Supercarriers were, are and will be!

65
The feasibility of building supercarriers is questionable, because the cost of the Gerald R. Ford supercarrier, which is still under construction, has already exceeded 13 billion dollars, even if the rest of the aircraft carriers of this series will be cheaper, aircraft carriers still go super expensive.

After all, for the same money you can build 10-15 light aircraft carriers of the class “Sea Control Ship”, with vertical take-off aircraft. It is clear that it is much easier to destroy a light aircraft carrier than a supercarrier, but losses against the background of the naval grouping will be less noticeable than the loss of a heavy aircraft carrier. But the first reason why light aircraft carriers did not go into a wide series was the impossibility of using airborne early warning and control aircraft from them, which made it impossible to detect enemy missiles and aircraft at a safe distance. It followed that one supercarrier would win the battle with a group of light aircraft carriers.

Against the background of the fact that Russia is commissioning heavy nuclear missile cruisers, the second reason is obvious that super-carriers will develop and be in service fleet USA. The TARKR of Project 1144 Orlan can easily cope with a light aircraft carrier, and it is obvious that only Nimitz type super carriers or a heavy aircraft carrier of the Gerald R. Ford type can be a counterweight to the Russian heavy nuclear missile cruisers.

The third reason for the existence and development of supergiants is politics, after all. A state that has such ultra-modern and super-giant aircraft carriers in service can dictate its conditions to many states that do not have an alternative weapons or protection from it, it is no secret that in almost all recent wars and military conflicts, the carrier strike group of the United States of America took part.

The carrier strike group is the main naval group of the US Navy. She embodied the best solutions for the tasks at sea.

The composition of the airborne shock group:
- One heavy nuclear aircraft carrier class "Nimitz";
- one or two missile cruisers "Ticonderoga";
- Two or three class destroyers "Orly Burke";
- two or three atomic multi-purpose submarines of the class "Virginia";
- one high-speed universal transport supply type "Sacramento".

Of the entire shock group, we are most of all interested in the Nimitz-type supercarb carrier, consider its characteristics and its armament:
- length 333 meter;
- displacement 98 235 tons;
- The width of the flight deck 76-78 meters;
- speed 56 km / h;
- two A4W reactors with power 280000 hp;
- four diesel power 10720 hp;
- four aircraft supply elevators;
- team 3200 + 2480 man wing;
- the life of the ship is more than 50 years;
- The operating time of nuclear fuel 20 years.

All heavy aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type are practically similar in design data, but differ slightly in the number of aircraft on board, electronic weapons equipment and various additional complexes.

The hull of the aircraft carriers is made of welded steel sheets, the flight deck and the main supporting structures are made of armor steel, there are more than 4000 different rooms on the ship.

The ship’s defensive armament — four 20-mm anti-aircraft artillery complexes “Vulcan Falans” and three anti-aircraft missile complexes “Sea Sparrow” - are intended mainly for self-defense. Two 324-mm torpedo tubes - to protect the ship from enemy torpedoes wake.

The control and radiolocation complexes include satellite communication stations SATCOM, control stations with digital communication lines, detection radar stations, jamming stations and radio-electronic warfare, anti-aircraft missile control stations, the TAKAN navigation system to ensure all aircraft based on it location data in diameter xnumx miles.

The wing consists of different planes and helicopters 78:
- X / NUMX fighter-bomber F / A-36 "Hornet";
- 20 fighter F-14 "Tomcat";
- four aircraft electronic warfare EA-6В “Proler”;
- 8 anti-submarine aircraft "Viking";
- four E-2C Hokai long-range radar detection and control aircraft;
- two rescue helicopters HH-60H "Sea Hawk";
- four anti-submarine helicopters SH-60F "CVI Helo";

Fighters have 9-11 suspensions (four under the wing, two at the ends of the wing and three-five under the fuselage) and can carry 6-8 tons of weapons:
- AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles;
- anti-ship missiles SLAM-modified "Harpoon";
- AIM-120 "AMRAAM" air-to-air missiles;
- AGM-88 "HARM" supersonic anti-radar anti-radar missiles;
- AGM-64 "Maverick" tactical missiles;
- planning bombs AGM-154;
- managed aviation JDAM bombs;
- cluster bombs CBU-87;
- laser-guided “Paveway” guided bombs;
- electronic warfare modules;
- guidance modules AN / AAS-38 "NiteHawk".

A total of ten heavy aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type were built, here they are:

Supercarriers were, are and will be!


Aircraft carrier "Nimitz"



Aircraft carrier "Dwight Eisenhower"



Aircraft carrier "Carl Vinson"



Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier



Aircraft carrier "Abraham Lincoln"



Aircraft carrier "George Washington"



The aircraft carrier "John K. Stennis"



Aircraft carrier "harry truman"



Aircraft carrier "Ronald Reagan"



Aircraft carrier "George Bush"

Heavy aircraft carriers can be used as a floating airfield for aircraft performing various combat missions. This is another big plus for the development and continued use of heavy aircraft carriers in the armed forces. Carriers are not only huge military ships, but also the pride of their state and navy.
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    9 October 2011 08: 16
    The feasibility of building supercarriers is questionable, because the cost of the Gerald R. Ford class supercarrier, which is still under construction, has already exceeded $ 13 billion, even if the rest of the aircraft carriers in this series will be cheaper, all the same, the carriers are super expensive.

    And the fact that 13 kkk $ has already been spent, so it is the first in the series, new technical solutions are tested on it, for comparison, the first aircraft carrier of the Chester Nimitz series cost almost 6 kkk $ for the current money, but the next 3-3.5 kkk.
    They also forgot to say that not one will drown it off its shores ...
    1. strictly prohibited
      0
      9 October 2011 09: 51
      THEY STOPPED HIS SERIAL PRODUCTION, AND ONLY 9 CARRIERS WILL BE SOON. TOO TOO SO LEARN TO MATCH
  2. -2
    9 October 2011 08: 18
    Superevianos, ammunition depots - what's next?
  3. Mesniy
    -2
    9 October 2011 09: 28
    Well done, good article.
    1. strictly prohibited
      0
      9 October 2011 09: 51
      INFORMATIVE ARTICLE
  4. +14
    9 October 2011 09: 35
    Article yes, good.
    Yes, we have lagged behind the amers in this regard. But the Orlan project has its own meaning. If 2-3 ships with a total cost of half an aircraft carrier can take it down, that's pretty good. I do not know how much one "Orlan" costs, but it is clearly incomparable.

    Let the states continue to break down, building these boxes. An aircraft carrier is a weapon of attack. Kohl they have them already 10, it is necessary to really build a weapon to attack aircraft carriers.

    Interestingly, and if such a coffin to sink, a lot of bubbles?
    1. +8
      9 October 2011 12: 00


      You do not need to overstrain "Lun" and it will not last long
      1. +5
        9 October 2011 14: 24
        Vadivak - well, of course, a group of harriers at their speeds are able to smear the AUG ... I repeat that apparently this was the main reason that this direction was successfully "lost" ... I highly doubt that they will just take it and restore it this direction, more than 20 years have passed and now you can only promote this issue, and given that chichas is sitting in the Moscow region, then further idle talk and sawing the dough is a matter ...
        1. +1
          9 October 2011 14: 55
          Who else would give this group of ekranolans closer to the AUG for a missile strike ....
          1. ytqnhfk
            +2
            9 October 2011 19: 26
            Lun has a speed of up to 500 km per hour and is equipped with a mosquito system which, in turn, is a "killer of aircraft carriers." That's exactly what it needs for modernization urgently, then all these floating coffins will be useless !!!!!!!!! ! cover planes repulsed the pursuit all (if there was any!)
            1. Jaguar
              -2
              9 October 2011 22: 13
              Lun brake compared to Tu-22M3, 3M80 really mosquitoes compared to X-22
              1. 0
                10 October 2011 15: 56
                And on the Far East, for example, the TU22M3 is no longer there thanks to the fart. Type vozdvizhenka airfield in Google and read it. And if there is war tomorrow?
                1. -2
                  11 October 2011 05: 33
                  Type in Google the air stream Stone Stream ....
            2. -1
              9 October 2011 22: 29
              Quote: ytqnhfk
              Flew up shot-gone! cover airplanes repelled all pursuit (if it was!)


              I agree about Lun, but where did the "cover planes" take off? Hypothetically?
              1. ytqnhfk
                -2
                10 October 2011 09: 17
                Not hypothetically, it can be recalled that aircraft carriers also have a "working" area that has a limitation, and we have the drying facility to refuel, which allows them to accompany not such objects! ! Yes, if you remember that during the operations of amers they stand in the water area no further than 100 km from the coast! The same line will reach !!
                1. -4
                  11 October 2011 17: 34
                  it’s they who are fighting against the Papuans so much, and they will come to our shore for 100 km only when they are firmly convinced that there is no one to get them.
            3. svvaulsh
              -1
              10 October 2011 20: 22
              The lower the altitude, the shorter the radar detection range. At an altitude of 10-15 meters, enemy radars will not be able to detect the same "moon" (if there is no AWACS aircraft in the air), at the launch range of anti-ship missiles. Therefore, cover planes are unlikely to be needed.
          2. +1
            9 October 2011 21: 18
            Lun is invisible to modern locators, flying over the sea at a speed of about 500 km \ h. The ekranoplan carries on board six Mosquito-class cruise missiles. Missiles fly at a speed of 2800 km per hour and hit the target at a distance of up to 120 km. As for power, it all depends on how to equip the warhead. 150 kg of explosives will be delivered exactly to the address. Nuclear stuffing is not excluded.
            1. Jaguar
              0
              9 October 2011 22: 15
              How will Lun be invisible to Hokai?
            2. mind1954
              -1
              11 October 2011 04: 08
              I want to remind you that the US "Caspian Monster" is wonderful
              spotted and photographed from a satellite, And when was it?

              And the MIG-31 was supposed to control a whole flock, destroying,
              the clouds of cruise missiles crouching above the surface.
              Yes, and he could.
              1. svvaulsh
                -1
                11 October 2011 15: 53
                The MiG-31 cannot for a simple reason; it is an interceptor operating on air targets. And he is armed with missiles BB R-33 (4 pieces in a half-sunken state under the fuselage), R-40 and R-60 on underwing pylons, + GSh6-30 gun. Where is the RCC ???
      2. Jaguar
        -3
        9 October 2011 15: 11
        a highly specialized weapon, this is what is overstrained. Why do we need a "Lun" that can only hit ships, if there are more versatile Tu-22M3s that can hit not only ships
        1. +4
          9 October 2011 15: 20
          Tu-22M3 alone is not enough to defeat AUG. Yes, and they become obsolete in their performance characteristics. We need a group strike of various weapons from different directions.
          1. Jaguar
            -4
            9 October 2011 15: 33
            Well, there is a Tu-22M5 project, so maybe it will be completed in the future and it will replace the obsolete ones. And Lun is an expensive excess
            1. -1
              9 October 2011 15: 39
              All the same, one aircraft cannot be destroyed by the AUG.
              1. Superduck
                -3
                9 October 2011 18: 44
                Orlan is a huge and noticeable target, the AWAC will notice it no worse than any other ship of the frigate class, and its size and speed will leave no doubt that this is an ekranoplan and not a fishing floating base. The AUG air wing will disperse it before it reaches the maximum launch range, and the survivability of this machine is orders of magnitude lower than any ship, and you cannot supply it with adequate air defense. I think that the biggest problem for the AUG is the submarine in ambush. The truth is most likely a kamikaze. Or smart mines.
              2. -2
                9 October 2011 18: 51
                Of course, we need new anti-ship ballistic missiles with a radius of 3t km (warhead OD 3t).
                1. Superduck
                  -2
                  9 October 2011 22: 00
                  The Chinese have recently frightened the merikos with those, but no one seemed to believe them.
                  1. -2
                    9 October 2011 22: 09
                    Such weapons could well be created.
                    Based on ICBMs.
                    The accuracy of hitting a moving target will not be high (although this is solvable), so it was decided to use OD warhead.
                    It is not necessary to get into the ship’s hull, like a warhead, it’s enough to burst at 15 meters and the ship will be seriously damaged.
                2. ytqnhfk
                  -2
                  10 October 2011 12: 10
                  Ivan look at the "strike force" cycle of programs about our weapons that we have in service and in large quantities !!!!!! There is an anti-ship missile with a range of 3000t km x-55 !!!!
                  1. Jaguar
                    -4
                    10 October 2011 15: 46
                    Quote: ytqnhfk
                    There is RCC with a range of 3000t km x-55 !!!!
                    tie up. X-55 is designed for nuclear weapons strikes on the ground
                    1. ytqnhfk
                      -2
                      10 October 2011 16: 18
                      It says that there is a sea-based missile and a nuclear missile, but it is not long to change the warhead, which was voiced there!
                      1. Jaguar
                        -2
                        10 October 2011 16: 31
                        sea-based missile designed for striking nuclear weapons on the ground. Very low speed. As long as the missile reaches, the AOG will be from a missile’s fall for hundreds of kilometers
                      2. ytqnhfk
                        -2
                        10 October 2011 16: 55
                        The speed may not be great (262m / s), but the AOG will not go away from it! The approach time at a distance of 200 km is 17 minutes, not so much! Well, these are the 1983 figures!
                      3. Jaguar
                        -1
                        10 October 2011 17: 11
                        The AUG is in one place, as long as the rocket reaches that place. The aircraft carrier will be in another place. The X-55 cannot "there is no ship here, but I will fly there." at 200 kt. Why would a rocket with a range of 16 fly at 200?
                      4. -2
                        11 October 2011 01: 54
                        In general, a cruise missile is a high-precision, guided weapon, and not a blank of an artillery shell.
                      5. Jaguar
                        -2
                        11 October 2011 11: 37
                        X-55 high-precision only against motionless targets (inertial guidance). The flight path is laid before launch and cannot be changed during flight
                      6. Jaguar
                        -1
                        11 October 2011 11: 58
                        so that the X-55 could hit ships, it must be put in it RLGSN. Not just the same in all Russian anti-ship missiles
                  2. -2
                    10 October 2011 22: 36
                    Russian weapons are advanced.
                    There is not the slightest doubt.
                    We can only be proud of the minds of our scientists.
                    However, it is impossible to stop R&D, it is necessary to develop in step with the times, otherwise, we will lag behind.
                    X-55 Tomahawk-class missile
                    Yes, in some situations it can be effective, for example, against weak or medium air defense.
                    But if the enemy is equipped with powerful air defense, then ...
                    Found, took on escort, and the rocket is lost.
                    You can not give a trump card to the enemy.
                    The missile should be invisible to the radar.
                    In conditions of advanced air defense, rockets of a different class are needed, invisible to radars in the entire range of applications.
                    Speed, and stealth, here are the new parameters that need to be considered.
                    And besides, the carrier ...
                    We need a new strategic STELS for delivery of the Kyrgyz Republic.
            2. ytqnhfk
              -2
              10 October 2011 12: 12
              THAT then the amers started developing ekranoplanes probably because they are overkill!
              1. Jaguar
                0
                10 October 2011 15: 48
                the excess is to hook the rockets to the ekranoplanes. Transport is a completely different matter.
              2. -2
                10 October 2011 16: 05
                Because our -removed-moon were shown to the Americans for money. I hope those who did this will someday still be shot.
        2. -2
          9 October 2011 18: 45
          Tu-22M3 is outdated for a long time!
          We need a new, unified strategic stealth bomber STELS, capable of carrying (in the anti-ship version) heavy KR STELS (warhead mass 1.2t range 700km) to strike at the AUG. And then, as an addition to anti-ship BR, nothing more.
          1. Jaguar
            -2
            9 October 2011 21: 52
            F-14 decommissioned, no need for your child prodigy
        3. ytqnhfk
          -2
          10 October 2011 09: 40
          Lun not only can work on ship connections, but also deliver troops and equipment, his carrying capacity is not bad (3btr) and it was thrown by an "eaglet" which was smaller than Lun "And their maximum speed is 800 km h! visibility and it will be an unpleasant surprise for everyone! If our pilots opened the airspace over an aircraft carrier in 99, then it makes sense to think about it!
          1. Jaguar
            0
            10 October 2011 16: 05
            36 tons is the weight of Mosquitoes in containers. And there is nowhere to shove the troops and equipment. What is 800 km per hour, 500 is indicated everywhere .. Why is it interesting that the minuses are put for adequate comments, and not for your pearls. Ala "X-55 PKR"
            1. ytqnhfk
              -2
              10 October 2011 16: 22
              Look at Lun for a closer look at the "mosquitoes" outside and inside what you want can fit. Its carrying capacity is also not small!
              1. Jaguar
                -1
                10 October 2011 16: 49
                Inside there are fuel tanks. And there are no cargo ramps. The load capacity is for fuel, rockets. various technical fluids and people
      3. -2
        9 October 2011 23: 08
        http://www.topwar.ru/1538-ayaks-giperzvukovoj-mnogocelevoj-samolet.html
        Only by 1993 the expert commission ... What will their aircraft carriers with hundreds of conventional aircraft on board cost if at any moment and in any sea-ocean a Russian aerospace can appear over their clumsy carcasses and plant a small ultra-precise rocket into them? ... actively promotes the concept and seeks sources of funding for its implementation. And in May 2001, the holding's press service reported that OJSC Holding Company Leninets (St. Petersburg) had signed with China ... as usual now.
    2. His
      -3
      9 October 2011 12: 08
      Of course, this is a formidable force. But thank God, our territory is huge, and aircraft carriers do not go on the ground. Then let them try to get it
    3. -2
      10 October 2011 13: 56
      Well, how much will we modernize EAGLES ???? how many 10 or 15 years ???? and dear soul people, there are no empty seats for them -all for borea !!!
      one of the 4 is parsley more or less, the rest have been standing for more than 18 years on an eternal fun and rust
    4. svvaulsh
      0
      10 October 2011 20: 13
      Hush hush! And then the "boy" will see, will swear strongly! I have already tried to outline the parity with the US Navy, but was severely criticized by this expert. recourse
  5. strictly prohibited
    0
    9 October 2011 09: 47
    AUTHOR DOESN'T SHARING ARTICLE UG
  6. strictly prohibited
    0
    9 October 2011 09: 49
    The third reason for the existence and development of supergiants is still this policy. A state armed with such ultra-modern and super-giant aircraft carriers can dictate its terms to many states that do not have alternative weapons or protection against them, it is no secret that in almost all recent wars and military conflicts, the United States aircraft carrier attack group took part.

    WE HAVE A TORPEDOUS WHICH WILL TAKE IT AWAY, ONLY ONE. NOT 70
  7. cohort
    0
    9 October 2011 10: 48
    It is interesting to find out from professionals how much effort is needed to sink the Pindos AUG? At what distance and with what? Is there a cheap and easy option?
    1. -3
      9 October 2011 14: 48
      The most reliable way to hit the AUG is to use nuclear weapons. Conventional means will have to involve simultaneously a regiment of missile-carrying aircraft, one or two submarines with cruise missiles, and a Varyag-class missile cruiser.
      1. Tyumen
        0
        9 October 2011 16: 17
        Why no one writes about the X-90, the western AS-19 KOALA? After all, this is the ONLY hypersonic maneuvering missile in the world, and it is ours. It starts with the TU-160M, the RS-18 carrier. It should already be in service.
        1. 0
          9 October 2011 16: 22
          How many of those Tu-160s are in service with the Russian Air Force? And how many of them can be involved in the defeat of the ACG in the event of an armed conflict with the United States?
          1. Tyumen
            -1
            9 October 2011 16: 58
            erix-xnumx
            This means that we must work in this direction. Or do something new.
            Will Russia really not have a truly superweapon just because there is nothing to launch it with?
        2. 0
          9 October 2011 18: 52
          1. -2
            9 October 2011 19: 05
            The rocket is not bad, but ...
            Prospective CR should be performed using STELS technology with the lowest possible ESR.
            In order to exclude the detection of its radar, throughout the flight to strike.
        3. ytqnhfk
          -1
          9 October 2011 19: 33
          TU-160 is a long-range aircraft and is intended for another, like the x-90, it is for breaking through and delivering yao. so you need to apply what should be applied to ships of this class "!
          1. svvaulsh
            -1
            10 October 2011 20: 35
            Long-range aviation is the Tu-22, and the Tu-160 is strategic!
            1. -4
              11 October 2011 02: 00
              You got it all mixed up - long-range aviation also includes strategic aviation, consolidated into one air army. Tu-22M3 still remain in the naval aviation of the fleets, but there were thoughts to withdraw them from the Navy and transfer them to the "long-range".
              1. Jaguar
                0
                11 October 2011 12: 16
                Quote: erix-06
                Tu-22M3 still remain in the naval aviation of the fleets, but there were thoughts to withdraw them from the Navy and transfer them to the "long-range".
                You don’t have to write bogeytin. As part of long-range aviation, there are two Tu-22M3 heavy bombardment regiments of the 52nd and 840th. Previously, there was the 200th Guards heavy bombardment regiment and the 444th heavy bombardment regiment
                1. -3
                  11 October 2011 12: 34
                  Follow the words about ravings! Are you sick or read with welder glasses ??? I wrote about those TU-22, which are not part of long-range aviation !!! It was about the MPA, which they wanted to give to the 37 VA.
              2. svvaulsh
                -1
                11 October 2011 15: 46
                I am guided by the knowledge gained in the flight school, and not taken from the Internet and other speculations. So, strategic aviation is one of the components of the nuclear triad, and is designed to perform a narrowly targeted task. (Should I explain?) Long-range targets, in addition to a shorter range, have a wider range of applications.
                1. -4
                  12 October 2011 12: 33
                  Strategic aviation, represented by TU-160 and TU-95 aircraft, is part of long-range aviation, which has been consolidated into 37 air forces. In the 37th army, besides strategic bombers, there are also TU-22 bombers. Everything is written here- http://www.airforce.ru/history/da/index.htm
  8. Jaguar
    +1
    9 October 2011 11: 14
    Drown in the port of ICBMs



    Why write about such an air wing if the Vikings and F-14 were canceled. And SLAM is not anti-ship missiles, but designed for striking the ground.
  9. CARTRIDGE
    -1
    9 October 2011 11: 38
    If we build an AB, then we should rely on light-class AVs, because the point is not even the vulnerability of heavy AVs and their price, but the fact that a team of 6000 thousand crew members is unacceptable luxury for modern Russia, and light ones and to build more and make them more automated. In the event of a big war, ABs will become easy targets for anti-ship missiles (6-8 are needed to destroy an AOG, and I think 2-3 will be enough with a nuclear charge) and there are also torpedoes, the attack of which is also difficult to repel .A carriers have long been created, are multi-purpose submarines.
    1. His
      -2
      9 October 2011 12: 54
      We need to protect the coastal zone, it should be impregnable. But here, aircraft carriers are not needed. Carriers are weapons of offensive, troops crossing the ocean
      1. Superduck
        -1
        9 October 2011 18: 39
        Absolutely, so far Russia has no strategic interests on the other side of the earth that would require such an intervention, however, the appetite comes with eating.
      2. 0
        11 October 2011 13: 02
        Let me disagree with you.
        If the Russian Federation wants to build a sea-based missile defense system (NPS), then such groups need to be covered.
        For reliable interception, at least in one direction, it is necessary to concentrate the interception group (8) of nuclear submarines with missile interceptors off the coast of the United States.
        For cover, it is necessary to create an attack group, consisting of a nuclear carrier, two nuclear missile cruisers, four destroyers, three multi-purpose submarines, and one submarine.
      3. +1
        20 February 2012 18: 50
        A couple of aircraft carriers we would not hurt to get hold of. Local conflicts - in Syria now would be very good.
  10. Jaguar
    +1
    9 October 2011 12: 00
    6-8 anti-ship missiles is for the destruction of one aircraft carrier without covering other ships. Dozens of 3 need IMHO for 6-8 anti-ship missiles to break through to the target. Torpedo missiles have a short range and why are they needed if multi-purpose submarines have long been armed with anti-ship missiles
    1. CARTRIDGE
      -2
      9 October 2011 12: 16
      This is if the launch was from the maximum distance, and the submarine's task is to secretly approach the smallest distance and there is a chance that the missile defense system will not even have time to react, and it is very difficult to repel an attack by one anti-ship missile system.
      1. Mr. Truth
        0
        9 October 2011 16: 33
        On Kursk there were "Granites", these are full-fledged RCs, range of 500 km.
        1. CARTRIDGE
          -1
          10 October 2011 00: 42
          I know that granites, and this is not RCC?
    2. Mr. Truth
      -4
      9 October 2011 16: 32
      I agree that the aircraft carrier has thousands of tons of fuel and ammunition, there is no reservation, its own air defense systems are a misunderstanding.
      1. -3
        9 October 2011 17: 12
        As for the lack of reservation, it may be so, only in order to drown an aircraft carrier, an average of 12-14 torpedoes in conventional equipment are needed. And the air defense of the aircraft carrier is carried out by guard ships and carrier-based aircraft. The complex produces a very powerful and layered air defense
  11. -1
    9 October 2011 12: 06
    It would be nice in conjunction with this article to start an article on modern anti-ship funds.

    It is interesting to calculate the ratio of the price of anti-ship mines ($ 1500) - the Persian Gulf 1991, and the material damage inflicted on it.
    1. His
      +2
      9 October 2011 12: 12
      Americans have no problems printing money. Inflation Redistributed to the World
  12. -1
    9 October 2011 16: 44
    To combat aircraft carriers, it is necessary to develop BR
    For example, a BR with a radius of 3 tons, carrying a 3 tons warhead (ML) is quite capable of incapacitating an aircraft carrier.
  13. Net
    Net
    -1
    9 October 2011 18: 59
    In general, of course, the amers relaxed, it’s generally great to roll aircraft carriers to the coast and iron the country with carpet bombing. Have that country coastal anti-ship missiles, it just doesn’t work out that way. And to disable an aircraft carrier, it is not necessary to sink it. It’s enough not to let the wing take off or land, damaging the runway or aircraft lifts. To do this, you need fewer missiles. And this is interesting, many of our anti-ship missiles have an over-the-range firing range, but with satellite target designation. And how is it now is unknown.
    1. -2
      9 October 2011 19: 48
      During WWII, aircraft carriers were considered the most vulnerable link in the fleet. To destroy a porous / hollow ship from hangars, it was enough to touch the ammunition depots and fuel tanks with detonation.
    2. Jaguar
      -2
      9 October 2011 22: 35
      coastal anti-ship missiles are more likely to deal with landing ships. For an aircraft carrier, they will only reduce the combat radius of aviation. For future X-47Bs, this is a decrease like an elephant
  14. fedora
    +1
    9 October 2011 19: 38
    "By tightening the belt ..." Russia can build an aircraft carrier, some experience is available. But the problems of creating a basing system, combat, special-technical (as they say now logistic) support, personnel training have not yet been created, even for the current aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov", which will soon go on a 3-month campaign.
    Details at http://igor113.livejournal.com/27473.html
    Now regarding the fight against aircraft carrier formations. In the Soviet Navy, tactics, techniques and methods were developed with the US aircraft carrier groups, with an efficiency of at least 0,72. All these "techniques" have been repeatedly worked out during the exercises, which confirmed this probability of the destruction of the AUG. Unfortunately, today the Russian Navy does not have such forces and means, even with the use of the aforementioned missiles, aircraft and submarines. At best, our current fleet can only "bite" the AUG, while losing most of the forces and assets involved in the strike and not only.
  15. ztk1
    -1
    10 October 2011 00: 58
    The security forces of the modern US aircraft carrier group can control the water area with a radius of 350 miles (630 km) and provide here a reliable defense of the aircraft carrier from attacks of diverse enemy forces. There are Project 949A Antey submarines (aircraft carrier killers) to break through the guard and strike at the aircraft carrier, and everyone knows the boats of this project - the notorious Kursk. (Maybe “Kursk” was drowned not only because of “Shkval”, but also as a dangerous fighter against AUG). Project 949A submarines, together with the TU-22M3 bombers, are the main means of countering the Russian Navy and the US Navy strike aircraft carrier groups. In any case, it was thought so earlier.
  16. SIA
    SIA
    0
    10 October 2011 17: 35
    In the first photograph, how he famously unfolds, and enters into a bend. Well, just like on a motorboat ... wink
  17. mind1954
    -1
    11 October 2011 03: 44
    I remember the epic of the construction of "Nimitz".
    In the US Congress, sailors asked for money to build
    3 aircraft carriers of the "Nimitz" class. They said: 2 we write off,
    one is now under construction and will be, as before 13 aircraft carriers.
    Congressmen were convincing: why do you need 13, build
    larger in size and smaller.
    It will be cheaper.
    The fleet clearly explained everything:
    everything is calculated for us in terms of fleet performance
    of their tasks in the oceans - for this you need exactly 13,
    not less,
    large sizes do not fit, as the depth in the water areas
    operational action will not allow you to approach enough
    close to shore and this will reduce the impact
    aviation onshore facilities.
  18. -1
    11 October 2011 13: 23
    Russia does not need such a large number of aircraft carriers; it needs "aircraft carrier killers" in sufficient numbers. But for prestige and in order to develop technologies for the future, you still need to have 2, one - in the Pacific Ocean, 1 - in the Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea
  19. Sergh
    -2
    11 October 2011 23: 26
    Why are you guys soaring! Yes, all sorts of homing heads, electronic warfare and range beyond the horizon with the definition and selection of targets by the name of the captain and the year the ship was built. We learn in 5-10 years. Maybe!
  20. Evil Tatar
    0
    14 October 2011 18: 18
    They told how in the 80s, on the "Roaring Cow" 600 - some project, capraz (I don't remember the last name), crept up to ANG and quiet down under the noise of the flagship screws ...
    Passed with them hell knows how many mill ...
    And when the amers seemed to be spotted, he lost the acoustic contact. I decided to swim up and ran into the keel in the bow of the aircraft carrier ...
    Schuher, they said, was a kapets ... Amer became obese ...
    They said that our kapraza was almost under the tribunal, and then they felted the Order of Lenin, they gave the Red Star.

    So they are too self-confident, Pindos ...
    We have for them competent sailors and pilots ...
  21. bishopXhc
    0
    24 March 2014 12: 36
    The photograph shows the Enterprise instead of George Washington