US aircraft carrier power. How to sink 100 000 tons?

196


... The Americans still managed to put into operation their last remaining AUG in the North Atlantic, which threatened considerable losses to our trade the fleet with its obsolete weapons. At this time, the flagship of the Northern Fleet, the battleship "Neuzhimets" (captured modernized "Zamvolt") was deeply bogged down in supporting the landing on the Yucatan Peninsula. Artillery autonomous modules were forced to separate from the ship and accompany the landing on land - the resistance of the Nicaraguan contras was so intense. The capacitors of the laser battery have already begun to discharge: no one expected that its installations would have to single-handedly shoot down the entire NATO satellite constellation and repel countless attacks drones.

... In the current situation, Admiral Ivanov gave the nod to the separation of the missile module to strike at the US AUG. The decision turned out to be justified: in a couple of hours, an ekranoplan could fly over the ocean and reach the attack distance. With the massive missile strike of the hypersonic Kisteny, the Sixth Fleet of the “probable enemy” was almost completely sunk. However, the incident has already smacked of international scandal.

After the modules were returned to the ship, the Nezulimitse made an emergency launch of the nuclear rocket engine and an hour later went to the geostationary station. There, refueling from the station "Yuri Gagarin", the battleship headed for the Lagrange point, to connect with the 2nd strategic tank army, which had long been hiding in the clouds of Kordylevsky from the telescopes of the Hague tribunal ...

Based on the dispute on alternahistory.ru.


X-47B drone on the deck of the aircraft carrier "Harry Truman"


This funny opus is the answer to the two previous articles on "VO", devoted to methods of dealing with American aircraft carriers. The author of the article "The bitter truth about the instantaneous strike of the AUG" is full of optimism - everything that floats, someday drowns, we will shoot everyone at once, our sea. His opponent (the article "Is the Russian fleet capable of fighting US aircraft carriers?") Gives a more balanced assessment of events, rightly pointing to obvious difficulties in fighting such a mobile and combat-ready squadron as the US Navy AUG.

Dear Y. Nikiforov and S. Linnik, why was it again asking the obvious question? After all, everything is obvious. The naval power of the United States surpasses the fleets of all the other countries of the world combined. There, the number of aircraft carriers alone exceeds the number of all carriers of long-range anti-ship missiles in the domestic fleet (the nuclear-powered Orlans, the Atlantic type RKR and the SSGN 949A project). We have the entire 4 ship capable of providing zonal air defense of the squadron, the Yankees of such ships 84 (cruisers and destroyers with long-range anti-aircraft systems). Moreover, the American fleet has a multinational format - dozens of technically developed allied countries with their bases and ships, ready at any moment to strengthen the fleet of their overlord. It is absolutely unacceptable, useless, and in fact no one needs to fight such a force with the help of a handful of rusty submarines and cruisers during the cold war.


On board the TARKR "Peter the Great"


If we talk only about AUG, then the matter is not only in their quantity, but also in their quality. The Yankees managed to create a balanced squadron (aviation, warrant of air defense and anti-aircraft defense, underwater forces), practically invulnerable in the open sea. It is extremely difficult to detect and track. She does not approach close to the coast, continuously changing her position at a speed of 500 miles per day. The reconnaissance planes sent to her search will inevitably be intercepted by combat air patrols, bartering at a distance of a hundred miles from the main AUG order.

US aircraft carrier power. How to sink 100 000 tons?

Tu-95РЦ under the escort "Phantoms"


Even during its heyday, the well-known space Legend (satellites of marine intelligence) was only a technically beautiful experiment that showed all the incredible depth and complexity of this problem. Even dropping the scary Legendy-M (satellites with a nuclear reactor), it is worth noting that the low-orbit satellite is flying in a circular orbit, making one orbit around the Earth in 80 with a few minutes. However, having made one revolution, the satellite will already be completely above another region of the planet, located thousands of kilometers from the place over which it flew for the first time. The earth has its own rotation - as a result, the satellite has a complex movement with respect to the earth observer, and its trajectory resembles a zigzag on the oscilloscope screen. To be able, with due regularity (at least once per hour) to inspect any given area of ​​the oceans, would require a hell of a lot of space reconnaissance aircraft; the creation and operation of such a system is pure fiction.



The only one who has a chance to discover the AUG and without losing time to strike is a submarine, by chance turned out to be in the path of the aircraft carrier group. However, given that the number of combat-ready multipurpose nuclear submarines in the Russian Navy is currently less than the number of aircraft carriers of the “probable enemy”, the probability theory gives a meager forecast about their encounter in the vast ocean. It is worth noting that the AUG moves quickly, and the boat is constrained to maneuver. Attempting to give full speed, catch up with the squadron and take a favorable position for the attack is fraught with the risk of loss of stealth and the disruption of the attack / death of the submarine. The AUG includes at least 4-5 surface ships with powerful sonar stations and RUM-139 ASROC-VL missile torpedoes, not counting the multi-purpose submarines covering the aircraft carrier from under water. Anti-submarine "turntables" are actively used (a couple of dozen per squadron), while the aircraft carrier does not hesitate to help from the side of basic aviation. At the corners of the AUG, the Orions and Poseidons (naval patrol / anti-submarine aircraft based on civilian airliners) constantly scour.



As a result, the AUG can continuously evade contact with the enemy, at the same time, due to the presence of a “long arm”, counterattacking enemy ships trying to get closer to the squadron at a range of launching their missiles (or at least to find the approximate location of the AUG).

What can oppose such a threat? Equipping and sending her own AUG to her search - two "Elusive Joe" will run one after another across the ocean, periodically getting involved in aerial battles. Someday, one of the parties will be lucky: a coordinated attack will take the enemy by surprise, the planes will break through and “strike” the enemy warrant (the battle in the Coral Sea, Midway - distant echoes from the past).

The Legend of the Elusive Joe

The facts from the first part of the article are capable of plunging into despondency, but you should not despair!

The last carrier-carrier carrier of nuclear weapons (A-5 Vigilante) was removed from service by the Yankees in 1963 year. The reason was the emergence of a much more reliable and efficient system - submarines with ballistic missiles. Since then, the Yankees have never experimented with nuclear weapons aboard their aircraft carriers, giving them the role of a naval tactical system to dominate the sea in the event of a nuclear-free version of the Third World War. The World War did not happen, as a result of the "Aviaufly" wandered aimlessly across the oceans, periodically trying to participate in local conflicts. Where there was little sense from them - the Air Force aircraft decided everything in the air.

The aircraft carrier is invulnerable in the open ocean, but its strength rapidly decreases when approaching the coast. The Houkai and SuperHornnets are facing competition from coast-based fighters whose performance characteristics exceed head-of-board performance. What can make a small airplane AWAC "Hawk" against E-3 "Sentry" or domestic AWACS A-50U, where the mass of one equipment and antenna exceed the max. Hawk's take-off weight! It is equally ridiculous to compare the combat load of the “SuperHornet” (when taking off from a catapult) with some land monster of the Su-34 or F-15E type.



The same problem with the number - even on the largest aircraft carrier there can be no more than four dozen combat aircraft at a time. While on the coast they are waited for by an air force consisting of many dozens, if not hundreds of units of first-class aircraft.

The fact that the air force of most countries has less combat aircraft than on one American aircraft carrier is the problem of the air forces of these countries themselves. There is aviation - there are no problems with aircraft carriers. The Falkand epic (1982) clearly showed how cruel the squadron was from coast-based aviation (despite the fact that Argentine clowns had 6 anti-ship missiles on the whole theater, the only tanker aircraft, and the passenger Boeing flew for reconnaissance).

The third problem is geography. American AUG is not able to directly threaten Russia, because all important cities and industrial centers are located deep in the coast, and before the same Crimea it is easier and closer to fly from the Turkish airbase Injirlik than to drive an aircraft carrier into the Black Sea. AUGs have nothing to do in the "marquise puddles" of the Baltic or the Black Sea. On the other hand, continental Russia has no strategic interests in the oceans, we never depended on sea communications. Even in the most difficult years of WWII, we didn’t have much difference, as the fights took place in the open spaces in the Atlantic. We could not help the allies. And the sea - the boundless blue-green expanse - still no one’s.

Modern nuclear aircraft carriers could be justified in a serious nuclear-free conflict of the format "USSR vs USA", when the Yankees needed to send reinforcements across the ocean to Europe, fighting off Soviet submarines and aircraft attacking from all sides. In this case, AUGs could play a role - their combat stability can really be envied. Alas (or rather, fortunately) such stories - just plots for books in the genre of alternative history.

AUG is invulnerable while it wanders aimlessly around the ocean. But its strength in real operations is expressed in symbolic percentages. The result of all searches - from the usual discussions on the Internet to serious scientific research in the field of marine, rocket and space technology, was an understanding of a simple fact: there is no need to catch the "Elusive Joe" in the vast expanses of the sea, wasting time trillions of full-bodied rubles. If the actual use of AUG happens, the "Elusive Joe" will come by himself and immediately receive in the face from coastal aviation and air defense systems (as happened in Lebanon in the 1983 year).


SSGM Ave XNUMHA, armed with anti-ship missiles "Granit". Currently, the Russian Navy has 949 operating boats of this type. More 4 boats are under repair




196 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    26 December 2014 07: 01
    Coffin on the water. Large, formidable and super-expensive, and destroyed by just two. No wonder the USSR did not particularly like aircraft carriers.
    1. +12
      26 December 2014 07: 10
      did we destroy them a lot?
      1. +63
        26 December 2014 07: 30
        Yes, as it was not necessary.
        1. +1
          1 January 2015 22: 23
          Well, there is YAHONT. Which the staff themselves call the killer an aircraft carrier. If we consider that it is a cruise missile and can be located anywhere and on anything ... then there’s nothing to talk about
          The anti-ship cruise missile (ASM) \ "Yakhont \" is designed to combat enemy surface ships at a distance of up to 300 kilometers in conditions of strong fire and electronic countermeasures.
      2. +12
        26 December 2014 07: 54
        Quote: Tlauicol
        did we destroy them a lot?

        AlexDARK sent them mentally five times to the bottom, accompanying it with the sounds of READY! and AAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!
      3. +5
        26 December 2014 08: 16
        Of course, this is all theoretically. But what is not theoretically in the army and military affairs? In many aspects, there is no practice and never was. But we talk about it. The same missile defense, and so on, so on. Practice in war is learned.
        1. 0
          26 December 2014 08: 45
          Quote: AlexDARK
          Of course, this is all theoretically. But what is not theoretically in the army and military affairs?

          If you have a theory of how to "destroy twice" the US aircraft carrier fleet, then please submit, it will be interesting to read ...
          1. +7
            26 December 2014 10: 44
            Yes please. 10 megatons one or two!
            1. +3
              26 December 2014 12: 02
              Quote: beeFrost
              Yes please. 10 megatons one or two!

              Well ?, I repeated after you the magic phrase "10 megatons one or two!", Something on the news does not pass about the death of all US aircraft carriers, maybe I asked the wrong intonation?
            2. Kassandra
              +1
              30 December 2014 11: 26
              loose cassette warhead of aeroballistic missile with pyrophoric OU rods in the deck and no "one-two" ... bully
          2. +6
            26 December 2014 10: 57
            Quote: Nayhas
            If you have a theory of how to "destroy twice" the US aircraft carrier fleet, then please submit, it will be interesting to read ...

            Why destroy it? It is enough to disable.
            I do not claim that an aircraft carrier is a useless combat unit, but there have been cases.
            "Forrestal", 1967, incapacitated by a kinetic blow from the NUR "Zuni"
            "Enterprise", 1969, NUR "Zuni" is out of order again. Effects.
            1. Vasya 77
              +3
              26 December 2014 19: 49
              Dear, you are mistaken about the Enterprise! It's not about Zuni, it's about one donkey who decided to smoke in the wrong place and at the wrong time, but his name was McCain. The one who was raped by the Vietnamese for several years! wink
              1. Wick
                +2
                27 December 2014 10: 48
                You are talking nonsense. Mackain served on USS Forestall and not on USS Enterprise. And Macain himself has nothing to do with the causes of both explosions. Not his rocket was.
              2. +4
                29 December 2014 00: 14
                Quote: Vasya 77
                Dear, you are mistaken about the Enterprise! It's not about Zuni, it's about one donkey

                The point is not in the "Zuni" and not in the donkey, but in the fact that the reaction of one small ammunition was able to disable a huge combat unit.
                1. Vasya 77
                  +4
                  29 December 2014 00: 49
                  As you say Michael! I admit my joke is inappropriate! I did not think that such a burning topic with AUGs really. I don’t understand one thing, so many words, sentences, analyzes, etc., but no one raised the question that Caliber (Yakhont, Onyx, no matter what they call RK) is not completely imprisoned for the fight against aug, of course there may be a surprise in range, but nonetheless, Yakhont is not Granite. But our designers created and tested the RK Bolide, the further development of Granite, a range of up to 1000 km, a speed of Mach 4 ... Why do not they want to take heavy winged into service? The Yankees were very afraid of Granite, they even called it a shipwreck, and eo says a lot. There was a meteorite project with a range of 5000 thousand CR, there were problems in testing because of the plasma generator, but again we brought it, apparently, the generator made the rocket invisible ... So if we combine the same car and the generator, I think we can destroy these AUGs and do not rely on sacrificing a regiment (and such losses will be discussed) TU 22M.
            2. 0
              1 January 2015 22: 26
              BRAVO!!! What are we talking about!
          3. +8
            26 December 2014 11: 40
            I remember when the Chinese began to test ballistic anti-ship missiles, the Americans began hysterically to "blow the latrines" and generally go for ... They really didn't like this thing, which is not surprising - such a rocket shoots at 1 thousand km, it is suitable for hypersound, from above, the EPR is minimal. Air defense AUG smokes.
            And then the topic died out. Those. disappeared from public information. From which I draw a conclusion - the topic has gone.) Therefore, in the near future the appearance of such gifts on land, air, and sea-based is very possible. And possibly with separable kinetic warheads.
            1. +2
              26 December 2014 12: 48
              not only went, but already available from Ketayans Dong Feng 21D
          4. +2
            26 December 2014 14: 02
            The question is different, but is it necessary to destroy it purely physically by our forces? The funds spent on its detection, then destruction, the inevitable own losses in this case can exceed the damage that the enemy’s ACG could have inflicted on us in the event of a database. Especially considering our geographic location, which is extremely inconvenient for the AUG. The game is not worth the candle.
            1. +3
              26 December 2014 15: 47
              And it does not need to be destroyed physically. The detonation of a hypersonic warhead with special striking elements above the deck will make a sieve of aircraft, remove antennas and takeoff and landing equipment. And all the "long" grabbing little hands were knocked out. Cheap and cheerful. The same applies to the ships of the URO order - "Aegis" kaput)
              1. Kassandra
                +3
                27 December 2014 05: 25
                the pyrophoric op-amp rods from the same DF-21 are so completely non-nuclearly sew through it ...
                large aircraft carriers didn’t even start from it, but with the appearance of the Yak-141 in the mid-70s (it was ready back in 1978). he, too, as an option, can carry an aeroballistic missile and release it from the cabling, which AUG will get.
        2. 0
          27 December 2014 06: 15
          Quote: AlexDARK
          Practice in war is learned.

          But what about Suvorov with his - "It's hard in training - easy in battle!" ??
      4. +6
        26 December 2014 08: 36
        "Are we / they a lot". Such a phrase is not appropriate. We do not fight every day, it seems. There is practically no practice in many military aspects. Everything is based on assumption and theory. This question can be inserted anywhere. And in a real war, everything can go differently than the engineers intended when creating one or another.
        1. +2
          27 December 2014 01: 24
          I agree with you. And I saw that the aircraft carrier is needed rather to give power to the fleet, you can even reconsider whether the aircraft carrier is the main one in the AUG ???
      5. +1
        26 December 2014 09: 23
        Conditionally destroyed at least 1 time in the nineties yet.
      6. +2
        26 December 2014 10: 33
        And often they attacked Russia?
        1. Kassandra
          0
          27 December 2014 05: 31
          it happened ... inversely, while - vryatli.
      7. +9
        26 December 2014 12: 28
        Quote: Tlauicol
        did we destroy them a lot?

        But we shot a lot of them for real goals? laughing
        For reading at leisure, there is about the wake track, and how much it is stored, and all that smile
        http://topwar.ru/29752-est-li-torpeda-opasnee-shkvala.html


        I can not resist a quote from the article http://topwar.ru/29752-est-li-torpeda-opasnee-shkvala.html laughing
        Around the same time, to the war correspondent’s question: “How are you going to protect aircraft carriers from Russian super-torpedoes?” one of the senior representatives of the US Navy gave a simple and concise answer: “We will put each aircraft carrier in the wake of the cruiser”(C)
        1. +4
          26 December 2014 18: 19
          Quote: i80186
          “How are you going to protect the aircraft carriers from Russian super-torpedoes?”

          1.Currently, the Shkval submarine missile is not used in the Russian Navy

          2.Main Features:
          - weight - 2.7 tons;
          - caliber - 533.4 mm;
          - length - 800 centimeters;
          - distance to 13 kilometers;
          - march depth - 6 meters;
          - possible start depth to 30 meters;
          - The weight of the warhead is not less than 210 kilogram;

          ================================================== ==================
          At 13 Km, neither AUG nor a single ship will let the submarine launch.
          ====================================================================== =================

          3. Iranian high-speed submarine missiles "Hoot" - a copy of the Soviet "Flurry". In all respects, and even in appearance, it is the Russian squall missile torpedo. because of short range missiles are not classified as offensive weapons.
          It may be somehow applicable in the Persian Gulf (there is intense, pushing with feed), but only there ....

          4. In June, the Russian Defense Ministry and the Caspian Dagdizel plant, after negotiations with the acting head of Dagestan, Ramazan Abdulatipov, agreed to conclude a contract for 5 billion rubles.

          In March, it became known that a criminal case had been initiated due to Dugdiesel’s failure to fulfill the state contract for the supply and modernization of military missiles for 2 billion 700 million rubles.


          5. Diehl BGT Defense and Altas Elektronik showed 17-20 on May 2005 at the IMDEX exhibition in Singapore as part of a demonstration program for super-cavitation submarine rockets ...

          According to unconfirmed reports, the total weight of Barracuda is 110 kg, length 2300 mm, caliber 160 mm, explosive mass 10 kg, range 1000 m at maximum speed, the total circulation time is 3.6 seconds, the circulation diameter is 120 m.
      8. +3
        26 December 2014 13: 39
        We are not, but old McCain incapacitated for a long time. laughing
        But the most unthinkable misfortune happened to McCain during the Vietnam War. 29 July 1967, around 11 in the morning, right after lunch for the officers' men, the American aircraft carrier Forrestal burned down in the Gulf of Tonkin. Need I say, dear reader, that McCain was on it? And not just on the ship, but in the very epicenter of the fire. Moreover, the evil tongues claim that it was he who accidentally slammed the battle rocket from his plane, which was standing on the deck, which caused the fire (and the Pope-Admiral otmazal again). Officially, the reason, however, was declared a "power surge in the on-board network," but who knows, who knows ... Most of the witnesses to the fire, and this crew member 134, died there, destroyed the 21 combat aircraft, and the aircraft carrier turned out to be year out of order! In this case, McCain, who was at the helm, escaped with only minor burns. Well, purely lucky!
        1. Wick
          +3
          27 December 2014 11: 00
          You are also talking nonsense. Mackain has no fault in this state of emergency. His A-4 Skyhawk caught fire after a Zunni rocket hit an A-4 Skyhawk plane standing nearby and both were ready to fly with 2x1000 pound bombs which killed so many sailors in the explosion. Mackain has nothing to do with it. Stop talking nonsense.
          1. Kassandra
            +3
            27 December 2014 17: 17
            yeah, yes, and then in the Vietnamese pit he was sitting not in this but in that ... bully
      9. 0
        26 December 2014 16: 25
        Well, one for sure. When under the keel, the lateworks were purged. Although maybe a bike.
      10. Cat
        +1
        26 December 2014 18: 44
        I could be wrong! But we caught one aircraft carrier in the 70s. The nuclear submarine was following American naval exercises and lost direction. The commander decided to surface. We surfaced exactly under the aircraft carrier "America" ​​so that it lost 40 square meters. bottom trim and ate did not drown. Our submarine has lost its overscopes and that's it.
        Conclusion elusive joe = Russian sincere and mental faith "at random".
        It is not for nothing that the numbness of five Russian ships of the 1st rank bore the name "Don't touch me" good
      11. 0
        9 January 2015 17: 16
        Not a single one, because it was not necessary. And if necessary, it’s easy. I adjusted the deck and that's it. Bullshit. Soviet pilots broke through the aug screens, and now, it seems to me, the possibilities have increased.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          9 January 2015 18: 02
          not easy - you find him and come to him first. before the planes from him found you ...
    2. +7
      26 December 2014 07: 31
      In the USSR, aircraft carriers were called the aggressor’s weapons, and our doctrine at that time was purely defensive, therefore, with all the admirals’s desire to have Soviet aircraft carriers, the government did not give permission for their construction. Kuznetsov fought for a long time, but in the end they built anti-submarine helicopter carriers, and the only one with full-weight fighters , the ship appeared only in the 80 of the last century and it was named after Admiral Kuznetsov himself. And as for the easy destruction ... Brad. No one after the 2 of the World War has ever sunk an aircraft carrier. hi
      1. +11
        26 December 2014 08: 26
        Few have had this need, supported by the appropriate capabilities. The Argentines, at one time, managed to damage the British "Invincible" ... but not strongly and free-fall bombs ... (although there is a lot of debate about this) ....
        And the fact that aircraft carriers did not drown with WWII indicates a well-thought-out strategy for their application, taking into account their strengths and weaknesses ...
        No one talks about the ease of sinking an aircraft carrier, but this is a doable task under certain conditions. It is not for nothing that the author claims that the ACG has nothing to do in the Baltic and the Black Sea and other enclosed water areas restricting freedom of maneuver ...
        And in the end - who needs "The Elusive Joe" - only to whom he interferes hi
      2. +11
        26 December 2014 09: 21
        ..Bred.Nobody after the 2nd World War has never sunk an aircraft carrier.

        Nonsense and demagoguery ... And who tried something? ... Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Yugoslavia, Nicaragua, Panama?
      3. +1
        22 October 2016 23: 04
        Quote: Magic Archer
        No one after the 2nd World War has never sunk an aircraft carrier.

        How you cynically lie. Why should we limit the study of military history to the year 1945? When it was necessary, during WWII, aircraft carriers drowned beautifully, much easier than the battleships that all are lacking.
    3. -3
      26 December 2014 10: 37
      I completely agree. A political instrument - yes, a military unit - no.
      And the author, well, sucks out of the finger, there is nothing to say.
      What will some unhappy megaton do with an aircraft carrier and its support?
      The article does not say a word about jammers ... (so well-proven recently in the Black Sea ...)
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. 0
      26 December 2014 12: 56
      Well, damn it, intimidated by nature! There is something to drown. And what have they never even tried? All that is not on the ground relies unsteadily by definition. hi
    6. 0
      2 January 2015 16: 26
      Well, it’s just a great military strategist, but for some reason you’re not the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, then it’s not very much in military affairs, well, do you really think that people in the defense department are dumber than you and don’t know how to deal with aircraft carriers, maybe they need advice to ask specialists like you.
      1. Kassandra
        +1
        2 January 2015 18: 46
        there others are sitting up to which you like before ... who have been "scientifically substantiating" the uselessness and even harmfulness of aircraft carriers for the USSR and the Russian Federation for 100 years.
        any Jesuitism is used
        from comparing nimits with small nuclear submarines instead of comparing small aircraft carriers (11 thousand tons) with SSBN Typhoon (50 thousand tons)
        to the banal "aircraft carriers is a weapon of aggression"
        and placing on the tank near Gorshkov any bullshit that even the Indians required to remove during its reconstruction in Vikramaditya.
    7. 0
      22 October 2016 22: 39
      Quote: AlexDARK
      No wonder the USSR did not particularly like aircraft carriers.

      Aircraft carriers, like jump aerodromes, will be a thing of the past with the development of aviation.
    8. 0
      23 October 2016 12: 28
      The USSR was itself an aircraft carrier and there were enough funds on board to be respected by the adversary.
    9. +1
      25 October 2016 08: 47
      Russia has surprises. The article mentions aspects of technical intelligence, but during the Second World War, information obtained by operational means was of great importance. Kudy swam where, when, for what purpose. For two times, such a ship cannot be destroyed. This is a very difficult but doable task. Want a script? If Day D occurs, all US carrier groups immediately respond to their coast)))) There, and please meet them ... Come on, bye ...
  2. +19
    26 December 2014 07: 17
    All right. Already in the 50 of the last century, the American aircraft carriers ceased to regard the US General Staff as a strategic threat. And the AUG Americans do not include the nuclear strategic triad itself. Those. and they themselves acknowledge that they will not be able to deliver EFFECTIVE blows with decks and tomahawks to Russia or China. Why is that? The fact is that the AUG is guaranteed to be disabled from the aircraft regiment of attack aircraft. Of course, after such a battle, the loss of the regiment will be up to 2 / 3 aircraft, well, so they will not be in vain. In the 50's it was the Tu-16, then they are from the Tu-22. Then the Tu-22M or Su-24 regiment was needed. Thus, as long as we have an adequate number of aircraft of the Tu-22m3 and Su-34 dimensions, the American aircraft carriers will not scoop up to our shores and can only carry out the blockade. But Russia and China are not island states. In addition, do not forget about the nuclear submarines.
    1. 0
      26 December 2014 09: 59
      Let’s analyze a specific place of a possible confrontation with the means and geographical features inherent only to it.


      Tired of these descriptions of a scarecrow from a spherical horse in a vacuum.
  3. +3
    26 December 2014 07: 19
    The author described everything correctly, but such a fleet allows blocking a large part of the continent, except for the Arctic Ocean, and after the defense, no matter how you turn the offensive is necessary, and this raises questions that will need to be resolved, the submarines alone can’t cope. The United States is not Germany; you cannot reach it on foot; here you have to think what to do with it.
    1. +1
      26 December 2014 08: 25
      We get through Alaska. For a long time already there was a project of the transcontinental railway, so we are implementing it for supply and transportation.
    2. +6
      26 December 2014 08: 39
      Here I agree. For simply throwing the enemy away from their shores and forgetting, means giving him a chance to return. Of course, I am against fighting in the United States, but at least the destruction of their Navy is mandatory.
    3. +7
      26 December 2014 09: 28
      Do not make me laugh. The landing in America is utopia. No forces and people are enough. It will be enough to shoot nuclear weapons and wait a couple of months. And then on motor ships and passenger aircraft, calmly and without fuss.
      1. +4
        26 December 2014 12: 39
        Quote: muginov2015
        And then on motor ships and passenger aircraft, calmly and without fuss.

        After a retaliatory nuclear strike? "Quietly and without fuss. ..." - that's for sure ...
      2. Russkiy53
        +2
        26 December 2014 19: 38
        Quote: muginov2015
        Do not make me laugh. The landing in America is utopia. No forces and people are enough. It will be enough to shoot nuclear weapons and wait a couple of months.

        after a couple of months, when the hair, teeth and nails fall off, in a quiet sadness, shoot yourself ...
      3. Kassandra
        0
        2 January 2015 18: 48
        Even across the Bering Strait? bully
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. +1
      26 December 2014 11: 12
      Quote: Tatar-in
      The United States is not Germany; you cannot reach it on foot; here you have to think what to do with it.

      You can cross the ice and create a bridgehead in Alaska.
      1. +1
        26 December 2014 12: 28
        you yourself understand the utopian situation of crossing through Alaska, then across Canada, this is comparable to crossing the Alps in those difficult times. The entire land operation will be useless without dominance at sea. Everything rests either in total nuclear destruction, or in positional warfare.
        1. Orlando
          -1
          26 December 2014 16: 18
          Quote: Tatar-in
          you yourself understand the utopian nature of the transition situation

          but what do you really appeal to the brain, there is nothing left except propaganda slogans ...
          1. +1
            26 December 2014 17: 59
            Quote: Orlando
            but what do you really appeal to the brain, there is nothing left except propaganda slogans ...

            And why did you put the red flag on the avatar anti-propagandist Orlando?
        2. +1
          26 December 2014 19: 41
          Quote: Tatar-in
          you yourself understand the utopian situation of crossing through Alaska, then across Canada, this is comparable to crossing the Alps in those difficult times

          You exaggerate a little, the 21st century in the yard, in America and Canada they make roads well.
          We would only have to get to Alaska, so we will create the Arctic troops and then ..., we have no other way, in general, you can still build a fleet more powerful than the US.

          The Pan American Highway passes through fifteen countries in North, Central and South America. From Alaska itself, through 15 countries, all the way to the Strait of Magellan
  4. +4
    26 December 2014 07: 28
    In order to be able to properly inspect (at least once an hour) any given area of ​​the World Ocean, it would take a hell of a lot of space reconnaissance; the creation and operation of such a system is pure fantasy.
    This is just a matter of necessity and financing ... But the author, in fact, is right - the sheepskin is not worth the trouble, although the project was very interesting and promising .... And a limited grouping of such spacecraft is still a necessary thing.
  5. sanek0207
    0
    26 December 2014 07: 36
    Of course, a huge pile of iron stuffed with electronics, weapons is a powerful unit, but it also has weaknesses !? Our specialists, who are developing new weapons systems, must have the means to combat these monsters !? Surely there is something that is able to turn this ship into a pile of rubbish !? How reliable is this weapon? There is nothing to test it on!
  6. +9
    26 December 2014 07: 41
    The article is in principle worthy of attention, but there is at least one missed point, cruise missiles, of which several hundred in one ACG also have a high threat factor. We need to calculate how many and which systems are needed to protect ourselves from such an armada of cruise missiles and the enemy air force, since given the territory of our country, it will not be possible to shut down and protect it all. And the fact that in one, for example, the Chelyabinsk region, has several dozens of strategic enterprises, some of which are involved in the processing and storage of very dangerous substances TV.And how many such enterprises throughout the Russian Federation, and how many other strategically significant goals, you can’t tell everything. In my opinion, we need a modern system of monitoring of the sea space, and a complex one. It should include not only reconnaissance satellites, but also instruments of another class and dual-use, such as sea buoys, which by the way are now in our country in a quiet and engaged. Surely there are still a lot of tools and in my opinion this area has huge development potential.
    1. +10
      26 December 2014 08: 09
      Quote: lotar
      The article, in principle, deserves attention, but there is at least one missed point, cruise missiles, of which several hundred in one AUG also have a high threat factor.

      The range of the tactical Ax is only 1500 km., All strategically important targets are much deeper. For example, the ICBM mine in Uzhur (this is the Krasnoyarsk Territory) does not get a single cruise missile ...
      1. +4
        26 December 2014 10: 51
        Quote: Nayhas
        The range of the tactical Ax is only 1500 km., All strategically important targets are much deeper.

        In 2004, work began on the modernization of the BGM-109 Tomahawk:
        Increasing the firing range to 3-4 thousand km due to the development of more efficient engines and fuels, reducing the weight and overall characteristics. In particular, replacing the F-107 turbojet engine with its modification, according to American experts, gives an increase in traction by 19 percent. and 3% reduction in fuel consumption. Due to the replacement of the existing turbofan engine with a propeller-driven one in combination with a special gas generator, the flight range will increase by 50% with the mass and size characteristics of the rocket unchanged.
        Improving the accuracy of targeting up to several meters by equipping the receiver receiver equipment of the NAVSTAR satellite navigation system and a laser locator. It includes an active infrared front-view sensor and a CO02 laser. Laser locator makes it possible to carry out the selection of stationary targets, navigation support and speed correction.
        increase in launching depths of CR with submarines when using a more powerful starting solid propellant rocket engine;
        reducing the impact of air defense and missile defense during the combat use of cruise missiles. It is supposed to reduce the impact of air defense systems and increase the combat stability of the Kyrgyz Republic by reducing its radar visibility, increasing the number of flight programs, and the possibility of their quick replacement or adjustment during missile flight. To this end, it is planned to use more efficient computers and satellite communications.
    2. +3
      26 December 2014 09: 50
      Prastiti ... and I’m embarrassed to ask, why will the AUG hit targets in the Chelyabinsk region and where? Thank.




      In general, these spherical horses in a vacuum are tired. Even before yesterday's article, I made a proposal that "Can someone write down an analyst about the AUG fire contact at a SPECIFIC theater of operations of the territorial waters of the Russian Federation or their vicinity?"
      1. 0
        26 December 2014 10: 25
        Firstly, no one canceled ballistic missiles. Secondly, in my commentary I cited the Chelyabinsk region as an example and further wrote that there are no such objects in the Russian Federation, so little will be shown to anyone.
        1. 0
          26 December 2014 10: 32
          Comrade, it’s not my fault that you gave a bad example.

          And where does the ICBM? o_o
          1. 0
            27 December 2014 22: 25
            You just need to read more carefully and then the example will be understood.
      2. +1
        26 December 2014 17: 50
        Quote: Evgeny_Lev
        Even before yesterday's article, I made a proposal that "Can someone write down an analyst about the AUG fire contact at a SPECIFIC theater of operations of the territorial waters of the Russian Federation or their vicinity?"

        Alas, there is not enough time for filing, but please look at Dalniy.
  7. +9
    26 December 2014 07: 44
    But as to whether Russian aircraft carriers are needed or not ... Well, you still need to have a couple ... On the northern and Pacific Fleet. Nevertheless, we have allies and interests overseas (I'm talking about the countries of Latin America), albeit not big ones. And even during the recent communication with the Caucasian branch of NATO, something like a Mistralka on the Black Sea would not have been superfluous.
  8. +7
    26 December 2014 08: 05
    Since when has AUG become elusive and invisible? Radars stopped working? Have the "bears" stopped flying? Passive reconnaissance (direction finding by radio signals) stopped working? The same AUG planes unmask it quite normally. Accompanying ships go with sonars in active mode, which also does not contribute to camouflage.
    1. +7
      26 December 2014 08: 11
      Quote: Mavric
      Did the radars stop working?

      they were not in the ocean ...
      Quote: Mavric
      Have the "bears" stopped flying?

      in the 90s, the last Tu-95RC was cut ...
      Quote: Mavric
      Passive reconnaissance (direction finding by radio signals) stopped working?

      the radio interception base in Lourdes was closed in the early 2000s ...
      Quote: Mavric
      Accompanying ships come with sonars in active mode, which also does not contribute to camouflage.

      across the ocean, many who walk with radar on ...
      1. +4
        26 December 2014 10: 06
        And someone takes into account the fact that not the entire world ocean can be suitable for campaigns, not to mention the hostilities, for the AUG?

        After all, atomic carriers throughout the warrant are only the aircraft carriers themselves and the submarines that accompany them. Yes, there are tankers and support vessels, but you must admit that even there aren’t enough of them to organize an order entry from a completely unexpected side.

        Simply put, AUG has its own optimal travel routes to potential goals, eliminating all that are not of interest to us, we will get a set of those that belong to us, and we will follow them.


        WHY FOLLOWS THE WHOLE OCEAN?
        1. +1
          26 December 2014 17: 53
          Quote: Evgeny_Lev
          WHY FOLLOWS THE WHOLE OCEAN?

          Because you should not consider the enemy as bad as yourself - it is well known that you should approach the target not from the most convenient, but from the side most unexpected for the target :)))
          The autonomy of the AUG allows this to be done - refueling ships at sea before a jerk does not represent something technically super-complicated. AUG can go to a certain point of a cursed hail, refuel non-nuclear ships there and then at high speed reach the line of carrier-based aircraft lift - there is no problem because the ocean is large
      2. Russkiy53
        0
        26 December 2014 19: 48
        but, on the other hand, we have ... fabulously self-confident marviks !!! they will not whip everyone whom they die to death, they will throw their hats in any way ...
        1. 0
          28 December 2014 19: 12
          Just in case, he served in the Northern Fleet ...
      3. 0
        28 December 2014 19: 08
        Sonars - not radar, Radars on ships do not work? CERs (reconnaissance ships) do not go to sea? Radio intelligence satellites do not work the same?
    2. +7
      26 December 2014 09: 27
      Quote: Mavric
      Since when has the AUG become elusive and invisible?


      Since the fall of 1983. When the American AUG suddenly appeared in the Kamchatka region almost in direct line of sight.
      1. +2
        26 December 2014 10: 12
        And let's not forget that there are not only objective means of tracking, but also undercover.
      2. 0
        26 December 2014 22: 42
        And she didn’t just appear, but raised planes. Those. could theoretically suddenly strike
      3. 0
        28 December 2014 19: 11
        The fact that they dried out at some point does not mean that they were not ready to drown.
  9. +1
    26 December 2014 08: 19
    Aircraft carriers are, first of all, a certain status of the state. The Chinese, ask India why the aircraft carrier should protect the Indian Ocean. This is how the Americans hold the status, others should be built at least alone.
  10. +8
    26 December 2014 08: 21
    Why then do we need nuclear weapons if we cannot use them !? One preventive blow to this armada will turn it into a pile of iron plunging to the bottom of the ocean. In my opinion, this should be clearly explained by our opponent, having specifically written this in the military doctrine that no one is going to measure the fleets with them. Why do we need this senseless race, that we have no where and no more money to spend. Or am I wrong !? sad
    1. +5
      26 December 2014 17: 57
      Quote: Mussashi
      Or I'm wrong!

      Certainly not right.
      Firstly, you will be surprised, but EVEN a NUCLEAR weapon will not destroy AUG so easily and simply. In the USSR, it was believed that the use of nuclear ammunition against AUG improves the chances of its defeat. But only
      For example, before the attack on the AUG by Tu-22M3 regiments, it was supposed to carry several missiles with nuclear submunitions to the AUG area so that nuclear explosions would "deafen" the AUG's electronics and thus the losses of the TU-22M3 in an attack by anti-ship missiles would become lower, and the accuracy of their hits would be higher.
      It is NOT ENOUGH to just run the YABCH "somewhere in that direction".
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +1
        26 December 2014 22: 57
        It is enough if warhead = 1-3Mt.
        1. +1
          26 December 2014 23: 15
          In the 60s, they conducted training firing using the X-20 missile launcher in the Pacific Ocean on the AUG hiking order - they put old decommissioned ships (it turned out to be 8x8 miles square. American reconnaissance ships were certainly pulled to the target area in order to fix the accuracy of missile hits. Our missiles did not always fell into such a delineated square, and the misses were significant.Americans simply laughed at such accuracy, but the subtlety was that in a real battle the KR carried a 1-3 mt warhead and in case of a miss, the explosion power was such that it covered the entire AUG.
          1. +2
            29 December 2014 23: 54
            Quote: glasha3032
            In the 60 years, firing exercises were carried out using the X-20 missile launcher in the Pacific Ocean on the AUG hiking order - they put old decommissioned ships (it turned out to be a square measuring 8x8 miles

            Which, in essence, is the verdict for this type of attack. The X-20 fired from 600 km, yes, but at the same time, according to the test results, it did NOT ALWAYS fall into a "standing" square of 8 * 8 miles. Well, AUG is a moving square :))) And it would be much more difficult to get into it.
            In addition, hitting the X-20 was no more difficult than destroying the Mig-19 flying in a straight line. Accordingly, for some reliable defeat, it was necessary to volley.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. lucidlook
      0
      30 December 2014 23: 27
      I recommend having fun with http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html

      To transform an aircraft carrier "into a heap of iron", it must be in the two central circles. And for diving to the bottom of the ocean - in the very central one.
  11. Crang
    +1
    26 December 2014 08: 24
    How to sink 100 tons?

    Well, for example, in Vietnam, the aircraft carrier Forestol almost sank a 127mm Zuni missile with a mass of 48,5kg. Barely saved.
    1. avt
      +13
      26 December 2014 09: 17
      Quote: Krang
      In Vietnam, the aircraft carrier Forestol nearly sank a 127mm Zuni missile with a mass of 48,5kg. Barely saved.

      But the Soviet government never awarded McCain for this feat of hero title. wassat
      1. Crang
        +1
        26 December 2014 09: 30
        Is it McCain who blew up his aircraft carrier or something? Well, in general it is not surprising. I can’t say that I’m shocked.
        1. avt
          +1
          26 December 2014 10: 21
          Quote: Krang
          Is it McCain who blew up his aircraft carrier or something?

          ,, Zuni "spoke from his plane, she was very excited" laughingSat seemed to indulge in buttons. Actually, they already thought that he had killed planes in the USA, I couldn’t give a link - I didn’t leave it for myself, for sure it’s 25 for sure, so it’s definitely laughing The latter he ditched when, after captivity, he was written off for health from flight work. But he was indignant and who would refuse "the hero of the war and the son of the multi-star admiral", the result is minus one airplane plus the burned down on "Forestall"
          1. Wick
            0
            27 December 2014 11: 12
            Rave! What you repeat does not have the slightest relation to the truth.
        2. Wick
          -1
          27 December 2014 11: 10
          No, not him. But the hats must be thrown here and the woodpeckers repeat about Makein.
      2. Wick
        -1
        27 December 2014 11: 09
        Rave! Mackain with?
    2. +1
      26 December 2014 17: 58
      Quote: Krang
      Well, for example, in Vietnam, the aircraft carrier Forestol almost sank a 127mm Zuni missile with a mass of 48,5kg. Barely saved

      You better remember WHERE she got :)))
      1. Kassandra
        +1
        29 December 2014 03: 05
        in McCain? bully laughing
  12. +3
    26 December 2014 08: 25
    This vessel is needed only to catch up with pathos and show strength. Speaking about its easy destruction, I may not be right. But ... Anyway, this "crap" isn't worth it. I am sincerely sure that I am right about the fact that this crap is very, very expensive, but there is not much sense. Do not forget that "elephants are afraid of mice." Huge and stuffed doesn't mean effective.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +1
      26 December 2014 09: 32
      that's for sure. This child prodigy will not get involved in a serious mess because of the fear of damaging such an expensive toy. Like Tirpitz in World War II.
      1. BIG
        +1
        7 January 2015 07: 00
        Tirpitz by the mere fact of his "standing" forced the British to tie a whole squadron of warships to each convoy.
        Consequences: 1. The enormous cost of resources
        2. The inability to use ships on other theater, where they were really needed
  13. 0
    26 December 2014 08: 28
    PAK YES + new rocket + intelligence. As an option, I think cheap and fast.
    1. 0
      26 December 2014 10: 12
      not at all ....
    2. +4
      26 December 2014 10: 37
      Quote: Historian
      PAK YES + new rocket + intelligence. As an option, I think cheap and fast.

      Before PAK YES is still far away. Better yet: reconnaissance + Tu-22M3M + X-32.
  14. +5
    26 December 2014 08: 38
    The result of all searches - from ordinary discussions on the Internet to serious scientific research in the field of maritime, rocket and space technology, has become an understanding of a simple fact: there is no need to catch "Elusive Joe" in the vast expanses of the sea, wasting trillions of full-weight rubles. If there is a real use of the AUG, "Elusive Joe" will come and immediately get hit in the face by coastal aviation and air defense systems (as happened in Lebanon in 1983).
    The ending is wonderful. To paraphrase Prince Alexander Yaroslavich: whoever doesn’t sail to us kindly will go to the bottom.good
    1. BIG
      0
      7 January 2015 07: 12
      , "Elusive Joe" will come by himself and immediately get in the face from coastal aviation and air defense

      No, it will not come! Do not consider American admirals fools.
      The experience of two world wars proves: the party controlling the sea wins. Means: distant blockade. And to storm coastal facilities, but why actually? Five years later, they themselves will fall apart and scatter. Problems in the rear will make.
  15. the eldest
    +8
    26 December 2014 08: 38
    laughing He laughed yesterday from a story or a saying, let anyone like that and call it well, it’s just on the topic:
    Attack on the Enterprise.

    As my preface. Nobody knows exactly how long it is a button accordion or a bike in general. Only two facts are reliably known (and verified by open sources). Firstly, AVU CVN-65 "Enterprise" was really in that area at that time. Secondly, it actually had a fire as a result of a flight accident. There is also an indirect point. On account of the presence of Soviet submarines in the same place at the same time, the USSR did indeed ask the USSR. But this is confirmed only indirectly. According to memoirs. Including American. Yes, and Captain 1st Rank Nikolai Nikolaevich Kuryanchik is really a real person. Actually the captain. Indeed, a real submariner. Considering that both fleets hunted each other "for training purposes" constantly, even on a routine basis, everyone can relate to the story below individually. And as a real story that has become a legend and therefore a bike, and as a simple Mariman bike, only superficially similar to a real story. For me, even if it's a bike, it's still cool.

    A little about the author

    Captain 1 rank Nikolai Nikolayevich Kuryanchik gave the best years of his amazing life to service in the submarine fleet, in the village of Rybachy in Kamchatka.
    Prior to that, he graduated from the Higher Naval Engineering College named after F.E. Dzerzhinsky (Leningrad).
    He passed through several autonomies with dignity, he was an instrumentation engineer, commander of the automation group of the main power plant of the Project 671RTM parent nuclear boat, and also commander of the survivability division, then commander of the warhead 5 on the Bars project 971 boat.

    He graduated from service as a senior lecturer in the struggle for the survivability of a submarine at the 25-th Training Center in Rybachy.

    He currently works in Vilyuchinsk as a sailing coach in a children's sports school.
    And he writes stories. Almost all of them are deeply autobiographical ...

    A bit from the author

    There are several versions of this story: I found 4 different interpretations. In one version there are long dialogues, in the other - the service of military sailors is described in detail and a large number of naval terms are used.

    In the third there is even a lesson of political information.

    In one story, the incident occurred during the day, in another - at night. There are no expressions like: “... A boat on the depth stabilizer without a move ...” “… there is a proposal to lower the periscope: Kingston purge the latrines on the same frame with the periscope, not to pollute the optics for a short time ...”

    It does not refer to the directive of the General Staff with a recommendation to avoid simulating combat attacks.
    I chose the shortest option, but with a lot of humor. Written based on the story “Bubble in the nose”, from the storybook “Let's not drown !!!”

    So:

    Attack on Enterprise

    I don’t know what the name of the Enterprise commander was, our history does not remember him, but only served him in the famous submarine fleet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the famous commander named Murashov.

    Famous - because famous. And that’s it. Even then, when he defended his thesis and brought up the future Murashovs at the school, he continued to be famous.
    Every famous person, like any simple person, has a Blue Dream, to which he has been striving all his life.

    Captain second rank Murashov had two of them:
    1) Dead loop on a submarine.
    2) Drown Enterprise.
    1. +8
      26 December 2014 09: 06
      Quote: senior
      Attack on the Enterprise.

      This anecdote has a beard already braiding at the feet ... There is such a concept "sea tales" with which the fleet is rich. This is not a lie, but a kind of art that is held in high esteem in the navy ...
      1. +2
        26 December 2014 15: 45
        We have to crawl to the cemetery, because the mattresses have 10 pelvis? The pelvis learned to walk by land? And ... I understand - the United States is immortal! Alas, uncle, how many do not print IDDQDIDDQDIDDQD ... one figs the death throat will come. I read your comments and goof ...
        1. Kassandra
          0
          29 December 2014 03: 12
          21 but to those who love it, it is heavier than water and evaporates easily.
    2. Vasya 77
      0
      27 December 2014 21: 43
      The elder, apparently there are eyewitnesses or relatives of Makein, so do not say anything better about him!
  16. the eldest
    +6
    26 December 2014 08: 39
    Continuation:
    Attack on the Enterprise.
    As for the first, it has not yet been implemented yet (although, who knows, Murashov may have done it quietly, somewhere in the Mariana Trench, no one has just fixed the achievement).
    I personally aerobatics in the abyss of the ocean seems as likely as a torpedo salvo in the bath. But about the torpedoes - a little later.

    The Enterprise was interested in the military sailor Murashov for many reasons. First of all, a real man always has a thirst for something to shoot from something and will certainly get there. No one will argue.

    Now imagine a professional hunter who shot only blank rounds all his conscious life, and then you will understand a little the condition of the boat commander during the military service, when only real ones in the apparatus and on the shelves of the torpedo! The glories of Marinesko and Lunin did not give Murashov peace as any normal submariner without side associations.

    And when the Americans launched their first nuclear aircraft carrier with tail number “CVN-65 ″, the captain of the second rank Murashov attacked him almost every night. In thought, of course.

    And suddenly - an incredible combination of circumstances!

    The sadistic admirals from the General Staff of the Navy come up with the tracking of a carrier-based and very striking group of the then most likely enemy, and they assign, of course, Murashov.

    And one fine day he was looking at the periscope - and there he was, the Enterprise, here he was, sweet as a palm, and about fifteen all kinds of different cruisers, destroyers and other frigates around him - like the Janissaries around Osman Pasha.
    They are guarded, it means that they know about the existence of the captain of the 2nd rank Murashov. In fact, they probably knew: they say that for each Soviet officer older than a major in the CIA, a separate personal file has been opened. If this is so, then on Murashov there - how to drink to give - a whole cabinet is allocated.

    The commander's eyes glittered predatory, and his right index finger several times automatically pressed the nonexistent trigger of a non-existent shotgun.
    - Oooo, you bastard!

    The sun is shining, planes are taking off from the catapults, the antennas are spinning - and you can’t shoot even a bit. Peace on the planet cannot be violated. If only they had given a command from Moscow ... Although the Third World War was not very desirable either. How to be?

    Tracking a probable opponent implies a simple, in general, thing: keep it, adversary, on the sight and wait for the signal. They will give a signal - swamp, will not give - do not sink, endure, hold and wait when they say to stoke, or another will replace you three months later.

    This hunt is difficult, I tell you, it’s the same as staring at a glass of cold kefir or beer for three hours with a hangover, and your hands are tied intentionally ...
  17. the eldest
    +7
    26 December 2014 08: 43
    Continuation

    Attack on the Enterprise.


    And inside the boat - not a sanatorium with pools and girls. A submarine - it's just an iron can, covered on the outside with a thick layer of rubber. Presented, yes? And what else pulls in submariners? In-in.

    One day, another, third ... And how you want to slap! Sign, as on the Reichstag, only instead of the inscription in chalk “Here was a cap. 2 ranks Murashov! ” - a hole in two trams. Here would be, just in the middle ... Even at night you can clearly see ...

    And this bastard - on purpose, is he mocking something? - At exactly midnight, he began to launch planes: take-off and landing, take-off and landing, back and forth ... Lights blink, beckon. And nylon patience, finally, could not stand the constant friction between the mental and physical labor that Soviet submariners erase every day.

    Kapron patience rang out loudly, and the echo scattered across all compartments with a fan of commands. The commander, in his hearts, stunned his fist on the table, waking up the skunk officer in charge of the watch.
    - Enough, chill-chill! Torpedo attack! - And the whole “Central” looked at his commander with delight.
    “For training purposes,” Murashov added, somewhat cooling the ardor of the crew.
    - The goal is Enterprise. The night, however, we’ll crawl right to the board, they’ll notice the hell. A miner crawled into the central crawl.
    - Training in fact, dragging the commander?
    “Training,” the commander confirmed. - Bubble. Fifth and sixth devices free.

    And he imagined how American acoustics, and after them all the other races, run to the upper deck and panicked overboard. You cannot confuse the noise of the air spitting out of the torpedo tube with anything, but go and figure it out - the torpedo came out with the air or not ... At such a distance!

    The commander rubbed his hands in anticipation of the pleasant. Hold on, adversary. Hold on, sweetheart. The periscope fell down, reports about the readiness of the compartments poured into the "Central" heap, and a general unscheduled event began under the exciting name of "torpedo attack."

    - The fifth and sixth devices are just oats! ... Fifth, sixth - or !!! Have a scumbag!
    - Got it! The mechanic rehearsed. - Do not regret the air!

    Hissing, gurgling, the boat flinched slightly. After a while, an unpleasant odor appeared in the central one, and everyone turned up their noses. Murashov, covering his eyes in bliss, imagines the picture that is happening now upstairs ... Now I would still have a pile! Okay. Unable to stand it, the commander sets out: “To the periscope depth! Raise the periscope! ”

    Well, what's up there? So ... I looked into the eyepieces, turned it around, so ... found the Enterprise, and ... mom! ..
    Not. Not this way.
    - MUM! Mummy !!!
    - Miner! Miner, your anhydride in manganese peroxide !!!
    - Here's a miner ...
    - What shot, a poor Romanian ?!
    - Dragging ...
    - I am you, ... I, ... than I shot, fascist ?!
    - I didn’t shoot anything ...
    - How is it - nothing ?!
    - And so, we this ... here we agreed with the mechanic that he would blow out the latrine at the moment of the volley - the sound effect is the same, but at the same time we’ll throw the shit out, they didn’t blow it for two weeks, how much can you carry it with you.
    “As long as you need, you will carry so much!” (the miner wonders - why me?) Count the torpedoes !!!
    - Dragging ... what happened?
    - What happened, what happened ... The Enterprise is on fire !!! Come on, govnostrel-craftsman!
  18. the eldest
    +8
    26 December 2014 08: 47
    Attack on the Enterprise.
    The miner shrugged and went to poke a finger on the shelves: plus in the machines: plus feed.
    And in the periscope - a picture !!! Take a look
    Wow, burning!
    It burns well ... It’s not just burning, it’s burning! It’s great to see in the dark. The sight ...
    Smoke, flames, people with small insects running around the flight deck - in short, a complete set.
    Got Game! Dolbanuli "Enterprise"! This is not khukh-mukhra. Oh, what will happen! ..

    The special agent sticks out in the middle of the central one and still cannot make a decision: speechless.

    - Central to the miner! Dragging the commander, all the torpedoes are in place! I don’t know what it is. Is it really on fire?
    - Pasha! .. Look for what drowned this iron, and until you find it ...
    - No, well, shit - it’s unlikely: That is, “There is!”: But what, have you really drowned?
    - !!!!!!!
    “Comrade commander, target number three is dangerously approaching, the distance is fifteen cables ...” the speaker interrupted his thoughts and guesses.
    - Urgent immersion! Turbine forward ninety-three! Boatswain, dive a hundred meters ...

    The Enterprise, for no reason, went away from the Soviet coast, and the boat was ordered to secretly return to its home base.

    At the point of ascent, I was waiting for a BOD with a commission.

    The logbook and navigational maps were immediately seized. In turn, they interviewed all the witnesses and participants in the “attack” and made them write down the events of such and such a date. And this is what loomed. The aircraft carrier commander probably knew about the presence of a Soviet submarine in this area, and therefore all his guards knew. He also knew that contact with her was lost. This can be regarded as the separation of the AUG from the boat, but long-range security - also submarines - should still continue to search. Surely she knew about the loss of contact and the entire running watch of the aircraft carrier. They knew, and therefore looked at both. And here - in the lunar path some signalman sees the periscope.

    Reporting, of course (they have a large cash bonus for this, by the way). The command of the aircraft carrier is worried, the moon is hiding in the clouds, and the periscope is hiding (so that the optics in shit are not dirty). Everyone stares at the water intensely, the guard ships notify, and the aircraft carrier goes without changing course, because the planes are landing.
  19. the eldest
    +14
    26 December 2014 08: 48
    ending
    Here the moon peeps out again, the bubble emerged clearly - in the lunar path again - and the acoustics shout that they hear a torpedo volley ... The helmsman could not stand it, turned, dodging the “torpedoes” - one way or another, the story is silent, but the plane didn’t land there , crashed and caught fire.

    The fact is that, according to intelligence intelligence and through diplomatic channels, in the place and at the time where our boat blew the latrines, a fire occurred on the aircraft carrier due to an emergency landing of an aircraft crashing into nearby ones, and to top it off, the aircraft carrier also slightly slammed his nose into the side of his own cruiser URO Belknap.

    Again, through a military attaché, a request was made for the presence of Soviet submarines in that area. Of course, they politely replied that there were no boats, and the TUs were quickly returned ...

    Auto Murashova ended ahead of schedule ...

    At the pier in the base, the fleet commander personally met the boat. He listened to the report, scoffing, and when the commander was already ready to be inserted, laid out two stars for him: one (large and Red) - on his chest, the second - smaller - on the shoulder strap. In addition to existing ones. And said:

    - Well, dear, you fulfilled one of your dreams. Enterprise has been disabled for at least six months. It’s not a sin to give a Hero for that. But - not fate. An international agreement is signed to prevent conflicts in the sea and air by prohibiting the imitation of combat attacks. Only Americanos banned him.

    Now, maybe they will understand its benefit, because the repair of the Enterprise will cost them a pretty penny. But! “You were not there.” Do you understand? And explain to the crew. Well, the authorities will take a non-disclosure subscription, of course ...
    Explain to the Yankees that you did not imitate a torpedo attack, but simply blew the latrine, no one would. Firstly, it will only make them angry, and secondly, it’s ridiculously simple. They will also take and do not sign an agreement; they will seek revenge.

    TASS has already reported an accident at Enterprise and said that there were no ships in the area. So, I'm sorry, here's the Order of the Red Banner - that's all that is in my power. Anyway, is it time for him to rest? the commander turned to the commander.
    “And then, as far as I know, another dream has remained, unfulfilled.” There are places?
    “We will find, Comrade Commander.” This is his last autonomy. Ready for transfer to the training center, the head of the tactical cycle.
    “Go better, Murashov, to school.” Teach the future naval commanders there, and it’s dangerous to leave you here - why good, you’d like to realize your first dream ...

    Six months later, the Enterprise underwent an unscheduled repair and went out again to plow open spaces and launch aircraft, and again someone was chasing after him ... But he was so clean, brand new, with a needle, striped under the flag, and nothing reminded me that it wasn’t long ago “There was a cap. 2 p. Murashov ”...

    Nikolay Kuryanchik
    1. +3
      26 December 2014 09: 55
      Quote: senior
      Nikolay Kuryanchik

      Admins, place this in soldier's tales, let the people make fun.
  20. +6
    26 December 2014 09: 10
    Why drown? To these toilets to demolish superstructures, "pick" the deck and let the planes fly.
  21. the eldest
    +5
    26 December 2014 09: 13
    Someone minus vlupit evil! So share it with people.
    1. +2
      26 December 2014 09: 51
      I don’t know! Elder! Violently plus!
      Pleased the soul!
    2. 0
      26 December 2014 15: 40
      Oh thanks, here we compensate! By the way, I heard this story back in 1988!
  22. +5
    26 December 2014 09: 13
    After the collapse of the USSR, the Americans were able to check whether our flock of Granites would destroy the aircraft carrier and came to the terrible conclusion that as of 1991. the Granit pack was guaranteed to destroy the AUG. I agree that in no case should you get involved in a competition with America to build a similar number of AUGs: it is cosmically expensive, although we will all be bubbling with pride in the country. But still, I’m sure that in the North and the Pacific Fleet need to keep one Russian AUG. With strong coastal missile defense and coastal aviation with a nuclear component. Only in this case we will provide an asymmetric and adequate threat to the enemies of holy Russia. Two Augs is also expensive, but if you look in the USSR, then it happened by the way with him. So let the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation create these two Augs without a discussion.
    1. Fakir
      +2
      26 December 2014 10: 03
      Quote: htlernjh
      as of 1991 a pack of Granites guaranteed to destroy AUG

      That's exactly what as of 91 years. And what does it look like for 14 years?
      Target designations from where you will receive?
      1. 0
        26 December 2014 10: 15
        To understand where to get target designation, you need to understand in which specific place do you expect contact?

        Give an example of a place, please.
    2. Fakir
      +2
      26 December 2014 10: 03
      Quote: htlernjh
      as of 1991 a pack of Granites guaranteed to destroy AUG

      That's exactly what as of 91 years. And what does it look like for 14 years?
      Target designations from where you will receive?
  23. +5
    26 December 2014 09: 20
    I don’t agree, the AUG is a modern and powerful unit, I don’t think it’s worth listing the list of weapons, but the main thing is to ask what we want to do? To give up all our efforts to develop ways to combat AUGs is long and not effective. The created air defense and anti-ship missile systems, now they will not allow the AUG near the coast to act with impunity, so it asks why should we spend money on aircraft carriers, what will they do, decide it’s easier to build up ground assets in the threat direction, which we have well mastered and tested. In this matter, we must go our own way
  24. +3
    26 December 2014 09: 57
    I hope you don’t have to destroy anyone!
    Let AUG quietly decay from old age, never
    having received combat use!
    Peace to the world! Fuck the war!
    Py si And yet, tired of these disputes, who is stronger
    whale or elephant ...
  25. +2
    26 December 2014 10: 00
    I started reading, I wanted to object, but the second part of the article put everything in its place. we really do not make sense to compete with them in the ocean
  26. +1
    26 December 2014 10: 02
    Quote: demon184
    Conditionally destroyed at least 1 time in the nineties yet.

    For which, they say, the late Commander of the Kursk received a "Hero".
  27. +1
    26 December 2014 10: 05
    And someone takes into account the fact that not the entire world ocean can be suitable for campaigns, not to mention the hostilities, for the AUG?

    After all, atomic carriers throughout the warrant are only the aircraft carriers themselves and the submarines that accompany them. Yes, there are tankers and support vessels, but you must admit that even there aren’t enough of them to organize an order entry from a completely unexpected side.

    Simply put, AUG has its own optimal travel routes to potential goals, eliminating all that are not of interest to us, we will get a set of those that belong to us, and we will follow them.
    1. BIG
      0
      7 January 2015 07: 48
      Why are you fussing with these areas? What does it matter? View the situation realistically.
      Example: In continuation of the sanctions, hell knows what stage the US Congress passes the law on obstructing Russia's foreign trade. The corresponding draft decision is submitted to the session of the UN General Assembly. And accepted. For few will argue with the hegemon.
      To practically ensure legal decisions, the American fleet is deploying one AUG in the "Daito Island - Okinawa - East China Sea" area, three other AUG are located west-southwest of the Kuril Islands, preventing any Russian ships and vessels from entering the ocean. Naturally, these groupings will be supported by the fleets and base aviation (as far as they are concerned) from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Great Britain.
      The air defense and missile defense forces of Japan and South Korea are fully operational.
      Your move is a colleague!
      1. Kassandra
        +1
        7 January 2015 14: 22
        sinking of the AUG ... this is definitely. the blockade is an act of war ... Immediately afterwards, a landing on the "late return" Alaska, preventive flanking actions in Norway (as a US ally in NATO), and in Svalbard illegally annexed by it in 1920 and Fr. Bearish...
  28. itr
    -2
    26 December 2014 10: 12
    My opinion is that it’s easier to detonate from the inside and cheaper
  29. +1
    26 December 2014 10: 31
    How many times have I read this story I like. + At the expense of AUG, everyone discusses how to find and how to destroy, they lose sight of no one sends AUG in the first line. An adversary with the means to combat AUG will not give him the opportunity to work fully. It is not necessary to drown just enough to inflict damage on the flight deck and you can cross the AOG. The use of AUG is against countries that even theoretically can not resist and with this equipment conclude that the AUG is highly effective.
  30. -2
    26 December 2014 10: 38
    Three torpedoes on board will be enough.
  31. +2
    26 December 2014 10: 44
    Due to the fact that our country does not need a powerful fleet, the author is very deeply mistaken.

    The Great Patriotic War is the clearest example of this. Germany received a number of the most important resources for its industry from Sweden, through the Baltic Sea, namely ore (iron, nickel, etc.), since they did not have their own reserves of these most important resources. Bearings, without which any industry would instantly "stand up", other valuable resources were supplied. In fact, if it was possible to cut, or at least significantly weaken the cargo traffic through the Baltic, then the German industry would begin to experience serious difficulties, and hence the reduction in the production of equipment, the diversion of resources to the strengthening of the fleet, both commercial and military, and, accordingly, a reduction in the allocated resources to other areas, with all that it implies.

    Another example: PQ-17, the British essentially pulled away from his defense, having our fleet sufficient forces, he could protect him, and prevent the defeat that eventually took place. And then the British would continue to send convoys with the help of our country-question the value of military equipment is not unambiguous. But I think you can even not talk about food aid, it was invaluable. Foreign trucks were of great importance.

    If our country then had a powerful and well-organized fleet, and it was led by talented people, then who knows how the war would go? A strong fleet our country needs, needs, and once again needs!
    1. +3
      26 December 2014 14: 00
      I don’t quite agree with you. The main problem is not that there was no powerful fleet, but that there was nowhere to use it in this region. Here Tirpitz stood the whole war against the wall and died there, and how many resources gobbled up. It is necessary to develop aviation, and, including, oriented for the struggle at sea. For this, coastal infrastructure and airfields are needed. The powerful Black Sea fleet did not have opponents worthy of itself in the Second World War, but suffered significant losses precisely from aviation. But then there were no missiles.
    2. 0
      26 December 2014 15: 56
      I understand everything, but why should we bomb the desert, radioactive shores of the remaining continents?
  32. +3
    26 December 2014 11: 07
    And when the author loved aircraft carriers))))))))))))
  33. +1
    26 December 2014 11: 12
    Good article. Rock Paper Scissors. So it was, it will be so.
  34. +1
    26 December 2014 11: 12
    Strange idea of ​​the author about AUG. Why can't it be found in the ocean? There is a wake track, there are radiation from numerous radars. If in the sky above the ocean the plane is super-hornet, then the aircraft carrier is nearby, it is enough to track the place from where they take off and land. A high-altitude drones, And Avksy? Not so they are not noticeable. What about sea buoys?
    1. 0
      26 December 2014 11: 21
      And then the author has strange ideas about satellites. As soon as the AUG is found in the ocean, nothing can prevent it from using a light rocket, such as a hangar, to launch one-time satellites spotters who indicate the exact location of the AUG and then a thermonuclear strike and there are no problems. Moreover, a thermonuclear strike can be inflicted on the estimated area, vigorous warheads of pieces 6-8. AUG costs any more.
      1. 0
        26 December 2014 11: 28
        And even the author forgot any ocean teeming with civilian planes and civilian vessels, they then easily detect the AUG.
      2. 0
        26 December 2014 11: 41
        Funny fellow!

        Fuck at once on San Diego, Yokohama or Norfolk (while they are in the base) and quickly shoot yourself so as not to suffer from bleeding
        1. -1
          26 December 2014 13: 03
          The time will come and fucking otvetku, and the time will come (http://rollm.livejournal.com/) but in general the author’s question sounds silly than to destroy a 100-ton aircraft carrier, the answer is simple with a vigorous warhead, if serious.
      3. +2
        26 December 2014 12: 49
        Quote: New Communist
        that doesn’t stop using a light rocket, such as a hangar, to launch one-time satellites spotters,

        Fiction have read?
        1. 0
          26 December 2014 12: 54
          There are such systems, and here it’s fantastic, the warhead descends by parachute and transmits information, followed by combat warheads, in China there is df -21. We have ???
    2. +4
      26 December 2014 12: 00
      Quote: New Communist
      Strange idea of ​​the author about AUG. Why can't it be found in the ocean?

      Because the ocean is huge. Not just huge, but with a capital O. Looking at the globe it seems, "Well, what's wrong with finding a boat in the ocean" ...
      But just as the ocean is huge, the movement in the ocean is intense, there are fishermen and container ships and a tanker ... Moreover, the latter from space are difficult to distinguish from aircraft carriers ... Well, you accidentally found a wake trace from a ship with a displacement of about 100 thousand tons, where a guarantee that the author is the aircraft carrier Nimitz, and not the container ship Emma Maersk? Only a satellite with good optics can classify a ship from outer space, only a high resolution that allows this can be done only in a very narrow field of view measured by a hundred square meters. meters, that's just the area of ​​the same Pacific Ocean 165 km² ...
      How many satellites do you need to keep track of one Pacific Ocean? Despite the fact that they will have to transmit the same stretch of the ocean from one satellite to another because intelligence. the satellite cannot hang in place, the orbit is not that ...
      Did you know that if at least 30-40% of pictures come out successful, then this is considered a good result, because weather conditions do not always allow this?
      You are a victim of Hollywood, it’s only in the cinema, at the request of Agent X, in real time the satellite finds what you need with quality that allows you to almost see acne on your ass ...
      1. 0
        26 December 2014 12: 59
        Even Chinese commercial submarines spotted Google on commercial satellites, while U aug has several wake tracks, unlike container ships, they do not float in packs. And then why watch the whole ocean? when Aug leaves it already follow, and for attack it is only necessary to specify a location. And any trawler, by order, can also change course and transmit the exact coordinates of the AUG from its radar. I also wanted to add that the aircraft carrier in the infrared measurement has its own picture, but the container ship and its optics have nothing to do with it. Then the container ship floats along the route and Aug no.
      2. +5
        26 December 2014 13: 54
        Quote: Nayhas
        Quote: New Communist
        Strange idea of ​​the author about AUG. Why can't it be found in the ocean?

        What does the latter from space have to distinguish from aircraft carriers ... Well, did you accidentally find a wake trace from a ship with a displacement of about 100 thousand tons, where is the guarantee that the author is the aircraft carrier Nimitz, and not the container ship Emma Maersk?

        Really OCEAN is huge. But I can assure you that the Main Headquarters of the Russian Navy always has real-time information about the location of all 11 AUGs in the USA. Now a few arguments. Almost every AOG is either a nuclear submarine or a tracking vessel, surveillance is conducted from space, moreover, this is not necessarily a photo reconnaissance, more often a radio reconnaissance, because AUG is two dozen radio stations. All civilian vessels more than 500 reg. tons are equipped with AIS therefore stand out easily. All captains and consuls in ports regularly submit reports on ships they have met and call at ports. All this information is also analyzed from other sources and you can always know with sufficient accuracy where this or that AUG is located.
        1. +1
          27 December 2014 19: 26
          Quote: igor36
          All civilian vessels more than 500 reg. tons are equipped with AIS therefore stand out easily. All captains and consuls in ports regularly submit reports on ships they have met and call at ports. All this information is also analyzed from other sources and you can always know with sufficient accuracy where this or that AUG is located.

          You describe the 70-80s, when the domestic civilian fleet helped the Navy with information, and Tu-95 was barricading over the ocean, and in Cuba in Lourdes, smart guys sat listening to the broadcast all over the US east coast ... But even in those glorious times the aircraft carrier’s detection was praised for a long time, and sometimes it was also spoiled with a prize ... Now the Russian civilian fleet practically does not exist, and what it is is flying the flags of countries whose names don’t even say much to many and the crew there do not speak Russian half they don’t care about the interests of the Navy overboard ... About naval intelligence. aviation is better either good or nothing, but ask Putin about the base in Lourdes ...
      3. +1
        26 December 2014 13: 57
        Why follow the entire ocean if we can only follow dangerous directions?
      4. +4
        26 December 2014 15: 51
        Quote: Nayhas
        Because the ocean is huge.

        But aren't you and the likes of you here screaming that our underwater strategists are half a kick Americans? Not? It would be funny: it’s impossible to detect a dozen AUG buildings, and a submarine at a depth of 800 like two fingers on the asphalt ... You miscreated, Mr. American Major.
        1. -1
          27 December 2014 19: 30
          Quote: LvKiller
          But aren't you and the likes of you here screaming that our underwater strategists are half a kick Americans?

          They are not located, but are monitored from the moment they exit the base. To do this, the United States has a huge fleet of multipurpose nuclear submarines, take the number of our SSBNs and compare with the number of US Navy submarines ...
  35. +2
    26 December 2014 11: 13
    How to sink an aircraft carrier? How is the song?

    Sorry there are no roads in the ocean
    And he is like a haystack to us
    We need to find the damn needle in it.
    And we seek risk and fear
    Wave Carrier
    But we will not find - then the whole task is useless.

    And the cry "I see, commander!"
    Suddenly tear the dumb ether
    The iron box is already visible from above.
    The admiral curses there
    Spacing will suit and rush
    And we are so happy - like little children.
  36. 0
    26 December 2014 12: 50
    If a submarine follows at the same time with AUG, then why can't our submarines keep up with AUG?
    As the GAS evolves, it will become possible to track the movement of any high-speed vessels in the ocean: now hydroacoustics from Estut are tracking the movement of Queen Elizabeth-2 over the entire distance between England and New York.
    Well and the main thing. The key to defeating the AUG is the destruction of its air wing: about 40 vehicles. To solve this problem, you need to have long-range missiles and carriers, such as stealth or drones (suicides - kamikaze).
    1. 0
      20 October 2016 14: 50
      "AUG has no funds against" Kostya Saprykin "(crossed out) X-32". While the X-32 is flying at an altitude of 40 km or it has an electronic warfare station, the AUG is defenseless.
      Well, against ingenuity, i.e. not obvious and camouflaged techniques - too. One of these techniques can be any "peaceful" barge, on board of which there can be a torpedo launcher disguised as an autotruck carrier. There are torpedoes with a range of up to 100 km ... No AUG is capable of finding a launcher in the form of a truck at such a range ...
  37. +2
    26 December 2014 12: 55
    100 kilotons of displacement are destroyed by 10 kilotons of SBP, which include the "Granit" anti-ship missile system and this is the nuclear submarine of project 949 (A) and the cruisers of the "Peter the Great" type + ADD (Tu-95 and Tu-160, and also Tu-22) with Mosquitoes or something similar ...
  38. -3
    26 December 2014 13: 03
    The future belongs to aircraft carriers cruisers
    1. +2
      26 December 2014 15: 52
      The future belongs to caves and flint choppers.
      1. 0
        27 December 2014 17: 08
        I will reconcile both - the future is for the Russians!
  39. +1
    26 December 2014 13: 28
    Russia doesn’t need a hunt for aircraft carriers. But the Chinese need such a hunt. So you need to monitor how the Chinese, and not us, are developing their means. Ballistic missiles, for example, seem to have succeeded.
  40. +1
    26 December 2014 13: 35
    The article and its author plus for the conclusion:
    AUG is invulnerable while it wanders aimlessly across the ocean. But its strength in real operations is expressed in symbolic percentages. The result of all searches - from ordinary discussions on the Internet to serious scientific research in the field of maritime, rocket and space technology, has become an understanding of a simple fact: there is no need to catch "Elusive Joe" in the vast expanses of the sea, wasting trillions of full-weight rubles. If there is a real use of the AUG, "Elusive Joe" will come and immediately get hit in the face by coastal aviation and air defense systems (as happened in Lebanon in 1983).
    1. +1
      1 January 2015 21: 28
      AUG never wanders aimlessly across the ocean. Its strength is never expressed in symbolic percentages. The effectiveness of strikes is judged by the ratio of the tonnage of dropped bombs (fired missiles) to the number of sorties required to hit a target.
      AUG in peacetime perform specific combat missions. because enter the potential of the first strike. All types of intelligence of the Russian Federation are being monitored for moving the AUG, and appropriate forces and means are being attracted. I thought that the author of the article and you know this.
  41. +1
    26 December 2014 13: 47
    The author of the "Legend" and the missiles of those years, for example the P-500 "Basalt", 1975, underestimated, perhaps there is little experience or knowledge! Therefore, I put a minus article
  42. 0
    26 December 2014 13: 49
    My question is, what kind of anti-ship weapons does the AUG shipboard aircraft have? I understand that recently they (the air wing) of the AUG bombed ground targets.
  43. +2
    26 December 2014 13: 54
    Dear colleagues: Recently, endless pirates have played out in the oceans. It would be quite reasonable for our small warships such as destroyers or missile boats of the ocean zone with small nuclear missiles on board to be on the regularly replaced basis at sea on a regularly changing basis. You can use them once in a lifetime, with a real start of hostilities and spend for this, the gigantic sums for the creation of carrier warrants are unreasonable, anyway, that it’s at the bottom. If someone has the resources to drive billions across the sea, let them drive, according to the law of preserving everything, if they are here, then they are not there. Let's say in production. So who is fighting with whom? And anyway: the war with the states is the end of humanity, and in peacetime you don’t have to cheek like Obama, remember Suvorov ...
  44. +1
    26 December 2014 14: 01
    Quote: AlexDARK
    Coffin on the water. Large, formidable and super-expensive, and destroyed by just two. No wonder the USSR did not particularly like aircraft carriers.

    it’s just to drown it in the ocean, oh, how hard it is. There are both security and cover ships and nuclear submarines and long-range reconnaissance aircraft, in short, a lot of things. The defense of the aircraft carrier is much layered both from missiles and from submarines and planes. But I completely agree with the author that the closer such a whopper is to the shore, the more vulnerable it becomes, at the risk of raking off land-based aviation and coastal protection equipment. Large and very expensive crap, suitable only for colonial wars.
    1. 0
      26 December 2014 14: 35
      This is not so, and it is not difficult to drown AUG anywhere in the ocean, After all, drowning in the forehead of Amer’s AUG even with conventional weapons with a probability of 97% means a thermonuclear war. So it makes no sense almond. For the destruction of AUG there is a track method. The first thermonuclear warhead explodes 100 km from the AUG, the second after 5 minutes 30 km, the third and the rest are even closer. The chances of AUG are zero.
      1. 0
        26 December 2014 14: 52
        Quote: New Communist
        After all, the drowning of Amer’s AUG’s forehead even with conventional weapons with a probability of 97% means a thermonuclear war.

        If, say, the Iranians inadvertently drown "Karl Vinson", which is now operating in the Persian Gulf, the Yankees are unlikely to respond with a nuclear strike.
      2. 0
        26 December 2014 15: 17
        and what remains of the ecology with such an attack? and whether you need to wrap yourself in a shroud after such use
      3. Vasya 77
        +1
        29 December 2014 00: 29
        Rather, after the exchange of nuclear attacks, aircraft carriers will be involved, and one should not think that guys will end the world, everything will only begin ...
        1. 0
          1 January 2015 21: 15
          It may happen that after the exchange of nuclear strikes in the houses of the opponents music will play, but they will not hear it.
    2. -1
      1 January 2015 21: 22
      ACG is suitable at such a distance to the coast to eliminate or minimize losses from attacks by coastal units and enemy aircraft. This is a simple truth, understandable to anyone, the cat is at least a little bit interested in the navy.
  45. +1
    26 December 2014 14: 08
    as far as one can judge, Russia’s AUGs are needed to increase the combat stability of the formations that cover the strategists ’alert areas. But in the Arctic Ocean it is practically pointless. And besides, there is an option to make the submarine able to go to such depths that the Americans cannot reach it.

    What is there ultimately cost less would be curious to ever know.

    In principle, any aircraft carrier recorded in any ocean is completely destroyed for two times by modern ICBMs with maneuvering hypersonic warheads - during the flight of an ICBM, the aircraft carrier will not be able to move away from its known coordinates by a distance that could not be covered by the maneuvering warheads themselves.

    But in order to avoid nuclear war due to the destruction of the aircraft carrier, special missiles are needed that can be identified and distinguished from those used for nuclear deterrence.
    And for the same reason, it will be necessary to abandon nuclear warheads on these missiles.

    A hundred extra ICBMs will solve all issues with all aircraft carriers anywhere in the world - there would only be coordinates
    1. 0
      1 January 2015 21: 13
      If it comes to a nuclear missile war, the main thing will be the destruction of the enemy on the continental part, and not "catching" his AUG. ICBMs with hypersonic maneuvering warheads - so far, fairy tales and should not be told on the pages of VO. The audience is not the same.
  46. +2
    26 December 2014 16: 49
    How do you like Aircraft Carrier or Varshavyanka

  47. +1
    26 December 2014 16: 52
    Well, or another nightmare of aircraft carriers

  48. 0
    26 December 2014 17: 31
    And another aircraft carrier group burns a lot of money, and the Americans have problems with this.
  49. -1
    26 December 2014 18: 01
    China is preparing specialized ballistic missiles for the AUG, and we need to create such ones, which operate according to various target designation schemes.
  50. Ruslan1
    +7
    26 December 2014 18: 20
    I don’t know the guys, probably there are qualified and skilled specialists here, and now I will express an seditious thought.
    Well, and accordingly, as a non-military person, I will say that the thread is not entirely consistent with military science and thought.
    The people we live not in a spherical vacuum - but in a very real world.
    The USA AUG allow, among other things, to control the situation on the communications of the World Ocean, which means that they can either provide or interrupt the delivery of resources for any state, not to mention trade.
    This is more than enough to blackmail and control entire groups of states, which means control over them.
    Using the fruits of this control to their advantage, well, in addition to other instruments, the USA has such an economy that can withstand 8-11 AUGs and not only them, because the ability to hold entire continents by the testicles is worth a lot.
    It is we who, in connection with our achievements, do not experience a lack of either mineral resources or land - but for the rest of the camps this question may be quite acute.
    Therefore, it is wrong to consider the AUG as an exclusively military tool, the AUG is a military-political and economic factor of a planetary scale - excuse me for pathos.
    And treat it accordingly, develop countermeasures, and if necessary, destruction we need.
    At least simply because our country will never be able to replace the resource or demographic base of the entire planet, which the United States holds under its control and is strengthened thanks to precisely this - total control over PLANETARY RESOURCES.

    PS I remember how in the news they showed the arrest of our helicopter transport for Syria - as a result, we had to carry BDK any help for Syria, because there is nothing else, and the sea does not belong to us.
  51. 0
    26 December 2014 18: 31
    Let's start from the beginning. 1. If a conflict arises between Russia and the United States, in which it is necessary to sink an aircraft carrier, then this is a full-scale war. In this case, the first targets for destruction will not be aircraft carriers at all, but everything that contains atomic weapons and industrial centers. And aircraft carriers will come in handy.
    2. Why do we need to have aircraft carrier groups? It seems like we are not going to fight at all on a continent other than ours. So why make a lot of them? Hold 1-2 to tension the enemy and that’s enough.
    1. 0
      27 December 2014 12: 57
      Quote: Radogiz
      Let's start from the beginning. 1. If a conflict arises between Russia and the United States, in which it is necessary to sink an aircraft carrier, then this is a full-scale war.

      No not like this. Our Armed Forces are faced with the task of ensuring the defense capability of our country, in this case from sea/ocean directions.

      What danger might an aircraft carrier pose in this case? Strikes by their carrier-based aircraft on our territory.

      How can such a threat be stopped? Kill enemy planes in air battles over ours forests and swamps cold waters and ice with our radar support and electronic warfare forces and means.

      What outfit of forces? An aircraft carrier can simultaneously lift a group of 20 aircraft (force margin - 30 aircraft), which is equivalent in size to our fighter aviation regiment.

      In this case, it must be taken into account that by sending such an air group to strike/gain air superiority, the aircraft carrier itself will be left without protecting its aircraft from counterattacks. Therefore, the enemy will have to form an aircraft carrier force of at least a pair of aircraft carriers: the air wing of one carries out strike missions, and the other - defensive ones.

      Conclusion: there is no urgent need to sink aircraft carriers (or disable them). It is enough to knock out their air wings. And first of all, the Tomahawk missile carriers need to be sunk - proactively, before they launch their missiles.
  52. 0
    26 December 2014 19: 32
    the bigger the cabinet, the louder it falls
  53. lucidlook
    +2
    26 December 2014 20: 04
    I have a number of questions for the author:

    1. What exactly will prevent the AUG from revealing the location of air defense/missile defense radar installations using electronic reconnaissance and electronic warfare, coupled with the orbital constellation? Why is it generally accepted that the coordinates of their deployment areas will never be known to the enemy?

    2. What exactly (besides geography) will prevent the AUG from occupying an advantageous position in coastal waters in order to optimize its strike capabilities?

    3. What exactly will prevent the AUG from firing cruise missiles at previously explored areas (both from air and sea carriers)?

    4. What exactly will prevent the AUG from controlling the progress of the attack and adjusting it in the event of additional reconnaissance of new targets?

    5. Why is it generally accepted that carrier-based electronic warfare aircraft will not interfere with the enemy in any way?

    6. Does the author take into account that aircraft that take off from an aircraft carrier are not required to immediately return to it after completing a combat mission? Does the author admit that an aircraft carrier can be used as a take-off point, and the landing point can be, for example, at a friendly air base? Does the author understand how much the radius of combat use of carrier-based aircraft increases in this case?

    7. How does the author assess the capabilities of the AUG-level integrated AEGIS system in terms of countering an air attack? How many missiles (which ones?) are needed in a salvo to guarantee its overload?
    1. +1
      27 December 2014 12: 04
      Quote: lucidlook
      7. How does the author assess the capabilities of the AUG-level integrated AEGIS system in terms of countering an air attack? How many missiles (which ones?) are needed in a salvo to guarantee its overload?

      I will take the liberty of answering for the respected author on this point. Empirically, today the Aegis BIUS and the air defense system of the same name are capable of intercepting a single low-flying supersonic target with a probability of about 0,5. Thus, two missiles of the Mosquito, Kh-31A/AD, Onyx/Brahmos, and Club types will hit an Aegis-class ship with a probability of 0,75. For three missiles in a salvo, this probability will already be 0,87, and a four-missile salvo is almost guaranteed to hit the target with a probability of 0,97.
      1. lucidlook
        0
        29 December 2014 08: 31
        Quote: Tigr
        will hit an Aegis class ship

        This is the first time I’ve heard from you about this class of ships, but oh well. I think we're talking mostly about Ticks and Berks.

        If we simplify the problem very, very much and assume that from one hit any of these ships is guaranteed to be completely destroyed all at once, then to destroy an order of ships, as it may seem, only about 50 missiles in a salvo will be required. Am I right in my calculations for 12-15 ships?

        However, you do not take into account the fact that Aegis will fire at all missiles as one whole, as a single air defense/missile defense system and it will not be the case that each ship fights off on its own, which means there will not be a weak link, overloading the defense of which could then be broken through to the main target - an aircraft carrier.

        Therefore, if you need to guarantee the destruction of an AUG, then you need about 100 supersonic missiles in a salvo. In a coordinated salvo. That is, this means that all carriers must reach the line, take aim and more or less simultaneously launch missiles.

        Now let's estimate the distance.
        Mosquito (3M80): 120km
        X31A/AD: 70km
        Onyx (3M55): 300 km (combined trajectory, we are talking about low-flying missiles)
        Club (3M-54): 60 km

        What platforms can run them? Surface ships, submarines (Club-S and P-700) and aircraft.

        How do you personally assess the chances of these platforms reaching attack lines closer than 300 km? I dare to suggest that these chances are very small. However, for submarines, it seems to me, they are higher than for aircraft, but not by several times. Therefore, let's take the most formidable weapon - the Antey class 949A submarines. They carry 24 P-700 missiles each with a maximum launch range of 600 km. Then it will be enough to fire a simultaneous salvo from 5 such boats to disable or destroy the entire AUG. Let's assume that two boats will be spotted at distant points. This means that you need to send 7. And there are only 8 of them in the fleet. Do you understand what the problem is?

        And this is not to mention coordinating their actions, because everyone will need to launch missiles at the same time. And God forbid someone is in a hurry or late! The whole attack is down the drain. How to coordinate? Go on air? Problem again. Etc. etc. Many, many questions arise as soon as we move from theory to practice.

        But in theory, yes, everything is great - spherical rockets perfectly drown spherical AUGs in a liquid vacuum.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          29 December 2014 08: 56
          exactly that... a pair of MiG-105s (launched in fact simply with ICBMs) solved this whole problem cheaply and cheerfully anywhere in the World Ocean... so they were naturally banned. bully
          The warheads were not necessarily supposed to be nuclear - there could be cassette pyrophoric OU rods.
          in this case, the AUG, which turned into a KUG, was quite easily (already on equal terms) achieved by submarines, NK and coastal aviation.

          any obsolete Iranian phantom can do the same trick with an American aircraft carrier approaching the shore from a pitching up position...
        2. 0
          29 December 2014 13: 40
          Quote: lucidlook
          This is the first time I’ve heard from you about this class of ships, but oh well. I think we're talking mostly about Ticks and Berks.

          You think right. Previously, this was the name of the “Tiko” class due to the unbridled admiration for the miracle Aegis-class cruiser:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis-class_cruiser

          Quote: lucidlook
          If we simplify the problem very, very much and assume that from one hit any of these ships is guaranteed to be completely destroyed all at once, then to destroy an order of ships, as it may seem, only about 50 missiles in a salvo will be required. Am I right in my calculations for 12-15 ships?


          If you mentioned a spherical liquid vacuum in your post, then let me answer you in the same way laughing There is no need to invent anything, but take as a basis the composition of Carrier Strike Group One, which is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf and is fighting ISIS:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Strike_Group_One

          According to the combat survivability of ships. Most likely, one direct hit from an anti-ship missile is enough to disable an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (the Cole was nearly sunk by 200 kg of homemade explosives). The same is probably true of the cruiser Bunker Hill. The survivability of the Carl Vinson will depend on the location where the missile hits and the state of the ship's combat readiness. Possible options when, after a single missile hit, an aircraft carrier loses its combat capability (the ability to use its carrier-based aircraft): a) hitting “critical points” (“island” or in the area of ​​aerofinishers on the landing area of ​​the flight deck; b) repeating the fate of “Akagi” when Midway (or "Forrestal" in the Gulf of Tonkin).
          1. lucidlook
            0
            29 December 2014 18: 31
            Taking into account the number of ships in DESRON 1, as well as all sorts of support vessels, we just get the number of ships in that area. In addition, we must understand that ISIS does not pose any threat to the AUG. This means that deploying powerful air defense/missile defense is unjustified and pointless even by American standards.

            But let's return to the transition from liquid vacuum to reality. In order - from important to unimportant: how will we synchronize the actions of strike units to achieve the effect of simultaneous launch (volley) of all missiles? You don’t forget about the presence of a group of enemy electronic reconnaissance satellites in geostationary orbit, do you? The same SIGINT, which, according to some statements, is able to hear and take direction even of walkie-talkies. Even if everything is not so scary, the submarine still has a very high chance of discovering itself as soon as it breaks radio silence. And even with the use of buoys, it’s still damn dangerous.

            Because? How the submarines will report to the command “In position, ready to fire!” ? I think communication is still the main, although far from the only, issue.
            1. 0
              29 December 2014 19: 40
              Quote: lucidlook
              Considering the number of ships in DESRON 1...

              Haven't you heard about the operating voltage ratio? In fact, from the 1st Destroyer Squadron (DESRON 1), there are now only three Arleigh Burke-class ships at sea as part of the Carl Vinson carrier strike group. Plus the cruiser Bunker Hill. That's all of warships.

              Quote: lucidlook
              This means that deploying powerful air defense/missile defense is unjustified and pointless even by American standards.

              Has such air defense/missile defense ever been deployed?

              Quote: lucidlook
              You don’t forget about the presence of a group of enemy electronic reconnaissance satellites in geostationary orbit, do you? The same SIGINT, which, according to some statements, is able to hear and take direction even of walkie-talkies.

              SIGINT (Signals intelligence) is a generalizing collective term not only for all types of radio and electronic intelligence, but also for electronic intelligence. This term is used not only by the DoD, but also by the CIA and NSA. So let’s talk about satellites in more detail: type, purpose, characteristics, quantity, the ability to transmit information to fleet forces in a time scale close to real.

              Quote: lucidlook
              Because? How the submarines will report to the command “In position, ready to fire!” ? I think communication is still the main, although far from the only, issue.

              The forces of the operation to destroy the AUG are controlled by the command post by scheduling the strike time.
              1. lucidlook
                0
                29 December 2014 22: 04
                Quote: Tigr
                That's all of warships.

                I say again, ISIS poses neither an air nor a sea threat. Ships for protection in accordance with the same level of tension (according to the charter).

                Quote: Tigr
                Has such air defense/missile defense ever been deployed?

                But 5 “Anteevs” never fired in one gulp wink

                Quote: Tigr
                So let’s talk about satellites in more detail: type, purpose, characteristics, quantity, the ability to transmit information to fleet forces in a time scale close to real.

                I was talking about geostationary systems (Magnum series - 3 active, 1 in reserve, emnip). And what does real time have to do with it? We are talking about detecting the deployment of attacking submarines via radio communications and sending anti-submarine aircraft to the area.

                Nobody planned to direct rockets at satellites, if that’s what you’re asking.
            2. Kassandra
              0
              30 December 2014 11: 38
              and the AUG itself certainly cannot be suppressed by radio or EMF, just as the satellites are blinded? wassat
              It’s like everything is going the same way... and the recent pair of Su-24s is not a decree.
              You can’t underestimate it, but you can’t overestimate it either.
              precisely because the AUGs are vulnerable to the MiG-105, aeroballistic missiles and the Yak-141 - all this was systematically prohibited by “their own” military bureau in the USSR...
              1. 0
                30 December 2014 14: 51
                Quote: Kassandra
                But 5 “Anteevs” never fired in one gulp

                We are not talking about firing in one gulp, but about the number of ships to provide air defense to the fleet, in our case, an aircraft carrier group. Currently there are 3-4 Aegis class ships.

                Quote: Kassandra
                I was talking about geostationary systems (Magnum series - 3 active, 1 in reserve, emnip).

                Of the series of satellites you indicated, only two were launched into geostationary space - 30 and 25 years ago, respectively, and they acted in the interests of the CIA. I don’t know whether they are functioning now, but in any case, in the matter of opening the deployment areas of enemy submarines, they were of little use, and most likely, there was no use at all.
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  30 December 2014 16: 06
                  It’s like it probably wasn’t for me after all?

                  I’m talking about the MiG-105, Yaks and aeroballistic missiles, which were all somehow strangely and systematically prohibited because they take AUG, and you’re talking to me about some kind of “Anthea”...
                2. lucidlook
                  0
                  30 December 2014 17: 28
                  Quote: Tigr
                  We are not talking about firing in one gulp, but about the number of ships to provide air defense to the fleet, in our case, an aircraft carrier group.

                  I'm sorry. For some reason it seemed to me that we were talking about adequate air defense/missile defense and its breakthrough. And not about formation.

                  Quote: Tigr
                  Currently there are 3-4 Aegis class ships.

                  Not that I'm being picky, but...

                  Because the Aegis Combat System is the key component of several cruiser and destroyer class vessels, the ships are often incorrectly referred to as "Aegis class cruisers" or "Aegis class destroyers". In reality, the radar system and the class of ship it is installed on are unrelated to each other.

                  Quote: Tigr
                  and they acted in the interests of the CIA

                  They also acted during all the Gulf Wars in the interests of intelligence. Officially there were 3 launches (January 24 1985, November 23 1989, November 15 1990). However, a number of sources mention a fourth satellite, which is in reserve.

                  The task of analyzing the radio spectrum, of course, is very complex and is carried out at headquarters (CIA / NSA), but so far they seem to be coping. The results of this analysis are then sent to the appropriate units.

                  Such a fool with an antenna with a diameter of 100 meters!

              2. lucidlook
                0
                2 January 2015 18: 38
                Quote: Kassandra
                and the AUG itself certainly cannot be suppressed by radio or EMF

                In theory (which I do not argue with) - of course it can. But the question is - with what and from what distance is it practically could it be done in modern realities?

                Quote: Kassandra
                How are the satellites blinded?

                They are actually in geostationary orbit. It is 35,786 km from Earth. Did you decide to throw some kind of missile there? Or focus the radiation? How many megawatts?

                Quote: Kassandra
                precisely because the AUGs are vulnerable to the MiG-105, aeroballistic missiles and the Yak-141 - all this was systematically prohibited by “their own” police bureau in the USSR

                I am not an expert on alternative history or conspiracy theories.

                Quote: Kassandra
                it’s like you’re all facing the same goal

                Note that I never said that the Russian Navy is not able to destroy an aircraft carrier with the first strike. I simply said that it is almost impossible to do this with missiles, and with torpedoes - the only weapon that actually sends a ship to the bottom - it is extremely difficult and risky.

                This is what it looks like to be hit by a single torpedo from a classic warhead.
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  2 January 2015 19: 02
                  and with what and from what distance does the AUG do this?

                  This has been done with radiation for a long time. more than one petawatt, non-nuclear.

                  This is not a theory but a practice, history is also never alternative.

                  after something like this caused by just one 70mm NUR, all flight operations on the aircraft carrier cease, and then it is no longer an AUG
        3. 0
          29 December 2014 13: 41
          Quote: lucidlook
          However, you do not take into account the fact that Aegis will fire at all missiles as one whole, as a single air defense/missile defense system and it will not be the case that each ship fights off on its own, which means there will not be a weak link, overloading the defense of which could then be broken through to the main target - an aircraft carrier.

          However, you seem to have read A.V. Nikolsky, who takes the maximum number of Aegis target guidance channels (say, 18), and believes that the Aegis will shoot down 18 targets, but the 19th and subsequent missiles will overload the missiles Air defense (well, somewhere like that). Hence the fantastic figures for the required salvo density of hundreds of anti-ship missiles.

          To begin with, the lower limit of the destruction zone of the Aegis air defense system with the SM-2 anti-aircraft missile was 15 meters. It simply did not hit anything that flew below, as was clearly demonstrated by the interception tests of MA-31 target missiles in 1994. After 20 years, by and large, “things are still there.” Therefore, a new SM-6 missile defense system was developed, which, in theory, was supposed to correct the current situation, and, as open test data show, it achieved some success in this.

          But now we need to take into account the time factor. The AN/SPY-1 radar on an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer can detect a target at an altitude of 10 m at a maximum distance of 26 km. “May” does not mean that it will detect, since it needs time to scan the space in a given sector (the so-called review period). This is a few seconds, on average 6,5 seconds. But if you read Dr. Norman Friedman about the scan rate of the AN/SPY-1 radar in the lower part of the hemisphere, then many Aegis fans simply break the mold. laughing

          So, after 6,5 seconds, the anti-ship missile with a speed of 650 m/s will be already 22 km from the ship. At this moment, the Aegis will see the target, and after 10 seconds (the reaction time of the air defense system) it will open fire. At this moment, the missile will already be 15,5 km from the ship, and it will have 24 seconds left before hitting the destroyer.

          With a probability of hitting the anti-ship missiles of 0,5, the Aegis will need to fire 4 missiles in order to be guaranteed to hit the target. At the same time, shelling is carried out consistently, i.e. the next anti-aircraft missile is launched only after evaluating the results of the first firing cycle.

          The first missile defense system will be in the anti-ship missile destruction zone at a distance of 8 km from the ship. If the anti-ship missile system is not hit, then the 2nd missile defense system will be in the anti-ship missile defense zone at a distance of 4 km from the ship, the 3rd missile defense missile system - 2,5 km, and the 4th missile defense missile system will not have time to launch at all.

          That is why they are trying to take us navy further, beyond the radio horizon, to the interception line. Why do they organize tests of targeting missiles from another ship or even from an E-2D aircraft?
          1. lucidlook
            0
            29 December 2014 19: 36
            You write everything correctly, yes, indeed (in full accordance with geometry), the lower the radar, the shorter the range of the radio horizon. That is why the list of AEGIS sensors also includes air-based radars.

            For some reason, it is generally accepted that the probability of 0.5 is very small. In reality, this means that even the first missile has a chance to hit the target. It would be more accurate to say this - about half all anti-ship missiles will be shot down by the first missile (for SM-2 Block IV). Few?

            Further, as I already said, AEGIS fires as a single whole, that is, if at some point in time ship “A” is under a massive attack, and ship “B” is relatively calm, then this same ship “B” will fire at targets flying towards ship "A", thereby increasing the number of simultaneously operating missiles. In this case, ship "B" will use its radar to illuminate targets.

            Then, don’t forget about the EA-18G, which will jam the radio spectrum in general and individual targets in particular. And therefore, the assumption that the breached anti-ship missiles are guaranteed to hit exactly what they were supposed to hit would be a good idea to substantiate.

            Of course, the issue of hitting a high-speed maneuverable target with the first shot is key. And it is the understanding of this simple fact that leads the inquisitive American mind not only in the direction of SM-6, but also in the direction of LaWS.

            P.s. information mainly from English-language publications. Who is Nikolsky A.V.? what
            1. 0
              29 December 2014 20: 08
              Quote: lucidlook
              You write everything correctly, yes, indeed (in full accordance with geometry), the lower the radar, the shorter the range of the radio horizon. That is why the list of AEGIS sensors also includes air-based radars.

              So far, only AEGIS plans to fire according to E-2D data. Will this be implemented, when and how effectively?

              Quote: lucidlook
              For some reason, it is generally accepted that the probability of 0.5 is very small.

              This probability of defeat is very lot for SM-6 and unrealistic for SM-2.


              Quote: lucidlook
              In reality, this means that even the first missile has a chance to hit the target. It would be more accurate to say this - approximately half of all anti-ship missiles will be shot down by the first missile (for SM-2 Block IV). Few?

              In fact, I calculated for you earlier how many missiles you need to launch in order to be guaranteed to shoot down an anti-ship missile. All calculations are based on this, in which “approximately” is not used.

              Quote: Tigr
              Further, as I already said, AEGIS fires as a single whole, that is, if at some point in time ship “A” is under a massive attack, and ship “B” is relatively calm, then this same ship “B” will fire at targets flying towards ship "A", thereby increasing the number of simultaneously operating missiles. In this case, ship "B" will use its radar to illuminate targets.

              Very interesting. Where can you read about this? In the sense that one Aegis BIUS (for example, on an air defense flagship ship) can control the combat operation of Aegis systems on other ships in automatic mode (target designation, target distribution).

              Quote: lucidlook
              Then, don’t forget about the EA-18G, which will jam the radio spectrum in general and individual targets in particular.

              The issue of electronic warfare is, of course, the most important: according to the experience of real wars, these very means have become the most reliable protection against anti-ship missiles. Only the EA-18G has nothing to do with this.

              Quote: lucidlook
              And therefore, the assumption that the breached anti-ship missiles are guaranteed to hit exactly what they were supposed to hit would be a good idea to substantiate.

              Can you imagine that if the active homing channel is suppressed, the anti-ship missiles begin to target the AN/SPY-1 radiation?

              Quote: lucidlook
              P.s. information mainly from English-language publications. Who is Nikolsky A.V.?

              His articles were published on VO.
              1. lucidlook
                0
                29 December 2014 21: 50
                Quote: Tigr
                In fact, I calculated for you earlier how many missiles you need to launch in order to be guaranteed to shoot down an anti-ship missile. All calculations are based on this, in which “approximately” is not used.

                It is precisely the theory of probability and mathematical statistics that is used here very widely. That is why the effectiveness of air defense/missile defense elements is expressed, among other things, in the probability of defeat.

                No one will ever give any guarantee. Because 0.97 is still not 1.0 wink

                Quote: Tigr
                Very interesting. Where can you read about this? In the sense that one Aegis BIUS (for example, on an air defense flagship ship) can control the combat operation of Aegis systems on other ships in automatic mode (target designation, target distribution).

                Read about Aegis Baseline 9. For example, here http://www.acq.osd.mil/se/webinars/2013_11_14-SOSECIE-McConnell-brief.pdf

                It has been in development since 2011, emnip. In 2014, the upgraded cruisers successfully fired, the following news circulated. And there is also information about integration with airborne radars and control centers. As far as target illumination is concerned, there is no way to do it without AN/SPY. But they decided to install an active head on the SM-2 (and call it SM-6).

                I would like to add that the main distinguishing feature of Aegis, in my opinion, is distributed processing. That is, everyone sees everyone. Each of the ships connected to it provides information about what it sees with its sensors (even to the point of issuing control commands for weapons) and receives similar information from other platforms. At the same time (and this is extremely important) the target IDs are unique and the same for everyone. Imagine a cluster that collects and processes information, making decisions based on the results of processing. The destruction of one of its nodes reduces the capabilities of the entire system, but does not destroy it.

                Quote: Tigr
                Only the EA-18G has nothing to do with this.

                Interesting. And why, in this case, was the EA-18G used and is used if not for electronic warfare?

                Quote: Tigr
                The forces of the operation to destroy the AUG are controlled by the command post by scheduling the strike time.

                Sorry, but your answer is purely theoretical. But in theory, as I already said, everything is very wonderful, and I won’t argue with that.

                Quote: Tigr
                Can you imagine that if the active homing channel is suppressed, the anti-ship missiles begin to target the AN/SPY-1 radiation?

                To do this, this very radiation must be isolated from the background of all other radiation. And it’s not a fact that it will be the most powerful.
                1. 0
                  30 December 2014 15: 16
                  Quote: lucidlook
                  Read about Aegis Baseline 9. For example, here

                  You see, the document you offered in the link is only the personal opinion of its authors, as indicated on the title page: "...does not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or the United States Government."

                  What is the organization that published this document? This is the Naval Surface Warfare Center, i.e. in our opinion, a research institute of the Ministry of Defense. The Nikolsky family I mentioned earlier worked in similar structures of the domestic Defense Ministry, and now they publish what God puts in their hearts, i.e. has little to do with reality.

                  And the following is your addition “on your own” - there is only your vision of how the us navy air defense system works, which is a misconception: now there is no such level of integration, and it is unknown whether there will be in the future.
                2. 0
                  30 December 2014 15: 27
                  Quote: Tigr
                  Interesting. And why, in this case, was the EA-18G used and is used if not for electronic warfare?

                  The EA-18G has other missions. To protect ships from missile attacks, the AN/SLQ-32 complex is used.

                  Quote: lucidlook
                  Sorry, but your answer is purely theoretical. But in theory, as I already said, everything is very wonderful, and I won’t argue with that.

                  My post gives a direct answer to your question: will the submarine “call” the headquarters: “ready for a salvo!”

                  Quote: lucidlook
                  To do this, this very radiation must be isolated from the background of all other radiation. And it’s not a fact that it will be the most powerful.

                  There is such a thing as electromagnetic compatibility, i.e. the ability to operate various radio equipment without mutual interference. Radar and electronic warfare systems are usually antagonists in this matter.
                  1. lucidlook
                    0
                    30 December 2014 18: 15
                    Quote: Tigr
                    My post gives a direct answer to your question: will the submarine “call” the headquarters: “ready for a salvo!”

                    And what is the answer? Yes or no? Will the message be sent or not?

                    Or the headquarters will have to to guess about the readiness of units? This readiness to envy from a huge number of nuances. For example, did the boats run into anti-submarine aircraft and how did it end for them? Did they have to deviate from the course, leaving the hunter, and by how much? Did an emergency occur on the boat, and how long did it take to resolve it? Etc. etc. etc.

                    If all these (and many other) points are excluded, then there is no need to report, but to shoot all together at the sixth peak from Moscow. But these same details turn theory into practice.

                    Quote: Tigr
                    There is such a thing as electromagnetic compatibility, i.e. the ability to operate various radio equipment without mutual interference. Radar and electronic warfare systems are usually antagonists in this matter.

                    This is if you do not take into account directional jamming and frequency patterns, but if you take into account, then everything is top-notch for the radar. But for the one who is being jammed, everything is very sad - noise, pulse overload in amplitude and a bunch of radiation sources, and which one of them is the same AN/SPY-1 - go figure.

                    And as far as electronic warfare is concerned, the EA-18G is what is called a “weapon of choice”. Of course, relying only on airborne electronic warfare equipment is stupid even by American standards, so, naturally, ships have their own electronic warfare installation (the same AN/SLQ-32 family). But it is important to understand that the AUG’s electronic warfare capabilities are not limited to this alone.

                    Do you see how many questions we have already touched on? And we have not yet touched upon the attacking part and the vulnerability of the P-700 order on the march, when the altitude of their flight path will differ significantly from 20m.

                    Quote: Tigr
                    And the following is your addition “on your own” - there is only your vision of how the us navy air defense system works

                    Well, we are all expressing our personal opinions here and do not represent official departments and agencies. Otherwise, it would amount to the disclosure of military secrets. You don’t expect scans labeled “for official use” from me as sources, since you yourself refer to Wikipedia? wink

                    Quote: Tigr
                    misconception: there is no such level of integration now, and it is unknown whether there will be in the future.

                    This is exactly the level of integration that is taking place right now. The ideology of just such interaction was embedded in the system at the stage of its development, and at the Baseline 9 level, further integration of airborne sensors is in full swing.

                    Quote: Tigr
                    We are not talking about firing in one gulp, but about the number of ships to provide air defense to the fleet, in our case, an aircraft carrier group. Currently there are 3-4 Aegis class ships.

                    At present peaceful time - yes. In general, there are 74 of them in service: 22 cruisers and 52 destroyers.

                    Is the official US Navy website suitable as a source?
                    http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=200&ct=2
                    1. 0
                      30 December 2014 21: 20
                      Quote: lucidlook
                      And what is the answer? Yes or no? Will the message be sent or not?

                      The answer is no.
                      Quote: lucidlook


                      Or will headquarters have to guess about the readiness of the units? This readiness to envy from a huge number of nuances. For example, did the boats run into anti-submarine aircraft and how did it end for them? Did they have to deviate from the course, leaving the hunter, and by how much? Did an emergency occur on the boat, and how long did it take to resolve it? Etc. etc. etc.

                      If you have data from the headquarters of the US Navy, then share it, otherwise you don’t need to read their advertisements.
                    2. 0
                      31 December 2014 13: 55
                      Quote: lucidlook
                      And what is the answer? Yes or no? Will the message be sent or not?

                      I'm sorry that you are unable to understand what I wrote to you.

                      Quote: lucidlook
                      Do you see how many questions we have already touched on?

                      Modern ships can rely only on the forces and means of electronic warfare. And the multi-billion-dollar Aegis is not capable of saving from a missile attack.

                      Quote: lucidlook
                      This is exactly the level of integration that is taking place right now.

                      Prove it.

                      Quote: lucidlook
                      The ideology of just such interaction was embedded in the system at the stage of its development, and at the Baseline 9 level, further integration of airborne sensors is in full swing.

                      Ideology has nothing to do with reality in technical matters. Let the Yankees think that Baseline 9 will save their ships from a missile attack... And when the Onyx arrives and sinks the Arleigh Burke, they will shrug their shoulders and say that the ship was not combat ready.
                      1. lucidlook
                        0
                        31 December 2014 17: 25
                        Quote: Tigr
                        Modern ships can rely only on the forces and means of electronic warfare. And the multi-billion-dollar Aegis is not capable of saving from a missile attack.

                        Then how do you explain this?


                        Or based on this site:
                        For the new complex, a new carrier was also needed, which could carry out salvo fire with 20–24 missiles from an underwater position (according to calculations, this concentration of weapons can “pierce” the missile defense of a promising aircraft carrier formation of the US Navy).
                        http://topwar.ru/19696-atomnye-podvodnye-lodki-s-krylatymi-raketami-proekt-949-g
                        ranit-oscar-i-class.html

                        “Maybe” and “guaranteed to destroy” are still somewhat different things.

                        And there about "relatively high probability overcoming air defense and missile defense systems"

                        Quote: Tigr
                        Prove it.

                        Let's go!

                        Once (about sensor networking):
                        The Aegis system has a federated architecture with four subsystems – AN / SPY-1 multifunction radar, command and decision system (CDS), Aegis display system (ADS) and the weapon control system (WCS). The CDS receives data from ship and external sensors via satellite communications and provides command, control and threat assessment. The WCS receives engagement instruction from the CDS, selects weapons and interfaces with the weapon fire control systems.
                        http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/burke/


                        Two (about Launch-on-Remote):
                        Both Aegis and Aegis-compatible plug ships into MDA’s Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC) element, which enables them to share and receive enhanced capability.
                        ...
                        Existing Aegis BMD–equipped ships already embody the LoR capability, as demonstrated by the 25th Aegis BMD flight test FTM-15 on April 15, 2011. This was the first LoR test of the system against an intermediate-range “separating target” — a warhead separating from its booster missile.

                        http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-67/JFQ-67_85-90_Morton-Gald
                        orisi.pdf
                      2. lucidlook
                        0
                        31 December 2014 17: 26
                        You are in vain arguing with the fact that even the Russian military has already admitted that Aegis is not just a “sophisticated air defense system” that could be compared with the S-300F. No, Aegis is a completely different level of interaction between ships. They recognized and encouraged us to develop our own similar one.

                        By the way, there are developments in this regard in the domestic industry... it would be more accurate to say “there were.”

                        As for your calculations about the AUG missile defense breakthrough based on 4 missiles on anti-ship missiles, I would like to separately note that these calculations of yours are valid only and exclusively in the case of constant adjustment and updating of the control center. After all, the rocket will also need to somehow detect the target, and from 25 meters you won’t be able to see it very far. But there is no external control center (as already discussed on previous pages). What to do? And I will answer that - climb 15 km and shine your own radar from there. In this case, yes, it is possible to detect a “Cruiser” type target from a distance of 100-150 km - after all, it is the cruisers that will form the outer ring of defense and which means they will need to be destroyed first.

                        Tell you what Burke will do with a high-altitude target at a distance of 100-150 km? Even if we assume that the P-700 will be able to accelerate to supersonic speed before it is detected, and based on the calculation of 800 m/s, this still gives 2 minutes of flight time. FOR TWO MINUTES AEGIS will work on the poor P-700 and will have time to fire from 30 to 50 missiles.

                        And exactly the same fate will befall the guidance (high-altitude) missile if a low-altitude launch of Granites occurs from 200 km. However, the assumption that the AUG will allow you to approach it within 200 km, detect it, aim and shoot, without providing any resistance, of course, is mystical at all.
                      3. Kassandra
                        -2
                        1 January 2015 04: 38
                        Aegis, like Arrow, was made on the basis of the S-300, do you propose to copy your own?
                        distribution of tasks among calculations is even available on the Igla tablets.
                      4. Andy1111
                        0
                        2 January 2015 04: 27
                        where did you get such nonsense??? what
                      5. Kassandra
                        0
                        2 January 2015 13: 58
                        Don’t be bullshit yourself and compare the progress of air defense/missile defense by type of technical solutions and by year and country.
                        and also google the facts of technology transfer and specialists leaving the country.
  54. Russkiy53
    +2
    26 December 2014 20: 09
    The meaning is simple: there is no money for AUG - develop another topic, cheaper, but ensure superiority to our fleet at sea! The rest of the talk is like, we have land, to hell with the ocean, etc. etc. - treacherous stupidity, or - stupidly - betrayal!
  55. 0
    26 December 2014 21: 02
    Then, judging by the author’s attitude, we just need to provoke the Americans to spend 100-150 billion on the AUG complex (useless and harmless to us) love They won’t come close to our shores. Or will they poke their noses in?
  56. 0
    26 December 2014 22: 15
    Throw a thousand 200 liter barrels of explosives along the route of the Carrier Group and throw a misconception that the cargo ship sank not far away, and equip the barrels with magnetic fuses and when the ships pass through these drifting barrels there will be a collision with the side of the explosion and no one will even understand what was blown up.
  57. +1
    26 December 2014 22: 27
    People, does anyone know at what sea state the AUG will not be able to work? And at what magnitude is a storm dangerous for an aircraft carrier?
    1. Kassandra
      0
      27 December 2014 06: 46
      There is a video of landings in a force 9 storm.
      1. +1
        27 December 2014 11: 51
        Quote: Kassandra
        There is a video of landings in a force 9 storm.

        It would be interesting to take a look... And usually carrier-based aircraft flights stop when the sea state reaches 6-7 points.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          27 December 2014 17: 29
          usually at airfields too. Although it doesn’t ride the waves, it can’t turn around in the wind like a hut on chicken legs (like an aircraft carrier)...
        2. Kassandra
          0
          1 January 2015 05: 02
          PS. If suddenly there are some misunderstandings, you can watch on YouTube attempts to land aircraft in crosswinds.
        3. Andy1111
          0
          2 January 2015 04: 29
          in the event of a real threat, an aircraft carrier can lift an air group at force 8 seas, and will land at any level, but with a clear deck.
  58. bubble82009
    0
    26 December 2014 23: 09
    everything is written correctly. and liked the elusive Joe, who no one needs. Except banana republics
  59. 0
    27 December 2014 01: 10
    I’ll add from myself that all these “formidable” groups have one rule that they follow like the Lord’s Prayer, this is not to approach our ships. and why? Yes, that’s why, since our ships are armed with the P-700 anti-ship missile complex of the Granit missile weapon complex (Navy URAV Index: 3M45, according to NATO codification: SS-N-19 “Shipwreck”, shipwreck) - a long-range anti-ship cruise missile (ASM) actions designed to combat powerful ship groups, including aircraft carriers. here are her specifications
    Length, m 8
    Diameter, m 0,85
    Wingspan, m 2,6
    Starting weight, kg 7000
    Speed ​​at height, M 2,5
    Speed ​​at land / water, M 1,5
    Range, km 550(625) km along a combined trajectory,
    145 (200) km along an exceptionally low altitude trajectory
    Ceiling, m 14000-17000 meters on the marching section,
    depending on the trajectory scheme
    Minimum flight altitude, m Up to 25 meters in the attack area (in this case, the missile flies along such a trajectory that it is impossible to detect it, and if it was possible to do this, it will be too late)
    INS + ARLGSN management system
    Warhead Penetrating 518-750 kg (data differ) or
    nuclear, up to 500 ct


    I think this is where we can put an end to the “formidable” aircraft carrier groups of two or three missiles without nuclear filling and the aircraft carrier will have nothing left, but if there is a nuclear charge, then there’s nothing to talk about, the whole group will be sunk in two. That's it, ladies and gentlemen, the larger the cabinet, the louder it falls! :)
    1. lucidlook
      0
      30 December 2014 22: 41
      I only have three questions:
      1) How will you protect the carriers at the stage of reaching the attack line (200 km)?
      2) How will you protect the missiles on a high-altitude march if the salvo is fired from 600 km?
      3) Where exactly will the target designation for the missiles come from?

      Yes, by the way, according to modeling data, in order to sink an aircraft carrier, it requires 8-10 P-700 anti-ship missiles with a high-explosive warhead to hit it.

      Quote: vfck
      at the same time, the missile flies along such a trajectory that it is impossible to detect it, and if you manage to do this, it will be too late

      And how true is this for airborne radars like the E-2D and partly the EA-18G? The same ones that can be easily seen from their height 600 km around? You understand that even if the launch is underwater, they will instantly detect it as soon as the missiles come out of the water? And if the salvo comes from a surface ship, then even more so.

      Quote: vfck
      Well, if there is a nuclear charge, then there’s nothing to talk about, the whole group will be drowned once or twice.

      But the facts tell a slightly different story. Read about Operation Crossroads (Bikini Atoll). And keep in mind that the density of ships in the test fleet was 5-7 times higher than permissible.

      It is difficult to even imagine the political consequences of the use of nuclear weapons.
      1. Kassandra
        -1
        1 January 2015 03: 38
        200 km is if it always goes low to the target.

        To disable an aircraft carrier, one or two Zunis are enough. then the AUG left without air cover is drowned much easier.

        They are generally sunk by loose cluster munitions made from DU rods, best of all, delivered to the target by an aeroballistic missile, or one granite explosion under the keel splits the ship in half.
        on the high seas, from a nuclear one, environmental ones are more likely to be more important than political ones...
    2. Andy1111
      0
      2 January 2015 04: 33
      I think this is where we can put an end to the “formidable” aircraft carrier groups of two or three missiles without nuclear filling and the aircraft carrier will have nothing left, but if there is a nuclear charge, then there’s nothing to talk about, the whole group will be sunk in two. That's it, ladies and gentlemen, the larger the cabinet, the louder it falls! :)
      a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is guaranteed not to be destroyed by 2-3 P-700s... disabled - yes, and even then not 100%. depending on where it goes.
      Regarding the fall of the cabinet under a nuclear attack, I don’t think it’s even worth discussing the options.. do you care in this situation? will someone sink an aircraft carrier somewhere or not, if by that time you yourself have already turned into the “radioactive ashes” promised by Kiselev to the Americans (he really forgot that both sides are guaranteed to turn into ashes in a nuclear war)?
      1. Kassandra
        0
        2 January 2015 14: 03
        it is disabled non-nuclearly - only one Zuni NUR that disabled Forrestall had a non-nuclear nuclear warhead

        Why do you think that the use of nuclear weapons on an aircraft carrier will definitely lead to a nuclear exchange (well, unless it is stationed in Los Angeles Harbor)?
  60. +3
    27 December 2014 06: 19
    Quote from the article “The Yankees removed the last carrier-based nuclear weapons carrier aircraft (A-5 Vigilante) from service in 1963. The reason was the emergence of a much more reliable and effective system - submarines with ballistic missiles. Since then, the Yankees have never experimented with nuclear weapons on board their aircraft carriers, giving them the role of a naval tactical system for dominance at sea in the event of a non-nuclear version of World War XNUMX. World War did not happen, as a result, the “air waffles” wandered aimlessly across the oceans, periodically trying to participate in local conflicts. Where were they any use? a little - in the air everything was decided by the Air Force aircraft."

    Both the first and second statements, to put it mildly, are not entirely correct. The main attack aircraft of the AUG at this stage are the F18, including their latest modifications Super Hornet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet, v tom hisle. And the armament of these aircraft also includes nuclear weapons, in particular the B61 atomic bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb The fact that aircraft carriers do not carry these bombs everywhere with them (which is also not a fact) does not mean that they supply ships assigned to the AUG are not carried.
    Well, in local conflicts, aircraft based on aircraft carriers were used more than actively, in particular for clearing targets previously attacked by cruise missiles. So the statement that AUGs do not pose a serious threat to objects on the Russian mainland or its coast smacks of yet another denial of the adversary with products “a winter hat, medium fluffy. I will add that during the calculation of the power of the USSR Armed Forces, I had the opportunity to be present as a specialist in air defense systems of the SV “Tor and S300 which interested sailors and they began to actively push for their use on board a number of ships, including the famous TAKR Kirov and its brothers, albeit under different names. So, at these meetings, the threat from the AUG was given the most serious attention, especially since all specialists understood that the AUG would be used in the event of a major war in close coordination with other branches of the US Armed Forces and their allies. Those. minke whales are not so stupid as to ignore the obvious dangers to the AUG and not take appropriate countermeasures against these dangers. And they are quite prepared for losses, and their level of patriotism and self-sacrifice is hardly less than that of their Russian colleagues. It’s just that where possible they try to sacrifice the lives of enemy fighters first, and then when there is no way out, their own. This was proven by them in all wars. including World War 2. Of course, they also had to retreat under the pressure of superior enemy forces, and surrender, etc., but who didn’t. So if you want to defeat your opponent, learn to respect him.
  61. Russkiy53
    0
    28 December 2014 01: 28
    Quote: TOR2
    People, does anyone know at what sea state the AUG will not be able to work? And at what magnitude is a storm dangerous for an aircraft carrier?

    damn, I, as a stupidly ordinary infantryman, think: any fleet, now, can have the necessary meteorological data :)))...
  62. 0
    29 December 2014 23: 15
    There have been quite a lot of cases of launching an “attack” on an aircraft carrier (AUG) in the post-war history of our fleet, and in most cases the submarines were not detected; they “attacked” both diesel and nuclear-powered ones, not to mention aviation. Therefore, it is impossible to say unequivocally that with an AUG to deal with “little blood” is complete nonsense, do not underestimate the merits and capabilities of our submariners and do not exaggerate the capabilities of PLO. In the same Kamchatka, by the way, the OVR brigade (from Zavoiko) repeatedly chased the amers - like hounds of a hare, and if we had received an order from Moscow, then many of the US nuclear submarines would become cemeteries. As for the construction of aircraft carriers for the Russian Navy, today we simply do not have either the technical capacity or the financial capabilities, we are trying to do “something” simpler, but more effective. They said it correctly. that maintaining aircraft carriers is an extremely expensive pleasure, so we have other priority areas for fleet construction: strategic cruisers, diesel submarines and the “mosquito fleet” (the ocean-going component of the surface fleet still leaves much to be desired). We’ll wait and see, God willing! changes will occur for the better.
    1. Kassandra
      0
      30 December 2014 11: 59
      A nuclear submarine costs more than an aircraft carrier. because it is more complicated, and the elements of its design are much more responsible. 941pr is also not much smaller...
      and with “maintenance”, excuse me, dear comrade, an air wing at an airfield costs the same, if not more.
      1. Vasya 77
        0
        30 December 2014 12: 07
        A nuclear submarine costs more than ten times less than an aircraft carrier, excluding the cost of an air wing.
        1. Kassandra
          0
          30 December 2014 12: 13
          Where does this information come from, Vasya? and do you take into account the cost of what the nuclear submarine carries?
          and also the cost of what aviation already costs on shore?

          first Nimitz - 2,5 billion, Ohio - 1,5
          American submarines will be smaller than ours... and the Nimitz will be much larger than the TAKR :-)

          you were deceived bully
          It’s impossible for a trough (even a large one) that just needs to stay afloat to cost more than a giant bathyscaphe fool
          1. Vasya 77
            0
            30 December 2014 12: 41
            Ivanovich, this is open information, the price ratio of project 949 to the Nimitz aircraft carrier. wink In terms of the relationship between Ash and Washington, I think little has changed.
            1. Kassandra
              0
              30 December 2014 13: 07
              and how reliable is it?

              and why exactly 949 and Nimitz? and not 941 (50 thousand tons) and "Kuzya" (50 thousand tons)?
              or Abramovich’s yacht (13 thousand) and Chakri Narubet (11 thousand)?

              In addition to the strength of the same or even larger durable hull in double-hulled or one-and-a-half-hulled submarines compared to one fragile one, an advance carrier also has the factor of technical complexity of the ship's buoyancy control systems and weapon systems that can withstand a pressure drop of 400 atmospheres or more

              therefore, well, a nuclear submarine cannot cost more than an aircraft carrier... absolutely not! unless the aircraft carrier is also nuclear-powered (like your icebreaker) and its displacement is no less than 10-15 times. :-)))

              just like the glued fiberglass B-2 cannot cost more than the Ohio nuclear submarine or on par with the Nimitz. bully
              Are you fooling you Vasya, or are you fooling others here...
              1. Vasya 77
                0
                30 December 2014 13: 19
                Ivanovich, learn to separate flies from cutlets. 941 strategist, 949 is designed specifically to combat AUG. The information is reliable, there were no Serdyukovs under the USSR, there were patriots. If you are so interested in the issue of price, look at the cost of the latest US aircraft carrier and compare its cost with Yasen (although Yasen is not entirely designed against AUGs and there are vague doubts about its effectiveness against an aircraft carrier), I am afraid that an aircraft carrier will be more than ten times more expensive.
                1. Kassandra
                  -1
                  30 December 2014 13: 41
                  Vasya, for this you need to have cutlets...
                  I'm afraid they will write to you.
                  There were Serdyukovs under the USSR, and even some - it was necessary to try so that the superpower would have only one sub-aircraft carrier, and even then in the end.
                  and even the Indians demanded that all the crap that someone had carefully placed there be removed from Gorshkov’s tank in order to turn it into an aircraft carrier... out of some kind of complete misunderstanding.

                  949 is specifically a Russian nuclear submarine, so compare it with anything Russian in the same currency space in the same weight category (tonnage) and with the same coefficient of technical complexity.
                  You can also compare the Tu-22 with an aircraft carrier...

                  and do not forget that carrier-based aircraft will drown both of them even before they reach the launch range of their anti-ship missiles.
                  1. Vasya 77
                    0
                    30 December 2014 13: 54
                    949 is the USSR and not Russia, the TU 22M, when attacking the AUG with 40 aircraft, had losses estimated at more than 50 percent, but they sank the AUG and, by the way, with x 22 missiles created by the then Serdyukovs (in your opinion) look at the performance characteristics of these missiles, even now , more than 40 years later, NATO has nothing like it. You just want to throw mud at people, you can’t do that Ivanovich, you have to respect your fathers and grandfathers!
                    1. Kassandra
                      0
                      30 December 2014 15: 40
                      now Russia. don't slide the stems.

                      under the fathers and grandfathers, the Soviet KUG constantly sailed next to the AUG within the range of their anti-ship missiles, and even before the cruiser Sverdlov, keeping aircraft carriers within the range of their guns. because there is no chance of getting closer after the start of the war.

                      two regiments of suicide bombers on a Tu-22 are taken by an AUG near its shore
              2. Andy1111
                0
                2 January 2015 04: 46
                you are absolutely uninformed and are trying to pass off your denseness as some kind of “sacred knowledge” inaccessible to others... it looks simply ridiculous.

                In general, any talk about the cost of a particular weapon system is almost always not the most substantive reasoning.

                what source gave the figure?
                for what year?
                What does it include?
                How much can you trust the source? and so on

                For reference, Nimitz-class aircraft carriers cost slightly different money..
                The cost of building the first ship of the series, officially declared by the states, was $4 billion in 1975 prices. This is WITHOUT the cost of the air group. the last ships in the series cost about 7-8 billion

                Regarding boats - there is also a question of what and how to count..
                for example, our Boreys are now officially stated to cost approximately $600 million apiece (despite the fact that the first ship in the series turned out to be twice as expensive due to the long construction period). but this does not include the cost of missiles... each mace costs the state 30 million dollars... and you need 16 of them per ship.

                How reliable these figures are and how they were calculated - one can only guess.
                etc
                1. Kassandra
                  0
                  2 January 2015 14: 12
                  you watch your denseness... and your manners too. It’s strange that you still don’t have a single warning.

                  source - Google bully
                  the cost of Nimitz is less than 2,5 billion in the contract for the construction of the first
                  Why take into account the cost of an air group? When you build an airfield or an airport, do you also take into account the cost of its airplanes? the air wing can operate both from the airfield and from this ship.
                  but given the cost of Ohio to 1,5 billion, the cost of its SLBM would be worth adding because otherwise they will only reach Mexico from the shore bully

                  this is the first. and secondly, why don’t you compare the cost and displacement of the 941pr “Typhoon” (50.000 tons) with the cost of a Thai aircraft carrier (11 thousand tons). or with the cost of the Atlantic Causeway converted in three days, since you liked to compare the big with the small, and what should just stay afloat with what should withstand 400 atmospheres? bully
  63. 0
    30 December 2014 01: 03
    What to heat with? Submarine. 636.3 or 855 "Ash tree".

    Choose from the list in the picture.

    All sorts of things melted here. 100 thousand tons each
    1. Kassandra
      0
      30 December 2014 12: 08
      Have you ever killed fish with dynamite?
    2. Vasya 77
      0
      30 December 2014 13: 30
      Are you seriously planning to attack the AUG diesel engine? winked Will you use torpedoes or Caliber from torpedo tubes to kill your adversaries? Maybe it’s better to ask the North Koreans on boats to tear the Yankees’ ass? Or why sink it at all, maybe it’s better to land the Airborne Forces on an aircraft carrier and capture it?
    3. Andy1111
      0
      2 January 2015 01: 42
      don’t forget that the AUG, in addition to its own good anti-aircraft guns, often also has ground support... and most importantly, the virtual Ash who decides to attack the AUG will have to face at least 1, and sometimes 2 equal opponents... Virginia is not much worse, and Sivulfs are superior to at least the first generation 855x (and we don’t have the second one yet and it’s unknown when it will be..)
  64. 0
    31 December 2014 09: 03
    Video about Russian surprises for the US Armed Forces, including aircraft carriers. The dream of dreamers))) And here we invent. Everything has long been invented and even drawn
  65. 0
    1 January 2015 21: 04
    Today, no country, except the United States, has aircraft carrier strike groups and has no experience of their combat use in various theaters of military operations. The decision to send an AUG to a particular area is made by the country's top leadership with the approval of Congress and with the direct participation of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. This means that maximum resources will be used to solve the combat mission and not just a group of ships, among which there is an aircraft carrier, will go to the enemy’s shores, but, roughly speaking, the entire great power, which “moved to ships” in order to achieve a military victory. She knows exactly who she will be dealing with, the composition of the enemy's forces and assets, their combat capabilities and locations, and the level of fire resistance. At headquarters at all levels, round-the-clock processing of all types of intelligence data is carried out, tasks are set and clarified for the forces covering and supporting combat operations, forces and assets are being deployed at the land, sea and air bases closest to the theater of operations, information is being exchanged and actions are being coordinated with US allies in this region of the world.
    By the time the aircraft carrier receives a command to scramble aircraft to launch a missile and bomb strike, the AUG will be properly covered from sea and air, and targets on the shore that could disrupt the strike will be suppressed in a timely manner.
    The AUG detects aircraft and cruise missiles at altitudes from 100 m to 25000 meters and at a range of approximately 700 km and has effective air defense and anti-aircraft defense systems, and during the voyage the anti-submarine cover is gradually strengthened.
    The question arises: “If there is a sea-based missile defense system, ship artillery, then why have an aircraft carrier at all? They will sweep away everything on the shore without him.” Let me remind you that the fleet does not win wars on its own. It supports the operations of ground forces. Therefore, where the AUG has appeared, the likelihood of amphibious or airborne landings, the operation of which will require air support, should be considered.
    Thank God that the command of the US Navy in 1983 did not set the task of aerial bombardment and occupation of Lebanon, limiting itself to naval artillery shelling of certain areas, which caused great destruction and casualties, otherwise Lebanon would have simply been wiped off the face of the Earth.
  66. 0
    7 January 2015 01: 33
    The larger the cabinet, the louder it falls.
  67. Beiderlei
    0
    7 January 2015 15: 16
    The strongest and richest!
  68. 0
    9 January 2015 17: 17
    There were aircraft carrier killers in the USSR, are they really not there now? Let these coffins frighten Senegal and the Ivory Coast.
    1. Kassandra
      0
      9 January 2015 18: 04
      Let Senegal continue to rob Russian trawlers without fear...
  69. 0
    13 January 2015 04: 13
    Excellent article. wink
  70. Cmajikep
    +1
    16 January 2015 00: 17
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: jarome
    In these several AUGs there are perennial
    Budgets of the Russian Federation.

    wassat
    The last Nimitz cost about 6 billion dollars. The cost of an air group - let's take 60 first-class airplanes and 20 helicopters - take 100 million for an airplane and 20 for a helicopter, in total - 6,4 billion dollars. The cost of one Arlie Burke is 1,8 billion dollars, 5 of them are needed, a total of another 9 billion. A couple of nuclear submarines of 2 billion each - another 4 billion.
    Total AUG - 25,4 billion.
    The budget of the Russian Federation for 2014 - the expenditure part - is about 14 trillion rubles or (at a dollar value of 55 rubles) over 250 billion dollars.

    I remember the old saying: “If you want to ruin a small country, give it a cruiser!”
    Everything is correct, we don’t need so many AUGs for nothing, we still need to maintain them. And chasing poachers with the help of AUG is.... :)
    1. Kassandra
      0
      21 January 2015 05: 59
      oh, how interesting you think... in general, the fleet, except for the aircraft carrier itself, already has everything for the AUG (including airplanes). the latter is simply a large trough without superstructures.
  71. 0
    17 October 2016 11: 29
    Dear sirs, until we have at least 5 new missiles or rocket launchers for the fleet, we can forget about the aircraft carrier since there is simply no one to cover it
  72. The comment was deleted.
  73. 0
    18 October 2016 14: 07
    Quote: tchoni
    Yes, as it was not necessary.

    Yah! Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya. There were more than enough necessities. And now there is no AUG near Syria - the Americans are not fools. Russia was ahead of them in its presence off the coast of Syria and on its territory. AUGs have always been planned as strike groups against militarily weak countries or, conversely, to support pro-American regimes that are fighting the opposition.
    The second purpose, only all American AUGs together, is a military naval blockade of Russia, if the need arises.
    And third, the joint participation of all AUGs with other strike forces in the Global Non-Nuclear Strike against Russia.
  74. 0
    18 October 2016 14: 20
    [quote=Bigly smart[/quote]
    Quote: Very smart
    Which shores, colleague? The Russian Federation is surrounded by shallow seas with straits. Such a bandura will not fit there - it simply won’t get through in some places.

    You are very mistaken. Americans can use all AUGs:
    The first is for a naval blockade of Russia, if the need arises;
    The second is the joint participation of all AUGs with other strike forces in the Global Non-Nuclear Strike against Russia.
    And for this there is no need to go into shallow water at all.
    Well, you also missed that about shallow water. Our naval forces, including submarines, somehow navigate this shallow water, but the Americans cannot do that.
  75. +2
    20 October 2016 12: 22
    it would take a hell of a lot of space scouts; creation and operation of such a system - hpure fantasy.

    Oleg, of course, can write about the fleet for hours and, in my opinion, very convincingly, but it would be better to remain silent about the satellite constellation. Personally, I’m willing to bet on the bubble that by the year 25 a group will be deployed that will make it possible to observe a given area online. And for this you do not need a swarm of low-orbit satellites, they are needed to achieve a resolution of centimeters; for an aircraft carrier group, a kilometer 100 times less is enough (000 Karl!). And for those who doubt it, it is enough to compare the costs of creating and operating one multi-purpose nuclear submarine in full equipment and 100 satellites. Really amazing, as Oleg wrote - It's amazing how much cheaper it is. And besides, Oleg cringes, why watch the entire ocean, how does the AUG threaten us in the Tierra del Fuego region? Calculate how many satellites you need to scan the Pacific and Atlantic at a distance of up to 2-3 thousand kilometers from our shores every few minutes. Well, since product 4002 cannot be intercepted by any AUG missile defense system. The final solution to the problem of American AUGs is not far off.
  76. 0
    25 October 2016 17: 46
    The Americans themselves came up with means of detecting AUG. It is called GPS navigation built into a smartphone (i-phon), Google planet and other Twitter, Instagram, Skype Vibers, which can be used to track the EXACT location of the owner. Knowing a couple of hundred addresses out of 10000 people in the AUG order, you can safely track their movements. ))) Laughing comes out. DO NOT dig a hole for someone else. They themselves wanted to track everyone through Google, but you can already track all their military movements today!
  77. 0
    30 October 2016 20: 27
    No one will move “coffins with airplanes” anywhere. Every schoolchild already knows where the minerals are - the future theater of operations is there and it is located in the Arctic - under the ice, and we are already noticeably lagging behind in the underwater component. Yes, there is something to answer and there are “asymmetrical” answers in the form of “Varshavyankas” and “Halibuts”, BUT, soon there will be robots on patrol with every “Moose” (nuclear submarine Los Angeles). Already, the United States has operating “underwater aircraft carriers” - carriers of uninhabited underwater vehicles, which in turn are armed with torpedoes and sensitive sensors, and can hover for a long time. The war, by and large, comes down to a technological one, where our positions are not so strong. You should never consider your enemy stupid; you’ve already stopped him once “with little blood and on foreign territory”
  78. 0
    2 March 2019 23: 26
    Yes, I wonder what Oleg would say now when Poseidon came out for testing