      At a meeting of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Putin mentioned yesterday about the TSA in the light of the successful test of the Angara.
      By 2018 the task is to provide the ability to destroy any American aircraft carrier anywhere in the world within three hours with an accuracy of 3 meters
      1. 0
        24 December 2014 12: 25
        What kind of tasks and who did not set. When these tasks are solved, then there will be something to talk about. And in terms of the current difficulties with the economy, it is obvious that some of the highly urgent tasks will become less urgent, and then, you see, task managers will change (nothing lasts forever under the moon) and will begin to blame the "lack of availability" on their predecessors. Everything has happened more than once and the process has been worked out to the smallest detail. There would also be a result. But this is already more difficult.
        1. +2
          24 December 2014 12: 52
          Quote: gregor6549
          Everything has been done more than once and the process has been worked out to the smallest detail. There would also be a result. But this is already more difficult.


          There was no single global integrated satellite intelligence system.Not to mention the acute problem of bringing information received from satellites to the tactical level. Now, with the development of technology, the same civilian satellites can be used for military purposes by type reconnaissance spacecraft with high resolution terrain and high accuracy of geo-referencing can solve not only tasks such as compiling accurate topographic maps of the terrain, but target designation for various WTOs with inertial, inertial / satellite guidance systems, terrain maps for correlation GOS.
          Quote: gregor6549
          that some of the urgent tasks will become less urgent,

          In this matter, funding will only increase as announced at the Military College of the Ministry of Defense.
          1. +1
            24 December 2014 14: 07
            I already wrote that between the declared and realized the distance can be calculated for years. At what colleges only I have not been and what plans I have never heard of.
            And then the harsh reality came and only horns and legs remained from the plans. But what kind of people led the collegiums. And the ministers of the Radio Industry and the Court Industry of the USSR, and military marshals, and multi-star generals and admirals. The storm roared, thunder roared. And then everything calmed down and went on as it went, resting against the real possibilities of the owls. industry and the reluctance of its leaders to take unnecessary risk for the same salary. And then the same leaders quickly got their hands on everything and they want to risk even less than then, although their salaries have become orders of magnitude higher. But all of them have a "Boo done!" and after the meetings "And fig you"
            But ... blessed is he who believes.
  19. +2
    24 December 2014 10: 40
    Yes, people are tired already. We either build and develop our own, or we die. And the country's leadership, as it is, does not calve much. Is he really a Gauleiter? After all, during his "well-fed" years, they cut a lot.
    ps I also have an Israeli flag, apparently the center of the Russian Federation has already become Israel
  20. +4
    24 December 2014 10: 40
    In the USSR, it was believed that American aircraft carriers had no chance against our anti-ship missiles. In the USA, by the way, they also counted. And when Pakistan in 1973 turned to the United States for help, they decided to help Pakistan and presented an ultimatum to India. India turned to the USSR for help, and he sent one or more of his missile submarines and informed the United States that in an attack on India, the USSR would destroy American ships. The USA withdrew its ultimatum to India. The result of the war is well known to everyone: India won the war. And since then, the USSR and now Russia is respected in India precisely for its strength and the fact that the United States is really afraid of Russia. And also because the USSR gave India victory in that war.

    It doesn’t matter what all those who wish to show off their knowledge write - what matters is what really happened.
  21. -1
    24 December 2014 11: 30
    There will not be enough rockets in each fleet of ours, the Chinese will have to ask them to bombard the aircraft carriers with ballistic missiles.
    1. +4
      24 December 2014 11: 52
      Quote: Vadim237
      threw bolesticheskimi missiles.


      Such missiles have not yet been invented. And no one has thought of shooting ballistic missiles at the ships. You are the first!
      1. 0
        24 December 2014 12: 29
        Come up with. Chinese. And not only invented but also made. How successful? Time will tell. By the way, Makeev’s company also proposed technical solutions in the middle of 80x. But ... there is no prophet in his Fatherland
  22. 0
    24 December 2014 11: 38
    The question is, from what safe distance can the AUG be able to operate unreasonably on land, which is covered by anti-ship complexes with over-the-horizon range and powerful echeloned air defense? Explain to me please, but I put a cross in the article, I liked it.
    1. +4
      24 December 2014 12: 03
      Quote: UNCLE
      The question is, from what safe distance can an AUG operate without a penalty on land, which is covered by anti-ship complexes with an over-horizon range and powerful layered air defense?

      The combat radius of the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet is about 700 km. True, it is not clear what kind of "anti-ship complex with over-the-horizon range" do you mean, where and how many are deployed? And it is also not clear which region of the country, besides Moscow and the region, has a "powerful echeloned air defense"?
      1. +1
        24 December 2014 12: 34
        Boeing F / A-18E / F Super Hornet
        Top speed: 1,915 km / h
        Range: 3,330 km
        Cruise speed: 1,250 km / h
  23. donechin1
    +4
    24 December 2014 11: 55
    reading this article is like accepting a sobering soul — once again I am convinced of the enormous harm done by our leadership at that time and of the colossal efforts to return at least any part of what we had before
  24. 0
    24 December 2014 12: 09
    There may already be enough articles with comparisons of the net attack forces and the net deterrence forces.

    In the depths of the ocean, it makes no sense to arrange a confrontation (in this time period).

    Maybe there is someone who can make an analytical article about the capabilities of the AUG on specific theater of operations, with the layouts of all the available capabilities of the counter-forces on it?

    For example, DV, as many here have already noticed. About the Black and Baltic Seas, I think everything is clear.
  25. kozlik4071
    0
    24 December 2014 12: 39
    Quote: vladsolo56
    Is everything already feared? the author so wants to convince us that the AUG is simply an incredible weapon in terms of power against which Russia simply has no objection. Who else agrees with him? I personally do not.
  26. kozlik4071
    0
    24 December 2014 12: 51
    I would like to add that to a lot of what you said about the destruction of aircraft carriers, there is another effective and cheap way, which for obvious reasons I can’t reveal, maybe with time ...
  27. +3
    24 December 2014 13: 05
    objectively in many respects the author is right. If you imagine ways of countering and destroying the AUG, then there are basically three options. The first is that the missile cruiser reaches the target range of launching "granites", and this is 600 km ... but then the questions begin - will they give our For cruisers to approach this distance to the AUG? Let's say we went to this distance and let the granites in. Now let's analyze how the group of launched granites works. (But let's not forget that the AUG has strong security and this echeloned defense will have to break through the missiles) Having broken through the defenses, the missiles distribute targets and the first to be destroyed will be the ships covering the aircraft carrier: cruisers, destroyers, etc. And it is not at all a fact that the destruction of the same cruiser will take only one granite. But let's say there were missiles in a salvo that went to the aircraft carrier. To sink this colossus is required from 6 to 20! granites. The question is, will there be enough missiles in a salvo to sink an aircraft carrier? Let's take into account the fact that at the same time the entire cruising group will heroically fight off attacks on deck enemy aviation. Now the second development option is the approach to the launch distance of torpedoes, nuclear submarines. But again, remember the AUG and surface guards. And the third case is the approach of the same Tu-22. By the way, today, this is the most effective way destruction of the AUG. But let's hope that very soon everything will change in favor of our fleet.
    1. +4
      24 December 2014 13: 13
      Quote: NEXUS
      If you imagine ways to counter and destroy the AUG, then there are basically three options.

      That's right ...

      Quote: NEXUS
      And the third case is the approach of the same Tu-22. By the way, today, this is the most effective way to destroy the AUG.

      And this too ... only as already mentioned in the publication in the naval aviation of the Tu-22М3 not at all. All aircraft of this type were transferred to long-range aviation and the tasks of delivering strikes on AUGs are not priority for them. In addition, they are concentrated mainly in the central part of the country, far from the coast.
  28. +6
    24 December 2014 13: 32
    Damn, did you see the composition of our fleet, not the one that is on the payroll, but the one that can really go to sea?
    Ships of the ocean zone:
    1 aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" with an incomplete air group: out of 26 design MiG-29K or Su-27K, the last time he went on a campaign with 8 Su-33, which, due to the absence of a catapult, can fly with weapons, a little further than the horizon ( of the original batch of 25 serial Su-33s for 2013, only ten remained in service) and with the missing AWACS aircraft. In addition, the Su-33s are pure interceptors, and do not have effective guided weapons to attack protected ground targets or enemy warships. As a result, the aircraft carrier has limited capabilities to defend against air attack and only formal capabilities to deliver air strikes against ground and surface targets.
    1 TARKR ("Peter the Great") out of 3 (33, 3%). "Admiral Ushakov" aka "Kirov" no longer counts, it will be disposed of in 2016.
    2 RRC (Varyag and Moscow) out of 3 (66%).
    6 BOD pr. 1155 and 1155.1 (3 Pacific Fleet and 3 Northern Fleet) out of 9 (66, 6%). Moreover, the most modern "Admiral Chabanenko" pr. 1155.1 is under repair at least until next year, the same situation is with the "Admiral Tributs" at the Pacific Fleet. "Admiral Kharlamov" on the Northern Fleet, is in reserve, but most likely "on pins and needles."
    3 destroyers pr. 956 out of 9 (33, 3%), and even those, due to problems with engines, became ships of the coastal zone. BOD pr. 1134B "Kerch" is not yet taken, it used to be "Not a fountain" with outdated weapons, used as a floating barracks, and now after the fire, it looks like everything ...
    2 TFR out of 5 (40%): "Yaroslav the Wise" and "Ladny" on the Black Sea Fleet, project 1135, built in 1980, pure "anti-submarine", with outdated air defense. Others: "Undaunted" under repair by the end of next year without anti-ship missiles; "Sharp-witted" - built in 1969, frightening the adversary with empty pipes of their X-35 SCRC "Uran", also under repair, and "Pytlivy" pr. 1135M, built in 1981, "kicked" out of repair at the beginning of this year to cover the Olympics in Sochi and already again standing in the dock, where he replaced the Ladny.
    Since 2000, the Navy has received ONE TFR pr. 11540 ("Yaroslav the Wise"), we wait until the end of the year "Admiral Gorshkov")
    Ships of the near sea zone:
    1 RKO pr. 1166.1 (50%). "Tatarstan" is under repair.
    4 Corvette Ave. 20380.
    17 MRK (3 pr. 21631, 2 pr. 1239 and 12 pr. 1234-1 "Calm" at the Black Sea Fleet under repair).
    21 MPK: 5 BF - pr. 1331.1 (1 "Aleksin" under repair) - practically without air defense; 2 pr. 1124 Black Sea Fleet (4 under repair, although it is possible to increase due to the ships of the former Ukrainian Navy: 2 IPC pr. 1124 and 1 pr. 1241.1); 6 Project 1124 (Northern Fleet); 8 project 1124 (Pacific Fleet)
    4 MAK (3 pr. 21630, 1 pr. 1241).
    Here the situation is better: from 2000 of the year the fleet received 2 RKO ave. 1166.1, 4 corvette ave. 20380, 3 MRK ave. 21631 (16, 6%), 3 IAC ave. 21630
    1. +2
      24 December 2014 13: 39
      50 minesweepers: BF-14 (5 BTShch + 9 RTShch); ChF-9: 1 MTShch under repair, 1 MTShch in reserve (7 MTShch + 2 RTShch, although it is possible to increase at the expense of 2 MTShch pr 266M "Aquamarine" ukro-Navy); SF-10 (4 MTShch + 6 BTShch, BT-50 "Yelnya" under repair); 10 Pacific Fleet (2 MTShch + 7 BTShch + 1 RTShch); KFl-7 (2 BTShch + 5 RTShch). Of these, only 13 (24%) are naval capable of escorting ships at sea. At the same time, all minesweepers work only with towed trawls, at the technological level of mine action half a century ago (i.e. 50s-60s of the last century). Modern remote-controlled underwater vehicles, sonars and databases of underwater objects are absent on them.
      Boats:
      Missile-28: 8 BF, of which 2 project 12411Т; 5 Black Sea Fleet, 1 Ave. 12411Т (possibly an increase by 1 former Ukrainian Ave. 1241Т; 11 Pacific Fleet, of which 1 Ave. 12411T; 4 CFL (1 Ave. 12411Т and 3 Ave.206, possibly removed from service) 8 (27%) are armed with obsolete anti-ship missiles П-15 of the end of 50's, used for educational purposes.
      Artillery-5 (1 SF and 5 CFL).
      Anti-sabotage-9 (1 BS, 2 Pacific Fleet, 5 Black Sea Fleet, 1 CFL), an increase in 1 of former Ukrainian Ave. 1415A is possible
      Patrolmen-3 (2 Project 12150 "Mongoose" and 1 Project 03160 "Raptor" - all Baltic Fleets).
      Landing forces:
      BDK-13: 3 BF (project 775); 4 Black Sea Fleet (3 pr. 775 and 1 pr. 1171, taking into account the recently out of repair), 3 more ("Caesar Kunnikov" pr. 775, "Orsk" and "Nikolay Filchenkov" pr. 1171) under repair, possibly an increase to the former Ukrainian large landing craft, project 775 ("Konstantin Olshansky"); 4 Northern Fleet (project 775, "Olenegorskiy miner" and "Georgy Pobedonosets" are planning to put them up for repair); 2 Pacific Fleet (1 project 775, and 1 project 1171, 2 more BDK-11 "Peresvet" and BDK-101 "Oslyabya" under repair)
      2 MDKVP pr 12322 "Zubr" (BF)
      DKA- 25: 7 BF; 3 Black Sea Fleet; 4 SF; 3 PF, 8 CFL
      The increase in the number of landing and landing means is due to the construction of the DKA, coastal zone. From the 16 BDK to the ranks (3- 18% of the obsolete 1171 project built in the late 60 of the last century).
      Of the auxiliary ships, there are no integrated supply ships, no hospital ships, of the 3 training ships in service, only one and 4 offshore tankers, etc. 1559, were built in the 70's.
      1. +3
        24 December 2014 13: 43
        Submarines:
        14 RPKSN (10-SF, 4-Pacific Fleet), of which 11 are combat-ready:
        SF-7: 1 project 955 "Borey" -K-535 "Yuri Dolgoruky", 1 project 941UM "Akula" -TK-208 "Dmitry Donskoy", 5 project 667BDRM "Dolphin": K-51 "Verkhoturye" , K-84 "Yekaterinburg", K-117 "Bryansk", K-18 "Karelia", K-407 "Novomoskovsk". On December 19, K-84 "Yekaterinburg" pr. 667BDRM "Dolphin" was repaired, but K-114 "Tula" took its place. TK-17 "Arkhangelsk" and TK-20 "Severstal" of project 941 "Akula" due to lack of ammunition were withdrawn to the reserve (TK-20 in 2004, TK-17 in 2006). The issue of disposal is being resolved.
        Pacific Fleet-4: 2 pr. 955 "Borey" -K-550 "Alexander Nevsky" and K-551 "Vladimir Monomakh"; 2 Project 667BDR "Kalmar": K-223 "Podolsk" and K-433 "St. George the Victorious".
        Multipurpose nuclear torpedo submarines with cruise missiles-28 (18-SF, 10-Pacific Fleet), of which 12 are combat-ready, i.e. less than half.
        SF-9: 1 pr.885 "Ash" - K-560 "Severodvinsk" (adopted by the Federation Council on June 17); 2 Project 949A "Antey" - K-119 "Voronezh", K-410 "Smolensk"; 1 Project 945A "Condor" - B-534 "Nizhny Novgorod"; 3 pr. 971 "Pike-B" - K-154 "Tiger", K-335 "Gepard" and K-317 "Panther"; 2 pr. 671RTMK "Pike" - B-414 "Daniil Moskovsky" and B-138 "Obninsk".
        By the end of the year, another B-448 Tambov, pr. 671RTMK Shchuka, is planned to be withdrawn from repair, increasing the number of nuclear submarines in the Northern Fleet to 10.
        Pacific Fleet-3: 2 Project 949A Antey - K-186 Omsk, K-456 Tver and 1 Project 971: K-331 Magadan.
        Taking into account the possible commissioning after repair of the K-150 "Tomsk" pr. 949A "Antey" and K-419 "Kuzbass" pr. 971, there will be 5 of them by the end of the year.
        Thus, if the submarine repair plan is completed by the end of this year, we will have 15 submarines.
        Of the new ones, the Northern Fleet was put into service on June 17, K-560 "Severodvinsk" pr. 885 "Ash": transferred to the fleet on 30.12.2013/331/971) and K-XNUMX "Magadan" pr. XNUMX at the Pacific Fleet went out of repair.
        Diesel-electric submarines-19, of which 11 are combat-ready (1-BF, 1-Black Sea Fleet (undergoing deep-sea tests in the North), 5-SF, 4-Pacific Fleet). This year the Black Sea Fleet was commissioned on August 22 B-261 "Novorossiysk" pr. 636.3, plus the transfer of B-237 "Rostov-on-Don" is expected by the end of the year. And also by the end of the year to commission the B-585 "St. Petersburg" pr. 677 "Lada". This year the B-227 "Vyborg" pr. 877 "Halibut" came out of repair at the Baltic Fleet.
        Thus, the most tense situation in the Black Sea (no submarine at all); then the Baltic (1 DEPL), Pacific Ocean (3 SSBN, 3 PLA, 4 DEPL); Northern Fleet (7 SSBN, 9 PLA, 5 DEPL)
        1. 0
          24 December 2014 17: 02
          And now everything is the same in the American fleet. I know, but the admirers of the Americans will be surprised to know that every American boat after 1 BS is under repair for 2 years, but you already write about other ships / boats. How can you write down and not the list, but the real number of American submarines theoretically capable of going to sea at the first whistle. And at the same time write down how well the US submarines are provided with ammunition. And at the same time tell us about why the missile boat during the attack on Libya in 2011 did not have a full ammunition stock of cruise missiles. And how many surface ships the United States has enough ammunition. I suggest - not at all. How many aircraft carriers will the United States have enough ammunition? Well, then all the same and write the rest of NATO fleets. The picture will be gorgeous. Like the one in the British Navy, before the last purchase (which has not yet been received), all submarines accounted for only 10 Tomahawk cruise missiles. And they wander from boat to boat. On each boat, the BS relies on only 5 missiles, so that 2 submarines can carry the BS at the same time at sea. Also, only 1 strategic submarine is permanently on the BS near England. If you pull the crew out of vacations, then you can push out the second one. And that's all. In Germany, only 2 submarine out of all is combat-ready and combat-ready.
    2. +4
      24 December 2014 13: 44
      Quote: Novel 1977
      Damn, did you see the composition of our fleet, not the one that is on the payroll, but the one that can really go to sea?

      Roman, you are always on top good Apart from you, no one gives such detailed calculations.
      1. +2
        24 December 2014 14: 12
        Quote: Bongo
        No one gives you such detailed calculations.

        In principle, I can reprint Janes here, the question is - why? lol
        1. +2
          24 December 2014 20: 17
          Quote: Colonel
          In principle, I can retype Janes

          do not consider it work, it would be nice in the form of a separate article with a personal opinion
          1. +2
            25 December 2014 09: 25
            Quote: twviewer
            it would be nice as a separate article with a personal opinion

            What do you want the article and personal opinion about? In a previous comment, I teased Roman for his extensive quoting of directories.
  29. -5
    24 December 2014 13: 33
    "... The list of means of fighting aircraft carriers deliberately does not mention coastal complexes and the" mosquito fleet "- missile boats and small missile ships. Since their main purpose is to protect their own coast from enemy amphibious assault ..."

    - really? Missile boats with "Mosquitoes" to protect their coast from the landing and that's it? And where should he shoot "Mosquito" to protect his coast? According to NATO's large landing craft? But won't it be greasy. I always believed that missile cutters were created to sink enemy ships, and "Mosquitoes" are an excellent weapon against ANY enemy ship, including an aircraft carrier. So for reference, when the Mosquito is launched from the destroyer 956 of the project, the ship loses 4 knots after the missile is launched.
    1. +3
      24 December 2014 14: 26
      it also states that these ships do not have serious measures to fight aug-based enemy aircraft and are an easy target for them
  30. The comment was deleted.
  31. +1
    24 December 2014 13: 55
    Nightmare and their aircraft carriers and not only
    1. lucidlook
      0
      24 December 2014 19: 20
      This is somehow not very convincing. That's how it should be! Rrraz, that's all! wassat

  32. 0
    24 December 2014 14: 01
    Just read !!!!!!!!!!!! ---------Russian design bureaus are solving the task of destroying enemy aircraft carrier strike formations. The United States has the largest number of aircraft carriers, which is why the efforts of the Russian defense industry will be directed precisely against the American aircraft carrier groups.

    One of the effective means of dealing with aircraft carriers can be underwater robots carrying ultrafast anti-ship missiles. The development of such submarines was reported to an agency TASS by an unnamed source in the military-industrial complex.

    The main problem is the high degree of protection of a modern aircraft carrier, which creates an "impenetrable dome" around itself in the air and under water. The Russian Navy has the means of destruction - these are modernized Moskit missiles or the like, but it is still necessary to get closer to the missile launch distance.

    For this, an autonomous underwater vehicle is being developed, capable of approaching the aircraft carrier at a sufficient distance due to the small size and invisibility of the radar.
  33. +3
    24 December 2014 14: 27
    good article urging to build the navy to the required level
  34. +1
    24 December 2014 14: 39
    Personally, I think that AUG has a tactical task in global confrontation. The main opportunities are the creation of superior forces at a specific point and the support of individual oppositions in the general theater of operations and the suppression of defense equipment in a particular sector. In the global theater of warfare, I do not find it correct to assess the possibilities of suppressing ACG by all means of the Russian Navy, the tasks of the fleet will be higher than the roof and in addition to the enemy ACG. Instant strike is used against a previously weak enemy. In the event of a war with us, AUG will be only a component. In this vein, an objective analysis should be carried out.
    1. BIG
      0
      26 December 2014 16: 39
      ACG has a tactical task in global confrontation.

      Not tactical, but strategic. The task of carrier groups is to control the World Ocean, such a task cannot be tactical.
      1. lucidlook
        0
        26 December 2014 17: 23
        Quote: BIG
        The task of carrier groups is to control the World Ocean

        Control of the oceans is the task of the orbital constellation. And the tasks of the ACG in the framework of military conflicts are very different. Some of them are well-known: reconnaissance, blocking sea routes, launching missile and bomb attacks on enemy territory, providing cover for troops, etc.

        However, one of the most important strategic functions of the AOG often remains behind the scenes, namely, the mobility of the take-off point of an air wing. It is take-off, because the plane taking off from an aircraft carrier is completely is not obliged to to return to this very aircraft carrier. He can land at any friendly air base, flying over enemy territory as part of a combat mission. And already from this air base to make a return flight to an aircraft carrier.

        In other words, the presence of such a tool as a mobile airfield allows you to strike at the enemy from the most unexpected directions for him, and the enemy, accordingly, will not be able to strengthen the defense by redistributing air defense / missile defense. After all, if he does not know where he will fly to, he will have to hide from all sides, and this is expensive and difficult.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          27 December 2014 03: 39
          satellites are not control but reconnaissance, and by no means hydroacoustic.
      2. Kassandra
        0
        27 December 2014 03: 36
        ... about the coast, it can still go far inland.
  35. 0
    24 December 2014 15: 09
    I repeat the question, does anyone know the use of AUG by "light elves" at negative temperatures.
    Our TAKR Peter can perform the task efficiently at subzero temperatures, but for the "light elves" how are things going ?.
    1. +4
      24 December 2014 17: 42
      Quote: bmv04636
      I repeat the question, does anyone know the use of AUG by "light elves" at negative temperatures.


      January 21, 1987. Bering Sea. An A-6E "Intruder" from Attack Squadron VA-52 lands on the snow-covered deck of the CVN-70 "Carl Vinson" aircraft carrier.
      1. 0
        24 December 2014 18: 41
        Quote: Tigr
        January 21, 1987. Bering Sea. An A-6E "Intruder" from Attack Squadron VA-52 lands on the snow-covered deck of the CVN-70 "Carl Vinson" aircraft carrier.

        Interestingly, how will the low temperatures affect the speed of the wing? And what are the restrictions on the rise / reception of aircraft for sea waves?
        1. +2
          24 December 2014 19: 54
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          It’s interesting how low temperatures will affect the speed of the wing.

          Probably, the intervals of launching aircraft will change in the direction of increase.

          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          And what are the restrictions on the rise / reception of aircraft for sea waves?

          Aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class usually cease flight operations in sea conditions of 6-7 degrees.
          1. +3
            25 December 2014 10: 05
            Quote: Tigr
            Nimitz-class aircraft carriers


            As a professional in this matter, I will allow myself an amendment: "Nimitz" is not a class, but a TYPE, for aircraft carriers of all types belong to the same CLASS of ships - "aircraft carriers".
            1. +3
              25 December 2014 21: 56
              Quote: Colonel
              As a professional in this matter, I will allow myself an amendment: "Nimitz" is not a class, but a TYPE, for aircraft carriers of all types belong to the same CLASS of ships - "aircraft carriers".

              According to the classification - accepted! good I just use the western classification of warships - the Nimitz class (a little English laughing), then domestic - an aircraft carrier of the "Nimitz" type.

              According to "Nimitz" and "Nimitz" - it is a matter of transcription (in the pronunciation of "t" is not pronounced).
              1. +2
                26 December 2014 12: 17
                Quote: Tigr
                According to "Nimitz" and "Nimitz" - it's a matter of transcription

                In all of our documents (stamped reference books, GRU intelligence reports, Intelligence reports, etc.) OFFICIALLY "settled" - Nimitz!
                1. 0
                  26 December 2014 12: 48
                  Well, okay. I'm not going to "put a dash over the" t "because of this. wink
      2. 0
        24 December 2014 19: 35
        Well, what is the effectiveness of an aircraft carrier, as I understand it, the parapet catapults do not work, so the aircraft loading is not complete and the range of flights will be a huge freeze.
        1. +1
          24 December 2014 19: 56
          Quote: bmv04636
          Well, what is the effectiveness of an aircraft carrier, as I understand it, the parapet catapults do not work, so the aircraft loading is not complete and the range of flights will be a huge freeze.

          You misunderstand. If the steam catapults are not working, then the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier will not launch any aircraft, regardless of the ambient temperature.
        2. +2
          25 December 2014 07: 20
          For Americans, you’ve come up with new rules of war for the second day: attack only in winter and in the conditions of the far north! yeah, they will listen to you and they will bombard Tiksi with Pevek, right? come down from heaven already
  36. +2
    24 December 2014 15: 23
    And what is the use of this AUG in a nuclear war? Who naively believes that a military clash with them by the RF Armed Forces will occur as part of a conventional convention war ?! Can you imagine if the US and Russia exchange nuclear strikes, the entire planet will be contaminated with radiation, which will also add constant radiation from the destroyed nuclear power plants i.e. these are dozens of Chernobyl and Fukushima on different continents. People will die in millions, there will be a nuclear winter with radioactive fallout from the ashes and on the planet all living things will die, turning countries into dead deserts. And what do you think the Americans on these AUGs will swim and conduct some sort of military activities off the coast of the Russian Federation having a lifeless space around? Yes, they will descend from these ships to bunkers in order to somehow escape from deadly radiation and extend their life there a little more.
    Therefore, AUGs are suitable for pecking at non-nuclear countries such as Yugoslavia and Iraq and only that. All problems in counteracting them are unreasonably inflated in our military subjects and all sorts of horror stories about this are unnecessarily caught up.
    1. BIG
      +1
      26 December 2014 16: 33
      Who naively believes that a military clash with them by the RF Armed Forces will occur as part of a conventional convention war ?!

      ANY responsible commander (commander, commander-in-chief, president), by ALL FORCES, will try to prevent the conflict from escalating into the nuclear phase, because people are rational, not suicides.
      The opposite is naive.
      No one is seriously considering a nuclear war scenario.
      1. Kassandra
        0
        27 December 2014 03: 35
        yeah, nuno ... this is when in the cities.
        and then if they start to submerge the SSBN or jam the SPRN, then it will be immediately to the cities.
  37. +1
    24 December 2014 15: 35
    The question, PMSM, is as follows. The Russian navy CANNOT fight the AUG in the open ocean, which was very difficult for the Soviet navy. However, it is quite possible, together with the coastal complexes of the anti-ship missiles and the "mosquito fleet" unmentioned by the author, to defend their coast. By and large, Russia does not claim any more now. That is, the forces of the Russian Navy are quite sufficient to fulfill the assigned tasks. In addition, large ship formations are capable of solving tasks in remote areas of the World Ocean in opposition to PART of the enemy's fleet. For example, actions off the Syrian coast, off the coast of Cuba and Vensuela. To improve these capabilities, a new "Legend" is being deployed.
    I understand the author’s sadness about the Tu-22M transferred from the fleet to DA and cut down, but in the implementation of defensive operations, interaction is quite possible, and in long-range operations aviation still does not have sufficiently protected bases.
  38. +1
    24 December 2014 15: 53
    Yes aug beautiful dear status thing that's all laughing
  39. +3
    24 December 2014 15: 55
    The article, of course, is a plus, at least in contrast with the opus of D. Yurov.

    Essential considerations:

    1. There is no need to develop and deploy "highly specialized" anti-aircraft reconnaissance and strike systems based on the Soviet model (SSGN pr.949A / Tu-22M + Tu-95RTs / MKRTs "Legend") due to the fact that

    a) the available aircraft carrier forces of potential adversaries, both now and in the foreseeable future, are clearly not enough to create any serious threat to Russia's defense from sea / ocean directions (in my opinion, carriers of Tomahawk cruise missiles pose a much more serious threat and naval elements of the strategic missile defense system);

    b) the likelihood of a direct armed conflict between the Russian Federation and the United States is extremely low even in the face of a sharp deterioration in relations over the past year, but if this negligible probability becomes a fait accompli, then it will almost 100 percent lead to the use of nuclear weapons, in the context of which the combat value and combat the survivability of the carrier group will be significantly reduced.

    2. There is no need to dramatize the reduction in the number of Tu-22M3 long-range missile-carrying bombers and their transfer from the Navy's naval missile-carrying aviation to the Air Force's Long-Range Aviation. In my opinion, a promising tactical (front-line) aviation complex (Su-30/34 + an aviation version of the Bramos-type anti-ship missile + tanker aircraft) will be able to carry out missions to destroy surface targets more effectively. In this direction, I think, and it is necessary to develop aviation, intended, among other things, for actions in the interests of the Navy.

    3. No need to idealize space reconnaissance assets. These, without a doubt, the necessary systems (for example, to ensure the combat use of the operational anti-ship missile system P-700 "Granit" at the maximum firing range) have their drawbacks, one of which is low survivability in the face of enemy opposition. This is especially true after the demonstration of the ability of shipborne air defense / missile defense systems to hit targets in near-earth space.

    4. The tasks of reconnaissance of the surface situation in the waters adjacent to the territory of Russia are reliably solved by coastal and naval forces and radio and radio reconnaissance equipment. They, at a distance of two to three thousand kilometers from our coast, reveal maneuvering areas and the nature of the actions of the aircraft carrier group / formation with an accuracy sufficient to bring the attack aircraft to the target, which with its own airborne search and sighting systems gives target designation to its weapons.
  40. +4
    24 December 2014 16: 25
    The article is useful even by the fact that it does not suffer from "hap". After the pottery power of the Soviet Navy, they lost a lot. It is a fact. Hope is inspired by the trend for the revival of the military-industrial complex-ship industry and, accordingly, the supply of new ships.
  41. 0
    24 December 2014 17: 20
    How to overcome AUG? There are several options. Here is at least one of them. Mosquito. It is necessary to simultaneously deliver to a distance of 1500-6000 km a large number of small and nimble anti-ship missiles, for example, X-31A / D weighing up to 715 kg, 40 pieces, which are not easy to bring down. The same five MiG-25RBs in an unmanned version are capable of doing this, which themselves, to the heap, can become KR. The MiG-25 can take up to 8 X-31A and deliver it to a range of about 1700 km at a speed of 2,35 M at an altitude of 23 km, moving away from the zuras with an anti-aircraft maneuver with a speed increase of 3,2 M (3400 km / h) with a climb of more than 33 km (limit for SM-6).
  42. -4
    24 December 2014 17: 50
    Quote: Bayonet
    cheers to patriots another reason


    No need to juggle. This is not an analysis, but another "side view" of another expert. You have here, apparently, a get-together - "the cuckoo praises the rooster for the fact that he praises the cuckoo." Another tro-lo-lo.
  43. 0
    24 December 2014 18: 01
    Quote: NEXUS
    objectively in many respects the author is right. If you imagine ways of countering and destroying the AUG, then there are basically three options. The first is that the missile cruiser reaches the target range of launching "granites", and this is 600 km ... but then the questions begin - will they give our For cruisers to approach this distance to the AUG? Let's say we went to this distance and let the granites in. Now let's analyze how the group of launched granites works. (But let's not forget that the AUG has strong security and this echeloned defense will have to break through the missiles) Having broken through the defenses, the missiles distribute targets and the first to be destroyed will be the ships covering the aircraft carrier: cruisers, destroyers, etc. And it is not at all a fact that the destruction of the same cruiser will take only one granite. But let's say there were missiles in a salvo that went to the aircraft carrier. To sink this colossus is required from 6 to 20! granites. The question is, will there be enough missiles in a salvo to sink an aircraft carrier? Let's take into account the fact that at the same time the entire cruising group will heroically fight off attacks on deck enemy aviation. Now the second development option is the approach to the launch distance of torpedoes, nuclear submarines. But again, remember the AUG and surface guards. And the third case is the approach of the same Tu-22. By the way, today, this is the most effective way destruction of the AUG. But let's hope that very soon everything will change in favor of our fleet.
    And I talked about the destruction of one AUG. That is, while you send one such group, you will get worn out, and the amers have 10 of them. I will not say anything about the aircraft carriers of other NATO members. Then I read about the development of submarine robots to combat such groups. It's a good thing. If we manage to bungle such a robot that will hit with anti-ship missiles and torpedoes, then the losses among our ships and personnel will decrease at times. But I think we need to think about modernizing the "granites", in which to increase the range of destruction from at least 600 km to 1200. And, of course, the development of new missile systems that are more compact and difficult to detect, which could break through the AUG defenses.
  44. 0
    24 December 2014 18: 14
    Quote: bmv04636
    Yes aug beautiful dear status thing that's all

    first of all, it is the weapon of the AGGRESSOR. For defense, an aircraft carrier is unprofitable.
    1. 0
      24 December 2014 19: 37
      I agree AGGRESSOR who can offend the current weak who really can’t give change and who has no defenders.
  45. The comment was deleted.
  46. +3
    24 December 2014 19: 05
    Ballistic RCC - Theme! I remember what screeching coconuts raised when the Chinese tested them))
    The main threats from them are the launch range beyond the range of the AUG, the approach speed, the approach vector - actually from the zenith, this is inconvenient for air defense / missile defense systems.
    We have technologies for creating maneuvering warheads, and their interception is even more difficult. And there are missile systems that can be "reformatted" into non-nuclear anti-ship missiles. I would like to keep up with the Chinese "friends" in this matter.
  47. Mars
    +2
    24 December 2014 19: 34
    It’s interesting to think here; just figure out which space suputnik grouping the United States and NATO have and how many of us and all the forces of the Russian fleet are distributed in 4 theaters and in the USA 11 AUGs and on every escort ship from 40 anti-aircraft missiles, not counting the interference from the REB created by the grouping
  48. 0
    24 December 2014 19: 45
    After 1991, when an Iraqi MiG shot down one of the American Hornites over the Persian Gulf, the F / A-18 had no military contact with Russian-built fighters. However, in November 2000, there was still a meeting of American carrier-based aircraft with fighters of the Russian Air Force, which was "as close as possible" to combat.
    To begin with, one should give the floor to the American pilot, a direct witness to the described events (the text of his letter sent by e-mail from the aircraft carrier “Kitty Hawk”, apart from the will of the author of the message, became public).
    “... Swimming was quite easy and interesting: 54 days at sea, 4 - at the port and 45 hours of flight in October alone! (for comparison, many pilots of the Russian Air Force have an annual flight time of about 45-60 hours with the required 200-250) Yeah, we flew our asses! Since I became one of the squadron commanders, I have been flying a lot. Here is an interesting story (and this is not bullshit).
    So, I’m sitting there and chatting about all kinds of garbage with my deputy, and we hear a bell ringing from the BIC (the combat information center - the “brain” of the ship). -They say: "Sir, we spotted Russian planes." The captain replies: "Announce the alarm, raise the fighters." They say from the center: only “Alarm-30” can be announced (departure in 30 minutes (!) From the moment of announcement). The captain swore and said: "Take into the air all that is possible, as quickly as possible!". I ran to the navigator's telephone and contacted the squadron duty officer. Our squadron was not on duty that day, so I told him to find out who was on duty and make them raise their asses and rush to the flight deck (only Alarm-7 assumes that you are already on the take-off deck and ready to go up into the air: "Alarm-30" means that you are still sitting in the waiting room).
  49. 0
    24 December 2014 19: 46
    to be continued:
    Soon, the Russian Su-27 and Su-24 at a speed of 500 knots passed directly over the Kitty Hawk bridge. Just like in the movie "Top Gun"! Officers on the bridge spilled their coffee and said ...! (An obscene expression, which has a very emotional Russian counterpart.) At that moment I looked at the captain - his face was crimson.
    How Russian fighters mocked at an American aircraft carrier Aircraft carrier, America, fighters, funny, Russians
    The Russian fighters made two more steep turns at low altitude before we finally launched our first plane from the deck. It was ... ЕА-6В "Prauler" (electronic warfare aircraft). Yes, yes, we launched the unfortunate "Prawler" one on one against the fighter right above the ship. Our pilots already asked for help when finally the F / A-18 from the "sister" squadron (I use this term literally, because they looked like a company of "easy-going women" (the phrase in quotation marks has been replaced by a more decent administration note), flirting with the Russians) took off in the air to perform an interception. But it was too late. The whole team lifted their heads and watched the Russians make a mockery of our wretched attempt to stop them.
    The funny thing is that the admiral and the commander of the aircraft carrier were in the command room at the morning meeting, which was interrupted by the rumble of turbines of Russian aircraft circling the aircraft carrier’s cabin. An officer in the headquarters of the commander told me that they looked at each other, at the flight plan, were convinced that the launch was planned for that day only a few hours later, and asked: “What was that?”
    Four days later, Russian intelligence sent an e-mail to the commander of the Kitty Hawk photographs of our pilots rushing about on the deck, desperate to lift planes into the air ... ".
    The events described in the letter took place in the area of ​​the Korea Strait on October 17, 2000. Two Su-24MR reconnaissance aircraft and a Su-27 fighter-interceptor unit from the 11th Air Force and Air Defense Army covering them took part in the flyby of the American Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier . According to the then Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force Anatoly Karnukov, "it was a planned reconnaissance, during which, however, unusual tasks were solved." Moreover, no international agreements were violated by the Russian side.
    It should be noted that the American naval maneuvers took place only 300 km from the Russian coast, which in itself could not be regarded as a friendly act in relation to our country. Therefore, the actions of Russian aviation were completely justified and lawful.
    According to the Commander-in-Chief, the intelligence results "were impressive." The Su-24MR performed several approaches to the aircraft carrier, photographing everything that happens on the flight deck. The panic on board the ship was recorded in the pictures: the sailors urgently cut hoses connecting the aircraft carrier with the tanker, which was transferring fuel to the Kitty Hawk at that time.
  50. 0
    24 December 2014 19: 46
    more interesting
    F / A-18 fighters managed to be lifted into the air only after the second call of Russian scouts, but the Su-27s were immediately taken away from the ship by a distracting maneuver, which allowed reconnaissance aircraft to perform several more flights over the aircraft carrier completely defenseless from the air. According to press reports, the Kitty Hawk flight around Russia was repeated on November 9 and was also successful.
    How Russian fighters mocked at an American aircraft carrier Aircraft carrier, America, fighters, funny, Russians
    Here is how the media described these events:
    1) On December 7, in Washington, US military officials Kenent Bacon and Admiral Stephen Pietropaoli held a press conference to reveal some details of a series of incidents in the Sea of ​​Japan, when Russian Su-27 and Su-24 reconnaissance aircraft flew at a critical distance to Kitty Hawk, an American aircraft carrier based there.
    As Bacon said on Thursday, some time later an email came to the aircraft carrier containing two photos of the Kitty Hawk deck taken from Russian planes during one of such actions of the Russian Air Force. The letter also contained a short message in Russian, the content of which Amiral Pietropaoli refused to clarify, UPI reported. According to him, the letter was not sent from the Russian Ministry of Defense, and the sender to his Pentagon representative is unknown.
    In addition, Kenneth Bacon said that at a press conference a week ago, when he also talked about the actions of Russian pilots, he made a number of inaccuracies. Firstly, there were not two cases of Russian aircraft flying, but three - on October 12, October 17 and November 9. Secondly, during the incident of October 17, the planes were not “detected at an acceptable distance” a few hundred meters from the ship, as the actions of the Russian Air Force were previously reported, but flew directly over the aircraft carrier, which confused the US military. At that moment, pictures were taken that were subsequently sent to Kitty Hawk.
    Tape.ru 8.12.00
    2) Russian military aircraft in the Sea of ​​Japan successfully carried out an operation to overcome the air defense of an American aircraft carrier multipurpose strike group led by the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk (KittyHawkCV63). The announcement of this, published by the Izvestia newspaper, was confirmed on Tuesday by informed sources in the Russian military. According to them, this happened twice in the Sea of ​​Japan at a time when the US carrier group was heading for exercises in the Korea Strait (October 17) and when it was returning from maneuvers (November 9) ... (Interfax November 14, 2000)
    According to some reports, the planes were from 11 air forces (commander - Lieutenant General Anatoly Nagovnitsyn). The deck of Kitty Hawk was completely unprepared for opposition and the Americans seriously decided that they would be attacked, and began to cut off fuel lines in a panic so that there would be no big explosion and fire during the attack. Then they raised the Hornets and tried to accompany the “drying” to the coast.
  51. 0
    24 December 2014 19: 47
    end
    On the same day, Anatoly Kornukov stated that “The leadership of the General Staff of the Armed Forces highly appreciated the work of the Russian pilots who opened the air defense system of the US aircraft carrier strike force led by the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier.” According to him, all pilots will be nominated for awards. “This was a planned reconnaissance, although during it unusual tasks were solved. The results of this reconnaissance are impressive,” the commander-in-chief emphasized.
    On October 17, 2000, two Su-24 and Su-27 combat aircraft from the 11th Air Force and Air Defense Army of Russia discovered the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier and flew in close proximity to it, at an altitude of approximately 60 m. At the time of the flyby, the ship was replenishing supplies on the move in the northern part of the Sea of ​​Japan, between the island of Hokkaido and the Russian mainland. After the flyby, Russian pilots sent the photographs they took to the aircraft carrier's website. The flights were repeated on October 20 and November 9
    A month later, representatives of the US Department of Defense officially recognized the fact of an aircraft carrier flyby. Russian media prefer the term "conditional destruction."

    I remember not so long ago, just as gloriously in the Black Sea, an unarmed SU-24 showed off super duper Donald Cook.
  52. +3
    24 December 2014 20: 15
    It turns out that the collapse of the fleet was carried out by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief since the 2000s! But he and the government understand little about these matters. This means that someone from the military leadership convincingly presented them with justifications that led to the weakening of the army and navy. Previously, this was called betrayal with all the ensuing consequences. But these documents have been preserved. You can pull them out of the archive and ask the authors of these opuses. Although after the incident with Serdyukov there is nothing to count on justice. Then if this is how Russia treats its expensive material assets. there is no point in thinking that it will be rich like other countries. This is how it will move from crisis to crisis.
  53. -3
    24 December 2014 20: 38
    How long has it been since the United States built its last aircraft carrier? Destroyers have long been in favor with the Amers, and these airfields are effective in conditions where they are not hunted. And don’t forget that any coastal missile (air defense included) flies further than carrier-based aircraft, therefore the first move is ours. Detection is not a problem, satellites are a separate issue (you don’t have to be political, everything is secret there, and if again there is some type, and I served and I’m in the know, I can advise you to go shoot yourself for revealing, but rather because of lying.) single radar the dome detects the launch of a missile in the Mediterranean Sea, and now convince me that an aircraft carrier in stealth mode on hyper sound, packed in a plasma bubble, will trample all coastal anti-ship systems. And at the moment, each group has its own tasks, but they just put into operation a unified control center of the RF Armed Forces just to coordinate the actions of ALL types of troops.
    1. +3
      24 December 2014 20: 59
      Quote: Voevoda2682
      How long has it been since the United States built its last aircraft carrier?

      The last aircraft carrier of the Nimitz series, CVN-77 George W. Bush, entered service in 2009. The first aircraft carrier of the new type, Ford, was launched a year ago.

      Quote: Voevoda2682
      And don’t forget that any coastal missile (air defense included) flies further than carrier-based aircraft, therefore the first move is ours.

      The combat radius of the F/A-18E/F carrier-based aircraft is 726 km, the maximum firing range of the newest Bastion coastal anti-ship missile system is 300 km.
      1. 0
        16 January 2016 06: 40
        “Bastion” is voiced up to 500 km, but what is “Onyx”?
    2. Vasya 77
      -1
      25 December 2014 00: 31
      A new generation aircraft carrier has just been launched. What kind of missile from a coastal complex flies further than an airplane? Kazlov will have to be drowned with granites, but I think that if the rats come closer back, they will have nowhere to swim....
    3. +1
      25 December 2014 07: 32
      Voivode, the newest PBRK Bastion, neither in 41 nor in 40, would have been able to protect either Pearl Harbor or Taranto. Do you dare? Already 65 years ago, aircraft carriers struck far beyond 300 km. What's on the calendar now?
  54. +4
    24 December 2014 21: 59
    We must fight not with the AUG, but with their phantom economy and the dollar. Let’s bring down the dollar, everything will be ruined and their AUG will come, they won’t have time. laughing
  55. +1
    24 December 2014 22: 00
    Of all the countermeasure systems, the author considers only the classical ones. It is high time to return to the development of weather weapons. When the 80 Olympics were held, the weather was good over Moscow and it was done artificially. Why not ruin the weather in the AUG area.
    Rockets spraying chemicals on the downwind side would not be a bad idea. reagents that would make the deck slippery.
    Or let’s say a group of missiles that, when hitting the water, would cause a directed artificial wave of impassable height. Of course, skeptics will say that it is better to use such a powerful warhead to directly destroy an aircraft carrier, but the AUG also has means to counter missiles, but it will be problematic to protect against a directed wave. Now imagine that inside the aircraft carrier, an F/A-18E/F or something else was torn off its mounts.
    Of course, all these tools cannot be used as main ones, but they can easily be used as auxiliary ones.
    1. Vasya 77
      +3
      25 December 2014 00: 24
      wink Is this a joke about the weather, the slippery deck and the waves? You can also grab an egg sniffer, a parasha and a turanchox and take it to mi 8 on the leeward side so that they start farting together and the Yankees suffocate....
      1. +1
        25 December 2014 15: 45
        Quote: Vasya 77
        It's a joke about the weather

        About the weather this is reality smile
        Strategic rain. Weather weapons
        http://dokpro.net/war/298-strategicheskiy-dozhd-meteorologicheskoe-oruzhie-10-01
        -2014.html
  56. +4
    24 December 2014 22: 44
    The article is definitely +, it was very disappointing to read that due to our thoughtless zeal we were left practically without a Navy and aviation, and for the Pacific Fleet I think this is the main thing.
  57. Vasya 77
    +4
    25 December 2014 00: 19
    Enough talking about stories about the destroyer flyby! Everyone understands that in combat conditions the dryer would not fly up to such a distance. We need a stable satellite constellation, otherwise there can be no discussion about the effectiveness of granites, and it’s time to think about replacing granites! Our car was practically ready, without heavy anti-corrugation it would be difficult with the Augs...
    1. 0
      25 December 2014 00: 33
      In these specific sailing conditions of the destroyer "Donald" Duck Cook" in the Black Sea, the Su-24M would not only fly up to it within range of effective use of its weapons, but would also sink it with its Kh-31 missiles.
      1. Vasya 77
        +3
        25 December 2014 00: 41
        Yes, I would be glad if I sank it, but with all due respect, I very much doubt that the Su-24 would have passed the air defense and launched it, and it’s not a fact that even if it had fired the X-31 it wouldn’t have been shot down... But of course we would have shot it down they would have sunk it if it had been necessary, anyway.
        1. 0
          25 December 2014 00: 49
          My calculation: Su-24M bomber + 2 X-31A anti-ship missiles vs the destroyer "Donald Cook" in the Black Sea.

          The Su-24M, which was flying in WWI, 50 km from the target, climbs to 300 meters with an acceleration of up to 1400 km/h (389 m/s). The radar detects the target. We take this moment as the starting point.

          After 13 seconds (the time it takes for a quarter of the upper hemisphere to be viewed by the AN/SPY-1 phased array radar), the Donald Cook detects a low-flying high-speed air target and, based on the given operating conditions, the Aegis BIUS makes a decision to open anti-aircraft fire in automatic mode.

          After 10 seconds (the reaction time of the air defense system), the first SM-2 missile launches vertically.

          (The maximum flight speed of the SM-2 missile defense system and the X-31A anti-ship missile system is almost the same and is M = 3,5 or 1033 m/s. But in the calculations we will use the average speed of 650 m/s.)

          Over the past 26 seconds, the Su-24M approached the ship at a distance of 40 km, its crew carried out pre-launch preparations and launched two X-31A anti-ship missiles. The plane begins a turn, descending and setting false targets.

          From a distance of 40 km, the SM-2 missile defense system will reach the Su-24M in a minute (well, you can add another 2-3 seconds for a vertical launch).

          If during this time the plane manages to dive under the radio horizon, then it is saved.

          I haven’t found any data on the maneuvering capabilities of the Su-24M, so I don’t know how long it takes for it to turn 90 degrees from its previous course. and go under the radio horizon, but it is obvious that it will not be a priority target compared to the X-31A, which will reach the Cook in the same minute.
          1. +3
            25 December 2014 07: 28
            everything is correct, only the Su24 does not carry either the Kh-31 or the Khibiny feel only in vain the ink was transferred)). then: from a height of 300m the missiles will not reach the target, 10m - yes! Both the carrier and the missiles will be shot down 000 times in this minute at this altitude
            1. 0
              25 December 2014 10: 11
              Quote: Tlauicol
              everything is correct, only the Su24 does not carry either the Kh-31 or the Khibiny

              The Su-24M at least has the ability to use Kh-31 missiles:
              In the period from April 20 to December 7, 1989, state flight and sea tests of the X-31A were carried out on the basis of the serial Su-24M with a modified weapons system. A total of 86 flights were carried out, 8 of which included actual missile launches at large and small ship shields.


              Quote: Tlauicol
              Both the carrier and the missiles will be shot down 30 times in this minute at this altitude

              Can you justify?

              Quote: Tlauicol
              then: from a height of 300m the missiles will not reach the target, 10m - yes!

              Firing range of the X-31A:

              1. +3
                25 December 2014 18: 30
                “It could be” and “is” in service are different things, don’t you think? The bottom line is that we don’t have a single Su24 with X31a anti-ship missiles. Cook was in no danger.
                In 13 seconds? Yes, at best, at worst in half a second. Depends on the direction of flight, on chance. But in practice, Su would have been detected immediately after turning on the radar in a passive way. Total: another 13 extra seconds for Aegis. Rockets are already flying into Sushka, and he is balancing debit and credit.
                You also overestimated the speed of the anti-ship missile carrier - count these seconds as a plus for Aegis. A rocket at such a distance will fly at an altitude of 300+ meters, or even several kilometers (+ time to climb and descend) - and all the time above the radio horizon.
                SAM launch rate: missile/second, half a minute 30 missiles, 60 minutes, and 74 in total - they will certainly be shot down (this does not count short-range air defense systems)
                1. 0
                  25 December 2014 21: 09
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  “It could be” and “is” in service are different things, don’t you think?

                  No, I don't find it. I find that the Su-24M is capable of using Kh-31A missiles - that’s a fact. And the fact that such missiles are not part of its weapons is not a fact, but just an assumption.

                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  The bottom line is that we don’t have a single Su24 with X31a anti-ship missiles. Cook was in no danger.

                  The bottom line is that we only have the destroyer "Kuk" alone in the Black Sea without air support, without AWACS... And if you don't like the Su-24M, then replace them with the Su-30/34/35, and then replace them Kh-31A missiles on Kh-31AD.

                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  In 13 seconds? Yes, at best, at worst in half a second.

                  You see what’s the matter here, one phased array mirror of the AN/SPY-1D radar scans the airspace line by line with a width of 110° in azimuth and 90° with a beam measuring 1,7° by 1,7°. Calculate the probability that a “drying” that has jumped out from behind the radio horizon will be exactly in the line that the radar is scanning at that moment... So 13 seconds from the appearance of a target in the radar coverage area to its detection is a very realistic indicator.

                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  But in practice, Su would have been detected immediately after turning on the radar in a passive way. Total: another 13 extra seconds for Aegis. Rockets are already flying into Sushka, and he is balancing debit and credit.

                  Detection by passive means, namely the electronic reconnaissance station of the AN/SLQ-32 complex, of the operation of the radar of an attacking aircraft only allows one to determine the fact of the attack, its direction and classification. This data is not enough to conduct anti-aircraft fire, i.e. There are simply no “another 13 extra seconds for Aegis.”

                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  You also overestimated the speed of the anti-ship missile carrier - count these seconds as a plus for Aegis.

                  RCC speed I understated - took the average, not the maximum. And the speed of the carrier aircraft when it is already in the zone of possible launches is not important: you can choose the one you like.

                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  SAM launch rate: missile/second, half a minute 30 missiles, 60 minutes, and 74 in total - they will certainly be shot down (this does not count short-range air defense systems)

                  Do you seriously think that the “rate of fire” of the Mk41 launcher reflects the real ability of Aegis class ships to repel missile attacks? This is wrong.

                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  A rocket at such a distance will fly at an altitude of 300+ meters, or even several kilometers (+ time to climb and descend) - and all the time above the radio horizon.

                  After launch, the Kh-31A rocket flies at an altitude of 20 meters.
                  1. +3
                    26 December 2014 08: 55
                    Well, now you are ready to set the entire air fleet on Cook. You change missiles and planes like gloves, soon it will reach nuclear weapons. What, the Su24 no longer carries? It's hard to argue when the rules of the game change at the whim of one side.
                    It could be and is - different things, I insist.
                    The carrier's speed affects its survival.
                    13 seconds and 0.01 seconds - the probability is the same. why not 6.5 seconds? (average) however, you generously give this bonus to the plane. AN/SLQ-32 will not just detect the aircraft's radar, but will begin to counteract it. Su24 will not have a time bonus.
                    the rate of fire is real, 18 missiles per target are provided. and there will still be more. + short-range air defense
                    1. Kassandra
                      -1
                      26 December 2014 09: 34
                      Yes, a Su-24 with a Khibina or even an Iranian fantoshi will succeed...
                      it usually goes like this:
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqIJL8lx00o
                      only instead of a nuke or a cast iron bomb, a cluster loose warhead with DU rods is hung on an aeroballistic missile, each of which, as an option, is hammered into the deck in addition to its own kinetics and the fact that the aircraft also has its own solid fuel booster.
                      Not even a non-blind CIWS can prevent such an attack.
                    2. Kassandra
                      0
                      26 December 2014 09: 37
                      there was not one drying, but two, the second was insured a little at a distance, suddenly the crazy, blind Americans would start shooting at the first from MANPADS, or even more so in manual mode from anti-aircraft guns...
                    3. 0
                      26 December 2014 10: 46
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      Well, now you are ready to set the entire air fleet on Cook. You change missiles and planes like gloves, soon it will reach nuclear weapons. What, the Su24 no longer carries? It's hard to argue when the rules of the game change at the whim of one side.

                      Don't argue. Just take it for granted: Su-24M + 2 Kh-31A, unless you have evidence that this aircraft is not armed with such missiles.

                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      The carrier's speed affects its survival.

                      Absolutely right. In our case, speed affects the maneuverability of the “drying” in order to make a turn and hide under the radio horizon. And at 900 km/h the maneuverability will be higher than at 1400 km/h.

                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      13 seconds and 0.01 seconds - the probability is the same. why not 6.5 seconds? (average) however, you generously give this bonus to the plane.

                      Okay, let's say it's the average.

                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      AN/SLQ-32 will not just detect the aircraft's radar, but will begin to counteract it. Su24 will not have a time bonus.

                      The Su-24M AN/SLQ-32 radar will detect radiation, but will not provide any firing data to the air defense system. Aegis will not have any time bonus.

                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      the rate of fire is real, 18 missiles per target are provided. and there will still be more. + short-range air defense

                      The same-name BIUS "Aegis" air defense system fires at one target with one missile defense system (the maximum number of simultaneously fired targets is 18). In this case, repeated firing can be carried out only after assessing the first firing cycle. In our case, it will be one SM-2 per Su-24M and two SM-2 per two X-31A. The probability that the plane will be shot down is small, since it will be in the SAM engagement zone for a minimum time. The probability of defeating the X-31A is generally illusory, judging by the American experience of intercepting MA-31 target missiles.
                      1. +3
                        26 December 2014 11: 33
                        it's hard to show what's not there request .if you post a photo of the Russian “Su-24M + 2 X-31A” as proof, hats off!

                        ( c ) “The Su-24M AN/SLQ-32 radar will detect radiation, but will not produce any firing data on the air defense system. The Aegis will not have any time bonus” - yeah, and the Sushki radar will instantly filter out all the interference and false targets, right? he will combine debit and credit.

                        the MA-31 target flew according to the program. route, through control points like this http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2014/798/arnc381.gif? it rather imitated Mosquito (again, not in service with the Air Force)
                      2. 0
                        26 December 2014 13: 21
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        yeah, and Sushki’s radar will instantly weed out all interference and false targets, right? he will combine debit and credit.

                        How long does it take for a radar to acquire a target? And based on this data, the bomber’s control system will already generate a flight mission for the missiles, for which the operation of the radar is no longer required.

                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        the MA-31 target flew according to the program. route, through control points, so it rather imitated a Mosquito (again, not in service with the Air Force)

                        Doesn't matter. After 20 years, the Aegis has still not learned how to reliably intercept low-flying supersonic targets.

                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        it's hard to show what's not there

                        Don't show it. Just provide a link, for example, to the Russian Ministry of Defense, which states that the Kh-31s are not part of the Su-24M armament.

                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        If you post a photo of the Russian “Su-24M + 2 X-31A” as proof, hats off!

                        Please:
                      3. +3
                        26 December 2014 13: 51
                        mmm, nice layout!
                      4. 0
                        26 December 2014 14: 24
                        mmm... where is your hat?
                      5. +2
                        26 December 2014 18: 35
                        hat mockup?
  58. Vasya 77
    0
    25 December 2014 01: 01
    Do you mean that the Yankee carrier has come to get involved? Then there is no question, it will only sink on the way. And if there is a war, I don’t think that the plane will fly up to 50 km calmly, I have to give the shit truck its due, it should cover it anyway.
  59. sfsdf3edg
    -1
    25 December 2014 03: 30
    Guys, I recently learned about one chip, with the help of a bucket you can seduce any girl in a couple of minutes. For the male, it also does not have a weak effect, I advise as I tried it myself. More details here - http://strigenko.blogspot.com
  60. +3
    25 December 2014 10: 31
    In my opinion, only a smart attack from several submarines can
    "surprise" the American AUG.
    Still, submarines don’t split well under water. There is an opportunity to lie low
    depth and leave the escort.
    1. Kassandra
      0
      26 December 2014 09: 41
      they split, why not, of a towed sonar and under a thermocline too.
      Now they are only bad under the ice, but even aircraft carriers don’t sail there...
  61. 0
    25 December 2014 11: 52
    Quote: GDP
    there are other torpedoes that are better than a flurry and are also capable of carrying nuclear charges ... And there are rocket torpedoes that are capable of hitting a target from under water beyond 50 km at a superfluous sound ...

    haha. I wonder who will bring the nuclear submarine 30 miles closer to the AUG? They will spot you and destroy you without even letting you get close. It’s not for nothing that “Granit” flies 300 km; getting closer to the AUG in conditions of military operations is suicidal.
    1. Vasya 77
      +1
      25 December 2014 17: 31
      Granite flies a lot more than 300, the fact is that there is no satellite target designation system for which it was designed. A satellite constellation must be created, then it will really be possible to drown rats anywhere in the ocean. And our nuclear submarines have approached at shorter distances, although there are no guarantees or certainty, it probably depends on the skill of the crew and equipment, plus luck.