Military Review

CNN: US aircraft carriers may become ineffective

186
The main American means of demonstrating military power in all parts of the world are aircraft carrier strike groups (AUG), the basis of which are ships with powerful aviation grouping. Carriers are able to arrive in a given area in a timely manner and provide full-fledged combat work of the aviation group. A similar strategy has been actively used over the past few decades and does not seem to undergo major changes in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the existing strategy, which is based on AOG, often raises claims and is criticized by specialists.


On November 4, the American news agency CNN published an article by Zachary Cohen Report: US aircraft carriers could become ineffective (“Report: US aircraft carriers can become ineffective”). The author of this publication talks about the recent report of one of the leading experts in the field of naval forces. U.S. Army Command believes aircraft carriers will retain their role in the structure fleet and in the defense strategy, however, not all experts agree with this opinion.

The article begins with a reminder of the role of AUG and aircraft carriers in the US Navy. These ships are the "backbone" of the fleet, because they provide a presence in all areas of the oceans. Nevertheless, some experts believe that in the context of carrier groups there are certain risks that should be considered when creating plans for the future. The next report on this topic was read on Tuesday in the Committee on the Armed Forces of the US Congress.

CNN: US aircraft carriers may become ineffective


Z. Cohen notes that the new report is markedly different from other papers on this topic. It addresses a number of serious issues that are not usually addressed by such works. This time, the authors of the report took into account not only the most general aspects of the carrier program, such as the number of ships and aircraft on them.

The author recalls that the US military and industry are now engaged in the creation of a promising carrier-based aircraft. This project can be characterized by the proverb “jack of all trades, master of none” (everything is taken, but nothing can). In the meantime, other countries are busy with their own advanced armament projects, as a result of which new systems should appear for the destruction of aircraft carriers. Thus, the author of the report notes, in the future, American aircraft carriers may become useless.

The author of the report, read out in the committee, is Henry J. Hendrix. Previously, this specialist served in the US Navy, and now works in the Center for New American Security organization. It should be noted that G. Hendrix is ​​a consistent opponent of aircraft carriers and regularly publishes works in which he reveals his opinion and cites evidence in his favor. Nevertheless, despite the expert’s best efforts, the fleet does not plan to abandon the aircraft carrier program or even reduce it.

Carriers and carrier-based aircraft are the basis of American military power since the Second World War. Over the past decades, the Pentagon maintains the required state of the carrier fleet and uses it to solve various problems in different parts of the world.

However, the article notes, the ability to perform the task at any point on the globe is associated with huge costs. Carriers are the most complex and expensive ships in the entire fleet. For the possibility of projection of force across the planet have to lay out substantial sums: about 12 billion dollars for each aircraft carrier.

The report of G. Hendrix points out some weaknesses of the current aircraft carrier program, which lead to a decrease in cost-effectiveness. For example, the author of the report considers the existing development strategy for carrier-based aviation to be erroneous. In his opinion, the last two decades were not worth the creation of a light strike aircraft. The fact is that during this time, the likely enemies have new long-range anti-ship weapons. Inability to strike at targets at a great distance from the aircraft carrier, as well as the existence of the latest anti-systems call into question the possibility of effective implementation of the objectives and the ship's survival.

Thus, the author of the report concludes, the aircraft carriers and their air groups in the current state are confirmation that over the past 25 years the command has ignored the most important historical lessons.

Hendrix recalls that because of the loss of seven aircraft carriers during the Second World War, the US military decided to develop carrier-based aircraft in order to increase its range. This made it possible to successfully solve all the main tasks without putting the ships at risk. In particular, when striking ground targets, the aircraft carrier and escort ships could remain at a safe distance from the coast. At the same time, aircraft with a sufficient range of flight successfully destroyed the target and returned to their ship.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States naval forces remained the most powerful player in the oceans. The loss of a strong competitor, among other things, affected the development strategy of carrier-based aviation. Against the background of foreign policy events and changes in the international situation, it was decided to rely on a light strike aircraft with a relatively small combat radius.

Perspective multi-purpose lightweight strike aircraft currently being developed have some advantages over specialized machines of the past. They are cheaper to operate, and preparation for the flight takes less time. Thus, new light aircraft can be launched from an aircraft carrier earlier than their predecessors. All this, in particular, was one of the reasons for the change in the development strategy of carrier-based aviation.

G. Hendrix recognizes that the US Navy, including the carrier strike groups, maintain the status of the most powerful fleet of the planet. Nevertheless, in the future, a noticeable change in the situation, connected with the development of other states, is possible. For example, China is developing its carrier fleet, as well as developing anti-ship long-range missiles. All of this can seriously affect the position of the US Navy.

The expert notes that the new Chinese anti-ship missiles are able to take advantage of some features of the current American strategy. Due to the relatively long range of this weapons US aircraft carriers will be forced to keep at a certain distance from the coast so as not to become a target for rocket engineers. At the same time, the Chinese side will be able to literally squeeze American AUGs into remote areas of the sea, due to which the combat radius of their aircraft will not be enough to solve the tasks and attack objects on the coast.

Such a feature of plans of foreign countries may adversely affect the implementation of the current strategy of the United States. As a result, the American military will have to sadly observe the changing situation on the sea, seeing the decline of the former power of its naval forces.

It is noted that not only Chinese specialists are engaged in promising anti-ship missiles. Similar projects are being developed by Russia, North Korea and Iran. As a result of the successful completion of these projects, countries will receive a new tool for waging war at sea, which will lead to the emergence of a situation similar to the one that was observed during the Cold War.

Despite the expert’s negative forecasts, representatives of the naval forces are not prone to pessimism. Z. Cohen quotes the spokesman for the Navy, Commander William Marx. He said that aircraft carriers are still the only naval force capable of performing the full range of combat tasks related to the protection of national interests. The command of the Navy considers it necessary to preserve the carrier fleet, because it has unique mobility and flexibility, allowing to solve all existing problems.

To protect aircraft carriers from the threat of anti-ship missiles likely opponent, Navy destroyers and a cruiser with the newest equipment and weapons. Electronic equipment and weapons of these ships can protect against various threats, including ballistic missiles. In addition, the equipment provides a constant connection between different ships and allows them to work together. According to Marx, modern American ships can detect and track a dangerous object, and then destroy it hundreds of miles away.

However, G. Hendricks does not agree with the fact that recent upgrades are capable of providing full protection for aircraft-carrier strike groups. In order to preserve the required combat capability in the face of the emergence of new threats, it is necessary to revise the development strategy of the carrier fleet, primarily the plans for the purchase of aircraft and technical requirements for it. It is required to build a balanced carrier-based aviation system in which there will be a sufficient number of aircraft with a relatively large combat radius.

To perform percussion tasks at a large distance from the carrier ship should use all the latest technology. When you create a promising aircraft, you should apply the developments on unmanned topics, stealth technology, the so-called. directed energy weapons, hypersonic technology, etc. All this will create a promising carrier-based aircraft with high potential, ensuring the implementation of all major tasks.

CNN journalist notes that not only G. J. Hendrix points to the insufficient range of existing deck aircraft. Not so long ago, the organization Center for American Sea Power at the Hudson Institute published its report on the development of the aircraft carrier fleet. The authors of this report also believe that the new carrier-based aircraft of the American fleet should have a greater range and a larger combat radius. Enhancing these characteristics will allow them to successfully perform combat work at a considerable distance from the aircraft carrier, which, in turn, will reduce the risks for the ship group.

In addition, experts at the Hudson Institute came to the conclusion that the US aircraft carrier program needs additional investments. Given the development of foreign anti-ship systems, a corresponding development of ships is required, for which additional funding is needed.

CNN cites another expert opinion. An employee of The Heritage Foundation, Dakota Wood, who previously served in the US Marine Corps, agrees with some of the theses from the report of G. Hendrix. So, he believes that the Pentagon is obliged to respond to the growing threat from the anti-missile systems of other states and to improve its ships accordingly.

On the other hand, D. Wood does not agree with the allegations that aircraft carriers are no longer viable. In his opinion, such assessments are premature, primarily due to the fact that, at present, anti-ship missiles with high characteristics that pose a danger to aircraft carriers are available only to a few states of the world. Thus, the expert believes, in this form, aircraft carriers can survive for at least a few more years.

***

Readers who are familiar with some interesting processes in the military and political leadership of the United States are unlikely to be surprised at the new report from G. Hendrix and the Center for New American Security. This expert regularly criticizes the US carrier fleet, citing certain evidence in favor of his opinion. As we see, thanks to foreign work in the field of anti-ship armament, the expert has a new argument. In addition, in his favor, he treats and current projects to upgrade carrier-based aircraft.

In his previous works, Hendricks referred to the exceptional high cost of building and operating aircraft carriers, as well as the questionable combat effectiveness of ships and deck aircraft. For example, in one of the past reports, the expert analyzed the cost and effectiveness of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier under construction (CVN-78). The cost of this ship reached 14 billion dollars, whereas the previous USS George W. Bush (CVN-77) of the Nimitz type cost almost half as much. At the same time, due to the new catapults, the Ford will be able to provide 180 sorties a day, while the Bush can only perform 120 launches. Thus, Hendrix summed up, with a double increase in cost, the increase in combat effectiveness reaches only 50%.

Now the “arsenal” of reasons for criticism has been replenished with several new themes, to some extent connected with the renewal of the carrier-based fleet. The basis of the aviation group of the future USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier and subsequent ships of this project should be the Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II multi-role fighter. According to open data, the combat radius of these aircraft (without refueling and outboard tanks) exceeds 1100 km, and the maximum payload weight is more than 9 tons. According to these parameters, the newest Lightning-2 surpasses the existing F / A-18E / F Super Hornet aircraft However, in this case Hendrix is ​​not satisfied either.

The expert’s main claim concerns the range and combat radius, and the main concerns in this context are related to the achievements of the Chinese defense industry. The report mentions a promising anti-ship missile DF-21, the range of which allegedly is 1000 nautical miles. Thus, the radius of flight of the modern and prospective US-based carrier aircraft turns out to be noticeably smaller than the range of the latest Chinese missiles. As a result, a carrier strike group, providing strikes at coastal targets, may be hit by enemy missiles.

Nevertheless, it must be admitted that this time G.J. Hendrix touched on important topics that should be taken into account when determining the development strategy of an aircraft carrier fleet. The development of various areas of weapons and military equipment leads to the emergence of new threats that can significantly change the balance of forces at sea. Thus, information about the DF-21 rocket alone is sufficient cause for concern and appropriate action.

It is possible that in the future, the US aircraft carrier program will be corrected in accordance with the new conditions and threats. However, while information on this is missing. If the report of the Center for New American Security organization leads to any changes, information about them will appear later.


Article "Report: US aircraft carriers could not be effective":
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/03/politics/aircraft-carriers-report-future/index.html

The latest report from the Center for New American Security, dedicated to aviation groups of American aircraft:
http://cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-CarrierAirWing-151016.pdf
Author:
186 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Leonid1976
    Leonid1976 6 November 2015 07: 00 New
    17
    If I am not mistaken at VO, there was an article which stated that the test of a Chinese missile on a fixed model was nothing. The problem of targeting a warhead of a ballistic missile moving at an appropriate speed in a plasma cloud has not been solved by any country. And China will not be the first here. Perhaps experts will correct.
    1. Waltasar
      Waltasar 6 November 2015 08: 30 New
      17
      But with nuclear warheads, special accuracy is not required. Modern ships are far in strength from the battleships on which the tests were carried out.
      1. Leonid1976
        Leonid1976 6 November 2015 09: 09 New
        +7
        And how do Chinese developments differ from conventional medium-range ballistic missiles in this case? The USSR did not have them. And the aircraft carriers were building.
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 8 November 2015 00: 18 New
          +1
          Quote: Leonid1976
          The USSR did not have them.

          we hunted for the AUG submarines ... it's cheaper.
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 6 November 2015 09: 14 New
        +9
        Quote: Waltasar
        The problem of targeting a warhead of a ballistic missile moving at the appropriate speed in a plasma cloud has not been solved by any country

        Rough guidance can be done before entering the atmosphere. And from the moment of entry into the atmosphere until it falls to the ground, a few minutes pass, during which the ACG cannot seriously move. The final guidance can be carried out already in the last seconds by the opening aerodynamic rudders, when the speed drops and the plasma blows off. This is of course in theory.
        1. Papakiko
          Papakiko 6 November 2015 10: 48 New
          +7
          Quote: Alex_59
          Rough guidance can be done before entering the atmosphere. And from the moment of entering the atmosphere until falling to the ground, a few minutes pass

          The question is not correct: The entire flight from launch to fall takes minutes.
          Question to the author: How difficult is the material in the article to adjust to uniformity?
          Namely:
          Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II. According to open data, the combat radius of these aircraft (without refueling and hanging tanks) exceeds 1100 km,
          The report mentions the promising anti-ship missile DF-21, the range of which is allegedly 1000 nautical miles.
          International Nautical Mile equals exactly 1852 meters.
          In the article, you prescribe finances in $ and not a single moment for the Mongolian Tugriks.
          The first line of the article knocks down all established stereotypes; The main American means of demonstrating military power in all parts of the world are aircraft carrier strike groups (AUG)
          I will not analyze further, there are normal moments and not so, everything is in a heap.
          In general, the topic around the AUG was pretty sore.
          These ships are the ridge of the fleet (Fleet of the High Seas), make the fleet universal and balanced, since it is they that provide a full presence in all areas of the World Ocean.
          It is clear that AUG is for a state with geopolitical interests and opportunities.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 6 November 2015 11: 44 New
            +6
            Quote: Papakiko
            The entire flight from launch to fall takes minutes.
            I did not write a second, since a drop from the height of 80-100 km to the ground at the ICBM still takes a little more than one minute.
          2. Saburov
            Saburov 6 November 2015 21: 18 New
            11
            Supporters of aircraft carriers usually cite the devastating results of attacks by an almost complete nuclear group of an atomic aircraft carrier on the maximum combat radius (48 rocket launchers * 4 anti-ship missiles "Harpoon" on each = 192 anti-ship missiles that unexpectedly hit the enemy warrant at 1000 km from the American aircraft carrier). This, of course, is beautiful, but ... The same "Hornet" without refueling is able to stay in the air for about 3 hours (although this time can be increased and decreased - the presence and capacity of the PTB, the weight of the combat load, flight profile, etc. are of great importance). But if, for example, it took 2 hours to lift the entire Nimitz air group, this would mean that by the time the last plane was torn off the deck of a giant ship, the hour of flight would remain the first! What sort of departure distance can I talk about here? The Hornets taking off first are unlikely to be able to retire for more than 15-20 minutes of flight from an aircraft carrier ... But what if 2 and 3 hours are needed to lift an air group? Then, by the time the last aircraft fly into the air, the first will have to land, because they are running out of fuel ... Therefore, the real range of the air group does not exceed 600 km, which makes the aircraft carrier unable to fight an enemy that has coastal anti-ship systems and the presence of a less stable air defense, you will take an interest in the 1991 Gulf War of the year and analyze the percentage of carrier-based sorties compared to conventional air forces (which just fought air defense) and conditions I where it was applied.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 6 November 2015 22: 03 New
              +1
              Did you read it at Cabernet?
              Raising an aircraft with a catapult takes 2,1-2,5 minutes, while lifting a large air group 3 catapults will raise 26 aircraft in 22 minutes (after take-off of the 26th, the 4th catapult enters), the remaining 9 will take off in 7,5 minutes, the entire air group from 35 aircraft will take half an hour to take off.
              Preflight preparation takes a long time, and not the start itself.
              And even with this, the E-2C Hokai and Hornets of the air defense of the connection with the relatively light UR V-V are the first to take off.
              More details in the article by Andrey Kolobov "Some features of the actions of carrier-based aircraft of supercarriers of the Nimitz type".
              1. Saburov
                Saburov 6 November 2015 23: 28 New
                +4
                You described absolutely ideal conditions (I remember that article well) and did not take into account such nuances as preflight training, reconnaissance, primary operation of EW aircraft, AWACS aircraft, combat load, etc., and even in the video article (on the first, on the second ) planes take off WITHOUT WEAPONS (that is, removing the issue of range of use), only with hanging tanks and there is something to think about, imagine that all planes are waiting with weapons, and suddenly an emergency situation (result: goodbye to the deck) and take off at speed with battle cancer There will be no one on board. So an aircraft carrier is relevant for aviation support of a squadron of ships, but as an attacking coast of a well-armed enemy, it is useless.
                PS With 70x, absolutely all areas of deployment of fleets and squadrons are known both to us and to Americans, and in case of war, the parameters of nuclear strikes in these areas have long been embedded in missile blocks, so the surface fleet (especially large formations) will not long plow the ocean, much larger survivability will show underwater.
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 6 November 2015 23: 51 New
                  -3
                  Reconnaissance, statement of the problem, planning, development of the whole complex of tasks (including pre-flight training - up to 26 people for each aircraft) - ideal conditions?
                  Abnormal situation - "Super Hornet" in its tank and 5 PTBs to raise 14 tons of fuel and work as a refueling tanker until the situation is eliminated.
                  Is the nominal speed of aircraft on rollers exceeded? Or does a catapult work slower with combat missiles? I do not understand you.
                  Sorry, but your conclusion is somewhat strange and it is completely unclear what is based on.
                  P.S. I met information that approximately according to the order, they were going to shoot a CD with SBS to disable the electronics, but in order to prevent "square" ...
                  1. Saburov
                    Saburov 7 November 2015 02: 15 New
                    +5
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    Reconnaissance, statement of the problem, planning, development of the whole complex of tasks (including pre-flight training - up to 26 people for each aircraft) - ideal conditions?
                    Abnormal situation - "Super Hornet" in its tank and 5 PTBs to raise 14 tons of fuel and work as a refueling tanker until the situation is eliminated.
                    Is the nominal speed of aircraft on rollers exceeded? Or does a catapult work slower with combat missiles? I do not understand you.
                    Sorry, but your conclusion is somewhat strange and it is completely unclear what is based on.
                    P.S. I met information that approximately according to the order, they were going to shoot a CD with SBS to disable the electronics, but in order to prevent "square" ...

                    Why does everyone exclude from this the enemy’s counteraction, the combat load of attack aircraft, the air defense and anti-ship missile capabilities of the enemy, that is, are you ready to keep all aircraft with suspended weapons ready for take-off? And you forget what combat effectiveness is.
                    Let's turn to the story
                    In Operation Desert Storm, the wings of six aircraft carriers made 18 117 sorties.
                    During the same period, land-based airplanes flew over 98 thousands of sorties over Iraq and Kuwait.
                    The total contribution of the six AUGs was at the level of 15% of the combat work of the Air Force of the Multinational Force.
                    Moreover, the effectiveness of aviation is estimated not only by the number of sorties. Such a parameter as combat load is very indicative. Aircraft carriers dropped about 10 thousand tons of bombs on Iraq.
                    During the same time, Air Force planes poured thousands of tons of death onto the heads of Iraqis 78.
                    Carriers were created as a specific naval weapon. The only adequate scope for this technique is the open ocean. Where there is no competition from ground-based tactical combat aircraft, we said that the aircraft carrier is not able to fight against a well-armed enemy on the coast, and it is this circumstance that will force us to take more weapons on board, which will ultimately lead to the fact that the range will fall in two, and as a result, the sea airfield will have to approach the shores. And this is unsafe, especially in the case of the Russian Federation. The Navy is capable of delivering nuclear strikes against enemy ground targets, destroying its fleet at sea and bases, disrupting the enemy’s ocean and sea communications and defending its maritime transport, assisting ground forces in operations on continental military theaters, land amphibious assaults, and participate in repelling enemy assault forces and performing other tasks.
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 7 November 2015 10: 29 New
                      -3
                      They do not exclude it, there is simply reconnaissance, there are countermeasures, including air defense / anti-ship missiles.
                      Let's go. '' The Tempest was preceded by Operation Desert Shield from August 7, 1990 to January 17, 1991, while the MNF was deployed (for example, after the completion of the first phase of deployment on November 9, the US Navy in the w / d zone consisted of 3 AUG and 1 RUG, a total of 48 ships , carrier-based aircraft actively conducted combat training and controlled the airspace in order to prevent strikes against coalition forces) it was covered by the US Navy. Two AUG (ABM CV62 Independence and ABMA CVN69 D. Eisenhower, 160 aircraft) arrived in the conflict zone 3 days before the start of the transfer of units and formations of the ground forces and the US Air Force.
                      I do not understand the basics of your conclusions, thanks to the AUG, the Ministry of Taxes and Duties received time from August to January for concentration and combat training. Yes, there were more land aircraft at the end of the deployment, but this does not mean at all that carrier-based aircraft are unsuitable for land strikes.
                      If you mean the USSR as a strong adversary, then in the Norwegian Sea the Soviet Navy would have opposed the Norwegian Armed Forces (in the Air Force alone there are about a hundred aircraft, of which 2 / 3 F-16, plus a bunch of RCA in skerries) and the NATO Strike Fleet (4- 5 AUG and a pair of battleship KUG)
                      1. Saburov
                        Saburov 9 November 2015 00: 31 New
                        +1
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        They do not exclude it, there is simply reconnaissance, there are countermeasures, including air defense / anti-ship missiles.
                        Let's go. '' The Tempest was preceded by Operation Desert Shield from August 7, 1990 to January 17, 1991, while the MNF was deployed (for example, after the completion of the first phase of deployment on November 9, the US Navy in the w / d zone consisted of 3 AUG and 1 RUG, a total of 48 ships , carrier-based aircraft actively conducted combat training and controlled the airspace in order to prevent strikes against coalition forces) it was covered by the US Navy. Two AUG (ABM CV62 Independence and ABMA CVN69 D. Eisenhower, 160 aircraft) arrived in the conflict zone 3 days before the start of the transfer of units and formations of the ground forces and the US Air Force.
                        I do not understand the basics of your conclusions, thanks to the AUG, the Ministry of Taxes and Duties received time from August to January for concentration and combat training. Yes, there were more land aircraft at the end of the deployment, but this does not mean at all that carrier-based aircraft are unsuitable for land strikes.
                        If you mean the USSR as a strong adversary, then in the Norwegian Sea the Soviet Navy would have opposed the Norwegian Armed Forces (in the Air Force alone there are about a hundred aircraft, of which 2 / 3 F-16, plus a bunch of RCA in skerries) and the NATO Strike Fleet (4- 5 AUG and a pair of battleship KUG)


                        So the fact of the matter is that the enemy was weak and you initially rely on a weak enemy ... air strikes, setting minefields, working to identify the enemy’s reaction to the Republic of Kazakhstan, the ability of submarines to secretly throw floats to them, strike capabilities of coastal troops, aircraft The enemy’s AWACS, the ability of target designation systems to issue an estimated missile to the warrant, and so on ... you exclude all this and do not envision ... but about the Norwegian fleet ... starting from the 60 years, all Norwegian naval bases grazed with our submarines, and with poison armament on board, and this without taking into account the fact that the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were full of moles from the USSR state security, our Navy knew every exit of a ship or submarine, and all aviation for the USSR was like a pug for an elephant, all the nearest airfields in Norway were shot through and were would be crushed in the first hours.
                      2. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 9 November 2015 12: 53 New
                        -1
                        So the fact of the matter is that the opponent was weak and you initially rely on a weak opponent


                        In August, the 1990 Iraqi armed forces are the strongest on the peninsula, the SA could take without problems (67 armies and 55 National Guard against Iraq’s 200 000 groupings), the seizure of MNS ports will first have to beat off the bridgehead, and then 5,1 million tons of fuel and lubricants should be brought war, but you can blow up oil fields ...

                        In the Northern Fleet, in the middle of the 80 total of 4-5 air defense interceptor regiments against almost a hundred Norwegian air force aircraft, NATO strike fleet aircraft, U.S. / NATO air forces (including AWACS aircraft) from Keflavik and the United Kingdom, and marines. Qualitative and quantitative superiority (if we do not start the war abruptly) in the Norwegian Sea is on the side of NATO. As a result, at least MSON will not enter the North Atlantic; most likely, the Federation Council will simply be defeated.
                      3. Saburov
                        Saburov 10 November 2015 11: 24 New
                        +2
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        In August, the 1990 Iraqi armed forces are the strongest on the peninsula, the SA could take without problems (67 armies and 55 National Guard against Iraq’s 200 000 groupings), the seizure of MNS ports will first have to beat off the bridgehead, and then 5,1 million tons of fuel and lubricants should be brought war, but you can blow up oil fields ...

                        You are completely unaware of this topic.
                        The United States has concentrated the most modern means of warfare against Iraq, some of which have been used for the first time in a combat situation. Material opportunities, the time factor practically did not limit the actions of the American side. Selected American troops and naval forces were stationed in the Persian Gulf, even strategic bomber aircraft, space reconnaissance, communications, command and navigation equipment were involved, while Iraq had only 10-15% of modern types of weapons. He could successfully fight against any country in his region or even a coalition of these states. Its military equipment, purchased from the USSR, in terms of its technological level was not inferior or even superior to the weapons of its neighbors. However, in comparison with the American, it was clearly losing, being the "yesterday" of armaments of the USSR. And this is natural. After all, the Soviet Union did not supply Iraq with the most advanced types of its weapons, comparable in characteristics to American systems. In addition, the Iraqi military equipment of Soviet production during the hostilities did not show their combat capabilities, and some of its types did not take part in them at all. The reason for this is the low morale of the Iraqi army, political and military miscalculations of the country's leadership, headquarters at all levels, as well as insufficient professional training of servicemen of the technical arms.
                      4. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 10 November 2015 12: 21 New
                        -1
                        You are completely unaware of this topic.

                        All this by January 1991. And I'm a little about something else.
                        By the beginning of the Tempest, 2,4 million tons of cargo, 5,1 million fuels and lubricants and oil products, 439,5 people, 2750 tanks, 2950 field artillery pieces, MLRS and mortars, 1120 combat aircraft were transferred to the peninsula from the USA and Europe , 180 aircraft of auxiliary aviation. Morem, in particular, delivered military equipment and materiel of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd armored divisions (for each 90 tons), 000st cavalry (armored), 1st, 1rd and 3th mechanized divisions (24 tons each), the 93000th separate mechanized brigade, the 197nd and 2rd armored cavalry regiments, the 3st, 1th, 6th air brigade.
                        It took 5 months, by the beginning of the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, the United States had no superiority on land against the Iraqi Armed Forces, a week or two battles and the ports where these cargoes were delivered in real life: (Al-Jubeil, Dammam, Yanbu and Jeddah ( Saudi Arabia), Muscat (Oman), Dubai (UAE), Manama (Bahrain)) - blown up, along with oil fields. Rhetorical question - would it complicate it for the Americans to conduct The Tempest?
                      5. Saburov
                        Saburov 11 November 2015 02: 55 New
                        +2
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        All this by January 1991. And I'm a little about something else.
                        By the beginning of the Tempest, 2,4 million tons of cargo, 5,1 million fuels and lubricants and oil products, 439,5 people, 2750 tanks, 2950 field artillery pieces, MLRS and mortars, 1120 combat aircraft were transferred to the peninsula from the USA and Europe , 180 aircraft of auxiliary aviation. Morem, in particular, delivered military equipment and materiel of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd armored divisions (for each 90 tons), 000st cavalry (armored), 1st, 1rd and 3th mechanized divisions (24 tons each), the 93000th separate mechanized brigade, the 197nd and 2rd armored cavalry regiments, the 3st, 1th, 6th air brigade.
                        It took 5 months, by the beginning of the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, the United States had no superiority on land against the Iraqi Armed Forces, a week or two battles and the ports where these cargoes were delivered in real life: (Al-Jubeil, Dammam, Yanbu and Jeddah ( Saudi Arabia), Muscat (Oman), Dubai (UAE), Manama (Bahrain)) - blown up, along with oil fields. Rhetorical question - would it complicate it for the Americans to conduct The Tempest?


                        I didn’t understand what you wanted to say by this post ... The Iraqi armed forces on 1991 were very weak in comparison with the USA, quantitative and qualitative superiority were on the side of the coalition.
                      6. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 11 November 2015 07: 57 New
                        0
                        Pretending not to be tired?
                        In August 1990 Iraq could occupy the entire peninsula, the caricature armies of the monarchies were not an obstacle, and the United States would need much more time to drag its power into the database area. At the beginning of the conflict (August 1990 understand?) There was no American superiority over the Iraqi armed forces, except for the ACG.
                      7. Saburov
                        Saburov 11 November 2015 20: 00 New
                        +2
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Pretending not to be tired?
                        In August 1990 Iraq could occupy the entire peninsula, the caricature armies of the monarchies were not an obstacle, and the United States would need much more time to drag its power into the database area. At the beginning of the conflict (August 1990 understand?) There was no American superiority over the Iraqi armed forces, except for the ACG.


                        Let’s you learn a little history, and then you will tell me about the absence of the US Air Force in the Middle East ...

                        In the Middle East, the United States has had two bases in Morocco, in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, since the beginning of the 80's in Kuwait and Oman. As a result, the United States succeeded due to the presence of its bases to increase the grouping of up to 20 strategic bombers B-52, more than 1700 tactical aircraft. The role of the U.S. Navy before training was to divert significant Iraqi forces, the command of the multinational forces used a demonstration of preparations for the landing of an extensive naval assault. On the whole, the plan to misinform with the help of the active actions of the Marine Corps units was a success. The conviction of the Iraqis of the decisiveness and reality of the intentions of the multinational forces command to land amphibious forces was facilitated by the actions of all naval groups located in the Persian Gulf.
                      8. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 11 November 2015 20: 50 New
                        0
                        In the end, is it by January 1991?
                        I heed dear, what military force did these bases represent in August 1990?
                        As far as I know, US CENTCOM was created on 1 on January 1983, SBRs were formed by the middle of 80 and deployed in Florida, until 1991 in the JCC's area of ​​responsibility were mainly aircraft carrier aircraft (under the pretext of escorting tankers to the area, 24 warships and 16 000 were sent to / cl). Aviation units and divisions were periodically deployed to participate in the exercises. Airbases on the Arabian Peninsula were used by airplanes of the United States, Great Britain, and France for patrolling in the no-fly zone in southern and northern Iraq.
                      9. Saburov
                        Saburov 11 November 2015 21: 24 New
                        +2
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        In the end, is it by January 1991?
                        I heed dear, what military force did these bases represent in August 1990?
                        As far as I know, US CENTCOM was created on 1 on January 1983, SBRs were formed by the middle of 80 and deployed in Florida, until 1991 in the JCC's area of ​​responsibility were mainly aircraft carrier aircraft (under the pretext of escorting tankers to the area, 24 warships and 16 000 were sent to / cl). Aviation units and divisions were periodically deployed to participate in the exercises. Airbases on the Arabian Peninsula were used by airplanes of the United States, Great Britain, and France for patrolling in the no-fly zone in southern and northern Iraq.


                        Maybe you yourself already turn to specialized literature, to be honest I’m tired of giving you help and answers to basic questions and raising your library.
                      10. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 12 November 2015 08: 12 New
                        0
                        As far as I understand, the question of the US military presence on the Arabian Peninsula is closed by August 1990?
                      11. Saburov
                        Saburov 12 November 2015 10: 42 New
                        +1
                        I have already voiced everything to you and even indicated what bases the United States had in the Middle East before the Desert Storm, raise the information.
                      12. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 12 November 2015 11: 15 New
                        -2
                        According to my information, the United States did not have any serious military presence (except the Navy) until the end of the 1990s and the beginning of 1991.
    2. Saburov
      Saburov 10 November 2015 11: 26 New
      +1
      Quote: strannik1985
      In the Northern Fleet, in the middle of the 80 total of 4-5 air defense interceptor regiments against almost a hundred Norwegian air force aircraft, NATO strike fleet aircraft, U.S. / NATO air forces (including AWACS aircraft) from Keflavik and the United Kingdom, and marines. Qualitative and quantitative superiority (if we do not start the war abruptly) in the Norwegian Sea is on the side of NATO. As a result, at least MSON will not enter the North Atlantic; most likely, the Federation Council will simply be defeated.


      Well, then generally a finger to the sky ... What is NATO’s strike fleet? Can you imagine the NATO fleet and the military potential of the USSR in conventional weapons? In our country, even the SF ships would not leave the bases, the USSR would confine itself to the occupation of Europe, from which the entire NATO fleet would leave, and then the sense of this fleet would be like a goat of milk ... well, about aviation ... here you are detailed composition for 1990 year.
      Long-range aviation One of the elements of the country's strategic triad is ADD (long-range aviation), which in the USSR included 3 air armies with headquarters in Irkutsk, Moscow and Smolensk). By 1990, it was armed with 435 strategic and long-range bombers, including 15 Tu-160 missile carriers, 160 Tu-95, 30 M-4, 150 Tu-22 and Tu22M and 80 Tu-X bombers.
      Fighters and medium-sized bombers in the Soviet Union were part of the front-line aviation, which consisted of a total of 14 air armies, three of which (plus one combined air division) were deployed on European theater of operations in groups of Soviet troops. In addition, the Air Force of the Moscow Military District was a separate association. In total, the USSR had 1755 fighters in service with the arsenal (of which some were part of the air defense forces). The basis of the fighter fleet at the time of the collapse of the USSR was the MiG-23 aircraft in the amount of 700 units. The second most common were MiG-29 fighters, of which there were 540 units. In addition, 200 MiG-31 and 40 MiG-25 interceptors, 90 Su-27 and 185 fighters of the venerable MiG-21 were in service. Striking aviation was called upon to compare the enemy’s land on the battlefield and in the rear. Aircraft falling into this category in the USSR, there were 2135 units. By brands they were distributed as follows: the largest number were Su-24, of which there were 630 pieces, followed by Su-17, which were 535, then 500 MiG-27 and 130 Su-7 and 340 attack aircraft Su-25. In the Soviet Air Force there were 84 tanker aircraft, of which IL-78 there were 34 pieces, M-4 there were 30 pieces and Tu-16 tankers - 20 pieces. In the Russian Federation, there are 20 Il-78 tankers in service. Aircraft AWACS Aircraft early warning and guidance in the USSR were presented 40 A-50 copies. Reconnaissance aircraft Reconnaissance and EW aircraft in the Soviet Union had 1015 units. The most common was the Su-24 in the reconnaissance version, of which there were 235 pieces. Also in service were 200 units of the Yak-28, 190 units of the Su-7, 170 - Mig-25, 50 - Mig-21, 130 Tu-16, 30 - Tu-22MP, and 10 Il-38. Transport aircraft was intended for the transfer of equipment and troops. Among the “air carriers” of the Soviet Union there were 615 transport aircraft. The main workhorse were 310 IL-76. Also, the number of transporters included the 210 An-12, 55 - the An-22 Antei and the 45 heavy transport aircraft An-124 Ruslan. And now imagine the scale ... even all of the combined European Air Forces were simply blown away by the USSR Air Force and this is without taking into account the USSR air defense ... so you read less non-scientific literature.
    3. strannik1985
      strannik1985 10 November 2015 12: 27 New
      -2
      Well, then generally a finger to the sky ... What is NATO’s strike fleet?

      Ordinary, teachings of Tim Work. ZVO to the rescue.
      And what of these forces relates to the SF in the middle-end of the 80? Or are you going to throw the land front?)))
    4. Saburov
      Saburov 11 November 2015 02: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: strannik1985
      Ordinary, teachings of Tim Work. ZVO to the rescue.
      And what of these forces relates to the SF in the middle-end of the 80? Or are you going to throw the land front?)))


      How difficult it is with you ... what does it mean to relate to the Federation Council, you don’t fight with one finger, you are clenching your hand, the Army and the Navy are a whole and you don’t have to separate them, why is it asked to butt the enemy at sea, in the absence of strategic prospects, when you can simply take its territory without much effort (I recall the USSR had 65 thousand MBT, for example). Or roll all the seaports and bases into dust, aviation, in addition, the USSR had a huge submarine fleet twice as much as the United States.
    5. strannik1985
      strannik1985 11 November 2015 08: 15 New
      -1
      Then, that the enemy will not sit in the fjords, but will come to the bases of the Northern Fleet and gouge everything to reach out to, including the Strategic Nuclear Forces (because there will be no obstacles to the search for SSBNs by the APUG and ICAPL).
    6. Saburov
      Saburov 11 November 2015 22: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: strannik1985
      Then, that the enemy will not sit in the fjords, but will come to the bases of the Northern Fleet and gouge everything to reach out to, including the Strategic Nuclear Forces (because there will be no obstacles to the search for SSBNs by the APUG and ICAPL).

      Here is a map of one area, sit and think about how they would be able to carry out this operation.
    7. strannik1985
      strannik1985 12 November 2015 08: 10 New
      0
      Are you sure that the goal map for the strategic nuclear forces argument in this dispute?
    8. Saburov
      Saburov 12 November 2015 10: 32 New
      +1
      We talked about the use of AUG and the Navy.
    9. strannik1985
      strannik1985 12 November 2015 10: 41 New
      0
      Even if we take a chemically pure comparison, where is the outfit of forces of these naval forces?
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 November 2015 00: 21 New
    -1
    Quote: Saburov
    and did not take into account such nuances as preflight training

    Which is carried out long before the rise of the air squad and does not affect the take-off time of the air group.
    Quote: Saburov
    primary operation of EW aircraft, AWACS aircraft

    Which is performed by air patrols, which have nothing to do with mass departure
    Quote: Saburov
    even in the video article (on the first, on the second) planes take off WITHOUT WEAPONS

    So what? Why should they fly in peacetime with weapons?
    Quote: Saburov
    Imagine that all planes are waiting with weapons, and suddenly an abnormal situation (result: goodbye to the deck) and no one will take off at a speed with military missiles on board.

    Aircraft both refuel and are equipped with weapons on the flight deck. So who is there and how lined up does not matter. Besides, where did you get the idea that a takeoff in 1,5 minutes is a takeoff at speed? Normal combat work.
    1. Saburov
      Saburov 7 November 2015 01: 56 New
      +3
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Which is carried out long before the rise of the air squad and does not affect the take-off time of the air group.

      This is if there will be intelligence, but if there is none?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Which is performed by air patrols, which have nothing to do with mass departure

      But tell me, how will they carry out an attack, for example, on the Pacific coast of the Russian Federation and thereby not stumble upon a disguised air defense point (especially with active interference and barriers in secret) or the distribution of priority objectives (not to be confused with the planned)
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Aircraft both refuel and are equipped with weapons on the flight deck. So who is there and how lined up does not matter. Besides, where did you get the idea that a takeoff in 1,5 minutes is a takeoff at speed? Normal combat work.

      That is, do you exclude a strike for example, anti-ship missiles or aviation from the coast on an aircraft carrier? We talked about the fact that an aircraft carrier is not able to fight against a well-armed enemy on the coast. Since the range of attack aircraft depends on the number of weapons and suspension tanks (although precisely because of the PTB) and with two missiles or a pair of bombs, the price of a combat mission is worthless, taking into account corrections and errors. So every little thing makes sense.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 8 November 2015 07: 40 New
        -2
        In the sense, the United States got involved in the war without any intelligence about the enemy, so that they can’t even pick up an approximate composition of groups?

        The principle of massing forces and means in the decisive direction has not yet been canceled; by January 17, 1991 concentrated 6 AUGs (450 carrier-based aircraft, only this number is twice as many as the list of Iraqi Air Force combat aircraft) against Iraq. The same actions were planned against the Federation Council of the USSR or are now planning against the Navy of the PRC.
        1. Saburov
          Saburov 9 November 2015 00: 44 New
          +2
          Quote: strannik1985
          In the sense, the United States got involved in the war without any intelligence about the enemy, so that they can’t even pick up an approximate composition of groups?
          The principle of massing forces and means in the decisive direction has not yet been canceled; by January 17, 1991 concentrated 6 AUGs (450 carrier-based aircraft, only this number is twice as many as the list of Iraqi Air Force combat aircraft) against Iraq. The same actions were planned against the Federation Council of the USSR or are now planning against the Navy of the PRC.


          Intelligence can then be collected, but the deployment and relocation in wartime of the forces and means of the Army and Navy is classified information ...
          And how do you choose the composition of the group, against landing on the coast of a country that has all the means to protect its coast and at the same time is a nuclear power ... but even if we exclude nuclear weapons, we have the Kyrgyz Republic, Coast Defense, PL, Fleet, Naval Aviation , Aircraft AWACS, etc., the Yankees are not so headless to push their AUG to our shores, let alone concentrate forces in one place ...
        2. strannik1985
          strannik1985 9 November 2015 12: 24 New
          -3
          Intelligence can then be collected, but the deployment and relocation in wartime of the forces and means of the Army and Navy is classified information ...


          The enemy canceled all types of intelligence? Agent, RER, satellite ...?

          And how do you choose the composition of the group, against landing on the coast of a country that has all the ways to protect its coast and at the same time is a nuclear power ...

          What landing? The task of the NATO Allied Naval Forces (especially after the adoption of the "Lehman Doctrine") was to defeat the Soviet Federation Council, there was a qualitative and quantitative superiority for this.
          the Yankees are not so headless to push their AUG to our shores, let alone concentrate their forces in one place ...

          One place is the whole Norwegian Sea, will you fill up the entire water area by squares of the nuclear borehole?
        3. Saburov
          Saburov 10 November 2015 11: 48 New
          +2
          Quote: strannik1985
          The enemy canceled all types of intelligence? Agent, RER, satellite ...?


          Naivety is a sign of youth ... how many intelligence, satellite and RER the USA was able to prepare for the operation to return Crimea to the Russian Federation, or with almost two years of preparation for the Russian operation in Syria? Relocation in wartime is carried out in packages with minimal access by the OP, which can be adjusted on the spot by the commander of the connection, and plus all this, the work of disinfectors and distracting groups has not been canceled. And there is little hope for satellites ... even for one of the reasons that the orbits and windows are known as the Russian Federation and the USA.

          Quote: strannik1985
          What landing? The task of the NATO Allied Naval Forces (especially after the adoption of the "Lehman Doctrine") was to defeat the Soviet Federation Council, there was a qualitative and quantitative superiority for this.


          But don’t underestimate it ... in order to destroy our Northern Fleet they will have to approach our bases, which is absolutely impossible because of the geographical location, the presence of Coastal Forces, Tactical and Naval Aviation ... and you thought we would rush into hundreds of ships with three rusty cruisers enemy, repeat the feat of the Varyag?

          Quote: strannik1985
          One place is the whole Norwegian Sea, will you fill up the entire water area by squares of the nuclear borehole?


          Where fleets and squadrons will be located, their travel routes do not even need to think about it ... absolutely all areas of deployment of fleets and squadrons are known to both us and the Americans, and in case of war, the parameters of nuclear strikes in these areas have long been laid down so the surface fleet (especially large formations) will not long plow the ocean, the underwater will show much greater survivability.
        4. strannik1985
          strannik1985 10 November 2015 12: 39 New
          -2
          Naivety is a sign of youth ...

          Who told you that the United States was not aware of the deployment of the Aerospace Forces in Syria? In Crimea, for a second, we have a whole fleet based, don't you know? There is an opportunity to legally accommodate as many "polite people" as you like, no one will quibble.

          But don’t underestimate it ..

          Let me remind you of the Federation Council:
          1) There is no own tactical strike aircraft.
          2) There are no airborne anti-ship missiles.
          3) anti-ship missiles on large surface ships also cried. For 1985 you have on the Northern Fleet "Kirov", 2 pr.1134, 3 EM pr.956 and 3 BOD pr.61MP. For the whole fleet !!!! These are all ships of the Northern Fleet with anti-ship missiles. RKA pr.205 with P-15 are hopelessly outdated. In the 1973 war, the Arabs used the P-15 in ideal conditions and in full accordance with the instructions (in the open sea they fired volleys). none, most either did not capture targets, or were easily disoriented by the Israelis using active and passive electronic warfare equipment installed on their boats. And 52 anti-ship missiles, according to some sources, were shot down by 15-mm gun fire. After the Arabs were discharged, the Israelis caught up with them and drowned them with anti-ship missiles and artillery fire, and there was simply nothing to oppose the 6-mm and 76-mm artillery to the boats of Project 76.

          Where fleets and squadrons will be located, their travel routes do not even need to think about it ... absolutely all areas of deployment of fleets and squadrons are known both to us and to Americans in the event of war

          Can you link? And then I’ve read it for the tenth time and can’t find the source of these revelations.
        5. Saburov
          Saburov 11 November 2015 02: 40 New
          +2
          Quote: strannik1985
          Who told you that the United States was not aware of the deployment of the Aerospace Forces in Syria? In Crimea, for a second, we have a whole fleet based, don't you know? There is an opportunity to legally accommodate as many "polite people" as you like, no one will quibble.


          This is called a failure ... and complete, and with Syria in general, and besides, 40% of special objects on the territory of the USSR, the Pentagon found out only after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the one-way "exchange" of data on strategic objects by our drunken leader.

          Quote: strannik1985
          Let me remind you of the Federation Council:
          1) There is no own tactical strike aircraft.
          2) There are no airborne anti-ship missiles.
          3) anti-ship missiles on large surface ships also cried. For 1985 you have on the Northern Fleet "Kirov", 2 pr.1134, 3 EM pr.956 and 3 BOD pr.61MP. For the whole fleet !!!! These are all ships of the Northern Fleet with anti-ship missiles. RKA pr.205 with P-15 are hopelessly outdated. In the 1973 war, the Arabs used the P-15 in ideal conditions and in full accordance with the instructions (in the open sea they fired volleys). none, most either did not capture targets, or were easily disoriented by the Israelis using active and passive electronic warfare equipment installed on their boats. And 52 anti-ship missiles, according to some sources, were shot down by 15-mm gun fire. After the Arabs were discharged, the Israelis caught up with them and drowned them with anti-ship missiles and artillery fire, and there was simply nothing to oppose the 6-mm and 76-mm artillery to the boats of Project 76.


          1) And why should he? There is naval aviation, and if there is more to be, then they will catch up with how many are needed from the nearest airfields, this is not a problem.
          2) This topic is generally closed since the days of the USSR, as well as the number of Kyrgyzstan in the Russian Federation so far. The number of anti-ship missiles of the Coastal Forces, Naval Aviation, and the Navy is classified information, although information about 6 thousand anti-ship missiles and 9.5 thousand long-range missile defense systems was transmitted at http://www.janes.com/, but this is a bourgeois site and there is no special trust in it, but even based on the fact that we have in service, you can guess about P-500 Basalt (although officially withdrawn from service, but a small amount in warehouses), P-700 Granite (in service), P-270 Mosquito (costs on everything on which it is only possible to place anti-ship missiles, in service, the quantity is classified), P-1000 Volcano ( and arms), X-31AD (in service, but the topic is closed, no information), well, here plyusuem gauges, an onyx, and is what else the Russian Defense Ministry has not given permission. As for the fight against electronic warfare with missiles, there is one thing, but the topic is absolutely dark, there are no articles or reliable sources. And listen to less Jews, they like to tell fairy tales, only the simplest iron bars from Palestine still fall to them and no electronic warfare Iron Ray does not help them.

          Quote: strannik1985
          Can you link? And then I’ve read it for the tenth time and can’t find the source of these revelations.
        6. strannik1985
          strannik1985 11 November 2015 09: 06 New
          -1
          This is called comparing warm with soft, moving l / s maximum with light weapons in peacetime, within the Black Sea Fleet bases, in the conditions of a coup in the host country and moving huge masses of equipment, people, cargo (1 hour of flight of the aircraft is 25-50 man-hours of service, on the Nimitz-type AV group, there are up to 26 people for each aircraft). You can’t put Tu-22М3 on the freeway, you need an airfield, a stationary target, as a rule, known in advance to the enemy. The same goes for escort fighters. In one of the articles I met a mention of the calculations carried out in the USSR of the 80-ies, according to them, for replacing the 3 heavy aircraft with an AED in the SF, you need 12 full-fledged airfields with the same capabilities in attack and defense. But only 12 aerodromes are 1,5 times more expensive than 3-ex AB with much less flexibility.

          1. That's right! Why does the main authority that implements the plans and plans of the command own strike aircraft?
          2. According to my information, there were no aviation RCCs on the Northern Fleet in the 80s, if you have your sources, then voice them?
          3. "You can't trust anyone, you can trust me" (c)
          Do you call this an argument?

          That is, you have nothing to confirm your words about the use of YaBZ according to AUG. Thank you.
        7. Saburov
          Saburov 11 November 2015 22: 14 New
          +2
          Quote: strannik1985
          This is called comparing warm with soft, moving l / s maximum with light weapons in peacetime, within the Black Sea Fleet bases, in the conditions of a coup in the host country and moving huge masses of equipment, people, cargo (1 hour of flight of the aircraft is 25-50 man-hours of service, on the Nimitz-type AV group, there are up to 26 people for each aircraft). You can’t put Tu-22М3 on the freeway, you need an airfield, a stationary target, as a rule, known in advance to the enemy. The same goes for escort fighters. In one of the articles I met a mention of the calculations carried out in the USSR of the 80-ies, according to them, for replacing the 3 heavy aircraft with an AED in the SF, you need 12 full-fledged airfields with the same capabilities in attack and defense. But only 12 aerodromes are 1,5 times more expensive than 3-ex AB with much less flexibility.


          Let it be known to you that at the beginning of hostilities, work on disinformation of the enemy enters into an active phase, starting with radio silence and ending with briefing (postal method) at the deployment sites, by the way, if we turn to history, both the Germans and ours are actively involved in the Second World War used this method, and since then nothing has changed, except for communications and intelligence, even the United States used the fleet to misinform the enemy during Operation Tempest in the Desert. So the transfer of troops even in our age of information technology can be successfully carried out covertly.
          At the beginning of August 1990, in the Persian Gulf area, 15 US ships were concentrated, including an air strike group led by the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, which carried almost a hundred combat aircraft. However, the fact is known that the first flight on a mission from this ship almost ended in tragedy. 10 planes were shot down, and returnees reported the impossibility of continuing the operation and refused to go on a re-mission. This happened despite the fact that the United States had the largest shock fist in the region. 249 F-16 fighters began to suppress enemy air defense systems from ground-based airfields; 120 F-15C aircraft; 90 Harrier attack aircraft of the Marine Corps; 118 F-111F bombers, whose use was then so colorfully described by the American military chiefs and 72 A-10 short-range fire support aircraft. Isn’t it too much for the generally not very strong army of Iraq?
          At the time of the 1990, the USSR had the 34 jump aerodrome in the north of which 18 was for strategic aviation, and this is not counting the basic naval aviation airports of the USSR.

          Quote: strannik1985
          1. That's right! Why does the main authority that implements the plans and plans of the command own strike aircraft?

          Have you served in the army? I hope you know what dowels are? Although the naval aviation of the USSR was the largest and most diverse in the world and could easily carry out tactical tasks on its own, just look at the aviation personnel.

          Quote: strannik1985
          2. According to my information, there were no aviation RCCs on the Northern Fleet in the 80s, if you have your sources, then voice them?


          Honestly tired ... I will voice, but then yourself ...
          Aircraft PRK on 1990
          X-65SE (Tu-95, Tu-160 number is classified), П-270 Mosquito (3М80 Su-27), K-10С (Tu-16К), KSR-11 (Tu-16К), X-20М 95K), X-22 (Tu-22M and Tu-95K for 1990 there were 753 missiles), KSR-5 (Tu-16K) and this is not counting medium-range anti-ship missiles of the X-15С type (Tu-22М3, Tu-XNNMX, Tu-XNNXX and Tu-95 Tu-6) or X-160А (Mig-31, Su-29).
        8. Saburov
          Saburov 11 November 2015 22: 14 New
          +2
          Quote: strannik1985
          3. "You can't trust anyone, you can trust me" (c)
          Do you call this an argument?

          Some information can be obtained from specialized literature, or on sites like this http://www.rsl.ru or http://militera.lib.ru/ so that a quick reading will not work, or you can go my way to finish the Higher Military School of the USSR Armed Forces and accumulate your library and knowledge.

          Quote: strannik1985
          That is, you have nothing to confirm your words about the use of YaBZ according to AUG. Thank you.

          Read in detail about P-27K such products do not just release if there are no plans for their use.
        9. strannik1985
          strannik1985 12 November 2015 10: 56 New
          -2
          Some information can be obtained from specialized literature, or on sites like this http://www.rsl.ru or http://militera.lib.ru/ so that a quick reading will not work, or you can go my way to finish the Higher Military School of the USSR Armed Forces and accumulate your library and knowledge.


          Sorry, but to write: "Just don't underestimate ... to destroy our SF they will have to approach our bases, which is absolutely unrealizable due to the geographical location, the presence of Coastal Troops, Tactical and Naval Aviation ... and you thought we were three with rusty cruisers we will rush to hundreds of enemy ships, repeat the feat of the Varyag? "I did not force you.


          Read in detail about P-27K such products do not just release if there are no plans for their use.

          I dare to remind you that this SLBM was never adopted.
          We have under the brand of "anti-aircraft" forces / ensuring the stability of the BNK what kind of products were not developed (ekranoplans-R&D until 1985 for the Alekseev Design Bureau 500 million rubles, aircraft carrier pr. 11442 (Kalinin) -500 million rubles, at the cost of aircraft carrier pr. 11435 (Kuznetsov) -550 million rubles, VTOL aircraft, etc.), which does not at all speak about the effectiveness of this weapon, or about its (effectiveness) absence.
        10. Saburov
          Saburov 12 November 2015 22: 08 New
          +1
          Quote: strannik1985
          Sorry, but to write: "Just don't underestimate ... to destroy our SF they will have to approach our bases, which is absolutely unrealizable due to the geographical location, the presence of Coastal Troops, Tactical and Naval Aviation ... and you thought we were three with rusty cruisers we will rush to hundreds of enemy ships, repeat the feat of the Varyag? "I did not force you.


          It was sarcasm my dear ... War is a way of deception. Therefore, if you can do anything, show the enemy that you cannot; if you use anything, show him that you do not use it; even if you were close, show that you are far away; even if you were far away, show that you are close; lure him with profit; get him upset and take him; if everything is complete with him, be ready; if he is strong, evade him; causing anger in him, bring him into a state of frustration; assuming a humble appearance, call forth self-conceit in him; if his strength is fresh, tire him; if he is friendly, disconnect; attack him when he is not ready; speak when he is not expecting.

          Sun tzu
        11. Saburov
          Saburov 12 November 2015 22: 12 New
          +2
          Quote: strannik1985

          I dare to remind you that this SLBM was never adopted.
          We have under the brand of "anti-aircraft" forces / ensuring the stability of the BNK what kind of products were not developed (ekranoplans-R&D until 1985 for the Alekseev Design Bureau 500 million rubles, aircraft carrier pr. 11442 (Kalinin) -500 million rubles, at the cost of aircraft carrier pr. 11435 (Kuznetsov) -550 million rubles, VTOL aircraft, etc.), which does not at all speak about the effectiveness of this weapon, or about its (effectiveness) absence.


          You can’t be so gullible ... Wikipedia has as much truth as frank misinformation ...

          The R-27K essentially performed the role of a tester for the components and systems of a homing warhead and a digital computer. And let us know that this topic is closed and is a state secret. Although there is open information on the network. But all the basic information on the tests is in the possession of the Chekists and the State Security Bureau.
          Here is what works on the creation of UBB are.

          The main characteristics of MBR P-36 with UBB 15F178:
          Status: NIR-OKR, tests 1990-91.
          Firing range - up to 15.000 km.
          The guidance system is inertial + radar homing.
          Starting weight - 211.100 kg.
          Head weight - up to 8.800 kg.
          Way of basing - silo.

          Main characteristics: 4K18, SLBM R-27K
          Status: in trial operation 1975-1982.
          Firing range - up to 1.100 km.
          The guidance system is inertial with passive guidance on ships.
          Starting weight - 13.250 kg.
          Head weight - 700-800 kg.
          Base method - submarine project 605.

          Main characteristics: ICBM UR100UTTH
          Trials - July 1970.
          Firing range - 9.200 km.
          The guidance system is inertial + radar homing.
          Starting weight - 42.200 kg.
          Head weight - 750 kg.
          The way of basing is coastal silos.

          The main characteristics of the P-17WTO "Aero" (8K14-1F):
          Condition: trial operation, testing - 1977-86
          Firing range - 50-300 km.
          The guidance system is inertial + homing on the opto-image.
          Starting weight - 5.862 kg.
          The method of basing - PGRK.

          As you can see, in the Soviet Union, a significant backlog was accumulated in the field of creating UBB, although it is possible to put bold here, due to the US superiority at sea and the presence of sea-based BGM-109 Tomahawk, the USSR had to cunning about the absence of these systems, otherwise how to explain the training launches in naval naval targets (Barents Sea) in the 1987-1988 year (two rockets were fired by the 667BDRM near the base in Vilyuchinsk and two missiles UR100UTTH were launched during the tests (the Barents Sea) from the missile division stationed near the city of Khmelnitsky ). And at the moment, the withdrawal of our partners from the ABM Treaty now allows us to widely open the doors to the creation of such systems (and possibly remove the CISS from reserves). As a means of breaking through missile defense, as well as increasing the accuracy of hitting stationary and moving targets, including homing BPCRs for striking at AUG ...
    2. strannik1985
      strannik1985 12 November 2015 11: 20 New
      0
      As of the beginning of August 1990, 15 US warships were concentrated in the Persian Gulf, including an air strike group led by the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, which carried almost a hundred combat aircraft. However, the fact is known that the first flight on a mission from this ship almost ended in tragedy. 10 aircraft were shot down, and those returning reported the impossibility of continuing the operation and refused to go on a second mission. This happened despite the fact that the United States had the largest shock fist in the region.

      Can I link?
      According to my information, the U.S. Navy lost 2 combat aircraft before the war and 8 during the fighting. CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt lost 4 aircraft-2 due to technical malfunctions (breakage of the air finisher and engine failure), one Hornet shot down by a missile or missile, the cause of death 4 is unknown).
      Source: http://artofwar.ru/p/ponamarchuk_e/text_0100.shtml
    3. Saburov
      Saburov 12 November 2015 21: 06 New
      +1
      Quote: strannik1985
      Can I link?
      According to my information, the U.S. Navy lost 2 combat aircraft before the war and 8 during the fighting. CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt lost 4 aircraft-2 due to technical malfunctions (breakage of the air finisher and engine failure), one Hornet shot down by a missile or missile, the cause of death 4 is unknown).
      Source: http://artofwar.ru/p/ponamarchuk_e/text_0100.shtml


      Please ...

      1. Asaleed wa Ta'bi'at al Tayran al Mu'adi fi Um Al Ma'arik ('Methods and tactics of the enemy's air force during the war for the homeland', a joint publication of the Iraqi Defense Ministry, Iraqi Air Force and Air Defense Command, Iraqi Air Force Intelligence Directorate Part 1, autumn 1991 and Dirassa an al ta'irat al mua'dia al muskata fi Um Ai Ma'arik ('List of enemy aircraft shot down during the war for the Motherland', joint publication of the Iraqi Defense Ministry, the Iraqi Air Force and Air Defense Command , Iraqi Air Force Intelligence Directorate. Part 1, June 2000
      2. Report "The Military Balance" for 2001/2002 by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS - The International Institute for Strategic Studies) in London.
      3. Report "Armaments, Disarmament" for 2001 of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI - Stockholm International Peace Research Institute).
      4. Jane's Intelligence Review (JIR; 1/2002, pp. 42-44)
      5. Iraqs Military Forces: 1988-1993. Center for Strategic and International Studies
      6. http://www.albasrah.net
      7. http://corp.itar-tass.com
      8. http://vhpa.org/
      9. http://airwar.ru/
      10. https://airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/
      11. http://airforce-magazine.com/
      12. http://ordersofbattle.darkscape.net/
      13. http://artofwar.ru/
      14. http://skywar.ru/
      15. http://aviation-safety.net/
      16. http://lenta.ru/
      17. http://bbc.co.uk/
      18. http://reuters.com/
      19. ZVO? 9 1991
      20. http://vmurmanske.ru/news/796666
      21. O. Platonov "History of the Russian people in the XX century", v.2, ch.58
      22. http://pobedonoscev.livejournal.com/19507.html
      23. 'Aviation and Time'? 6 2005, 2006? 1 THIRD DAY (AND FOLLOWING ...)
      Ahmad Sadik / Iraq, Diego Fernando Zampini / Argentina
      24. Report of the US Audit Office to Congressman John D Dingall, June 12, 1997. The report is titled 'Operation Desert Storm, Air Campaign Assessment'
    4. strannik1985
      strannik1985 12 November 2015 21: 37 New
      -1
      Hand face. Bye.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 8 November 2015 11: 47 New
    -4
    "" but as an attacker on the coast of a well-armed enemy, he is useless. "///

    How did you come to this conclusion?
    Every third Hornet is a specialized electronic warfare aircraft
    to suppress air defense radars.
    During the wars, AUGs are combined according to 2-3.
    A "well-armed adversary" is surrounded by a continuous
    carousel from airplanes. Moreover, air defense radars are constantly crushing.

    You mentioned nuclear weapons. This is yes, the best chance to stop AUG.

    Or have a lot of fighters ashore to intercept aircraft AUG.
    But at the same time, do not forget that around each aircraft carrier missile grazing
    destroyers with long-range Tomahawks. Which at the airdromes are not
    will miss. One can hardly count on missile defense.
    1. Falcon
      Falcon 8 November 2015 12: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Every third Hornet is a specialized electronic warfare aircraft
      to suppress air defense radars.


      Is this electronic warfare effective against modern ground-based radars?
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 8 November 2015 23: 26 New
      +1
      A "well-armed adversary" is surrounded by a continuous
      carousel from airplanes.

      It will work only when the "well-armed enemy" goes into defensive defense. If he directs an oncoming carousel, then the aircraft carrier formation will simply run out of planes; it will be much more difficult for him to make up for the losses than to the enemy on the shore.
    3. Saburov
      Saburov 9 November 2015 00: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      How did you come to this conclusion?
      Every third Hornet is a specialized electronic warfare aircraft
      to suppress air defense radars.
      During the wars, AUGs are combined according to 2-3.
      A "well-armed adversary" is surrounded by a continuous
      carousel from airplanes. Moreover, air defense radars are constantly crushing.
      You mentioned nuclear weapons. This is yes, the best chance to stop AUG.
      Or have a lot of fighters ashore to intercept aircraft AUG.
      But at the same time, do not forget that around each aircraft carrier missile grazing
      destroyers with long-range Tomahawks. Which at the airdromes are not
      will miss. One can hardly count on missile defense.


      Here you are, as always, throwing such utter nonsense ... First of all, AWACS and EW airplanes are the primary targets for air defense, in your words that is, air defense crews should be so dumb as to be substituted, illuminate specifically for anti-radar missiles, anti-radar systems and air defense systems ... even the Yankees of the enemy’s air defense are crushed by Axes, although they have a large arsenal of electronic warfare and electronic warfare equipment and do not dare to bring them into battle to a certain percentage of suppressed points and air defense ... And as for the destroyers ... then of course the enemy will stand and wait when they hit them axes ... only oh you forgot to include in the enemy’s account the KR, Coast Defense, PL, Navy, Naval Aviation, Aircraft AWACS, REP, EW, Coastal Detection and Targeting Stations ... and many different things about which you have no idea ... especially which I remember very well, your knowledge of physics ... especially with the example of lasers ...
  • Setrac
    Setrac 7 November 2015 10: 39 New
    0
    The enemy can attack in several groups - for example, four groups of twelve aircraft.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 November 2015 11: 55 New
    0
    Quote: Alex_59
    Rough guidance can be done before entering the atmosphere.

    Than? They tried to use passive radar on our ballistic missiles. It’s good if the target emits radio, and if not? Well, nobody got to the point of installing an active radar - the legend, if you remember, had to use a nuclear reactor to operate the radar. Where to shove all this into a warhead?
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 6 November 2015 12: 37 New
      +9
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Than? They tried to use passive radar on our ballistic missiles.

      Here you can dream up a lot (optics, active radar), but I think that where necessary this issue is resolved. Scraps of information can be found, for example, here: http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-816.html

      The OTRB is certainly not an ICBM, but also from a height of about 100 km falls. The apogee of the trajectory of my native 8K14 - 86 km. I think on the ICBM it seems to be somehow solved.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 November 2015 16: 10 New
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        Here you can dream up a lot (optics, active radar), but I think that where necessary this issue is resolved. Scraps of information can be found, for example, here: http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-816.html

        Looked carefully. Alas, none of what is written there makes it possible to hit moving (especially in the ocean) targets with a ballistic missile
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 6 November 2015 14: 04 New
      +3
      the legend, if you remember, had to use a nuclear reactor to operate the radar.

      So in fact "Legend" had to use its radar station to its fullest for months. The BR warhead will need to turn on the radar for just a few minutes.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 November 2015 16: 03 New
        +2
        Quote: Kalmar
        The BR warhead will need to turn on the radar for just a few minutes.

        All this is true. But judge for yourselves - firstly, how powerful the radar must be in order to detect a target from space (today's AGSN anti-ship missiles detect about 80 km or less in the passport), what power the computer center must be in order to correctly identify the target (analyze the image from of space - a much more complicated matter than to visit a surface ship from the atmosphere) and what size an energizer must be for it to work
        1. Falcon
          Falcon 6 November 2015 22: 39 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          But judge for yourself - firstly, how powerful a radar must be in order to detect a target from space


          Civilian remote sensing satellites have capacities in the 2 kW area.

          Well, the military will need a little longer
        2. Kalmar
          Kalmar 6 November 2015 22: 52 New
          +2
          firstly, how powerful should a radar be to detect a target from space

          If I understand correctly, the good old Pershing-2 was able to turn the trick "to detect a target from space". That, of course, was easier, because he scanned the terrain, but, on the other hand, to see the aircraft carrier against the background of a relatively smooth sea surface is feasible for a radar of quite moderate power.

          how powerful should a data center be

          Well, digital technologies do not stand still. Now the device the size of a matchbox has more computing power than the supercomputer of the 80s, and the Granites and Basalts of those years did not even need a supercomputer.

          What sizes should an energizer be for it to work?

          Considering the operating time of all the joy described above, I think it’s not so big.

          In general, I do not deny that the idea has a lot of technical subtleties and all kinds of underwater rakes, but at the current level of technology development it looks feasible. The question is more of expediency, but here you need the opinion of experts in relevant areas.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 6 November 2015 15: 51 New
    +1
    Check out the materiel for the "grandmother" DF-21. She has already been posted here: http://topwar.ru/36200-protivokorabelnye-ballisticheskie-rakety-dalnego-deystviy
    a.html
  • Delta
    Delta 6 November 2015 10: 00 New
    +1
    Quote: Waltasar
    But with nuclear warheads, special accuracy is not required. Modern ships are far in strength from the battleships on which the tests were carried out.


    and who will use nuclear warheads?
    1. Waltasar
      Waltasar 6 November 2015 10: 19 New
      12
      The question is a little unclear. China is a nuclear power and may well use these weapons.
      If the question is in the political field and the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, then I think, at the time when it will be necessary to destroy the ACG, these issues can already be considered resolved.
      1. Delta
        Delta 6 November 2015 10: 38 New
        +3
        Quote: Waltasar
        The question is a little unclear. China is a nuclear power and may well use these weapons.


        If nuclear weapons are used against anyone, by anyone, this will mean only one thing - the Third World is inevitable. And it will last a very short time. And no aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, tanks and aircraft will no longer play a role.

        Quote: Waltasar
        at the moment when it will be necessary to destroy the AUG these issues can already be considered resolved.

        The task of counteracting the AUGs was always assigned to the Soviet Navy, for which whole anti-aircraft division was created. And they did not carry nuclear weapons, therefore, it was assumed that such a reaction is possible without the use of nuclear weapons.

        If we talk about nuclear weapons, then we do not need any other weapons. It is enough to have more ICBMs.
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 6 November 2015 11: 40 New
          +3
          Quote: Delta
          If nuclear weapons are used against anyone, by anyone, this will mean only one thing - the Third World is inevitable.

          ... but how do you like this version -
          OCTOBER 28, 2015

          An Islamic state (banned in Russia) will inevitably create or acquire weapons of mass destruction, warns the former commander of the nuclear division of the British Army, Dr. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon. The risk of using a nuclear bomb in Russian cities has increased significantly due to tensions with Russia, he argues.

          According to the former military, terrorists are looking for scientists to help them create a bomb. Dr. Bretton-Gordon added that Moscow is “extremely vulnerable” and the UK is safe because of the “high quality” of its intelligence services.

          You did not understand? London threatens Russia with a nuclear attack. British bomb explode, the arrows will transfer to ISIS.

          .

          The same insiders hinted -

          The smartest advise civilian planes to stay away from Syria, Iraq and neighboring countries. Unless, of course, they do not want to repeat the sad fate of two famous Boeing.

          http://topru.org/26128/v-sirii-chto-to-sluchilos/comment-page-1/#comment-134899

          see the date - 28.10.2015
          31 October A321 plane crash in Egypt ...
          And what will happen next?
        2. dvg79
          dvg79 6 November 2015 12: 30 New
          10
          No matter how it was carried, every fourth missile carried the YaBCh. And the drowning of an aircraft carrier by any means is already a war.
        3. Per se.
          Per se. 6 November 2015 12: 44 New
          10
          Quote: Delta
          If we talk about nuclear weapons, then we do not need any other weapons. It is enough to have more ICBMs.
          Your comment, Vyacheslav, is closest here to what I wanted to express myself. In addition to nuclear war, there are many other wars that never end, on which aircraft carriers have worked and continue to work. The Chinese themselves, with their development of a ballistic missile against aircraft carriers, nevertheless, are preparing to create an aircraft carrier fleet, and not scoff at it. Now in Syria, our aviation works from land strips, it's good that it was time to build an airfield, as well as the very possibility of getting it on Syrian soil, but if not? The aircraft carrier could solve this problem instantly, and once completed, retreat. The ground airfield remains, with all the infrastructure, there was a problem of our aircraft flying to Syria, and it is not always possible to provide a "corridor" here, there is a problem of protecting the ground airfield and its supply. In short, there is so far no reasonable alternative to mobile naval airfields called "aircraft carrier", whether it is a cover for an amphibious assault operation with "over the horizon" or a ship group, many other scenarios where naval aviation is needed. In addition, it is not a fact that with the onset of a nuclear conflict, the functionality of aircraft carriers will end, although the pre-war state is much more important, in which, to a small extent, aircraft carriers play the role of regulators capable of not bringing matters to a global collision, stopping problems in local conflicts and simply demonstrating strength.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 6 November 2015 20: 45 New
            +2
            Quote: Per se.
            In addition to nuclear war, there are many other wars that do not end, on which aircraft carriers worked and continue to work

            Unfortunately, many do not understand this and continue to repeat that we have a doctrine.
        4. Wheel
          Wheel 6 November 2015 14: 18 New
          +3
          Quote: Delta
          And they didn’t carry nuclear weapons,

          Who told you that?
      2. max702
        max702 6 November 2015 11: 00 New
        +4
        Quote: Waltasar
        If the question is in the political field and the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, then I think, at the time when it will be necessary to destroy the ACG, these issues can already be considered resolved.

        You have just fully confirmed the thesis "Aircraft carriers for the wars with the Papuans .." They are for the war with a defenseless enemy, although in the light of recent events and progress in missile technology, even some defenseless countries can kick mattresses in the teeth .. The main problem is target designation. will solve it and all AUG can be written off .. Why AUG taxied in WWII? The reason is simple LORGE of air defense! And the low price of aircraft-carrying ships and aircraft was the reason for their massive use, now it is even difficult to find targets for which it would be profitable to use AUG, the “Papuans” have already squeezed everything out, for serious boys (China, Russia) you cannot work with this tool especially .. There was some data that the launch of absolutely any missile, no matter for what purpose, from an aircraft taking off from an aircraft carrier costs at least $ 7.5 million .. By the way, according to the Pentagon, one day of operation in Syria costs the Russian Aerospace Forces $ 2-4 million .. Nothing like that comparison of 40-50 sorties and ONE !! rocket with AUG ...
        1. CTABEP
          CTABEP 7 November 2015 09: 54 New
          0
          And where, interestingly, are such calculations? How does takeoff from an aircraft carrier differ from takeoff from a land aerodrome? Some plainly unsubstantiated figures.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 7 November 2015 10: 58 New
            +2
            What is more expensive, a catapult, or a concrete strip a kilometer long? Deck aircraft are a priori more expensive and worse than their ground-based counterparts.
            1. CTABEP
              CTABEP 7 November 2015 22: 28 New
              -2
              These are capital costs, which are silly to consider when calculating the cost of a single departure airplane. And if for the entire period of operation of an aircraft carrier 1 plane takes off and launches 1 rocket - will it cost 10kcc bucks?
          2. Kalmar
            Kalmar 7 November 2015 23: 07 New
            +1
            How does takeoff from an aircraft carrier differ from takeoff from a land aerodrome?

            The length of the runway and the restrictions on take-off mass, mainly. Weak to lift from an aircraft carrier, say, a bomber like the same Tu-22M :)?
            1. CTABEP
              CTABEP 8 November 2015 09: 47 New
              0
              No, this is out of the question, of course, that land aerodromes give a serious advantage precisely as a platform for heavy aircraft - that of bombers, that of transport. But here they are talking about some wild differences in the cost of taking off conventional attack aircraft, which can be based there and there.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 November 2015 11: 35 New
    +5
    Quote: Waltasar
    But with nuclear warheads, special accuracy is not required.

    Even as required. Look at the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion - and their decrease with distance.
    I hint - due to the fact that the main weapon of the Tu-22M3, the Kh-22 missiles, in the face of strong electronic warfare countermeasures, had big problems with targeting, it was supposed to precede the missile attack by launching 6-8 missiles with nuclear warheads "towards the AUG." At the same time, no one counted on the destruction of the AUG ships - only on the suppression of their electronic warfare means.
  • opus
    opus 6 November 2015 11: 57 New
    +9
    Quote: Leonid1976
    that testing a chinese rocket on a fixed layout is nothing

    SAM, ATGM (laser weapons) same first they are tested on fixed targets, then on straight-flying targets, and so on.
    / DETERMINATION OF THE ACCURACY CHARACTERISTICS OF ANTI-AREA MANAGED ROCKETS, Main stages and methods of landfill development of SAM, Tests and experimental studies of missile-artillery weapons: textbook / V.A. Maltsev TAII, 2007 and so on
    Quote: Leonid1976
    The task of targeting a warhead of a ballistic missile moving at an appropriate speed in a plasma cloud,

    -not every BG of a ballistic missile moves in a "plasma" cloud (u / R-27k -
    Quote: Leonid1976
    not solved by any country
    -no software)
    -BG DF-21D (CSS-5 Mod-4) does not move in the "plasma cloud" (it has a launch range of 900-1300 miles)
    -BCH missile defense missile defense (RIM-161C (SM-3 Block IB), GBI, THAAD) are excellently controlled at the gas station (in the "plasma cloud") and hit not a galosh weighing 40000 tons, crawling at a speed of 25 knots in the plane, but the warhead of an ICBM and satellites moving from V to 7,9 km / h in a 3-plane coordinate system
    - Maneuvering warheads of "other" YR (ICBMs and OTRs) are perfectly "controlled" (KVO up to 15 m) and if there were no tests for moving targets, there was simply no "request" yet.


    Quote: Leonid1976
    And China will not be the first here

    will probably
    CPU for PC BR has already been decided
    Yaogan-1, Yaogan-2, Yaogan-7, Yaogan-8, Yaogan-9 and other "non-specialized"

    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 November 2015 13: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: opus
      SAM, ATGM (laser weapons), the same is first tested on fixed targets, then direct targets, and so on.

      The problem is that the Chinese have pompously reported the defeat of the fixed target. That's all. Therefore, before the tests in which Dongfeng hit a moving target at sea, the missile can be safely considered the Great Chinese Fake.
      Quote: opus
      not every BG of a ballistic missile moves in a "plasma" cloud (u / R-27k

      But the developers - residents of Makeyevka disagree with you - they wrote that further work to improve the R-27, the installation of AGSN, encountered difficulties in the face of a "plasma cocoon".
      Quote: opus
      Warhead missile defense missile systems (RIM-161C (SM-3 Block IB), GBI, THAAD) are perfectly controlled at the gas station (in the "plasma cloud") and hit not a galosh weighing 40000 tons, crawling at a speed of 25 knots in the plane, but the warhead of an ICBM and satellites moving from V to 7,9 km / h in a 3-plane coordinate system

      Let's figure out who is there, whom, and how it strikes :)))
      SM-3 if my sclerosis does not lie to me, it strikes targets flying along a ballistic trajectory, i.e. targets whose location in space can be predicted with an accuracy of 100%. At the same time, SM-3 hits targets in near space, where a plasma cocoon does not form due to the lack of atmosphere :)))
      Quote: opus
      CPU for PC BR has already been decided

      I will be extremely obliged to you if you tell the source of the table and comment on the data contained in it.
      1. opus
        opus 6 November 2015 16: 09 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        pompously reported the defeat of the motionless target.

        Not Chinese, and not with fanfare, but US Department of Defense stated in 2010 that China has developed and reached initial operating capability of a conventionally armed high hypersonic land-based anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21.



        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        That's all.

        How much do we know about China? about their promising developments?
        about WU-14, at 14m they wrote the same fake.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But the developers - Makeyevites disagree with you - they wrote that further work to improve the R-27,

        Yes? And where?
        Threat. Makeevtsy then here WHAT?
        Antenna-feeder device (AFU) NII-592 and GK. A.S. Mnatsakanyan (NII-648)
        Problems:
        -radio-fairing with the required rtx (- + 3gr in the range - + 30gr)
        -increase in the mass and volume of control and homing equipment = MISSINGLY increased the length of the warhead (more than 40% of the length of the BR). But the R-27K is unified with the R-27 not only in its structure, but also in PU (mines of the submarine)
        - "US" and "Success-U" and KAR "Kasatka" gave target accuracy - / + 25 km. Prelaunch preparation, flight time, etc. gave the target the opportunity to fade at 150 km, and with such a mondula (fairing) of the warhead it is not possible to provide high aerodynamic quality of the warhead.
        You will be surprised by the "plasma cocoon problem", but:
        In flight, the AFU ADVANCED from the instrument compartment, OPENED and DIRECTED toward the intended target location.
        And the cooling of the instrument compartment - alcohols - water mixture (and not air) not because of the "cocoon", but because of the peculiarities of the domestic element base.
        Because of the above-described "difficulties" (40%), they spat on option "A" and accepted only 2-stage ballistic correction.
        But the element base today, antennas and control centers are not what they were "yesterday."

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        SM-3, if my sclerosis does not lie to me, it strikes targets flying along a ballistic trajectory,

        changes (sclerosis).
        SM-3 (SM-3 Block IB) the lower limit of interception from 60 km (or 50), if you do not forget

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        those. targets whose location in space can be predicted with an accuracy of 100%.

        no for a ballistic missile or an ICBM. No need to "lean" on the satellite
        DACS allows you to deviate the flight path to a distance of more than 3-3,2 km from the calculated one.
        The target detection range of the IR-GOS is more than 300 km. He begins to "work" from 10 seconds of flight, "deep in the atmosphere", a plasma cocoon, does not bother him
        1. opus
          opus 6 November 2015 16: 10 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          At the same time, SM-3 hits targets in near space, where a plasma cocoon does not form due to the lack of atmosphere :)))


          1. Speed ​​Block IA / B ~ 3 km / s (Mach 10.2), Block IIA ~ 4.5 km / s (Mach 15.25)
          2.SM-3 starts from the surface of the earth. A plasma cocoon is formed from heights of 160 km and below (depending on the speed and angle of entry "
          3. lower limit of interception
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I will be extremely obliged to you if you tell the source of the table and comment on the data contained in it.

          Source Wiki, Real Time Satellite Trackin
          http://www.n2yo.com/

          Interactive Satellite Viewer
          http://science.nasa.gov/iSat/?group=SMD

          Yaogan (Yaogan) 2, 4, 7, 11, 24 - Chinese military space intelligence satellites. According to Western experts, optoelectronic equipment is installed on board Yaogan satellites 2, 4, 7, 11, 24.

          Satellites Yaogan (Yaogan) 2, 4, 7, 11, 24 allow you to shoot the earth's surface with a spatial resolution of 1-3 meters.

          Probably satellites are created on the basis of the satellite platform CAST2000 bus.

          type Yaogan 1, .. Yaogan 23 have Synthetic Aperture Radar SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar)
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 November 2015 18: 01 New
            +2
            I answer point by point, but I will start from the end :)
            Quote: opus
            aogan (Yaogan) 2, 4, 7, 11, 24 - Chinese military space intelligence satellites. According to Western experts, optoelectronic equipment is installed on board Yaogan satellites 2, 4, 7, 11, 24.

            Which, in general, does not in any way indicate their ability to give CO in real time. In space, there are many satellites with radars, and control units on a real time scale could give a few. Therefore, the name "Assumed type - radar" means nothing. Even if the "supposedly radar" satellite is indeed radar, and it is active, not passive :)
            And finally - you may have forgotten, but the R-27 seemed to use the command from Success-U. And what was the use of this?
            According to SM-3.
            Quote: opus
            no for a ballistic missile or an ICBM. No need to "lean" on the satellite
            DACS allows you to deviate the flight path to a distance of more than 3-3,2 km from the calculated one.
            The target detection range of the IR-GOS is more than 300 km. He begins to "work" from 10 seconds of flight, "deep in the atmosphere", a plasma cocoon, does not bother him

            Firstly, the IR-GOS is "a little" different from the AGOS and cannot be used to aim at ground / surface targets from space. Secondly, the IR seeker carries out the guidance of the kinetic interceptor, but not the SM-3 itself - it has never "fired-forgot", but requires re-guidance from the ship. At the same time, the possibilities of her maneuver are very limited, as you yourself wrote about.
            Therefore, yes, yes, if the Chinese have a Star Destroyer in space that is able to detect an aircraft carrier with their own radars, calculate a firing decision and transmit it to Dongfeng, and then also correct Dongfeng's flight, bringing it a kilometer to the aircraft carrier - then yes, of course, the Chinese have created a super rocket :)
            Quote: opus
            .SM-3 takes off from the surface of the earth. The plasma cocoon is formed from altitudes of 160 km and below (depending on the speed and angle of entry "

            In-in. And you operate exclusively at the maximum speed of the rocket, which it is not known when it is gaining (and whether it is gaining at all at an altitude of 50-60 km)
            Quote: opus
            Threat. Makeevtsy then here WHAT?

            Sagging, but nothing to do with, of course. They are just the developers of the R-27K laughing
            Quote: opus
            Antenna-feeder device (AFU) NII-592 and GK. A.S. Mnatsakanyan (NII-648)

            This, which was recognized as unsatisfactory at the design stage of the R-33 (continuation of the R-27K)? Or is it about something else?
            Quote: opus
            But the element base today, antennas and control centers are not what they were "yesterday."

            And there is no solution in metal today. And do you seriously believe that the Great Chinese Genius, which Al-31F cannot reproduce due to failures in materials science, is such a breakthrough in strength?
            1. opus
              opus 6 November 2015 18: 35 New
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Which generally does not testify to their ability to give TS in real time.

              What do not at all show, their Failure to give TSU in RMV.
              Same.
              Only they do not "give", but communication satellites. and give in the RMV.
              I will not chew on “FengHuo-1” or “TianLian-1”, but simply give the facts (some) of the PRC
              1. In the OG of China's communications and broadcasting satellites continue to work successfully:

              Apstar-2R spacecraft (developed by Space Systems / Loral based on platform FS-1300 and launched into orbit on 17.10.1997/XNUMX/XNUMX);
              ChinaSat-5A KA (developed by Lockheed Martin based on A-2100A platforms and launched into orbit November 30.05.1998, XNUMX);
              ChinaSat-5B KA (developed by Aerospatiale based on the SB3000 platform and launched into orbit 18.07.1998 g.)
              / about transponders of Ku-band, Ka-band and X-band, as well as fixed-line services in C- and Ku-band, powerful direct broadcasting services in Ku-band and mobile communications using UHF, L-and S-band, you hope you yourself know /
              2. The PRC has been manufacturing and launching satellites since 2006 on the dfn-4 platform (proprietary) and in 2015 brought the exhaust gas to 15 large satellites on this platform.
              / 8,5 kW falls on the payload dfn-4 out of a total of 11 kW /
              3. China has built and launched communications and broadcasting satellites for Nigeria, Venezuela and Pakistan. In China, communications satellites are being built for Laos, Bolivia, Iran, Belarus and other countries.
              / about the national satellite direct broadcasting system and the space network for broadcasting educational programs on Chinese-made satellites. - I won’t write even /

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              You forgot, but the R-27 seemed to use the command from Success-U.

              Is it?
              Quote: opus
              - "US" and "Success-U" and KAR "Kasatka" gave target accuracy - / + 25 km.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Firstly, the IR-GOS is "a little" different from the AGSN and cannot be used to aim at ground /

              in 1x or 2x ...
              mmm.
              1) IR GOS was as an indicator: not what
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              "plasma cocoon".
              does not prevent to see even the "cold" satellite.
              2) You are wrong. maybe used
              Even the tank will hover, what can we say about the open-hearth furnace (remote control aircraft carrier)

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              but requires homing from the ship. Moreover, the possibilities for her maneuver are very limited, which you yourself wrote about.

              who argues?
              -only the ship barely creeps along the plane (2nd coordinates), and the warhead ICBM (or BR) rushes in 3 planes, at speeds of 4 km / s
              - do you consider a 3-4 km maneuver along the trajectory to be "limited"? at farthing DACS? (this is only her 3-4 km, after separation of all lower steps)
              1. opus
                opus 6 November 2015 18: 37 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Does it gain altogether at an altitude of 50-60 km)

                and there (50-60 km) "plasma cocoon" is not formed?

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Saving ... They're just developers of the R-27K

                1. "Do not remember the name of the Lord your God in vain." St. Nicholas of Serbia (Velimirovich)
                2. Makeyevtsy "made" BR R-27, they did not deal with the guidance system R-27k.
                I wrote who "plowed" (the one who made the SSKA "Needle")
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Or is it about something else?

                It was not possible to create on the R-27K (I explained why the gabbarites, pay attention to the starting range R-27K and "simple" R-27, says nothing?)
                They did not decide on the P-33.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                which Al-31F cannot reproduce due to failures in materials science such breakthroughs in strength?

                1. They don't need to "reinvent the wheel".
                2. Blades for Al-31F, not an element base for this BR.
                They produce the entire elemental base of the world in practice, + Taiwan, where they dig all the know-how.
                3. Almost unlimited funding.
                4. A lot of "our brains" work there.
                / Try to get a job there as an economist (even a super-duper, like Chubais) and as an engineer at Almaz-Antey ... /
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 November 2015 19: 51 New
                  +3
                  Quote: opus
                  Only they do not "give", but communication satellites. and give in the RMV.
                  I will not chew on “FengHuo-1” or “TianLian-1”, but simply give the facts (some) of the PRC
                  1. In the exhaust gas communication and broadcast satellites of China continue to operate successfully:

                  They survived :))) It turns out that communication satellites give the control centers :)))
                  Communication satellites can do the maximum - RETRUSH DAT.
                  Quote: opus
                  Is it?

                  Naturally. All the "delights" of satellite target designation came out there, including an error of + -25 kilometers in target determination. Taking into account the time for the formation of the control center and the launch of the R-27K, by the time the rocket arrived, the target could have shifted 150 km from the target designation site. About any adjustment in "real-time" bast shoes did not even ring in principle - perhaps, "Liana" can do it, but not a fact - the data is classified. And you - China ... The United States in Yugoslavia, when they tried to use the satellite control center, flew into rattles - the destruction of a "tank column", which turned out to be a passenger train - the most famous case. The "Discovery 2" project, which provides target designation within an hour, was curtailed due to the excessive high cost (more than three dozen satellites on the geostationary).
                  But the Chinese, of course, can - they have communication satellites laughing
                  Quote: opus
                  IR GOS was as an indicator

                  Well, if IR is an indicator for you, in spite of the fact that the physical principles of IR and radar operation are "slightly" different from the word "absolutely" - there are no more questions. By the way, you haven't shown anything about what even the IR sees in a fiery cocoon.
                  Quote: opus
                  and there (50-60 km) "plasma cocoon" is not formed?

                  You read what you wrote yourself
                  Quote: opus
                  A plasma cocoon is formed from altitudes of 160 km and below (depending on speed and entry angle "

                  What is the speed of the Chelyabinsk meteorite? And the SM-3 at 60 km - which? Why then compare the soft with the snotty?
                  Quote: opus
                  "Do not remember the name of the Lord your God in vain." St. Nicholas of Serbia (Velimirovich)

                  Well, if you think our little discussion is empty talk - then it is of course.
                  Quote: opus
                  It was not possible to create on the R-27K (I explained why-gabbares, pay attention to the launch range of the R-27K and the "simple" R-27, does it say anything?)
                  They did not decide on the P-33.

                  In-in. And why do you think the Chinese can decide this? Where are their high tech samples? Self-developed by a gloomy Chinese genius?
                  Quote: opus
                  They produce the entire elemental base of the world in practice, + Taiwan, where they dig all the know-how

                  They produce it, because good uncles came, and chewed the technology from and to. Why not produce something like this ... but the development of the great Chinese processors ... or something else ... somehow there isn’t
                  1. opus
                    opus 6 November 2015 21: 16 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    They survived :))) It turns out that communication satellites give the control centers :)))

                    Stop joking.
                    Do you remember what you asked?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    about their ability to give TS in real time.

                    The information they remove in the RRV.
                    Now the task is to transfer
                    TSU in RRV (that at us, that at the USA, that at China) give (transmit) communication satellites (to command and to the one who strikes).
                    And the target and indication (its coordinates) are given by the OER satellites and the RLR satellites with SAR.
                    / Transfer it to the consumer, directly to the PPP they certainly cannot-orbits take a look /
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    All the "delights" of satellite target designation came out there, including an error of + -25 kilometers

                    63years, 70s.
                    50 years have passed.
                    in the 80s, when designing TNA blades with the help of SM-4, I didn’t expect that I would carry a 4-core processor with frequencies of several MHz, 128 GB of memory and a camera of 20 mP ...and weighing 120g
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Project "Discovery 2" providing target designation within an hour

                    Discoverer (or rather Corona) is such a junk .. KeyHole is also a junk, but you remember.
                    "Discovery-2" (as it is called) -90s joke
                    Since 1996, the directive PDD-NSC-49 / NSTC-8 has been in force (and it has already been overshot)
                    and c2000, as licensed by SpaceImaging Inc. (Lockheed Martin Corp. + Raytheon Co.), you can "forget" about D-2
                    1.PCAS US Air Force (PCAS-Ground, called the Android Tactical Assault Kit (ATAK, “Tactical strike kit on Android”). It gives a result in 6 minutes

                    2. SC of marine radio-technical reconnaissance: 9 "SSU-2" and 3 "SSU-1" and allows determining the coordinates of surface ships with an accuracy of 1 km. + SC "Lacrosse" + SC-repeaters "SDS" and SC-repeaters "TDRS" ".
                    as a result, RRV, or close

                    but in Yugoslavia ...
                    why wait then?
                    TIBS, TADIL-A, Flitsatcom satellites, Strategic Targeting Data Issuance Division, Offutt AFB, Nebraska. The generalized reconnaissance results were transmitted to the NATO Joint Air Operations Center (Vicenza, Italy) = brrrr ...
                    Pregnant will give birth.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Self-developed by a gloomy Chinese genius?

                    Why would they "develop"?
                    everything is ready, sculpt
                    1. Falcon
                      Falcon 6 November 2015 21: 58 New
                      0
                      Quote: opus
                      Now the task is to transfer
                      TSU in RRV (that at us, that at the USA, that at China) give (transmit) communication satellites (to command and to the one who strikes).
                      And the target and indication (its coordinates) are given by the OER satellites and the RLR satellites with SAR.
                      / Of course, they can’t transfer it to the consumer directly in the РРВ, take a look orbits /


                      I do not understand your argument in any way.

                      Why can not locate the AUG over-the-horizon radar?
                      Why would a rocket give a tsu to a rocket to correct a flight if the BR flies 8-10min?
                      What is the difference between the complexity of the implementation of the Chinese General Purpose System of Civil Aviation and the Persian GSN?

                      ps Something you have not appeared for a long time? Less new information drinks
                    2. opus
                      opus 6 November 2015 23: 12 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Falcon
                      I do not understand your argument in any way.

                      Andrei is trying to convince that the BR warhead cannot be aimed at a metal bun with a mass of 40000 tons of iron and an area of ​​several football fields, moving at a speed of 25 knots in the (X and Y) plane ...
                      / allegedly because of the high speeds and the mythical "plasma cap" Kommersant
                      I refute: the zur is perfectly directed practically at the same speeds, to a target weighing 5 tons (duralumin or plastic), moving at speeds from 900 km / h, in a 3-dimensional space (X, U, Z) with overloads (maneuver) of about 8g. ..
                      Quote: Falcon
                      Why can not locate the AUG over-the-horizon radar?

                      1. The main task of the ZG radar is to detect precisely the preparation of an air (or missile) attack.
                      If I am not mistaken, the threshold is 300m (height of the center). And even that ... like against the 3 Air Force of the USA.
                      Minimum range threshold value ..
                      mmm.500mile seems to be? (horse racing)
                      2. The review sector.
                      3. Permanent chaotic ionosphere disturbances
                      4. For a single target, an approximate bearing from RTR is needed
                      5. Expensive, and they are "busy" with others

                      Quote: Falcon
                      Why would a rocket give a tsu to a rocket to correct a flight if the BR flies 8-10min?

                      not. There is no problem. It is necessary to give the coordinates of the target before the launch of the BR
                      Although the idea is good (2 channel connection, as on AIM 120) ....
                      Too bad 120 km receiver range only
                      Quote: Falcon
                      What is the difference between the complexity of the implementation of the Chinese General Purpose System of Civil Aviation and the Persian GSN?

                      -BRLS viewing angle. Mal he.
                      The target then moves. It was "easier" for Pershing. He did not shoot at the target, but at the geographic coordinate where the target was. That the coordinates, that the target, did not move.
                      -Pershing warhead was inhibited to 2-3 M.
                      (anti-ship warhead BR is contraindicated)
                      Quote: Falcon
                      ps Something you have not appeared for a long time?

                      Last night I returned to Pulkovo .... Still in shock
                      (and there was no connection "there")
                    3. Falcon
                      Falcon 7 November 2015 10: 54 New
                      0
                      Quote: opus
                      1. The main task of the ZG radar is to detect precisely the preparation of an air (or missile) attack.
                      If I am not mistaken, the threshold is 300m (height of the center). And even that ... like against the 3 Air Force of the USA.
                      Minimum range threshold value ..
                      mmm.500mile seems to be? (horse racing)


                      Why is the height threshold?

                      What about radar Lagoon, Sunflower? precisely for surface purposes.
                      The United States also seems to have it for surface purposes (somewhere I read, I can’t find it now ...)

                      Quote: opus
                      Last night I returned to Pulkovo .... Still in shock
                      (and there was no connection "there")


                      From Egypt? belay
                    4. opus
                      opus 7 November 2015 11: 17 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Falcon
                      What about radar Lagoon, Sunflower? precisely for surface purposes.

                      I’m not in the ZGRLS. I don’t know if they give TsU or only bearing




                      Observation area:
                      • in range, km 15-300
                      <br>• in azimuth, deg. 110-120
                      • by elevation, deg. 0-30
                      Maximum detection range of offshore surface objects, km: ships with a displacement, t:
                      • up to 1000/200
                      • from 2000 to 5000/250
                      • more than 7000/300
                      Maximum detection range of air objects (airplane, helicopter) km: at flight altitude, m:
                      • more than 7000/300
                      • from 200 to 5000/200
                      • from 3 to 200/150
                      From the performance characteristics we can conclude that with surface ships, not everything is so sweet.

                      Quote: Falcon
                      From Egypt?

                      Yes. That CH-47 Chinook that lit up at the scene of the disaster passed right above our trough, they found out.
                      Then 3 of the day, our ears ironed the two of the TUSA F-16C ... whom they were looking for-xs
                    5. Falcon
                      Falcon 7 November 2015 18: 25 New
                      +1
                      Quote: opus
                      I don’t know if they give a command or only bearing


                      Well it would be logical. Not the highlight of course - but the coordinates. + The error is, of course, decent, but nonetheless.

                      Quote: opus
                      Yes. That CH-47 Chinook that lit up at the scene of the disaster passed right above our trough, they found out.
                      Then 3 of the day, our ears ironed the two of the TUSA F-16C ... whom they were looking for-xs


                      The attack anyway?
                    6. opus
                      opus 8 November 2015 13: 02 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Falcon
                      Well it would be logical.

                      For China, perhaps this will do. They need to protect their coastal zone.
                      in the USSR, during the time of R-27K ZGRLS did not roll, for reasons:
                      -reflection not from water, but from the ionosphere,
                      - computing power is not the same.
                      - the task is not coastal defense, but in general - to punish aircraft carriers.
                      Yes, and the carriers of the BR-APL PC, and not the coast, like China

                      Quote: Falcon
                      The attack anyway?

                      Coming soon.
                      I'm sorry. All almost young, also children ...
                      the only "plus" if at the level of 10500m is an explosive decompression, although they did not suffer
                    7. Falcon
                      Falcon 8 November 2015 13: 15 New
                      0
                      Quote: opus
                      the only "plus" if at the level of 10500m is an explosive decompression, although they did not suffer


                      "Better" than cancer
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 November 2015 00: 13 New
          -2
          Quote: opus
          Stop joking.
          Do you remember what you asked?

          Yes, actually about nothing. The conversation was about the transfer of TSU in real time.
          Quote: opus
          The information they remove in the RRV.
          Now the task is to transfer

          Please tell me, where in this chain did you lose your intertrap? The satellite "sketches" a certain picture, moreover, over a large area. Who will determine where the aircraft carrier is, where is the island, and where is the supertanker? Maybe, after all, you need to transfer information from the satellite down somewhere? And it is there, based on the analysis of satellite data, will they determine the location of the enemy and give out the control center?
          Quote: opus
          63years, 70s.
          50 years have passed.

          And what's the point? China, as it was trailing in the tail of world science, is so weaving.
          Quote: opus
          and c2000, as licensed by SpaceImaging Inc. (Lockheed Martin Corp. + Raytheon Co.), you can "forget" about D-2
          1.PCAS US Air Force (PCAS-Ground, called the Android Tactical Assault Kit (ATAK, “Tactical strike kit on Android”). It gives a result in 6 minutes

          And now I’ll say it’s good to be kidding! We are talking about satellite reconnaissance and missile defense, and you are telling me about the work of air gunners. How do you manage to compare a person with a tablet and a satellite in space? Or do you think that you crush me with an imported multi-letter? Taki in vain.
          Quote: opus
          Spacecraft of marine radio-technical reconnaissance: 9 "SSU-2" and 3 "SSU-1" and allows determining the coordinates of surface ships with an accuracy of 1 km. + SC "Lacrosse" + SC-repeaters "SDS" and SC-repeaters "TDRS".
          as a result, RRV, or close

          Two questions: how close? :) And how close is China to such systems? :)
          Quote: opus
          Why would they "develop"?
          everything is ready, sculpt

          Nothing is ready. Something, possibly approaching the formation of a central bank in the RRV, exists only in the Russian Federation and the USA. Why would China suddenly become equal to us in these developments?
        3. opus
          opus 7 November 2015 11: 03 New
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The conversation was about the transfer of TSU in real time.

          TsU transmit satellites. This is the complexity of the RRV
          The reconnaissance satellites have an apogee of 400-660 km. It will be difficult for them to "transmit".
          And pickup / fixation of target coordinates and so it happens "instantly" in the RRV.
          No film for a long time already.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Who will determine where the aircraft carrier is, where is the island, and where is the supertanker?

          "Lacrosse" does preliminary processing (analysis) of the transmitted image.
          But not the point. if through COMMUNICATION satellites the operator on the ground has access to the picture, he determines.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          What crush me with imported letter? Taki in vain.

          I’m in Russian then the big letters are not very. don’t worry. not pushing
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          How do you manage to compare a person with a tablet and a satellite in space?

          What is the global difference?
          50 km and 660 km ?. For EMV it makes no difference.
          A tablet and A-10 are indicative: a radio horizon and computing power
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And what's the point? China, as it was trailing in the tail of world science, is so weaving.

          paper, compass, gunpowder, typography, paddle ... about "trudging"
          "Daddy of Fiber Communications" -Charles Cao Quen, 50% Nobel Prize winner. It's like "now".
          Visiting China, it always amazes me:

          Especially compared to St. Petersburg-Moscow and St. Petersburg-Helsinki

          and siemens there no longer steers for about 30 years.
          started the USSR and China at the same time.
          You just forget that for more than 100 years it was an opium colony, and 40 years ago sparrows drove.
        4. opus
          opus 7 November 2015 11: 05 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Two questions: how close? :) And how close is China to such systems? :)

          according to my conservative estimates, 10-20min.
          / will always be "close", according to the given time limit. /

          "Chinese GBs are creating a real-time control system for Macau casinos"

          Union Pay (the world's largest unified banking payment system of the PRC).

          eXtremeDB has long been at the enterprises of the Chinese PC, MO, satellite constellation, navigation, etc.


          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Why would China suddenly become equal to us in these developments?

          No. 1 in the world at the 2015 Tianhe-2 National Supercomputing Center in Guangzhou ...
          manufacturer?

          NUDT-Defense Science and Technology University of the PLA
          7A ahead of Cray XK2.
          But in general:

          (we are not on the list of 10, was not and is unlikely to be. Yes, and the manufacturer in the top 500 is not us)
  • NIKNN
    NIKNN 6 November 2015 20: 45 New
    +3
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk (2) RU Today, 13:57
    Let's figure out who is there, whom, and how it strikes :)))
    SM-3 if my sclerosis does not lie to me, it strikes targets flying along a ballistic trajectory, i.e. targets whose location in space can be predicted with an accuracy of 100%.

    And by how many percent you can predict the accuracy of an aircraft carrier, they very rarely change speed and resort to maneuvering (the airdrome no matter how) request
  • Falcon
    Falcon 6 November 2015 21: 09 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    But the developers - residents of Makeyevka disagree with you - they wrote that further work to improve the R-27, the installation of AGSN, encountered difficulties in the face of a "plasma cocoon".


    There are a couple of questions.

    How is the Chinese BR fundamentally different about 2 pershing?

    Why is she tsu? Over-the-horizon radars can determine the approximate location of the target. Satellites are location. In the end, their UAV (eagle seems some kind)

    Further, the flight time b / r at a distance of 1200 km minutes 8-10. Where does the goal go during this time?

    Guidance on the final section of the seeker. Approximately similar to radar Pershing 2
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 November 2015 00: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: Falcon
      There are a couple of questions.

      Sorry, a couple of answers :)
      Quote: Falcon
      How is the Chinese BR fundamentally different about 2 pershing?

      Probably nothing in principle. And, like Pershing, Dongfeng cannot hit moving targets.
      Quote: Falcon
      Why is she tsu?

      To get into the enemy :)
      Quote: Falcon
      Over-the-horizon radars can determine the approximate location of the target.

      They cannot, since the ZGRLS have very large assumptions, both in terms of distance (up to 20 km) in azimuth (2 degrees), they cannot determine "friend or foe", have blind areas, represent the most hefty colossus and are relatively easily incapacitated at the beginning of the war ...
      Quote: Falcon
      Location satellites

      They work late.
      Quote: Falcon
      In the end, their UAV (eagle seems some kind)

      Destroyed by air patrols.
      Quote: Falcon
      Further, the flight time b / r at a distance of 1200 km minutes 8-10. Where does the goal go during this time?

      This is not the question. The question is that while the satellite detects the AUG, while the "picture" is merged down, while it is analyzed and the coordinates are finally displayed, it will be good if an hour, or even much, much more. And where to shoot a rocket?
      Quote: Falcon
      Guidance on the final section of the seeker. Approximately similar to radar Pershing 2

      Guidance on the final site like pershing will not work for any gingerbread. For Pershing, the GOS works like this - first, satellites in all radar views make a picture of the target and the surrounding area. This is not difficult because the target is stationary. And the Pershing warhead on approach cuts the radar and compares the picture it sees with the standard - well, and corrects the trajectory. But since we are talking about a small correction, hatching (Pershing and accurately enough flies to the target) - there are no problems. And in the sea, where none of this exists, where the target has long gone tens of kilometers, you should look for it in a much larger space than your Pershing, all this does not work.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 7 November 2015 00: 50 New
        0
        until the satellite detects the AUG, until it merges the "picture" down, until it is analyzed and the coordinates are finally displayed, it will go well if an hour, or even much, much more. And where to shoot a rocket?

        Obviously: you need to launch a flock of missiles with multiple warheads and nuclear charges :) Burn the hell out of a square :) Joke, essno.

        And in the sea, where none of this exists, where the target has long gone tens of kilometers, you should look for it in a much larger space than your Pershing, all this does not work.

        And what is the fundamental difficulty? From a height of several tens of kilometers, the radar can survey a very large area of ​​the sea surface; the target beyond its limits is unlikely to be able to crawl away. Moreover, the AUG against the background of the sea surface is very clearly distinguishable, there will be nothing to confuse it with (if the radar resolution is high enough).
      2. Falcon
        Falcon 7 November 2015 10: 40 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And, like Pershing, Dongfeng cannot hit moving targets.


        Pershing - could adjust the flight. This is enough for that time. A slow moving target is not much harder.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Destroyed by air patrols.


        This will narrow the search sector and simplify the task.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        they can not, since the ZGRLS have very large assumptions both in terms of distance (to 20 km) in azimuth (2 degrees)


        Here accuracy is not needed. No backlight required. With 50 km, the AGSN review sector is quite acceptable.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        To get into the enemy :)


        I meant to adjust the flight. The original is understandable.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The question is that while the satellite detects the AUG, while the "picture" is merged down, while it is analyzed and the coordinates are finally displayed, it will go well if an hour, or even much, much more


        You greatly underestimated the transmission speed of military satellites. Real-time UAV control via satellite is more than feasible.



        Approximately if the S-400 is in its position, but does not wait for "Friends", then the time will also be decent. If you have been waiting for AUG for a long time, then there are no problems with time at all.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Guidance on the final site like pershing will not work for any gingerbread. For Pershing, the GOS works like this - first, satellites in all radar views make a picture of the target and the surrounding area. This is not difficult because the target is stationary. And the Pershing warhead on approach cuts the radar and compares the picture it sees with the standard - well, and corrects the trajectory.


        Generally not true. In perching, the EPR surface is recorded. It is quite difficult to determine it - this is not just a goal. Those. the power of the calculator should be significantly greater.

        For guidance on the aircraft carrier - the ego of the image intensifier tube is not necessary. This is not some kind of earthly surface. Aircraft carrier’s mission is not variable anywhere in the world - and therefore has long been known
  • Leonid1976
    Leonid1976 6 November 2015 14: 11 New
    0
    Thanks for the detailed answer.
  • aszzz888
    aszzz888 6 November 2015 07: 23 New
    -12
    These ships are the "backbone" of the fleet, because it is they that provide a presence in all areas of the oceans.


    It got to the Merikatos brains that our Calibers will make a sieve out of the "spines" of their fleet (see aircraft carrier), with all the ensuing consequences, when a leaky iron can sinks. fellow
    1. igog
      igog 6 November 2015 07: 38 New
      +7
      in addition to the "caliber", the "Yahont" is also in service, nothing too.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 6 November 2015 09: 28 New
        -8
        Air defense systems of escort ships and aircraft carrier wing all missiles will be knocked down.
        1. user1212
          user1212 6 November 2015 11: 10 New
          +5
          Quote: Vadim237
          Air defense systems of escort ships and aircraft carrier wing all missiles will be knocked down.

          Utterance statement
    2. Kuzyakin15
      Kuzyakin15 6 November 2015 07: 57 New
      +6
      Quote: aszzz888
      These ships are the "backbone" of the fleet, because it is they that provide a presence in all areas of the oceans.


      It got to the Merikatos brains that our Calibers will make a sieve out of the "spines" of their fleet (see aircraft carrier), with all the ensuing consequences, when a leaky iron can sinks. fellow


      You at least take an interest in the firing range of the Caliber in the anti-ship missile variant for marine moving targets
      1. ism_ek
        ism_ek 6 November 2015 13: 33 New
        +2
        Quote: Kuzyakin15
        You at least take an interest in the firing range of the Caliber in the anti-ship missile variant for marine moving targets

        This is classified information. Only the range of export missiles is known. There is a Soviet-American treaty limiting the range of such missiles. The Soviet Grenade rocket (caliber progenitor) had a range of 3000 km. Caliber range is artificially limited.
        Americans have long made noise about the range of these missiles.
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 6 November 2015 16: 23 New
          +1
          Quote: ism_ek
          Quote: Kuzyakin15
          You at least take an interest in the firing range of the Caliber in the anti-ship missile variant for marine moving targets

          This is classified information. Only the range of export missiles is known. There is a Soviet-American treaty limiting the range of such missiles. The Soviet Grenade rocket (caliber progenitor) had a range of 3000 km. Caliber range is artificially limited.
          Americans have long made noise about the range of these missiles.


          Wise guy, tell us how you will direct a rocket launched over 3000 kilometers?
          How much time will it fly?
          How long will the ship take during this time?
          What is the detection range of the GOS missile and its viewing angle?
          Take into account the weight of the rocket and the weight of the warhead and the weight of the GOS?
          And how much fuel will fit, given that in the Special BP and tactical version, the weight of these items is almost 3 times less, and the volume is significantly less.
          And when you think about it, then maybe something will become clear to you ...
          1. ism_ek
            ism_ek 6 November 2015 21: 51 New
            0
            Quote: mav1971
            Wise guy, tell us how you will direct a rocket launched over 3000 kilometers?

            The Aviation Complex "Success" from Tu-95RTS aircraft or Ka-25TS helicopters, or the space complex of reconnaissance and target designation of the Legend ICRC. Also during group launch, missiles exchange information with each other
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 6 November 2015 22: 28 New
              0
              1. The Tu-95RTS built only 52 cars in 1963-1969. The radar station is capable of detecting order ships at a distance of up to 400 km, the line of interception of a single target by a bunch of E-2C / F-4-500 km.
              2. US-A (RLR) satellites lived in orbit for 1,5 years, the Union at best kept up to 4 satellites in orbit (control of an arbitrary square once every two days for one and a half minutes), the meter range locator could not identify AB, therefore the order divided into 3 parts (led by AB, a tanker and a supply vessel), they could put corner reflectors on a cruiser, then the EPR was equal to the value of AB.
              3. The helicopter can actually be used only in the BS mode, if we attack first, or during a long "special period", when the massive rise of the air group can be interpreted unambiguously as an attack.
    3. ism_ek
      ism_ek 6 November 2015 12: 23 New
      +4
      Quote: aszzz888
      It got to the Merikatos brains that our Calibers will make a sieve out of the "spines" of their fleet (see aircraft carrier), with all the ensuing consequences, when a leaky iron can sinks.

      In vain the author was bombarded.
      Americans are just good at counting. The price of long-range anti-ship missiles is declining. They can be installed on small ships or submarines. If in the days of the USSR the same Granite rocket was so expensive that the USSR had never tested this rocket in group launch mode.
      The group launch of the Caliber sobered the Americans. Their aircraft carrier is defenseless against such a salvo. The patrol ship Dagestan or the submarine Varshavyanka stands like three F-35s. They do not need an expensive aircraft carrier ... They are relatively autonomous. An anti-ship missile on the F-35 also costs a lot of money, it is certainly cheaper than Caliber, but you can’t sink a Dagestan with one missile ... You need several planes with several missiles ...

      Aircraft carriers performed well in the era of torpedoes and bombs, when an expensive aircraft carrier carried cheap aircraft armed with cheap torpedoes. Now everything is not so obvious ..
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 6 November 2015 16: 30 New
        +1
        Quote: ism_ek

        The group launch of the Caliber sobered the Americans. Their aircraft carrier is defenseless against such


        Now count how many escort ships in an aircraft carrier warrant, I’ll tell you - usually 4-5 berks and teak. Each easily removes up to 8 missiles. This has long been modeled.
        What should be a volley then?
        How much do you need Dagestanov or Varshavyanka?
        The warrant contains 2 nuclear submarines as well - few people know where they actually are, maybe they just cover the zones of possible combat patrol of other submarines.

        Stop stupidly throwing hats ...
        1. user1212
          user1212 6 November 2015 17: 34 New
          +3
          Quote: mav1971
          each easily removes up to 8 missiles. This has long been modeled.

          I find more and more similarities between Russia and the USA. Only ours model import substitution, and the Americans missile defense :)
        2. figter
          figter 6 November 2015 18: 06 New
          +5
          mav1971 (1) RU Today, 16: 30 ↑ New
          Quote: ism_ek
          The group launch of the Caliber sobered the Americans. Their aircraft carrier is defenseless against such
          Now count how many escort ships in an aircraft carrier warrant, I’ll tell you - usually 4-5 berks and teak. Each easily removes up to 8 missiles. This has long been modeled.
          What should be a volley then?
          How much do you need Dagestanov or Varshavyanka?
          The warrant contains 2 nuclear submarines as well - few people know where they actually are, maybe they just cover the zones of possible combat patrol of other submarines.
          Stop stupidly throwing hats ...

          I am far from a supporter of shapkozakidatelstva, rather the opposite. But your phrase that the situation "has long been modeled" hurts my eyes. If you think that the computer simulated environment is realistic, you are deeply mistaken. In fact, it is possible to destroy a cruise missile using an air defense system only if you are guaranteed to know the exact direction of its impact (azimuth). CR is detected at a relatively short range, since its flight altitude is low and for technical, geographic (due to the curvature of the earth) reasons, most of its flight it will be in the dead zone of shipborne radars. Therefore, if the CD is detected at a short range (and this is exactly what will happen), then you have very little time to shoot and in fact this is possible when the antenna posts are already deployed in the direction of the target and the CD will immediately be taken for auto-tracking by a calculation trained to madness ... From practice, when air defense systems on live firing in the conditions of training ranges are practiced by imitating KR, the firing azimuth is usually well known, because target launches are most often made from the same places in the same sectors. If you unexpectedly launch a CD from a different direction, the target will most likely be missed - you simply will not have time to react. In real conditions, it will be very, very difficult to shoot down a CD, this is almost pure luck and luck. In my opinion, anti-aircraft artillery systems operating with obstructive fire in direct optical line of sight in pre-allocated sectors will have the highest probability of destroying a CD than an air defense system. Of course, I argue from a land point of view, but I think that the principles of firing shipborne air defense systems are identical.
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 6 November 2015 19: 01 New
            +1
            And what does the ship's air defense system have to do with it? The long-range air defense / missile defense line is controlled by AWACS and U E-2S and AWACS aircraft (up to 1000 km). Back in 1973, the US Navy conducted large-scale tests, during which the F14, with a probability of 88% at a distance of up to 134 km, shot down targets at an altitude of 15 to 22 meters and a target speed of 000 to 0,6M (cruising speed of "Caliber" -4, 0,8M). But more than 40 years have passed.
            I'm not talking about guidance tools for subsonic missiles at such a range.
            1. NIKNN
              NIKNN 6 November 2015 21: 00 New
              +2
              strannik1985 RU Today, 19:01
              up to 4M

              The search is obvious for F14 in 1973. (than if not a secret?
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 6 November 2015 21: 32 New
                0
                F-14A Tomcat / SLA AWG-9 / UR long-range AIM-54 Phoenix.
                1. NIKNN
                  NIKNN 6 November 2015 22: 40 New
                  +2
                  F-14A Tomcat / SLA AWG-9 / UR long-range AIM-54 Phoenix.

                  What kind of target is shot down by 4m (not so much a BR or an improved Valkyrie or CP71.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 November 2015 20: 19 New
            +3
            Quote: figter
            In real conditions it will be very, very difficult to bring down the CD, it’s almost pure luck and luck

            well, the very same Shtatovs considered it necessary to provide a volley of 17-18 anti-ship missiles to destroy the Soviet missile cruiser. In this case, a dozen missiles were to be intercepted / deflected by air defense / electronic warfare, the rest were supposed to hit RKR.
            1. NIKNN
              NIKNN 6 November 2015 21: 09 New
              +4
              NIKNN RU Today, 21:00 PM
              well, the very same Shtatovs considered it necessary to provide a volley of 17-18 anti-ship missiles to destroy the Soviet missile cruiser. In this case, a dozen missiles were to be intercepted / deflected by air defense / electronic warfare, the rest were supposed to hit RKR.

              Unambiguously, only a massive blow from different directions is acceptable for AUG failure. The outfit of forces and means has been calculated for a long time and it is not small because To get to the aircraft carrier, you need to overcome 3 defense zones, the longest in the 80s of the last century began at 500 km (this hour is probably further). The question is how much the outfit of forces and means will be reduced when using PKBR.
        3. ism_ek
          ism_ek 6 November 2015 21: 36 New
          +2
          Quote: mav1971
          Now count how many escort ships in an aircraft carrier warrant, I’ll tell you - usually 4-5 berks and teak. Each easily removes up to 8 missiles. This has long been modeled.
          And how will they choose goals? Who will shoot down which rocket? And missiles may not be 24 ... Add to this the fact that the Aegis radar does not distinguish between low-flying targets. Remember the mythical story of the meeting of Arly Burke and SU-24. After all, there is no EW complex on the Su-24. Most likely Aegis saw multiple reflections from the water of a low-flying aircraft and the radar failed.
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 7 November 2015 09: 38 New
            +1
            Quote: ism_ek
            Quote: mav1971
            Now count how many escort ships in an aircraft carrier warrant, I’ll tell you - usually 4-5 berks and teak. Each easily removes up to 8 missiles. This has long been modeled.
            And how will they choose goals? Who will shoot down which rocket? And missiles may not be 24 ... Add to this the fact that the Aegis radar does not distinguish between low-flying targets. Remember the mythical story of the meeting of Arly Burke and SU-24. After all, there is no EW complex on the Su-24. Most likely Aegis saw multiple reflections from the water of a low-flying aircraft and the radar failed.


            Aegis as part of SPY-1 has already passed 5 upgrades / modifications and version D v1 or E - are imprisoned for the detection of low-flying targets.
            Aegis is network-centric and works in conjunction with other ships in a single network in real time. This applies to both external and independent detection, target designation, information exchange, the launch of anti-aircraft missiles, etc.
            The meeting, supposedly sudden, Burke with Su-24 - a myth. Already all the bones. Stop believing in him.
  • La-5
    La-5 6 November 2015 07: 49 New
    +5
    The effectiveness of aircraft carriers: "Papuans" to bomb and pacify - will go, and to fight with an equal enemy - a disastrous business. A good example of the confrontation between aircraft carriers and powerful air defense is the Vietnam War, which the Americans eventually lost. Air defense is our everything.
    1. 31rus
      31rus 6 November 2015 08: 56 New
      +3
      Yes, the USSR was, as you write, "Papuan", developing measures to combat aircraft carrier formations, and not in favor of our side, aircraft carrier formations will pose a real threat for a long time, primarily to Russia and China
    2. 31rus
      31rus 6 November 2015 08: 56 New
      0
      Yes, the USSR was, as you write, "Papuan", developing measures to combat aircraft carrier formations, and not in favor of our side, aircraft carrier formations will pose a real threat for a long time, primarily to Russia and China
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 6 November 2015 10: 07 New
        +8
        Quote: 31rus
        Yes, the USSR was, as you write, "Papuan", developing measures to combat aircraft carrier formations, and not in favor of our side, aircraft carrier formations will pose a real threat for a long time, primarily to Russia and China

        ACGs are effective in the open ocean and not near the coastal zone of the enemy, which has developed missile defense and air defense with coastal complexes and small ships and submarines with gauges.
        To date, aviation can fight most effectively with an AUG. It is not in vain that the TU-22 was built in the USSR.
        AUGs will become ineffective if the long-range missiles of the Kyrgyz Republic and the RCC are greater than the range of carrier-based aviation. hi
        1. 31rus
          31rus 6 November 2015 10: 21 New
          +1
          I agree, but look at your list in order to oppose the AUG, everything there is, and if the AUG is backed up by actions such as launches of the KR, strategic aviation, tactical aviation from the bases? Only the presence of the AUG will divert significant forces, and if you don’t have a network airfields ,, air defense ,, all this needs to be created or deployed, during this time both aviation and escort ships will reach the lines of attack and if they do not destroy, then there will be many troubles
          1. max702
            max702 6 November 2015 17: 09 New
            +2
            Quote: 31rus
            I agree, but look at your list in order to oppose the AUG, everything there is, and if the AUG is backed up by actions such as launches of the KR, strategic aviation, tactical aviation from the bases? Only the presence of the AUG will divert significant forces, and if you don’t have a network airfields ,, air defense ,, all this needs to be created or deployed, during this time both aviation and escort ships will reach the lines of attack and if they do not destroy, then there will be many troubles

            If everything happens as you say, that means THIRD WORLD! And the AUG will be there to distract someone not particularly and it is important .. Enough 10% take off and 5% fly so that the living will envy the dead ..
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. mav1971
          mav1971 6 November 2015 16: 54 New
          +1
          Quote: NEXUS

          AUGs will become ineffective if the long-range missiles of the Kyrgyz Republic and the RCC are greater than the range of carrier-based aviation. hi



          Deck aviation is easy to increase its radius and time spent in the air.
          Almost all F-18 have the ability to be refueling with this gizmo.
          Buddy Store 31-301. This is an 1100 liter overhead gas station. The total weight is 1350 kg. Aircraft can take 3 such stations. Given the limitation of the suspension in 1200 kg per unit, we get 3000 liters of fuel.
          does not require modifications to the aircraft. Discharged in case of emergency.

          This overhead gas station was tested at the Su-30MKI. She showed excellent results. The Hindus were pleased. But ... they don’t need it yet.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 6 November 2015 17: 05 New
            +2
            Quote: mav1971
            Deck aviation is easy to increase its radius and time spent in the air.

            That's why I say, we must work hard on the range of our anti-ship missiles and missiles (for naval purposes). Only then will our warrants with cruisers and destroyers be able to withstand the AUG.
            Given the range of carrier-based aviation, our missile launchers and anti-ship missiles should be hit at 1500-3000km. But this is easy to say and difficult to do in iron. But how many times it was already when our designers surprised the whole world, creating something that was beyond the power of others . hi
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 6 November 2015 17: 55 New
              0
              Quote: NEXUS
              Quote: mav1971
              Deck aviation is easy to increase its radius and time spent in the air.

              That's why I say, we must work hard on the range of our anti-ship missiles and missiles (for naval purposes). Only then will our warrants with cruisers and destroyers be able to withstand the AUG.
              Given the range of carrier-based aviation, our missile launchers and anti-ship missiles should be hit at 1500-3000km. But this is easy to say and difficult to do in iron. But how many times it was already when our designers surprised the whole world, creating something that was beyond the power of others . hi


              Problems.
              1. Detection and Targeting at a distance from 300 and beyond.
              2. 3 Max marching speed at ultra low altitude and compact size for standard UVP.

              They will solve these problems - maybe there will be a long range.

              Without a decision by both, there will be no range development.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 6 November 2015 19: 46 New
                +1
                Quote: mav1971
                Problems.
                1. Detection and Targeting at a distance from 300 and beyond.
                2. 3 Max marching speed at ultra low altitude and compact size for standard UVP.

                Add ... new fuel.
          2. NIKNN
            NIKNN 6 November 2015 22: 08 New
            +4
            mav1971 (1) RU Today, 16:54
            Deck aviation is easy to increase its radius and time spent in the air.
            Almost all F-18 have the ability to be refueling with this gizmo.
            Buddy Store 31-301. This is an 1100 liter overhead gas station. The total weight is 1350 kg. Aircraft can take 3 such stations. Given the limitation of the suspension in 1200 kg per unit, we get 3000 liters of fuel.
            does not require modifications to the aircraft. Discharged in case of emergency.

            Above your opinions, both optimistic and pessimistic, have a right to exist (by the way, why are there a lot of disadvantages, it is enough to refute the opponent with "unkillable" arguments without harming vanity), of course, it is very difficult to disable an aircraft carrier, and even more so to destroy, of course you can talk about 3rd world, only right to some extent G.J. Hendrix. Increasing the range of combat use, attracting refuelers along with forces and means, increasing means of countering an attack (escort of ships with Aegis and even we have no idea what else ... All this ultimately increases the cost of a bomb or missile delivered to the target (and with such ranges, the declared combat load of the same F35 is unlikely to be real, more precisely 30 percent of the declared), taking into account the cost of operating the entire AUG, it will be so unprofitable that it will not make sense (it will be equal to the cost of striking a ballistic missile with a non-nuclear warhead.) AUG. Probably AUG will suffer the fate of battleships (life will show), in my opinion a squadron (I am a pilot and if not right then not on purpose) without an aircraft carrier will be much more effective (compare 120 sorties per day with 300 from an airfield and this is not the limit) So like that. hi
  • Mera joota
    Mera joota 6 November 2015 08: 05 New
    +4
    US aircraft carriers may become ineffective

    ? because the range of carrier-based aviation is insufficient? What kind of nonsense? And how much does Mr. Henry J. Hendrix need to be happy? 2000km? What hypothetical RCC does he refer to? Since the time of the USSR, domestic anti-ship missiles had a range of 500-600 km. So then it was not critical, but now it has become a verdict for aircraft carriers?
    1. Forest
      Forest 6 November 2015 09: 54 New
      0
      If we talk about China with its ever-developing anti-ship weapons. For the rest of the countries with the RCC of the 70's, it was as it was.
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 7 November 2015 01: 30 New
      +2
      Quote: Mera Joota
      ? because the range of carrier-based aviation is insufficient? What kind of nonsense?

      I’ve been thinking about something ... or maybe it’s not so simple and clear with the Caliber? I mean, the declared Caliber range for the surface target is 300 km. And if for a minute we assume that this figure is somewhat larger, once every 5-6. And the Americans know about this. Then the statements made by Henry J. Hendricks are quite logical and not without common sense. Indeed, in fact, the characteristics of our Kyrgyz Republic were not clearly voiced, but approximate indicators were given ...
      Best regards hi
  • Observer2014
    Observer2014 6 November 2015 08: 19 New
    +4
    CNN: US aircraft carriers may become ineffective
    Yes, they (aircraft carriers) have already become ineffective. Against the main opponents of the United States. Russia and China can very successfully fight this "main instrument of democracy". But the rest of the countries! So for them, AUG remains the most terrible enemy.
    1. luiswoo
      luiswoo 6 November 2015 11: 30 New
      +3
      The US Navy surpasses the Russian and Chinese Navy combined in all respects, even without AUG. No need to harbor illusions. They have only Arly Burkov 62 pieces of 2 lard each. Of its floating counterparts, Russia has one Peter the Great. Which analogs, staff members have already scrapped. The only thing that prevents the cradle of democracy from equipping this elda is the enemy’s ICBM. Khrushchev reasonably relied on ICBMs and nuclear submarines; the budget will not pull any other options. In this situation, hegemon should not be, but the enemy will receive his full.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 7 November 2015 11: 16 New
        0
        Exactly, there is no need to harbor illusions! Russia, the USA and China will not be at war with the fleets. Russia can destroy one or two AUGs, and no one else but the Americans has any.
    2. kote119
      kote119 6 November 2015 14: 36 New
      0
      than the Russian Federation and China can so effectively deal with state aviks?
  • vovan100
    vovan100 6 November 2015 08: 20 New
    -4
    Aircraft carriers are good only for bombing defenseless countries. And in real battles, with strong opponents, aircraft carriers will be sunk in a matter of minutes and it’s the end)) Here is such an awkward ridge;)
  • Andryukha G
    Andryukha G 6 November 2015 08: 32 New
    +1
    American warriors have finally realized (but not all ... for now) that with their large iron boats with a bunch of planes on them, they can scare only the population of African countries, but not Russia, which has high-speed missiles on silent submarines.
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 6 November 2015 16: 56 New
      0
      name the silent submarines of Russia in the amount of at least one per aircraft carrier ...
  • Engineer
    Engineer 6 November 2015 08: 42 New
    +1
    Well, well done, what do you say, this Hendrix, to the hype around the A-35, knocks out money for a new plane, and even scares the fake Chinese DF-21.
  • 31rus
    31rus 6 November 2015 08: 51 New
    +5
    Dear, in the first place, an aircraft carrier is a tool, but how is politics used to use it, it’s not aircraft carriers that are flawed, but US policy itself, that’s what you need to review, and secondly, why isn’t the possibility of using carrier-based nuclear weapons used? why Americans do not consider the option of arming the aircraft carrier itself to combat PKR, submarines.
    1. gjv
      gjv 6 November 2015 09: 37 New
      +6
      Quote: 31rus
      why the Americans do not consider the option of arming the aircraft carrier itself to combat PKK, submarines.

      But what to consider when they are already installing to combat RCC. RIM-162 ESSM (Eng. Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile) is an American medium-range ship-to-air anti-aircraft missile equipped with a semi-active homing radar. Is a development of RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles, It is also used to provide missile defense for ships. It will be installed on the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) under construction. And it is also already installed on operating aircraft carriers of the "Nimitz" type, by the way instead of the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow SAM.
      For example, here is the launch of the RIM-162 ESSM from the Mk.29 launcher of the Carl Vinson aircraft carrier, Pacific Ocean, July 23, 2010.
  • v.yegorov
    v.yegorov 6 November 2015 09: 51 New
    +4
    The expert notes that the new Chinese anti-ship missiles are able to take advantage of some features of the current American strategy. Due to the relatively long range of these weapons, US carriers will be forced to stay at a certain distance from the coast, so as not to become a target for missiles

    As always, an asymmetric response is preferable and cheaper. Really we can not
    create your own DF21? Than to invest dozens of lard in AUG, it is better to invest in space, there is a prospect there, and there will be a push for their industry
    colossal.
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 6 November 2015 11: 02 New
      +1
      Can't we create our own DF21?

      As I understand it, the effectiveness of the DF-21 has not yet been proven by anyone.

      Then, the use of such BRs is fraught with business. The adversary may be mistaken for their massive launch with the launch of ICBMs, which will instantly translate any local disassembly into a full-fledged nuclear conflict.

      Thirdly, we do not forget that in the AUG there are carriers of a powerful missile defense system, tailored, inter alia, to the destruction of ballistic targets by SM-3 missiles. Here it is still necessary to understand how BR will be effective.
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 6 November 2015 11: 08 New
      +1
      How to invest dozens of lard in AUG

      If we want our fleet to be really operational anywhere in the World Ocean, then aircraft carriers are needed. At a minimum - to ensure air defense / missile defense, reconnaissance and target designation.

      If the fleet is needed only to protect its coast, then yes, there is no need for aircraft carriers, it is easier and more efficient to develop aviation.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 November 2015 14: 06 New
      +2
      Quote: v.yegorov
      As always, an asymmetric response is preferable and cheaper.

      They made fun. Can you tell me when these asymmetric answers suddenly became both preferable and cheaper? :))
      The French admiral Aub argued that the destroyers would render the battleships useless. Did not do. The Douai Doctrine envisaged the solution of all issues by air war. The British and Americans tried to bomb Germany - the result was striving for zero. The Germans built a gigantic submarine fleet, which was to strangle England with a blockade. Did not work out. Before WWII, the USSR, relying on the "mosquito fleet", built a bunch of submarines. Has it somehow justified itself? And the list goes on and on.
      1. Alexy
        Alexy 6 November 2015 20: 38 New
        +2
        I absolutely disagree. Torpedo boats made armadillos useless. The German submarine fleet did not aim to completely block Britain, and indeed could not physically. If you remember, in Germany two concepts of waging war at sea fought. And the bet was rather placed on large battleships. About the Soviet Navy with its bunch of submarines, please in more detail. As for the asymmetric answers, I advise you to recall the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely the use of missile boats.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 6 November 2015 20: 52 New
          +1
          Quote: Alexy
          Torpedo boats made armadillos useless

          Can the source be? I always thought that the concept of battleships made them useless.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 November 2015 00: 42 New
          +1
          Quote: Alexy
          Absolutely disagree

          I am afraid that your consent, as well as the absence thereof, does not matter.
          Quote: Alexy
          Torpedo boats made armadillos useless

          Yeah. Only for some reason, neither in the Russo-Japanese War, nor in any other war of the armored fleets did the destroyers somehow play a decisive - significant role.
          Quote: Alexy
          The German submarine fleet did not aim to completely block Britain, and indeed could not physically. If you remember, in Germany two concepts of waging war at sea fought. And the bet was rather placed on large battleships

          You still read a little bit about the war at sea WWII. Rader made a bet on the battleships. Before the war. And with its beginning and the failure of large ships, the stake was placed on the submarine fleet.
          Quote: Alexy
          About the Soviet Navy with its bunch of submarines, please in more detail.

          The USSR had the largest submarine fleet in the world at the beginning of WWII. How did this help us?
          Quote: Alexy
          As for the asymmetric answers, I advise you to recall the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely the use of missile boats.

          What did you find asymmetry in this conflict and with whom? Did the Arabs melt the Israeli carrier strike groups with missile boats?
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 7 November 2015 11: 22 New
        0
        As for England, the British themselves did not cope with the blockade, the Americans did. Moreover, they found their own asymmetric response to the asymmetric response of the Germans, the blockade was broken not by aircraft carriers or destroyers, unarmed Liberty transports broke through the blockade.
  • Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 6 November 2015 10: 16 New
    +4
    At one time, England tuned dozens of superdreadnoughts and believed that its advantage on the seas was forever. But torpedo armament and its carriers in the form of submarines, destroyers, torpedo boats and aircraft appeared, and the power of the dreadnought fleet came to an instant end. England shoved them to their bases and quickly put them on the pins and needles. The dreadnought niche was occupied by American supercarriers. As part of the AUG, they can easily cope with all threats, including single ballistic missiles with nuclear charges. But now hypersonic missiles (Zircon) loomed on the stage, and their carriers, again, are small ships, submarines and aircraft. It is impossible to shoot down a hypersonic missile and the aircraft carriers will have to go to defend their shores as floating airfields.
  • misterwulf
    misterwulf 6 November 2015 10: 17 New
    +3
    Yes useless troughs. The United States, having military bases around the world, contains floating bases for a trillion bucks ... Bullshit! As far as I remember, during an operation in Iraq, British planes from Britain and American from Germany flew directly from there to bomb Iraq. On the way back to Adana (Turkey) they refueled and flew back. So those aircraft (type F-15) are much cooler than carrier-based aviation in all respects.
    Aircraft carrier is yesterday. Like, horror on the Papuans to catch up with their presence.
  • Kalmar
    Kalmar 6 November 2015 10: 44 New
    +4
    Due to the relatively long range of these weapons, US carriers will be forced to stay at a certain distance from the coast, so as not to become a target for missiles.

    The conclusion is about nothing. It is clear that an aircraft carrier is not a tenant near the coast if a strong army lives on the coast. If not rockets, then the aircraft will surely be able to drown the AOG, since the carrier-based aviation from the coast cannot generally.

    A naval battle in the open ocean is another matter. Here, the ability to deliver air strikes becomes a huge advantage over any enemy NKs that do not have such capabilities. As for the range, the combination of the (incomplete) F-18 combat radius and the Harpoon launch range is enough to cover the range of the vast majority of anti-ship missiles from other countries. But work is still in full swing on LRASM, which is also planned in the aviation version.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 6 November 2015 15: 58 New
      -1
      "Near the coast" - up to 1600 km for land targets, the distance of detecting air targets and ships of the order by the AWACS-400-500 km aircraft, the ground radar is even less. AUG can strike while remaining out of sight of target designation means. At the same time, AUG can move up to 1100-1300 km per day.
      1. NIKNN
        NIKNN 6 November 2015 22: 24 New
        +3
        strannik1985 RU Today, 15:58
        "Near the coast" - up to 1600 km for land targets, the distance of detecting air targets and ships of the order by the AWACS-400-500 km aircraft, the ground radar is even less. AUG can strike while remaining out of sight of target designation means. At the same time, AUG can move up to 1100-1300 km per day.

        And that space groups only observe supernova explosions. and over-the-horizon radars are only intended to track missiles, and reconnaissance is only to copy blueprints (there are a lot of reconnaissance, so far it is detecting 400 km in any field using any working electronics). As you can see, the issue has not been fully investigated and specifically, it is premature to say something. hi
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 6 November 2015 22: 46 New
          +1
          Do we have an analogue of the "Legend" and have information about detecting / issuing control units in real time?
          As far as I know, the ZGRLS can give a control system in the spirit of: "targets were observed in such and such a square", i.e. e. CU aircraft, not anti-ship missiles.
          I don’t claim it, this is my personal opinion, based on open sources, I don’t see any reason to guess on the coffee grounds.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 6 November 2015 23: 10 New
            +1
            As far as I know, the ZGRLS can give a control system in the spirit of: "targets were observed in such and such a square", i.e. e. CU aircraft, not anti-ship missiles.

            Isn't that enough? If the AUG is "lit up", then several AWACS and EW aircraft are moved into the indicated square for additional reconnaissance. And a couple of dozen missile carriers with anti-ship missiles - in case the AUG is actually found.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 6 November 2015 23: 16 New
              0
              Few, according to Kuzin / Nikolsky "Soviet Navy 1945-1991" AUG with the help of carrier-based and base aircraft AWACS controls the situation up to 1000 km from the center of the order, and the AWACS, and EW, and MRA will be removed even before the detection / launch line.
              1. Kalmar
                Kalmar 6 November 2015 23: 35 New
                0
                Few, according to Kuzin / Nikolsky "Soviet Navy 1945-1991" AUG with the help of carrier-based and base aircraft AWACS controls the situation up to 1000 km from the center of the order, and the AWACS, and EW, and MRA will be removed even before the detection / launch line.

                Those. it turns out that the capabilities of carrier-based aircraft to control the air situation and air defense are superior to those of "ground" aircraft? It's nonsense.

                I suppose the point is that carrier-based AWACS can detect a target at a range of up to 1000 km (when patrolling at the maximum distance from the aircraft carrier). But after this, it is necessary to raise and send fighters to the target to intercept. The number of these fighters is limited: an aircraft carrier physically cannot immediately lift up all the existing wing in the air.

                Missile carriers attacking the AUG may have their own cover: the combat radius of the same Su-30 is quite sufficient. Moreover, "conventional" fighters almost always surpass deck-based counterparts in the number of weapons, and the number of aircraft itself can be much greater.
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 7 November 2015 13: 05 New
                  0
                  At sea, dear, no one will ship the warrant ships to the very shore.

                  Based on the 80s standard, 1 AUG needs 2 Tu-22M3 regiments, 2 fighter regiments for cover, electronic warfare vehicles, 130-135 aircraft in total. Estimated losses are up to 2/3 of this force. If we consider the real confrontation is still sadder.
                  In the North, the sadder is the Norwegian Armed Forces (up to hundreds of aircraft, of which 2/3 F-16) / NATO strike fleet (4-5 AUGs and a pair of battleship KUGs) .According to A. Nikolsky for simultaneous strike at a distance of more than 1000 km, such forces required more than 700 missile carriers, not counting EW aircraft, so many Tu-shek were not in the entire MPA.
                  Su-30 will operate at the limit of the radius, the characteristics of the Su-30MKM / F / A-18 E / F are similar.
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 7 November 2015 13: 21 New
                    +1
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    If we consider the real confrontation is still sadder.
                    In the North, the sadder is the Norwegian Armed Forces (up to hundreds of aircraft, of which 2/3 F-16) / NATO strike fleet (4-5 AUGs and a couple of battleship KUGs).

                    If we consider a real confrontation, then all these 5 AUGs are covered with a copper basin with one or two volleys of Calibers with nuclear submarines and X-102 from the air, without entering the field of action of the enemy's aviation and air defense systems. In the ocean 1-2 AUGs "hang out" the rest are at the pier, and therefore "knocking out" them is not as difficult as you are broadcasting here. hi
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 7 November 2015 15: 19 New
                      0
                      What will you inspire? Who and with what decided that the EMP will be so strong that it will disable all equipment?
                      Are we going to start TMV first and for no apparent reason?
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 7 November 2015 17: 33 New
                        +3
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        What will you inspire?

                        Yes, at least according to the pre-nested coordinates of the target. The aircraft carriers stand at the berth, that is, they are a stationary target.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Who and with what decided that the EMP will be so strong that it will disable all equipment?

                        Is it just the EMP that’s the most important thing? If a rocket or missiles, such as the Caliber with the same error of 3 meters from the nuclear warhead arrive at the berth where these vessels are based, the problem will not be at all with the EMP. There’s no stone left berth, not from all that will be there.
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Are we going to start TMV first and for no apparent reason?

                        You yourself said-IF CONSIDERING A REAL CONFRONTATION. hi
                      2. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 7 November 2015 18: 45 New
                        -1
                        Under the existing operational cycle system, the fleet at any time has 5-6 aircraft carriers deployed or ready for deployment within 30 days, and one ready for deployment in a period of 30 to 90 days.
                        I repeat the question, are you going to start the Third World War suddenly, for no apparent reason? Because the destruction of the carrier fleet in the places of basing is possible only in the indicated version.
                      3. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 7 November 2015 18: 55 New
                        +2
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        I repeat the question, are you going to start the Third World War suddenly, for no apparent reason?

                        Dear, no one pulled your tongue when you talked about a real confrontation. And if you recall what the President said, namely, if a military confrontation begins with NATO and the United States, then no one will wait until they strike, but hit first.
                        And about "are you going to start the Third World War suddenly, for no apparent reason?", I answer, stupid questions are not for this forum. There are no suicides here.
                        My regards hi
                      4. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 7 November 2015 19: 47 New
                        -2
                        Nobody asked you to flog nonsense, they themselves got into a conversation. It was about MSON and nothing more.
                      5. Kalmar
                        Kalmar 7 November 2015 23: 06 New
                        -1
                        And if you recall what the President said, namely, if a military confrontation begins with NATO and the United States, then no one will wait until they strike, but strike first.

                        What do you think is the beginning of the "military confrontation"? An official declaration of war? Such things are always preceded by a sufficiently long so-called. a threatened period when there is no official war yet, but everyone is actively preparing for it. It is unlikely that the Americans will be so stupid that they do not use this time to withdraw all available AUG at sea.
            2. Kalmar
              Kalmar 7 November 2015 23: 03 New
              0
              Based on the standard of the 80s, 1 AUG requires 2 regiments of Tu-22M3, 2 regiments of fighters for cover, electronic warfare vehicles, a total of 130-135 aircraft.

              As far as I remember, it was said there about "up to 2 regiments", i.e. 130 aircraft is not at all a necessary minimum, but rather a maximum.

              Then, since the 80s, weapons have been improved. Let's say the X-32, which is planned to replace the X-22, is expected to have a launch range of more than 600 km (up to 1000 was mentioned). Or, instead of the Tu-22M, it is possible to launch the Tu-142 with the Onyx, increasing the number of missiles in the salvo and thereby overloading the air defense of the AUG.

              Finally, there is the factor of nuclear warheads: from afar, several missiles with nuclear warheads (8 X-15 were mentioned somewhere, say) to blind the (temporary) enemy air defense, and then the main salvo will follow.

              In the North, the sadder is the Norwegian Armed Forces (up to hundreds of aircraft, of which 2/3 F-16) / NATO strike fleet (4-5 AUGs and a couple of battleship KUGs).

              By the way, I cannot find information about the AUG entering the northern seas. And it doesn't make much sense: it's easier to use conventional aviation from airfields of the same Norway. As the experience of the wars in the Persian Gulf has shown, it is the "land" aviation that ultimately does the main work.
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 8 November 2015 08: 25 New
                0
                Given the estimated level of losses, up to 80% minimum.

                The questions are the same — how to direct the range along which trajectory, the maximum range at altitude and in a straight line, you cannot launch missiles in such an order, they will detect, raise the I / B duty personnel and shoot them. The MRA needs to be given target designation and drag the missile carriers through the air defense lines, while only carrier-based aviation can handle this.

                Tim Wark 84. ZVO to the rescue. They don’t enter, because the HV ended, 2 fleet (North Atlantic, used to be the most powerful in the US Navy) was disbanded altogether.
                The experience of the Gulf War showed that carrier-based aviation gave the MNF 5 months for deployment and combat training (Operation Desert Shield).
                1. Kalmar
                  Kalmar 8 November 2015 23: 23 New
                  0
                  The questions are the same — how to direct the range along which trajectory, the maximum range at altitude and in a straight line, you cannot launch missiles in such an order, they will detect, raise the I / B duty personnel and shoot them. The MRA needs to be given target designation and drag the missile carriers through the air defense lines, while only carrier-based aviation can handle this.

                  Regarding the "shoot": it would be good to calculate how many real fighters on duty will have time to lift and how many they will have time to shoot down missiles. After all, it is clear that no one will beat the AUG with a dozen anti-ship missiles; missiles in a salvo should be at least fifty.

                  The breakthrough of MRA and AWACS aircraft is provided by cover fighters. Yes, it’s not without losses, well, after all, the opponent will also suffer losses, and no less. In the extreme case, the AUG will survive, but will practically lose its air wing, after which it will be relatively easy to finish off with the forces of the fleet.

                  Finally, if you fully accept your arguments, it turns out that carrier-based aviation is just as useless against the coast as coastal aviation is against ACG. The reasons are the same: two or three dozen fighters have extremely dubious chances of breaking through layered air defense in the region of important stationary targets. And mobile targets cannot be tracked, because AWACS planes will have to get too close to them, and reliable cover for them from ground aviation simply will not work.
  • Kalmar
    Kalmar 6 November 2015 23: 04 New
    +1
    "Near the coast" - up to 1600 km on land targets ... AUG can strike while remaining out of sight of target designation means.

    Equally fair except for stationary targets, the coordinates of which are known at least a couple of days before the attack. All other goals should be in the field of view of the target designation of the AUG itself, which obviously does not stretch for 1600 km.

    detection distance of air targets and warrant ships by aircraft DRLO-400-500 km

    After all, the plane does not hang motionless over the coast, but carries out patrolling, and at a considerable distance from the coast. It all depends on the number of such scouts and the patrol schedule. We add patrol ships, submarines and over-the-horizon radars: here is a fairly detailed picture of what is happening "near the coast" at 1500-2000 km.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 6 November 2015 23: 22 New
      0
      Or in the field of view of US / NATO intelligence, for example, a satellite constellation or DRLO base aircraft, any means from which data can be transmitted.

      In peacetime?
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 6 November 2015 23: 48 New
        0
        Or in the field of view of US / NATO intelligence, for example, a satellite constellation or DRLO base aircraft, any means from which data can be transmitted.

        The satellite constellation is not interesting. It takes about 36-48 hours from receiving a picture from a satellite to transmitting a completed flight mission for the Tomahawk. This is if the enemy does not use any advanced means of disguise. In fact, in this case we are talking about stationary objects.

        With basic AWACS aircraft, the trouble is about the same, only these aircraft in wartime will also become the object of an attack by air defense forces, which will further complicate the collection of information for the issuance of command and control.

        And in the end, the AUG can attack a target in 1500 km only with the help of "Tomahawks". And if all the work falls only on them, why do we need an aircraft carrier at all? It is easier to drive several Los Angeles aircraft to the coast or, in general, Ohio from the CD, since it will be much more difficult to find them.
  • Performance
    Performance 6 November 2015 11: 33 New
    +1
    In this area, the future lies with unmanned aerial vehicles that are constantly in the air. Impact connection, which will be based on some stratospheric airship, without the presence of people.

    A modern aircraft carrier, it’s like a bull-guard, more to maintain the image.
  • 2s1122
    2s1122 6 November 2015 11: 37 New
    +1
    Even if the AUG can reach 100 meters in a short period of time, a rocket with atomic filling (let's say it has not literally destroyed the group) is capable of destroying all the electronic equipment of ships due to an electromagnetic surge.
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 6 November 2015 17: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: 2s1122
      Even if the AUG can reach 100 meters in a short period of time, a rocket with atomic filling (let's say it has not literally destroyed the group) is capable of destroying all the electronic equipment of ships due to an electromagnetic surge.


      Aircraft carrier walks 100 meters in 20 seconds ...
      what is such a short period of time?
      Where are you going to shoot from?
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 6 November 2015 23: 07 New
      +1
      a missile with atomic filling (for example, let’s not literally destroy the group) is capable of destroying all the electronic equipment of ships due to an electromagnetic surge.

      It always seemed to me that modern warships were built with the expectation of work in the conditions of the use of nuclear weapons. Those. their electronics are protected against EMP, so complete destruction of equipment is unlikely; rather, it will be about a temporary failure.
  • kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 6 November 2015 11: 53 New
    +4
    The only truly stealth carrier is a submarine. And the best drone is a cruise missile. wassat
    The only path carrier in my opinion is the support of landing operations. Since strike missions and air defense can be solved by much cheaper cruisers and destroyers. Like purely drums with defense against surface and submarines, the same general-purpose submarines.
    In my opinion, the aircraft carrier of the future is more of an amphibious assault ship with SVP, attack and transport helicopters and a few attack aircraft with improved takeoff and landing characteristics. Say the same doped supersonic Su-25 or Yak-130, with radar and other means initially in the base case.
    I don’t argue that I could be wrong, but in general, the tendency to move from a floating island to an amphibious landing platform is clearly visible. And cover will be his classic missile ships, both surface and underwater ...
  • RPG_
    RPG_ 6 November 2015 12: 18 New
    +2
    End justifies the means. And if there is at least one task that the aircraft carrier will perform best of all, then he has the right to life.
  • Old26
    Old26 6 November 2015 14: 12 New
    +2
    Quote: Jurkovs
    But here hypersonic missiles (Zircon) loomed on the stage, and their carriers again are small ships, submarines and aircraft. It is impossible to shoot down a hypersonic missile and aircraft carriers will have to go to defend their shores as floating airfields.

    Its completely unknown performance characteristics and GVH of these missiles, and they have already become:
    1. Hypersonic
    2. Their carriers are small ships, submarines and aircraft.

    Well, a hypersonic CR can be brought down by a hypersonic anti-aircraft missile. Moreover, the GKKR flight will take place at altitudes of 15-20 km
  • Old26
    Old26 6 November 2015 14: 22 New
    +1
    Quote: misterwulf
    Yes useless troughs. The United States, having military bases around the world, contains floating bases for a trillion bucks ... Bullshit!

    I have already given an introduction to another topic about aircraft carriers
    A certain "Army of Freedom Tumba-Yumba" captured the capital of the Seychelles. The nearest American base is 2000, the nearest Allied base is 3000 km. What is more profitable. To drive aircraft to the target with refueling across half the world or to drive an aircraft carrier by 100-200 km?

    Quote: misterwulf
    As far as I remember, during an operation in Iraq, British planes from Britain and American from Germany flew directly from there to bomb Iraq.

    And based at the same time on the territory of other countries of the region ...
  • alovrov
    alovrov 6 November 2015 17: 28 New
    +3
    It should be noted that G. Hendricks is a consistent opponent of aircraft carriers and regularly publishes works in which he reveals his opinion and provides evidence in his favor.


    Good Kaptsov was encrypted. Not only writes here. I think soon we will see the latest American super-armored dreadnought.
  • maikl50jrij
    maikl50jrij 6 November 2015 18: 31 New
    +1
    This is what I want to say ... The fact is that Hendrix is ​​right about one thing, that time does not stand still. Caspian-Syria is proof of that. The development of missile technology in many respects reduces the role of carrier-based aircraft and aircraft carriers. "Showdowns" will not be international, but between the peoples of the "giants" of thought, ie. RF and USA. We have proved that at a distance of 2,5 tons. Km. we have no barriers. Our lionfish "run" freely despite the fact that no one knew about them. Naval air is needed in local conflicts ... The only question is, what is considered a LAN ..? At what distance and at what boundaries ..? It's not in vain that the United States is getting close to our borders !!! They are weak in large-scale wars. We "work" at distances, and they are "short stacks". They are strong in foreign countries to "work" with someone else's hands. That is why they are shaking from our renewable "idiots" on the rails ... And they will remove Mars from orbit ...
  • Erg
    Erg 6 November 2015 20: 49 New
    +1
    As a person who understands absolutely nothing about missiles or aircraft carrier groups, I argue simply. How much is a winged one without a core? And how many is the aircraft carrier? And with the whole group? And if the missiles are 200-300, compared to them? Probably no more than 1-2%. This is me about the budget and opportunities. And what - the adversaries will fight back? I don’t think so. Therefore, aircraft carriers can be used against Somalia. For us it is scrap metal. It is easy to see that "expensive" does not mean "effective". soldier
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 8 November 2015 15: 33 New
      0
      "How much is a winged one without a core?" ///

      This is not the case. KR in the anti-ship version flies 300 km.
      And in a non-anti-ship, like Caliber, will not get into an aircraft carrier,
      as he moves.
      Therefore, the "arm length" of the aircraft carrier (its aircraft) is greater than the "arm length"
      anti-ship missiles. The main thing for an aircraft carrier is not to get closer to the shore,
      than 300 km and not stand in one place.