Military Review

How many aircraft carriers sunk the submarine?

281
How many aircraft carriers sunk the submarine?



Sea giants capable of bombing targets at a distance of hundreds of kilometers. With dozens of aircraft on their decks - universal and powerful wing. Every time they are helpless when they encounter an underwater threat.

Now there is no chance of AUG at all.

There was no chance even in those times when submarines were primitive shells that spent 90% of their time on the surface. Deprived of the ability to quickly dive and change the depth. Without homing torpedoes and modern gas with spherical and conformal antennas. Without a means of measuring the speed of sound in the layers of water. Without GPS and GLONASS. With unstable radio communication and ridiculous analog devices in the central post. Without space means of targeting and data from meteorological satellites. Submariners went to sea, relying only on blind luck. And luck did not let them down!

British losses

Koreijjes. Converted battle-cruiser, length 240 m, displacement 23 thousand tons.
When: September 17 1939
The culprit: U-29.



Acting as part of a search and shock antisubmarine group, the heavy aircraft carrier Koreyjes was torpedoed off the coast of Ireland. The victims of the attack were 519 sailors (10 times more than the crew of a U-boat that sank him!), And the Koreyjes itself became the first ship of the Royal Navy sunk during World War II.

The tragedy forced the British to reconsider the concept of application fleet. From now on, it was forbidden to involve aircraft carriers in anti-submarine operations.

“Eagle”
When: 11 August 1941
The culprit: U-73

Former dreadnought “Almirante Cochrane”, completed as an aircraft carrier (203 meters, 27 thousand tons). Sunk in the Mediterranean, 130 km south of Mallorca while escorting a convoy to Malta (Operation Pedestal). The victims of the wreck were the 130 sailors.



Eagle was the only British ship whose design was calculated in metric units, since the ship was originally built for the Chilean Navy.

“Ark Royal”
When: November 14 1941
The culprit: U-81



In November, 1941, making the next delivery of fighters to Malta, the Arc Royal was torpedoed in the Mediterranean. The only torpedo hit the aircraft carrier, but that was enough. The struggle for vitality lasted more than 10 hours. When the roll reached 35 °, the destroyers took off the crew, and two hours later the Arc Royal sank.

It is worthwhile to pay tribute to the competent operation to rescue the crew: only one person died from the 1500 crew members of Ark Royal.

In addition to the three heavy aircraft carriers, in the period 1941-42. British have lost two "escort" - “Odessite” и “Avenger”. Particularly grave consequences had a second case in which more than 500 people died (the result of the attack U-751).

Total - minus five floating airfields. Great consequences have been avoided, only surpassing the remaining aviaufli to the Pacific Ocean. From sin away.

And in European waters, a complete nightmare was happening. Wolf Packs bitten 123 warships and 2700 oil transports, tanks, thousands of tons of food and other important and expensive goods.

American casualties

“Wasp”
The Japanese submarine I-19 was sunk off San Cristobal Island in September 1942.
Permanent losses - 193 people.

The most effective salvo in stories submarine fleet. Of the six torpedoes fired, four hit the “Wasp”, one in the destroyer, the last, sixth, damaged the nose of the battleship “North Caroline”. The aircraft carrier immediately exploded, the destroyer O'Brien sank. The battleship suffered a blow without serious consequences.


Torpedo hit the destroyer. Far off, "Wasp"


“Yorktown” - the wounded hero of the Midway battle retreated in tow until his course intersected with the Japanese I-168. Four torpedoes released - and “Yorktown” went to the bottom, along with members of his team 80.

By the time of drowning, “Yorktown” was no longer a combat-ready unit. Which, however, does not negate the fact that the meeting with the Japanese submarine was fatal for him.

In addition to the two high-profile cases of sinking aircraft carriers, the Americans lost their escort “Lai Bay” with an air group of 28 aircraft (torpedoed by I-175 in November 1943, 644 dead) and the same escort “Block Island” (torpedoed by the German U-549 in the Canary Islands region in 1944). It is curious that the latter himself was the leader of an antisubmarine group of a dozen destroyers and frigates.

Such a modest loss was due to the presence of two factors:

a) the complete absence of the mighty “Essex” and “Yorktown” on communications in the Atlantic; where they would come to a complete end from the U-bots;

b) objective weakness of the Japanese submarine fleet. Not a single Japanese submarine could dive deeper than 75 meters. And the first Japanese submarine radar appeared only in 1945 year.

Japanese losses

First, a few facts about the forces of the opposing sides.

The Yankees had 200 excellent submarines, which did not serve the latest people. The typical American “Gatou” was three times larger than the German U-bot: a real ocean cruiser capable of passing 20 000 km, with ten torpedo tubes, the latest radar and sonar.

As a result, the Japanese AUGs did not even have time to get to the combat zone.


Statistics on the Pacific Theater. Submarines sank more ships and ships than aircraft carriers, the base aviation and surface ships combined.


In one day, 19 June 1944, the Imperial fleet lost two aircraft carriers at once.

Submarine "Cavella" torpedoed heavy “Sekaku” (237 meters, 32 thousand tons), avenging the Japanese for Pearl Harbor. The victims of the attack were 1272 Japanese pilot and sailor.

Even more terrible consequences have been the sinking “Taiho” (newest, 260 meters, 37 thousand tons). The pride of the Imperial fleet went to the bottom, never having managed to strike a single blow to the enemy. Along with him, the 1650 man has gone to the bottom.



An interesting legend is connected with the death of “Taiho”: at the moment of the attack, the plane of the warrant officer Sakio Komatsu took off from his deck. The pilot saw six terrible breakers aimed at the side of his ship - and without hesitation threw the bomber at a deadly peak. Of the five remaining torpedoes, four passed by. The only torpedo caught in Taiho became fatal for him.

Six hours later, on the “Taiho” because of the erroneous actions of the crew detonated a pair of gasoline. However, this does not negate the fact of his sinking by the “Albacore” boat. And to burn and explode aircraft carriers is no stranger, so these "crystal" ships are arranged.

In November 1944, the Archerfish boat sank “Shinano” (265 meters, 70 thousand tons). The largest ship ever sunk in a naval battle. The victims of the shipwreck were 1435 people.



Yes, “Shinano” was not completed. Came with unsealed bulkheads. The crew did not know the plan of the compartments of their ship, but he sank for long 7 hours. But how does this change the point? Had the Shinano been in combat readiness, he would have died instantly: one of four hits fell into the area of ​​the aviation gas storage (fortunately for the Japanese, not yet filled with fuel).

Meanwhile, the beating continued.

In December 1944, the Redfish submarine sank the aircraft carrier “Unryu” (227 meters, 20 thousand tons). Permanent loss - 1238 man.

Together with four strike aircraft carriers, American submariners sank four "escort":

“Chiyo” (December 1943 g., boat “Sailfish”). The victims - 1350 people.

“Akitsu Maru” (November 1944 g., “Quinfish” boat). As a result of a powerful shipwreck, the Japanese 2046 died.

“Shinyou” (November 1944 g., “Spadefish”). East China Sea, 1130 dead.

“Unyyo” (September 1944 g., boat “Barb”). 239 dead.

Epilogue. “I’ll hit hard but surely.”

17 aircraft carrier (9 shock, 8 escort). 12,5 thousands of dead sailors and pilots.

Such was the “catch” of submariners during the years of the Second World War.

The last lost aircraft carrier was the unfinished Japanese “Amagi”, which sank near the mooring wall after a raid by bombers on the Kure naval base (July 29 1945). Since then, no one has managed to destroy an aircraft carrier in combat conditions. Due to the absence of any serious maritime conflicts involving aircraft carriers.

During the Fokland crisis (1982), the Argentinean “Venticisco de Mayo” hid in the base and did not leave from there until the end of the war. Otherwise, I would repeat the fate of “General Belgrano”.

Modern “Nimitz” prefer to keep at a considerable distance from the coast, performing secondary tasks in local conflicts.

But what happens if they need to engage in battle with a modern submarine fleet?

This is eloquently testified by numerous facts:



The emblem of the Dutch submarine “Valrus” (“walrus”), which broke through the defense of AUG and conditionally “sank” the aircraft carrier “T. Roosevelt ”at the international exercise JTFEX-99.

Similar incidents were recorded at joint exercises with the Australian Navy (“Collins” type boats) and the Israeli Navy (“Dolphin” type boats). In December 2005, the joint Task Force Exercise 06-2 demonstration exercises were held with the participation of the Swedish submarine “Gotland” specially deployed on the Pacific Ocean.

"Gotland" was fast, powerful and most hidden. Six torpedo tubes, 18 torpedoes, the ability to set up 48 min.

Tiny crew, high automation and advanced detection tools.

The low mass of the hull, low-magnetic steel and 27 compensating electromagnets completely excluded the detection of the boat by magnetic anomaly detectors. Thanks to a single all-electric motor and vibration isolation of all mechanisms, the Gotland was hardly detected even in the immediate vicinity of American ships, and the special hull cover, together with its small size, made it difficult to detect the Gotland by active sonars. The boat simply merged with the natural thermal and noise background of the ocean.


Where did the “Gotland”, no one understood. He just plunged and disappeared. And then the Swedes showed pictures of all AUG ships, led by the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan. The boat passed through the squadron like a knife through butter, taking a picture of each of the ships at close range.

Similar stories happened during the Cold War. When the K-10 went unnoticed by the 13 hours under the bottom of the aircraft carrier Enterprise.

A stir in the Sixth Fleet, when C-360 raised the periscope near De Moine. At the time of the cruiser was President D. Eisenhower.

Propeller-packed secret anti-submarine antenna (K-324 incident). Modern legends about “Pikes” in the Gulf of Mexico ...


Deck anti-submarine aircraft S-3 "Viking". Dismissed in 2006 year. There is no replacement and is not expected.
Author:
281 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ruslan67
    Ruslan67 10 November 2015 06: 03
    42
    Kaptsov in the morning instead of coffee request It is stronger than Faust Goethe laughing I will read in the evening when there are hundreds of two posts yes
    1. igordok
      igordok 10 November 2015 09: 42
      11
      Quote: Ruslan67
      Kaptsov in the morning instead of coffee

      Again, I repeat. By the title of the article, you already know who the author is. And for frequent, the articles are interesting. And some unfortunately became boring. Thanks.
      1. _Vladislav_
        _Vladislav_ 10 November 2015 14: 22
        +9
        Modern AUGs are a very powerful combat unit. And the means to gain superiority in the open ocean is better not to find. Or say, if you need to bomb any Bulgarian (a country with modest military capabilities). BUT.

        There is no great need to hunt specifically for an aircraft carrier (In any case, for Russia). In the modern world, AUG, if it intends to act against R.F., will avoid water areas limited by coastlines (and ASU will not go into the Black Sea at all - this is death).

        As soon as the Aircraft Carrier begins to operate in a relatively short range from the enemy’s coastline (say Russia), its advantage immediately turns into poor quality. Namely: with the appropriate capabilities of coastal defense, aviation, reconnaissance - these are the elements where the AUG is significantly inferior.

        Even if you start from the number of aircraft (airplanes are the main weapon), there are somewhere on the aircraft carrier, well, up to 50 units. And how many planes can be placed ashore? What are the capabilities of the radar (EW) on the shore? What are the anti-ship capabilities on shore?

        PS
        And where is the guarantee that whatever “Varshavyanka” or “Ash” accidentally, of course, does not torpedo one (or several) of the AUG ships.
        1. Talgat
          Talgat 10 November 2015 23: 18
          +7
          It’s not for nothing that they say (the thief also repeated on the top) that there are two types of ships: submarines and targets

          Therefore, the USSR also emphasized atomarines
          1. Secta haki
            Secta haki 11 November 2015 00: 14
            +1
            Because the steel fish, which airplanes dampen dynamite from above safely, is not even a target.
          2. Ykrofashist
            Ykrofashist 11 November 2015 01: 15
            0
            Ten of the coolest ships (or boats. Unfortunately I do not remember exactly) part 3, the first place of ash. This is also Kaptsov
        2. Garris199
          Garris199 11 November 2015 03: 02
          +2
          Quote: _Vladislav_
          Modern AUGs are a very powerful combat unit.

          But modern boats are also not sugar. Their power grew in proportion to the growth of the power of AUG.
          Quote: _Vladislav_
          And where is the guarantee that whatever the “Varshavyanka” or “Ash” accidentally of course

          No warranties. They can and not at all by chance. Another question is that we still have few of these boats.
    2. sniper
      sniper 10 November 2015 11: 09
      12
      Quote: Ruslan67
      Kaptsov in the morning instead of coffee

      Yeah ... With the eternal question: "Who is stronger than a whale or an elephant ???" I can throw one more Temko to the respected author: “Who will win, an atomic warhead or an airbase?” With all the ensuing consequences, like, how many warheads were shot down by aircraft? Or, how many aircraft at the airbase will survive an atomic explosion ??? Well, with the conclusion, like all military equipment is outdated and has become completely unnecessary in the light of the existence of nuclear weapons. Further, you can stigmatize scientists and the military as impudent budget sawers ... Although, what am I doing with advice? Oleg will cope with it himself ... Or you can choose a topic that is easier. Who is stronger than a tank or an anti-tank mine, ask the reader how many mines did the tank destroy? Yeah, how many tanks were blown up by mines? Now let's compare the cost of both, find the culprit ... Good luck! wassat
      1. Secta haki
        Secta haki 10 November 2015 12: 33
        27 th
        And how many aircraft carriers were sunk during the Caribbean crisis, when almost all of the submarines were forced to sail.
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 10 November 2015 14: 02
          +9
          Quote: SectaHaki
          And how many aircraft carriers were sunk during the Caribbean crisis, when almost all of the submarines were forced to sail.

          a lot would be sunk, they had one dashboard each
          with Special BCH, while the Yankees thought that the armament on our submarines was ordinary.
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 10 November 2015 16: 41
            11
            Well, the Americans differently estimated the Anadyr operation. And they found only three of the seven boats. They did not find the missile carrier of the 629th project either. So, the Americans did not estimate the results of the Caribbean crisis in1962, but in 2015. In November 1962, when parsing the Americans understood the main thing: the US has NO OCEAN BARRIER.
            Quote: PSih2097
            And how many aircraft carriers were sunk during the Caribbean crisis, when almost all of the submarines were forced to sail.

            Confirmation: Lyabedzka "Cold War Submarine Front". The author of the book was the commander of the missile carrier.
          2. Secta haki
            Secta haki 11 November 2015 00: 27
            -8
            Do you think there was not a single one on American ships?
            1. Amurets
              Amurets 11 November 2015 01: 32
              +3
              It is one thing to use nuclear weapons off their shores and another thing to use on enemy ones.
              1. Secta haki
                Secta haki 11 November 2015 01: 36
                -7
                Where do such "complexes" come from, unless the aircraft carrier is in the harbor of New York? For submarines, special ammunition is not needed at all.
        2. Alf
          Alf 10 November 2015 21: 39
          +5
          Quote: SectaHaki
          And how many aircraft carriers were sunk during the Caribbean crisis,

          And what, during the Caribbean crisis were officially declared military action?
          1. Secta haki
            Secta haki 10 November 2015 22: 04
            21 th
            As a result of the Cuban missile crisis, the Soviet submarines were forced by the Americans to surface, the Navy could not do anything about the American blockade of this island, and the Khrushchev nuclear-missile USSR, under "legal guarantees", withdrew from Cuba in disgrace.

            listen further to the sweet songs of engaged hackers, they clearly "wish you well."
            1. Assistant
              Assistant 10 November 2015 23: 20
              +8
              As a result of the Caribbean crisis, Soviet submarines were forced by the Americans to rise


              And please tell me how it can never pop up within a month diesel-electric Submarine?
              And when you tell us this, we will complicate the task a little: DEPL will take models of the late 50s - early 60s, the submarine will not have a repair base for a month - only crew repair using parts found inside the boat’s hull, average temperature let's take outboard water 10 degrees higher than the one at which these diesel-electric submarines were usually operated.
              And by the way, since you already pose the question
              And how many aircraft carriers were sunk during the Caribbean crisis
              , then let's put the following question: "How many submarines were sunk in the Cuban missile crisis?"
              1. Secta haki
                Secta haki 10 November 2015 23: 33
                13 th
                RSL or GAS no matter the submarines they listen to or NPL.

                Let you please understand how this crisis ended ...
                1. Assistant
                  Assistant 11 November 2015 00: 08
                  11
                  Let you please understand how this crisis ended ...


                  The RSD was removed from Cuba, from Turkey and Italy. The USSR guaranteed that it would not deploy nuclear weapons in Cuba. The USA guaranteed that they would not attack Cuba. A direct telephone line was pulled between the Kremlin and the White House.
                  1. Secta haki
                    Secta haki 11 November 2015 00: 22
                    15 th
                    BRDS posted even in West Germany. Nobody removed them from Turkey then.
                    Well, sometimes you need to chat, like the weather in Brighton, like a wife, mother-in-law, children, grandchildren ...
                    When Soviet transport ships returned with missiles from Cuba, a plane flew up and before the American pilots bowing low uncovered the RSD, after which they took pictures of what and in what quantities were placed on the deck.
                  2. Secta haki
                    Secta haki 11 November 2015 01: 00
                    10 th
                    Nuclear weapons were not withdrawn from Turkey (the Inzhirlik airbase), because the Americans allegedly removed their infantry-carrier from there invented by the political prop. They were taken out of service three years later after events with the development of new, longer range, after which the need for previous starting positions disappeared.
                    1. Alexy
                      Alexy 11 November 2015 06: 48
                      +2
                      Who are you? Troll?
                    2. Don
                      Don 14 November 2015 16: 20
                      -1
                      Quote: SectaHaki
                      Nuclear weapons were not withdrawn from Turkey (the Inzhirlik airbase), because the Americans allegedly removed their infantry-carrier from there invented by the political prop.

                      What are you? But is this not your idle talk?
                2. Amurets
                  Amurets 11 November 2015 05: 40
                  +2
                  And how do you comment on the US GAS antennas wound on the screws of the USSR submarines and this is not one K-324 that wound the latest antenna and radiator on the screw on the screw. Or explain how the Tambov submarine in 1996 was at the center of NATO anti-submarine exercises and how it ended for the sea command of NATO? Here is a reference, so as not to consider that this is fake.http: //istorya.pro/lodka-proekta-971-akula-appenditsit-u-matrosa-i-shok
                  -nat
                  ovskih-korabley ..- t.html And where are your famous PLOs. And from the S-360 that raised the periscope near the ship with President Eisenhour to winding anti-submarine antennas, I hope there are enough facts to understand that there is absolutely no impenetrable defense. And nuclear explosions ammunition off its coast is fraught with nuclear contamination of its coast http://www.dogswar.ru/boepripasy/snariady-rakety/6972-atomnaia-glybinnaia-.html.

                  Here's the link. In the U.S. Navy At that time were armed with 2 types of atomic depth charges: Lulu and Betty.
                  1. Secta haki
                    Secta haki 11 November 2015 07: 03
                    -9
                    They have the property of winding up ... Has it lost its course surfaced at the same time?
                    And how do you comment that every second Soviet submarine came to the base with a spot of white paint near the cabin that was hastily wiped off?
                    And how do you know that they did not put such on almost every first?

                    SABROK, of course, can also not take particular aim, just look at what a conventional American guided torpedo did with the Kursk.

                    In principle, it is possible to break through single SSBNs, but a normal war at sea or a breakthrough of the blockade of Cuba’s nuclear submarines without air guidance and without the same cover cannot be done.
                    1. Amurets
                      Amurets 11 November 2015 13: 24
                      +3
                      For K-129, the Americans paid off Scorpio. Don’t worry, there will be reckoning for Kursk. Not for nothing that the Americans are afraid to go to the Arctic now. You won’t find anyway. And it’s a lie that every second boat came to the base with a spot of white paint. Your famous submarine search lines are just flooded dollars, so like the accuracy of detection they have 1,5x1,5 nautical miles. You have to count or the mind itself is enough. And how do you like the fire on the Enterprise, which our submarine launched by blowing fan tanks, to get rid of sewage. Where do I get information? From the reports of your ship commanders and formations. Right from their desks and desks, do you not know that energy-saving lamps through Windows transfer data to everyone who is interested in the fleet.
                      1. Secta haki
                        Secta haki 11 November 2015 14: 51
                        -6
                        "Enterprise" is a space ship from Star wars like that? Carry on your ChSV, without switching to Linux ... seagulls can't get so much white paint.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. Amurets
                        Amurets 11 November 2015 15: 25
                        0
                        [img] Enterprise "(1969). Pr ... weaponscollection.com [/ img]
                        And here Linux I have Solaris. And how does Enterprise burn look and how many gulls will be needed here?
                      4. Secta haki
                        Secta haki 11 November 2015 15: 37
                        -3
                        Amuse, amuse ... Look at other people's fires, and do not forget to wipe off the white paint.
                      5. Amurets
                        Amurets 11 November 2015 17: 10
                        +3
                        And you are bloody snot.
                      6. Secta haki
                        Secta haki 12 November 2015 07: 05
                        -2
                        Khrushchev's Soviet Union in snotts in 1962 received ...
                      7. Sterlya
                        Sterlya 14 November 2015 22: 19
                        0
                        Quote: SectaHaki
                        Khrushchev's Soviet Union in snotts in 1962 received ...

                        judging by the flag Exceptional Troll, or just a baboon, if not Baobab Himself laughing
                      8. Secta haki
                        Secta haki 16 November 2015 09: 01
                        0
                        Yes, not only snot ...

                        Closer to the baobab.
            2. Alf
              Alf 11 November 2015 22: 54
              0
              Quote: SectaHaki
              "Enterprise" is a space ship from Star wars like that?

              USS Enterprise (CVN-65) (Enterprise) is a US aircraft carrier. The first aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant. Laid down on November 15, 1957 at the Newport News Shipbuilding shipyard. Launched on September 24, 1960.
              It was commissioned in 1961.
  • Nick
    Nick 10 November 2015 23: 53
    +4
    Quote: SectaHaki
    The navy could not do anything about the American blockade of this island, and the Khrushchev nuclear missile-carrying USSR, under "legal guarantees", withdrew from Cuba in disgrace.

    And Uncle Sam with shame removed his missiles from Turkey.
    The Cuban missile crisis was provoked by the United States by deploying its IRBMs in Turkey. In return, the USSR deployed its RSDs in Cuba, which Washington considered its backyard. Having received a "hedgehog in its pants" the United States realized that its security cannot be guaranteed at the expense of the USSR. As a result, they agreed on a double zero. The United States is removing its IRBMs from Turkey, and the USSR is removing its IRBMs from Cuba.
    Learn the story. hi
    1. Secta haki
      Secta haki 11 November 2015 00: 32
      11 th
      The United States did not remove anything from Turkey then. Listen less to the infamous Khrushchev. When you learn history, read more about the Berlin crisis, which (like the transfer of the Crimea, and much more) has muddied the same dodik.
      When moving goods, neither in Turkey nor anywhere else, the Americans did not uncover their cargo in front of Soviet pilots with shame.
      1. Nick
        Nick 11 November 2015 11: 18
        +4
        Quote: SectaHaki
        The United States did not remove anything from Turkey then. Listen less to the infamous Khrushchev. When you learn history, read more about the Berlin crisis, which (like the transfer of the Crimea, and much more) has muddied the same dodik.
        When moving goods, neither in Turkey nor anywhere else, the Americans did not uncover their cargo in front of Soviet pilots with shame.

        You about the geopolitical situation that created the Caribbean crisis, and you about some kind of covers ... You, my friend, have an aberration of consciousness. You even outdid Psaki
        1. Secta haki
          Secta haki 11 November 2015 15: 05
          -6
          Aberration of consciousness among those who want to climb into their pockets in the far corners and violate their freedom of movement on the sea in neutral waters, and they do not even know "Turkey" ...
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 11 November 2015 00: 09
    12
    Quote: SectaHaki
    Soviet submarines were forced by the Americans to ascend,
    Respected! Yes, you are an unscrupulous debater !!! You would say that the boats were diesel, not nuclear. But you will "turn blue" to lift the PLA (your mother!), Tk. first you need to find it, and then preempt it in a volley, well, and the very last: you can enthusiastically drive a submarine simulator for half a day, which (well, nothing!) does not differ in echo from the owner, while it will be silent on soft paws slide shadow into the area of ​​execution of the BZ (called RBD).
    Quote: SectaHaki
    The Navy could not do anything with the American blockade of this island,
    But did he have such a task? Everyone is talking about 641 projects, forgetting about 629 (SLBMs). But not everyone found them ... Why are you modestly silent about this?

    Quote: SectaHaki
    Khrushchev's nuclear missile USSR, under "legal guarantees", got out of Cuba in disgrace.
    Why in disgrace? Americans from a helicopter photographed the RSD exported from Cuba by our bulk carriers. That's all.
    But!!! Cuba was not touched anymore ... The missiles were removed from Turkey (refused to be deployed) ... So who then won from Operation Anadyr?
    And the last thing, in the words of A.S. Pushkin: "he made himself respect him, and he could not have imagined better!"
    That's it, my striped, American friend!
    1. g1v2
      g1v2 11 November 2015 00: 35
      +2
      By the way, bmpd has a photo from the NTV report about the meeting on the development of the defense industry held under the chairmanship of Putin on November 9, 2015. I quote.
      Assignment status 6 - "Defeat important objects of the enemy's economy in the coastal area and inflict guaranteed unacceptable damage to the country's territory by creating zones of extensive radioactive contamination, unsuitable for military, economic and other activities in these zones for a long time"

      The design 09852 special-purpose nuclear submarine "Belgorod" under construction is shown at the top left as the intended carriers, the project 09851 special-purpose nuclear submarine "Khabarovsk" is on the right.
      It seems the mattresses were right about our nuclear-powered underwater drones.
      1. maks.clevtsoff
        maks.clevtsoff 11 November 2015 14: 55
        0
        In my opinion, stuffing ... It would be strange if secret documents were broadcast on television. And the idea itself is somewhat crazy - too expensive and unnecessary. And without that there is something to stop the rattling of weapons at our borders.
    2. Secta haki
      Secta haki 11 November 2015 00: 43
      11 th
      RSL and GAS find submarines and submarines the same.
      This task was not even set. How do you know that they removed from Turkey or 629, etc. did not find?
      Because he got out and in disgrace. When moving their cargo ever, even to "besieged" Berlin by land (Khrushch also muddied it), none of the Americans uncovered their cargo in front of Soviet pilots on airplanes or helicopters.
      Who made themselves respect there? On the contrary, they wiped themselves out ... Even the American naval base in Cuba "in response" remained. Is Pushkin our everything? invent something better urgently!
  • Amurets
    Amurets 11 November 2015 02: 13
    +4
    And the Americans lost less? I will not list the mutual losses, who will find it interesting. There is a lot of literature on this topic. Both in Russian and in English. And the agangated scribblers are Robert McNamara "13 days-Forty years later", correspondence between John F. Kennedy and Khrushchev? I do not take writers, observers. I take documents of that time. And the fact that the boats were off Pearl Harbor and off the Pacific coast in the United States only learned when they began to send radio messages about their return to their bases. This was done demonstratively. the boats were actually off the coast of the United States at that time, no one knows.
    1. Secta haki
      Secta haki 11 November 2015 02: 34
      -8
      The Americans have not lost anything at all. Even the Guantanamo naval base remained in Cuba, and no one in response from the sea, decoratively or in fact, blocked it.
      Biased hacks it was about here.

      After the Cuban and Berlin crisis, the authority of the USSR (especially its naval component) was nowhere below 1965. For this Khrushchev was thrown out and rocked trying to build on a new at least some sort of Navy and Air Force. Paul Army from him also declined.

      Demonstratively only pests do this, blurring the last ...
      1. doxtop
        doxtop 11 November 2015 20: 04
        0
        I apologize! I'm a little off topic, but still ...
        Respected! According to your comments, I began to form the opinion that if you had given power in 1961, then this world would not have existed like 54 years! I mean planet Earth itself.
        hi
        1. Secta haki
          Secta haki 12 November 2015 06: 59
          -2
          Was "perestroika" also a conscious necessity?
  • avdkrd
    avdkrd 11 November 2015 18: 08
    0
    Quote: sniper
    Yeah ... With the eternal question: "Who is stronger than a whale or an elephant ???"

    Yes, it seems that the author did not compare an armored train with an aircraft carrier. Normal analysis with historical facts. Submarines are being built just to deal with surface ships, and the aircraft carrier seems to relate to them.
  • Alex_59
    Alex_59 10 November 2015 06: 35
    +8
    Sea giants capable of bombing targets at a distance of hundreds of kilometers. With dozens of aircraft on their decks - versatile and powerful air wings. Each time they find themselves helpless when faced with an underwater threat.
    This applies to any large surface ship. Each thing has its purpose. Carriers are not designed to counter submarines, and submarines are not intended to cause airstrikes. Nevertheless, even the bulls were driven into canned food, and the war for the Atlantic in packs was practically lost already at the beginning of 43. Hundreds of escort destroyers and corvettes guarantee this.
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 10 November 2015 07: 57
      16
      Quote: Alex_59
      the war for the Atlantic in packs was virtually lost already at the beginning of the 43rd. Hundreds of escort destroyers and corvettes guarantee this.

      The point here is the industrial and human reserves of the warring parties, and not the effectiveness of the means.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 10 November 2015 08: 03
        +6
        Quote: Vladimirets
        The point here is the industrial and human reserves of the warring parties, and not the effectiveness of the means.

        And in that too. But also in the fact that since the 43 year, German submarines have become a means of a one-time attack. Those. the effectiveness of funds since the 40 year has also increased.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 10 November 2015 09: 23
          23
          Quote: Alex_59
          since the 43 year, German submarines have become a means of a one-time attack.
          The fact that it became very difficult for Admiral Doenitz's boats in the Atlantic was not in the least the merit of aviation, including deck aviation. Oleg is a great "provocateur", the site is probably gaining a record number of comments on his articles, the people "do not fist", angrily refuting his statements. It may very well be that the author actually has a different, secret opinion on the topic raised. We take Oleg's article "Aircraft carrier from a dry cargo ship" dated August 25, 2012 and read it.
          Escort aircraft carriers, despite the cramped space, low speed and low wing, still remained formidable ships. Many of the 783 sunken U-bots of Kriegsmarine became the prey of carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft. For example, the Bog escort aircraft carrier destroyed 9 German and 1 Japanese submarines [2]. "Card" - 8 German submarines, "Anzio" - 5 Japanese. And the results of an amazing battle at about. Samar showed that the combat capabilities of escort aircraft carriers go far beyond convoy functions.
          Here one could already name an article, "How many submarines have destroyed aircraft carriers?" In any case, whether I agree or not, Oleg Kaptsov's work is interesting to read. Thank you for the article.
          1. Secta haki
            Secta haki 10 November 2015 12: 40
            -6
            Quote: Per se.
            it may be that the author actually has a different, secret ...

            SWEET_SIXTEEN (3)
            Group: Journalists
            Location: Wildwoods
            Number of publications: 411
            http://topwar.ru/user/SWEET_SIXTEEN/
            1. Alf
              Alf 10 November 2015 21: 43
              +2
              Quote: SectaHaki
              Quote: Per se.
              it may be that the author actually has a different, secret ...
              SWEET_SIXTEEN (3)
              Group: Journalists
              Location: Wildwoods
              Number of publications: 411
              http://topwar.ru/user/SWEET_SIXTEEN/

              And why this bunch in a puddle? Well, you wrote how many Kaptsov wrote articles, where he lives and who he works with. And what from this ? Why this post? Just to PR
              1. Secta haki
                Secta haki 10 November 2015 21: 55
                -6
                Quote: Serg65
                After comments of this type
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN


                The Almaz-Antey experiment proved that it did not need a discussion - the Boeing was shot down by Buk. Now it remains to rub that Buk was not ours. And whose? Dill did not need to use air defense - the militia did not have aviation. Air defense used only DNI / LC. Fact? Fact.

                They say that there was no sign of a missile launch. There was a trace, if only because Almaz-Antey proved that the Boeing was shot down by Buk. If you go to Yandex - it turns out that even photos of this trace are, dozens of witnesses. They simply were not shown on the main channels, otherwise how would Leontyev explain that Boeing was shot down by pilot Voloshin?


                Have you tried Espumisan? This is a user profile and site statistics.

                with him in this agree?
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 10 November 2015 09: 37
          +7
          Quote: Alex_59
          And in that too. But also in the fact that since the 43rd year, German submarines have become a means of a one-time attack.

          In 1943, German submarines still drowned the Americans with the British quite well.
          US Merchant Fleet Loss (sunk and damaged)
          Period Number Percentage of Losses
          September 1939 - December 7, 1941 6 1%
          December 7, 1941 - December 31, 1941 14 2%
          1942 373 47%
          1943 204 26%
          1944 130 16%
          1945 (all 12 months) 68 9%
          Total: 795 100%
          In 1944, the defeat on the Eastern Front, the loss of bases in the Mediterranean Sea and other regions, the economic condition of Germany, manpower, displaced aircraft, all played a role in nullifying the effectiveness of German submarines. The spent forces of the Americans with the British to neutralize the submarines were colossal.
          In relation to modern submarines:
          - There is no terrible beast in the ocean.
          5 Sivulfs attack ACG, what are the chances of ACG?
          1. Santa Fe
            10 November 2015 09: 59
            +2
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            , all this played a role in nullifying the effectiveness of German submarines.

            There could be no zero

            Efficiency, even in the most difficult periods, never fell below 1. With the incomparable cost of an underwater "tub" and its goals
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            5 Sivulfs attack ACG, what are the chances of ACG?

            These advantages, in accordance with the "Concept of combat activities in the underwater environment" approved by the commander-in-chief, include:
            the ability to penetrate the depths;
            ability to act unnoticed;
            ability to penetrate the enemy's defenses;
            the ability to suddenly attack, independently choosing the time and place of attack;
            ability to survive without significant defense costs;
            opportunity to use the uncertainty and ambiguity of the underwater environment.


            - US Submariner Code
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 10 November 2015 13: 24
              +4
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              There could be no zero

              Yes, I wrote recklessly about zero, by inertia, even in the tablet I quoted in 1945, German submarines sank 68 ships.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              - US Submariner Code

              Submarines are by far the most formidable combat unit in the ocean, with the development of technology, their power will only grow, and counteraction against submarines has always been much more costly.

              Thank you for the article.
              1. Secta haki
                Secta haki 10 November 2015 22: 45
                10 th
                In 1945, the tonnage of sunk German submarines exceeded 2,5 times the tonnage of sunk ships and vessels. The German submarine fleet was defeated back in 1943. Success was in 1941-1942 until a convoy system was established.
                It was never established by the Japanese, hence the success of American submarines. Even the Shinano went unaccompanied. Fools were lucky for even bigger ones.

                In total, the Germans lost more than 1000 submarines of the 1200 issued. As well as over 75,000 members of their crews. Most were sunk by radar aircraft. Even before the Cuban crisis, it was replaced by aviation with discharged or lowered sonar buoys. The submarine is too slow to avoid or evade its maneuvering, and is practically defenseless against it in terms of anti-aircraft weapons, as the dumb ones were convinced even in the Bay of Biscay in May 1943.

                Now the submarines have a chance against aviation and NK acting on their own only under the ice of the Arctic Ocean.
    2. Santa Fe
      10 November 2015 09: 10
      +6
      Quote: Alex_59
      Carriers are not designed to counter submarines,

      Why are they needed in a naval battle, if the submarine always won
      at 20-fold lower costs
      Quote: Alex_59
      and submarines are not intended for air strikes.

      Sea-based cruise missiles mounted on submarines from the 1950's.
      Los Angeles - 12 Tomahawks, Not Including RCC
      885 Ash - 32 Caliber
      Virginia VPM - 40
      PLARK Ohio - 154

      + exotic, underwater-based attack UAV "Cormoran", everything has its time

      or:
      On December 6 on the 2013 of the year, the Providence (SSN-719) submarine launched the XFC UAS (eXperimental Fuel Cell Unmanned Aerial System) reconnaissance drone.
      Quote: Alex_59
      oyna for the Atlantic in packs was actually lost already at the beginning of 43.

      Open already books at last

      2,5 million tons for 1943
      sank on 400 thousand tons more than in 1941.
      Hundreds of escort destroyers and corvettes guarantee this.

      Winners)))

      the last aircraft carrier - HMS Thane was torpedoed by the 15 electric bot on January 1945, right at the mouth of the Thames

      How would things go in the Atlantic, if the Germans did not have the Eastern Front, where all the resources went. And the Electrobots would go into a series not in 1945, but a couple of years earlier

      "Eletrobot" was oriented towards being under water for the longest time: the most streamlined body without heavy artillery, fences and platforms - all for the sake of minimizing underwater resistance. Snorkel, six groups of batteries (3 times more than on ordinary boats!), powerful email. full speed engines, quiet and economical Sneaking engines.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 10 November 2015 10: 07
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Open already books at last
        1. I don’t have to poke. 2. It’s not for you to advise me to open books.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Why are they needed in a naval battle, if the submarine always won

        Well, let's say they are not needed. What's next? ICBMs with nuclear warheads make everything unnecessary.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Sea-based cruise missiles mounted on submarines from the 1950's.
        Do not replace aviation. Complement. But do not replace.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        2,5 million tons for 1943
        Beginning of the End.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        sank on 400 thousand tons more than in 1941.

        Cool. You can wear an iron cross. With swords. And oak leaves. Bottom line - the war is lost.
        1. Santa Fe
          10 November 2015 10: 22
          +4
          Quote: Alex_59
          1. I don’t have to poke. 2. It’s not for you to advise me to open books.

          Why then leave such illiterate comments
          Quote: Alex_59
          What's next?

          further - the fact: if a naval battle begins - surface ships will not have time to crawl to the database zone, with the modern development of the submarine fleet
          Quote: Alex_59
          Do not replace aviation.

          You wrote categorically: not intended for air strikes

          even as intended
          Quote: Alex_59
          Beginning of the End.

          Everyone would have such an end))
          Quote: Alex_59
          Bottom line - the war is lost.

          We must look at the ratio of costs and losses
          Kriegsmarine could not win the war, too unequal balance of power - according to 10 ships on 1 submarine. But the damage they cause is proof of the unique capabilities of the submarine fleet.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 10 November 2015 10: 33
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Why then leave such illiterate comments

            That is, we still switched to you. OK. Why do you write such nonsense in your articles? laughing
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            We must look at the ratio of costs and losses
            Of course it is. While alive. When dead, like Hitler - you do not care about the costs.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            You wrote categorically: not intended for air strikes
            You have not rubbed your eyes in the morning. Go wash, re-read again and see that I wrote not air strikes, but air strikes. Cruise missiles are not aircraft, although they are undoubtedly a means of air attack.
            1. Santa Fe
              10 November 2015 10: 44
              +1
              Quote: Alex_59
              Why do you write such nonsense in your articles?

              they’re not nonsense, but things to think about
              as evidenced by the number of views and comments
              Quote: Alex_59
              Of course it is. While alive. When dead like Hitler - spit on your expenses.
              you know the expression "Pyrrhic victory"

              Sometimes it happens
              Quote: Alex_59
              but airstrikes. Cruise missiles are not aircraft, although they are undoubtedly a means of air attack.

              dispute about anything
              a bomb from a bomber and warhead Caliber do the same job, with Caliber in most cases more profitable!

              and yes, carrier-based aircraft are now idle
              cannot fight at sea - in serious "batches" all work is done faster and better by submarines
              bombing the coast is the task of the air force / vks, not the fleet. Than bomb the Papuans, it would be better to think how to deal with submarines
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 10 November 2015 10: 59
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                they are not bullshit
                I think nonsense smile And you did not convince me otherwise.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                as evidenced by the number of views and comments
                If you take such a yardstick, then Pushkin and Tolstoy suck, and "Dom-2" is a wonderful creation that has something to think about.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                dispute about anything
                Of course about nothing. Besides the fact that you do not know how to read.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                bomb from bomber and warhead caliber do the same job
                Can the Caliber warhead do the same work as the AIM-120 warhead? (hint - air strikes can be not only air-ground wink )
                1. Santa Fe
                  10 November 2015 11: 12
                  +1
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  And you did not convince me otherwise.

                  And I'm not going to convince everyone

                  and in general, here we are not talking about you and me, but about ships
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  If you take such a yardstick, then Pushkin and Tolstoy suck, and "Dom-2" is a wonderful creation that has something to think about.

                  These are different eras and genres. Footage is the easiest way to perceive information + audience reach
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Can the Caliber warhead do the same work as the AIM-120 warhead?

                  Caliber does not need to fight off anyone

                  By the way, one of the most important SLCM advantages, they do not need numerous cover groups
                  1. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 10 November 2015 12: 02
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    and in general, here we are not talking about you and me, but about ships
                    Again on you? How changeable you are however. Either Zumwalt did the pests from you, then Zumwalt will tear all. You, then you.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    These are different eras and genres.
                    You suggest comparing you and Weller? Weller comments less than you. However, Weller still writes better.

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Caliber does not need to fight off anyone
                    While we wash unwashed chocks - yes. But we know who the main recipient of these CDs is. And there can already be anything, including and deck aviation. I'm not talking about the Tomahawks, which were not created against Iraq, but for the flight to Nizhny Tagil. Where they will shamelessly be brought down by the MiG-31. All is not all - but they beat. The concrete does not cool down lately, the ears stall - study goes wow!
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 10 November 2015 12: 10
                      +1
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      I'm not talking about the Tomahawks, which were not created against Iraq, but for the flight to Nizhny Tagil. Where will they be shamelessly shot down by the MiG-31. All is not all - but they beat. The concrete does not cool down lately, the ears stall - study goes wow!

                      And PANSIIR-S will take part in knocking down axes. It’s good that these systems are supplying troops. hi
                    2. Santa Fe
                      10 November 2015 12: 15
                      -3
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      Either Zumwalt did the pests from you, then Zumwalt will tear all.

                      Zamvolt - a technical masterpiece

                      pests are just the headline, that article wasn’t talking about him at all
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      Offer to compare you and Weller

                      Let's compare ships
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      Where they will shamelessly be shot down by the MiG-31

                      Fighters are useless against SLCM

                      they do not see them on the background of the earth
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 10 November 2015 12: 17
                        +3
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Fighters are useless against SLCM

                        MIG-31 is not a fighter, but a fighter-interceptor. And it is imprisoned for the struggle and destruction of the Kyrgyz Republic.
                      2. Amurets
                        Amurets 11 November 2015 02: 45
                        +1
                        NEXUS! In your support! In 1970, 2 S-75 air defense divisions and a Su-15 interceptor squadron worked out the combined use of air defense systems and fighter aircraft at the Telemb range. The truth was fired not against the ground, but against the locals at low altitudes. What are the shooting conditions I don’t know the interceptors. They fired 20DS missiles with a selector block. The targets were Swift. I don’t remember how many there were. But the result of the shooting was that one lionfish was missed, but it was 45 years ago and the fighters also missed very few targets.
                    3. Alex_59
                      Alex_59 10 November 2015 12: 34
                      +5
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      they do not see them on the background of the earth
                      Well, who doesn’t read books here? You don’t see anything but your mistakes, and fighter interceptors learned to see moving targets against the background of the underlying surface back in 70. Doppler shaitan effect! There is nothing to say about the MiG-31, one of the tasks for which it was created is the fight against the Kyrgyz Republic.
                    4. Santa Fe
                      10 November 2015 12: 46
                      +2
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      Doppler shaitan effect!


                      for radar screen:
                      From a height of 6000 m, a target is captured with an EPR of 1 sq.m flying at a height of 60 m at a distance of 20 km, can simultaneously accompany up to 10 targets, while in automatic mode it allows you to attack up to 4 targets from those followed.

                      Fighters practically do not see against the background of the earth (+ small size of the rocket), in this is the beauty of Krmb
                    5. Alex_59
                      Alex_59 10 November 2015 14: 24
                      0
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      From a height of 6000 m, it captures a target with an EPR of 1 sq.m flying at an altitude of 60 m at a distance of 20 km, can simultaneously track up to 10 targets, while in automatic mode it allows you to attack up to 4 targets from those followed.
                      That is, all the same, they are not useless, as you wrote above:
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      they do not see them on the background of the earth

                      It turns out that if you first google, and then write, then the wording is different - they’re poorly seen, instead of not seen at all. Now let's develop a thought. You have given data on the capture of the target and not on the range of its detection. The capture range can be many times less than the range of the first flare on the screen. Capture is when all the parameters of the target’s movement are measured, the preliminary flight mission of the interceptor missile is calculated and introduced.
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      that’s exactly the beauty of krmb

                      For that matter, the main advantage of SLCMs is the uncertainty of the probable approach routes, which requires constant airborne AWACS air watch. And early deployment near probable runways of air defense fighters. But when their flight paths on the route are opened and the MiG-31 turns out to be nearby, they will intercept everything that they can within the ammunition reserve is not a question.
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 11 November 2015 01: 03
            +2
            Quote: Alex_59
            Can the Caliber warhead do the same work as the AIM-120 warhead? (hint - air strikes can be not only air-ground
            It is not good to interfere in someone else's "dog wedding", but Alexei, you are wrong: AIM-120 does not inflict an "air strike" when attacking air targets, but conducts an air battle at a medium distance. This is so, by the way. hi
    3. Secta haki
      Secta haki 11 November 2015 01: 15
      -5
      We must also look at the fact that in 1941 the war with the United States was only 3 weeks.
  • NIKNN
    NIKNN 10 November 2015 21: 48
    +2
    Interesting dialogue Alex_59 end SWEET_SIXTEEN. wink One side is more competent in one area, the other in the other.
    Alex_59 RU Today, 10:07

    Well, let's say they are not needed. What's next? ICBMs with nuclear warheads make everything unnecessary.


    Khrushchev remembered something. Aviation is still hiccuping. No.

    I still didn’t understand where the discussion of the interception of the Kyrgyz Republic began from, but I can say that we began to sharpen air defense for cruise missiles with their birth, and the interception of low altitude targets from Vietnam. To date, there is not a single fighter sight of the sight that is not able to see against the background of the earth, not to mention the AWACS aircraft. And this is against the background that our partners began work on this problem much later (more attention was paid to this in the Navy), because It was believed that the probability of threatening the Kyrgyz Republic to the United States was minimal, and research and development was expensive (we spent a lot). request
    1. Santa Fe
      11 November 2015 02: 10
      +2
      Quote: NIKNN
      Aviation is still hiccuping.

      Really?

      When N.S. Khrushchev implemented projects
      - three-swing interceptor MiG-25
      - supersonic bombers Yak-28 and Tu-22
      - MiG-19 and MiG-21 supersonic fighters with URVV
      - went on growth exponentially the brainchild of KB Kamov and Mil

      The era of Khrushchev - the heyday of domestic aviation
      1. NIKNN
        NIKNN 13 November 2015 22: 07
        +2
        SWEET_SIXTEEN (3) RU November 11, 2015 02:10

        Really?

        When N.S. Khrushchev implemented projects
        - three-swing interceptor MiG-25
        - supersonic bombers Yak-28 and Tu-22
        - MiG-19 and MiG-21 supersonic fighters with URVV
        - went on growth exponentially the brainchild of KB Kamov and Mil


        With him, this does not mean his merit. You probably know no worse than others (no, ask any aviator and better than those times) that under Nikita Sergeyevich, aviation fell under an unprecedented reduction, and almost all promising projects were frozen and closed, and all funds were thrown into rockets. Maybe it was a strategic necessity, but in aviation we caught up with America just in time for the collapse of the USSR. request
  • Kalmar
    Kalmar 10 November 2015 10: 24
    +2
    Why are they needed in a naval battle, if the submarine always won
    at 20-fold lower costs

    In a naval battle, an aircraft carrier will provide protection from missiles launched from submarines, as well as fight surface ships. There is an escort to deal with submarines.

    Sea-based cruise missiles mounted on submarines from the 1950's.

    KR - not a panacea, because here the question of target designation is traditionally acute. A submarine, unlike an aircraft carrier, has very limited capabilities in terms of self-detection of targets: a GAS can detect and recognize an aircraft carrier connection at a distance of 100 kilometers, no more. Getting close to her would be very, very difficult.
    1. kote119
      kote119 10 November 2015 14: 38
      0
      hack pl detect aug can at a greater distance
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 10 November 2015 16: 35
        +1
        hack pl detect aug can at a greater distance

        In ideal conditions, yes. Only to detect noise from the AUG is not enough, they must be reliably recognized. Otherwise, there is no certainty that it will be the aircraft carrier that will receive the salvo of the anti-ship missile system, and not some container tanker that has ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time.
        1. kotvov
          kotvov 10 November 2015 21: 28
          +1
          Only to detect noises from the AUG is not enough, they must be reliably recognized,
          do you know that there are noise certificates? so identifying an aircraft carrier or a tanker is not a problem.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 10 November 2015 22: 37
            +1
            do you know that there are noise certificates? so identifying an aircraft carrier or a tanker is not a problem.

            In ideal conditions - yes, not a problem. This is when the ocean is calm, the water is homogeneous, there are no currents, the potential target goes smoothly, without changing course, nobody else makes any noise around, and so on. The thing is small: to find such a wonderful place in the ocean and convince the aircraft carrier to be there too.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 11 November 2015 01: 32
      +2
      Quote: Kalmar
      The GAS can detect and recognize the carrier connection at a range of 100 kilometers, no more.
      Ours in the open press for Shchuka-B gave 230 km, small-shaven - those "modest" only (!) 2300-2500 MILES! for their wunderwafle type "Astyut" prescribed. But why do you deny the PLA in external sources of control center? For example - space? Or RDO on SDV?
      But the RCC will already "recognize" the main target in the order ... She has such a function "in her head".
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 11 November 2015 10: 47
        0
        Ours in the open press for Shchuka-B gave 230 km, small-shaven - those "modest" only (!) 2300-2500 MILES! for their wunderwafle type "Astyut" prescribed.

        Don’t give a reference? I can not find such data, it would be interesting to read. And the Britons, KVM, were completely wrong.

        But why do you refuse submarines in external sources of the control center?

        I do not refuse. The difficulty is that you need to somehow receive data from these external sources. But the submarine communicates with sessions; a lot of time can pass from the moment of the formation of the command center to the moment of its receipt by the submarine. The goal, of course, is unlikely to patiently stand still.
  • avt
    avt 10 November 2015 09: 41
    +5
    Quote: Alex_59
    This applies to any large surface ship.

    And here are any surface ships!? You are also sacred - you will swing at the battleships! Another such comment and a life cycle with nails from Oleg and his followers! wassat
    Quote: Alex_59
    Nevertheless, even the bulls were driven into canned food, and the war for the Atlantic was flocked in packs in fact already lost at the beginning of the 43rd

    We forgot the main component - AIRCRAFT, both coast-based and on aircraft carriers. But do not try to compare the losses of the Kriegsmarine submarine fleet with some lousy aircraft carriers and in general! You are not here! Because ... because! And if you talk about tactics the use of the diverse forces of the fleet you will try to philosophize here .... cycle with nails! wassat One carrier against one lost submarine, that's just it.
    1. Santa Fe
      10 November 2015 09: 43
      +3
      Quote: avt
      don't try to compare the losses of the Kriegsmarine submarine fleet

      They turned out to be more than 123 warships and 2700 allied transports?
      And if about tactics of application disparate fleet forces try to be smart here

      Although the military leadership combines the effects of submarine warfare with the common efforts of the US Armed Forces, it is clear that submarine warfare one of the types of independent wars and carried out almost without external support.
      - US Submariner Code
      1. avt
        avt 10 November 2015 10: 11
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        They turned out to be more than 123 warships and 2700 allied transports?

        And Choi then immediately transports to 123m ships transports ?? Even immediately got sick to compare combat with combat?laughing Oleg - do not juggle it. The article is about military activity not gu-gu in fact. Only a pure kind of raffine opposition, "floating garages" with "wolves of the depths" in the spirit of Nykyta Sergeevich Khrushchev like - aircraft carriers, hairy club of American imperialism ". Cut them into metal and make them out of ... There are more pistols. When you seriously write and analyze quite specific operations at very specific times with their technical realities, then we will seriously talk. Thankfully, you had such articles, well, at least about the last campaign "Belgrano" -. But leave all this for comics, Well, what we have in the USSR in the "Funny pictures" they drew, even on the "Murzilka" they didn’t pull, for the "Young Technician" and I don’t say, there they were already seriously TEACHING children to think technically ...
        1. Santa Fe
          10 November 2015 10: 30
          0
          Quote: avt
          And what then immediately transports surfaced to the 123 ships? Even immediately got sick to compare combat with combat?

          http://topwar.ru/85932-skolko-avianoscev-potopili-podlodki.html#comment-id-51992

          02
  • kashtak
    kashtak 10 November 2015 10: 09
    +1
    Quote: Alex_59
    Carriers are not designed to counter submarines, and submarines are not designed to strike

    drums yes, I agree. But light universal helicopter carriers IMHO may well be useful as leaders of the PLO squad. strengthening it with his helicopter group.
    1. Santa Fe
      10 November 2015 10: 23
      0
      Quote: kashtak
      as leaders of the PLO squad

      Like Koreanges))))
    2. kote119
      kote119 10 November 2015 14: 41
      0
      all avma have on board the means plow, respectively, contribute to the plow aug (aus)
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 11 November 2015 00: 41
    +2
    Quote: Alex_59
    Carriers are not designed to counter submarines, and submarines are not intended to cause airstrikes.
    Nothing lasts forever under the moon ... (c)
    Alexei, what if the aircraft carrier places 80-100 PLO helicopters and enters the anti-submarine line? At the same time, it is technically possible: the composition of the wing can vary depending on the tasks.
    What cannot the "Ash" do with a set of its own KRBD (32 + 10), what is possible for shore-based aviation? The only salvo of his CD will be a complete surprise, while the YES planes will light up immediately after takeoff. Yes, they can make launches from over the territory of our country. But the very fact of the launch will be disavowed.
    So, the edges of reality are mobile ...
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 10 November 2015 06: 57
    11
    17 aircraft-carrying ships (9 percussion, 8 escort). 12,5 thousand dead sailors and pilots.

    Such was the “catch” of submariners during the Second World War. (C)

    pictured is a former cargo ship - an escort AV Bog, who sank 10! submarines (with escort 13!)
    1. Santa Fe
      10 November 2015 09: 20
      0
      Quote: Tlauicol
      escort AV Bog, sank 10! submarines

      10 x 700 tone, 7000 tons, garbage
      Quote: Tlauicol
      pictured former cargo ship - escort AV Bog

      Former bulk carrier)))
      The unit cost of 1 tons of “flat top” practically did not differ from the cost of 1 tons of “classic” aircraft carrier.

      Flight deck - smooth steel strip length 130 meters. Several rows of aerofinisher, one or two hydropneumatic catapults - a standard set for the operation of deck aircraft. On the starboard side a superstructure was built - the “island”, the aircraft carrier acquired its characteristic external attributes.

      An under-deck hangar for storing aircraft. This is not a simple warehouse with shelving. It was necessary to ensure fire safety, install a reliable ventilation system and equip a couple of elevators to lift the aircraft onto the flight deck. Next, it was necessary to provide space for the storage of 550 tons of aviation gasoline, to spend hundreds of meters of fuel lines. The design of the bottom of the ship changed - anti-torpedo protection appeared (very primitive from the point of view of a real combat ship).

      Under normal conditions, the crew of a civilian cargo ship does not exceed 50 people. In the case of an escort aircraft carrier, it was necessary to equip living quarters for several hundred people (the crews of the most popular escort aircraft carriers of the Casablanca type consisted of 860 sailors and 56 pilots) Do not forget about useful “little things” - radars and defensive weapons (and these are dozens of anti-aircraft artillery barrels and airborne sponsons for their deployment). Escort aircraft carriers, despite their modest size, carried a complete set of radio equipment
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 10 November 2015 09: 27
        +3
        Oleg, show me a submarine that sank 10 aircraft carriers (well, or at least 10 submarines)

        P.S. when will the article on Caliber be released? hi
        1. Santa Fe
          10 November 2015 09: 45
          +5
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Oleg, show me the submarine that sank 10 aircraft carriers

          Show me a submarine that costs like 10 aircraft carriers
          Quote: Tlauicol
          when will the article on Caliber be released?

          planned about ICRC and Liana
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 10 November 2015 09: 55
            +3
            Well, the point then: one killed sailor per killed submariner - the result of Kriegsmarine’s activities, 123 ships for 750 sunken boats request Meat. Now, if at least one boat had a dozen submarines or even corvettes had failed, but there were none. Only rob carts.
            I think that even now the tactics of the submarine would not have changed - they would have drowned the transports and died, and AB only on major holidays. The outcome would not change. The meat would run out before the money
            1. Santa Fe
              10 November 2015 10: 27
              +3
              Quote: Tlauicol
              123 ship on 750 sunken boats

              and you forgot to count transports
              and out of cargo
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Now, if at least one boat had a dozen submarines or even corvettes had failed, but there were none. Only rob carts.

              This is the essence of the war.

              corvettes cannot protect convoys

              The laws of the naval war are far from common misconceptions about the "smoke of sea battles." People do not live in the open ocean. The blue-green water surface cannot be captured or destroyed. The ocean is used only as a transport artery through which Britain receives critical goods, raw materials and equipment.

              And if so - then why should the boat take long and careful aim, entering into a useless and dangerous duel with escort forces of the convoy? It is much more useful to shoot low-speed tankers and transports with airplanes, tanks, cars, machinery, loads of ore and rubber, uniforms and food ...

              Let then the high-speed destroyer rush in a circle, and his commander tearing his hair out - fragments of transports are immersed in water, the task is failed. Upon arrival at the base, the crew of the destroyer will have nothing to eat, and the destroyer, left without fuel, will independently joke.

              Quote: Tlauicol
              it’s a pity, and then a new religion is already emerging (Khibiny got sick, now we are drowning with caliber AB for thousands of miles)

              Therefore, it is worth talking about the ICRC and Liana. What could and could not
              1. Assistant
                Assistant 11 November 2015 00: 02
                -1
                and you forgot to count transports
                and out of cargo


                What's the point?
                The United States alone, only after the start of the war, built 2710 Liberty-type transports only - and this is for 39 megatons. So the Kriegsmarines with their 14 megatons have already worked in the negative by this indicator alone.
                Not only were the Fritz submariners unable to set a positive goal, they also failed to fulfill the negative. Well, to be honest, they were physically not able to fulfill it (even negative).
                1. Santa Fe
                  11 November 2015 02: 13
                  +1
                  Quote: Assistant
                  The United States alone, only after the start of the war, built 2710 Liberty-type transports only - and this is for 39 megatons.

                  But what would happen if the industrial capabilities of the USA and Germany were EQUAL?

                  1000 electric bots of the XXI series and unlimited oil supplies from the Middle East - in the fall of 1943

                  How is such an alternative? )))
                  1. Assistant
                    Assistant 11 November 2015 20: 16
                    0
                    How is such an alternative? )))


                    Unfortunately, we will not find out.
                    When Germany considered herself capable of competing with Britain on equal terms, she set positive goals for her fleet - to take control of at least near sea communications, and was not afraid to go to multiply the enemy fleet by zero. Therefore, the linear forces of the brazen and the Fritz at Dogger Bank and at Jutland beat each other.
          2. tlauicol
            tlauicol 10 November 2015 09: 58
            +5
            (c) was planned about the ICRC and Liana ..

            it’s a pity, and then a new religion is already emerging (Khibiny got sick, now we are drowning with caliber AB for thousands of miles)
  • DimanC
    DimanC 10 November 2015 07: 04
    +4
    Hooray!
    Comrades!
    The next network provocation you've been waiting for so long has finally come out!
    We sit back comfortably in our cozy little armchair, get popcorn / pizza / chips / beer ... In general, who has what. And enjoy :-))

    By the way, about Yorktown: in the book of American Admiral Sherman, the episode with its sinking was marked by the comments of our editors (about 1956). I remember with what bile they wrote about the relatively feeble struggle for the survivability of the ship ...
    1. DimanC
      DimanC 10 November 2015 07: 08
      +7
      Here's another trailer: dear Oleg! In the best traditions of Greek demagogy (or whatever it is right there), could you now present a list of U-bots sunk by deck aircraft? :-)
      1. Santa Fe
        10 November 2015 09: 26
        +3
        Quote: DimanC
        Now provide a list of U-bots sunk by deck aircraft?

        And what will it give &

        700-ton disposable pelvis. one "Edinburgh" with a cargo of gold (U-456 trophy) was more expensive than the U-bots flotilla

        From 35 transports only 11 reached Arkhangelsk. 2 ships returned to Iceland. 22 vehicles with a total tonnage of more than 142 thousand tons were sunk by German submarines and aircraft. 210 aircraft, 430 tanks, 3350 vehicles and 99 316 tons of other general cargoes went to the bottom.
        1. DimanC
          DimanC 10 November 2015 12: 34
          +2
          Uhhhmmmm, it seems the joke failed :-)
          The ancient Greeks made fun of the fact that the author put forward a thesis, proved it. And then he refuted it. Well, either he proved the antithesis. So here: there was an article about "submarines sink aircraft carriers." Now, accordingly, we are waiting for an article about "carrier-based aircraft sinks submarines"
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 10 November 2015 07: 06
    14
    Uh ... It seems like a normal article ... No signs of orgasm from American ships lol A plus!
    Submarines with proper use have always remained the most obvious threat to any ship. Be it even an aircraft carrier. And today's mastodons are by no means unsinkable, and you can even not drown. And to solve some kind of battle, it is enough just to disable the ship.
    The struggle between submarines and anti-aircraft defense forces does not always lead to the discovery of enemy submarines. Or it is discovered when the damage has already been done. But it may even be enough for an aircraft carrier and one torpedo, if it is with a special unit. So, hypothetically, the exchange in terms of 10 aircraft carriers for 10 submarines in terms of economy is not in favor of the owner of the aircraft carriers. The question is only in the moral side of the matter regarding the crew of the submarine. But in war as in war.
    So this issue will always be relevant. Especially against the backdrop of the success of submarine designers in ensuring noiselessness. As the Swedes proved.
    hi
    1. DimanC
      DimanC 10 November 2015 07: 10
      0
      What if the Swedes played along? belay
      To raise the local ChSV? laughing
    2. kuz363
      kuz363 10 November 2015 08: 20
      -3
      Brave Russian admirals also want such expensive toys! But tell me - in what naval battles did the Russian fleet win, if the Russian-Turkish war is excluded? Crimean War of 1854 - lost. Tsushima - lost, Russia's only major battle. Civil war - practically did not fight. World War II - in addition to the local operations of the Northern and Pacific fleets, the Baltic was blocked, the Black Sea - similarly.
      1. DimanC
        DimanC 10 November 2015 08: 57
        +8
        The question, of course, is an interesting one, and two words cannot be enough. But if you try, you get the following: Russian civilization (in the time scale known to me) developed mainly by land routes; on the other hand, they traded in the Baltic through foreigners who themselves sailed to us. Therefore, we did not have our own powerful merchant fleet and, as the need to protect it, we did not have a military fleet due to lack of need. Ivan the Terrible tried to create a fleet, but they were unsuccessful. In fact, the navy began to develop with the arrival of Peter the Great. Who was Russia at sea at that time at war? With Sweden. But we beat them. And more than once (remember the same Gangut, why not a victory?). Later, when there was the famous "copenhaging" of the Danish fleet, the notorious Nelson swaggered to defeat the Russian fleet. But while he sailed to Tallinn, the Russian fleet united its squadrons at Kronstadt and? ... And in the end, nothing happened, as we know. And then, until the Crimean War itself, we simply did not physically have naval opponents, except for Turkey.

        Crimean War: recalling the unsuccessful attempts to break through to Petrograd (I will not call it St. Petersburg). When I was on an excursion to the forts of Kronstadt, we were told a bearded tale about the explosion of the entire headquarters of the French squadron on a sea mine. After that, the entire "allied" fleet sailed home. Apparently, to wash the soiled pants. In addition, the "allies" were unable to properly bomb Vladivostok. Well, what is not an epic obsrachka? If we recall that at Sevastopol England laid all its flower of the aristocracy (and almost all of their heirs), the question of who won here remains to be discussed. For the decline of the "empire" has already begun.

        Tsushima: the result of an agreement on the sinking of Russia. The Russo-Japanese war itself was started precisely for this. Preparatory work, the course of the war (including the appointment of very "worthy" admirals), its results are just what they say. Therefore, this battle is not representative.
        1. dvg79
          dvg79 10 November 2015 09: 56
          0
          You probably meant Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Vladivostok was founded in 1860m.
          1. DimanC
            DimanC 10 November 2015 12: 36
            0
            In general, I had in mind actions in the Far East. Historiography is somehow silent about them
            1. Amurets
              Amurets 11 November 2015 06: 00
              +1
              Quote: DimanC
              In general, I had in mind actions in the Far East. Historiography is somehow silent about them

              But in general, this site loves accuracy and reliability. By the way, the father of our humorist MN Zadornov wrote a series of books about the discovery and development of the Far East by NP Zadornov: "The Way to the Ocean." there is also a description of the defense of Kamchatka and the coast of the Far East during the war of 1853-1856.
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 10 November 2015 09: 08
        +6
        Quote: kuz363
        But tell me - in what naval battles did the Russian fleet win, if the Russian-Turkish war is excluded?

        The mere fact that you mentioned the "Russian-Turkish war" in the singular speaks of your grandiose knowledge of history. To list all the battles where we won at sea is a thankless task. Another question is that our naval battles were (mostly) not as large-scale as those of the "sea" powers - the USA, Great Britain, Japan.
      3. kashtak
        kashtak 10 November 2015 09: 34
        +2
        Quote: kuz363
        But tell me - in what naval battles did the Russian fleet win

        this is not entirely true. The Sinop battle was a clear victory. Tsushima yes, defeat and serious. Gotland’s battle is rated differently. the fact that there were few linear battles does not mean that there were no victories. and armadillos, and especially mine flotillas. especially in the first world. part of these victories, the British famously recorded at the expense of their submarines. and what did the battle of Jutland decide for example. The blockade of the Baltic Fleet during World War II was also carried out with land and mine productions. and the fleet suffered losses from aviation mainly. and from ground airfields. so do not underestimate the fleet. the question is rather which ships are needed.
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 10 November 2015 10: 40
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      And to solve some kind of battle, it is enough just to disable the ship.

      In order to withdraw an aircraft carrier from combat, it is not necessary to sink it. It is enough to thoroughly damage the runway. And "the aircraft carrier turns ... the aircraft carrier turns into a useless trough."
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 10 November 2015 17: 52
        +1
        Quote: NEXUS
        In order to withdraw an aircraft carrier from combat, it is not necessary to sink it. It is enough to thoroughly damage the runway. And "the aircraft carrier turns ... the aircraft carrier turns into a useless trough."

        So I meant it wink hi
    4. Per se.
      Per se. 10 November 2015 12: 25
      +5
      Quote: Rurikovich
      So, hypothetically, the exchange in terms of 10 aircraft carriers for 10 submarines in terms of economy is not in favor of the owner of aircraft carriers.
      There is no point in diminishing the capabilities of submarines in war at sea, as well as the capabilities of aviation. Comparing ten boats with ten aircraft carriers is hardly correct, and it's not about the price. Yes, one nuclear submarine with an ICBM can destroy several cities, or even an entire country, but ... An aircraft carrier is primarily a marine mobile airfield, if we question its value with one damage to the flight deck, we can also question the value and all ground runways (with all the infrastructure, including the aircraft themselves), vulnerable to strikes, especially preventive ones, in the event of a global war. Who here questioned the aviation itself, rejoicing at the prospects of the PAK FA and high VTOL aircraft, both our Yak-141 and the F-35 version? VTOL aircraft are not afraid of damage to the stripes, they can use any takeoff, both traditional (with a takeoff), and shortened or vertical, they can do without catapults and long flight decks, that is, they can rise even if the flight deck is damaged, even when the ship is heeling. This is one thing, more importantly another, strategic submarines, like land-based nuclear intercontinental missiles, are waiting in the wings, and their hour is a global war, aircraft carriers are always in business, their "hour" is daily work, and they are important precisely in the pre-war, pre-launch the state of global events, they regulate processes in local conflicts, in the demonstration of force, in the preparation or prevention of a global war. Now the aircraft carrier could work in Syria, tomorrow somewhere else, he carries everything of his own with him, there is no need to build lanes and then leave them or build them, add them in another place. This is the main thing, and it may be more important, since it depends on whether a big war starts at all, or whether the problem can be stopped with one show of force, to solve the matter in a local conflict. Come to the point of Armageddon, everything can become useless, both aircraft carriers in a radioactive tsunami, and boats with empty silos and crews without a bright future. I hope that you, Andrey, will understand me correctly. Sincerely.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 10 November 2015 18: 01
        +1
        Quote: Per se.
        It is hardly correct to compare ten boats with ten aircraft carriers, and the point here is not the price.

        The article dealt exclusively with the confrontation between an aircraft carrier and a submarine. Therefore, I compared the exchange of 10 to 10 if, as a result of a successful attack by a submarine (nuclear submarine) on an aircraft carrier, it would eventually be discovered and destroyed. Then such a change is not in favor of the owner of the aircraft carrier. But it is, hypothetically ...
        And so I completely agree with you hi Just an opinion on the topic of the article. And I know very well about the capabilities of aviation smile
        Now, if Oleg Kaptsov raises this topic, then we will answer wink
        Yours faithfully, hi
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 November 2015 07: 29
    +4
    They are trolling us! Troll us !!! laughing
    No, that won't work. Thinner is necessary, Oleg, finer :)
    In principle, I have long had plans for an article on the actual effectiveness of American submarines, but there’s not enough time for anything, so if I get it together, it’s not soon.
    1. Santa Fe
      10 November 2015 09: 31
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      on the actual effectiveness of American submarines

      Highest Efficiency

      201 warship, ranging in size from a frigate PLO to an attack aircraft carrier. The closest "competitor" - carrier aircraft - lagged behind the submarines by 40 points.
      Among the trophies of submariners are the shock aircraft carriers "Taiho", "Shokaku", "Shinano", "Jungyo", "Unryu", heavy cruisers "Takao", "Atago", "Maya", dozens of destroyers ...

      The most productive American boat was the Flasher (Gato type) - the boat sank four large tankers, a cruiser and 16 transports with a total displacement of 100 thousand tons
      The cabin of the submarine "Flescher" (Groton, pc. Connecticut)


      Not to mention the fact that they saved a bunch of people - boats patrolled along B-29 routes, taking pilots out of the ocean

      On 2 of September 1944 of the year, the US Navy Finbek boat received an SOS signal from a plane crashing into the ocean. After 4 hours, the Finbek arrived in the crash area and pulled a frightened, lanky pilot out of the water. George Herbert Bush was saved (yes, that one)
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 November 2015 10: 44
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Highest Efficiency

        Yes, at first glance it looks like that. But if you look closely ... Maybe I’ll post it in an article, but not earlier than in a couple of weeks, but rather even much later - although the topic is long overdue :)
        1. Santa Fe
          10 November 2015 10: 49
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          But if you look closely ...

          Great Ocean, the size of which even the Germans did not dream of with their Atlantic

          201 ship and 1113 ships (4 779 902 gross)

          and by the way, the Yankees did not have so many boats: - type V - a series of 9 obsolete submarines built in the 1920-s;

          - “Porpoise”, “Salmon”, “Sargo” and “Tambor” - another 38 submarine of pre-war construction;

          - “Gato” (77 units), “Balao” (122 units) and “Tench” (29 units). Many "Balao" and "Tench" were completed after the war, and did not have time to take part in the battles.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 10 November 2015 10: 16
      +6
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      They are trolling us! Troll us !!!

      Welcome Andrew hi ! After comments of this type
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN


      The Almaz-Antey experiment proved that it did not need a discussion - the Boeing was shot down by Buk. Now it remains to rub that Buk was not ours. And whose? Dill did not need to use air defense - the militia did not have aviation. Air defense used only DNI / LC. Fact? Fact.

      They say that there was no sign of a missile launch. There was a trace, if only because Almaz-Antey proved that the Boeing was shot down by Buk. If you go to Yandex - it turns out that even photos of this trace are, dozens of witnesses. They simply were not shown on the main channels, otherwise how would Leontyev explain that Boeing was shot down by pilot Voloshin?

      I don't even want to comment on Koptsov! An article from the kind ... "What is better BMW or a cart with a horse ... on Russian off-road"
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 November 2015 10: 46
        +2
        Quote: Serg65
        ... "What is better BMW or a cart with a horse ... on Russian off-road"

        Hello, dear Serg65 drinks
        Somewhere I saw a funny demotivator - on top - a photo of the "Tiger" stuck in the mud right up to the tower, below - stuck in the mud right up to the BMW windows and the caption: "They never learned anything ..."
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 10 November 2015 10: 54
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          "They never learned anything ..."

          laughing They, Andrey, just quickly forget everything drinks
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 10 November 2015 20: 16
            0
            Quote: Serg65
            They, Andrey, just quickly forget everything

            They sketched in the comments, puffed out their cheeks and ... in fact, they did not give out anything.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 11 November 2015 05: 52
              +2
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              They sketched in the comments, puffed out their cheeks and ... in fact, they did not give out anything.

              belay And you need to give something? Okay Michael, right now I'll give it out! Surkov Mikhail Ilyich, the most productive sniper of the Second World War. On his account 702 fascist !!! In the light of this article by Mr. Koptsov, you probably need to conclude .... why spend money on machine guns, mortars ??? It’s much more efficient and more economical to snipe snipers and end the war. fellow
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 11 November 2015 11: 07
                +1
                Quote: Serg65
                Do you need to give something?

                As you can tell, the matter is essentially purely personal, but the comment is especially different
                I don't even want to comment on Koptsov! An article from the kind ... "What is better BMW or a cart with a horse ... on Russian off-road"

                from comment
                SAXA.SHURA (7) SU March 11, 2015 16:39 ↑
                And that now it has become so fashionable to call your articles "On the Threshold of the Third World War", you generally give a report when you write this name, I suppose you are afraid of a shot from a New Year's firecracker, and you start talking about nuclear war. We have people sitting at the very top, they don't bastard soup, and I think without people like you who will figure out whether we are on the doorstep or where.

                Imagine that everyone on the forum will only give critical comments.
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 11 November 2015 12: 16
                  +3
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  Imagine that everyone on the forum will only give critical comments.

                  Buddy Michael! The fact is that it is useless to argue with Oleg Koptsov. Not only does he pull the facts out of context, but he also presents all this as an axiom .... and he is always RIGHT! Secondly, having shown himself in the article "Snide comments. What can I tell you about Russian problems, Mr. Poroshenko?" as a fascist liberal, he killed my respect for him in the bud !!!
                  As for the article ... we open Vika (so as not to philosophize) and read what is an aircraft carrier?
                  "Leading the aircraft carrier strike groups, aircraft carriers are operational-tactically highly mobile combat units that allow them to quickly concentrate significant forces in any area of ​​the World Ocean."
                  Now we will decrypt the read. The USA, as you know, is located on the mainland, remote from most other countries. It just so happened that most of the earthly wealth is located at some distance from the United States. The question is ... can the USA, having only submarines alone, dictate their will to the rest of the world? Probably not, what do you think?
                  All the same, the US is very necessary aircraft carriers!
                  Now what is a submarine? "A submarine (submarine, submarine, submarine) is a class of ships capable of submerging and operating underwater for a long time. The most important tactical property and advantage of a submarine is stealth. Submarine weapons are designed to perform the following objectives; destruction of important objects on enemy territory, destruction of surface warships, destruction of merchant and transport ships. " Not about the seizure of the coast, not about the support of their landed troops, not about the air defense and anti-aircraft defense of the patrolling area is not said here!
                  Can a boat sink an aircraft carrier? Of course he can! But ... "The aircraft carrier itself is very vulnerable, so it always works with ships of cover. The flagship of the group will be an aircraft carrier, in addition to it, the group includes an air defense division, an anti-submarine defense division, one or two multipurpose submarines and supply vessels." Plus, a bunch of SOSUS hydrophones scattered throughout the world ocean, space systems for detecting nuclear submarines, patrol aircraft and a bunch of all sorts of bells and whistles that put pressure on the psyche of submariners.
                  Conclusion ... an aircraft carrier, in itself a large-sized, low-security target, as well as a single submarine not supported by surface ships. And what is the argument about? hi
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 11 November 2015 13: 32
                    0
                    Quote: Serg65
                    Conclusion ... an aircraft carrier, in itself a large-sized, low-security target, as well as a single submarine not supported by surface ships. And what is the argument about?

                    Thanks, it looks much better.

                    There are people who have recently been on the site, you and Andrei still do not know and are unlikely to understand the essence of your dialogue.
                    Sincerely.
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 11 November 2015 13: 53
                      +2
                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      Thanks, it looks much better.

                      By the way, Mikhail, when my eldest was at 5, I asked me .. who is stronger than a tank or plane? This is the dilemma I will tell you! wassat
                      1. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 11 November 2015 15: 51
                        0
                        Quote: Serg65

                        By the way, Mikhail, when my eldest was at 5, I asked me .. who is stronger than a tank or plane? This is the dilemma I will tell you!

                        And you answered him:
                        - You see, the son on the demotivator got stuck in the mud on the tower itself and the plane flies in the sky ....
                        I went through this, now students are storming with their maximalism, everything is wrong and everything needs to be changed.
                      2. Serg65
                        Serg65 11 November 2015 17: 11
                        +2
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        And you answered him:

                        And I answered him that the tank .... because he has two tracks! laughing
                  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 November 2015 15: 52
                    +2
                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    There are people who have recently been on the site, you and Andrei still do not know and are unlikely to understand the essence of your dialogue.

                    Greetings, dear Michael! Believe me, I’m not at all lazy to write critical comments (and even articles), but there are two problems. The first is to put a comprehensive answer to Oleg, even in a sheet on the 4-5 comments is not possible. After that, all the same, people unfamiliar with this topic will have a lot of reasonable questions. And now I have no time for banal comments or answers to questions. Nevertheless, to express my disagreement and the desire to someday justify it in detail - there is, which I did in my very correct form laughing
                    And that someone who has recently been on the site will not understand ... well, yes, this is unpleasant. But on the other hand, I don’t see at all why two noble donors would not exchange a few words, even if their conversation would not be understandable to everyone around us — we would not overestimate the topic beyond measure. And I want to greet a good friend :)) In general, all this, of course, is not in the best traditions of Internet communication, as you rightly point out, but I won’t say that we are critical of the protocol :)
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 11 November 2015 17: 15
                      +3
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      we are critical of the protocol :)

                      drinks Andrew, for the noble Dons !!! bully I just have a good cognac "Kyrgyzstan" 5 stars !!! good
                    2. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 11 November 2015 19: 18
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      But on the other hand, I don’t see at all why two noble donors would not exchange a few words, even if their conversation would not be understandable to everyone around us — we would not overestimate the topic beyond measure.

                      Recently, there has been significant fatigue from politicized topics, I understand your disagreements with Oleg, but still the sea, this is your topic with Sergey, so I would like to read in expanded form how noble dons see this confrontation in the article, it was possible to correct some accents in the article.

                      And so of course, God himself commanded to greet, to have a few words, friendship is sacred.
                    3. Serg65
                      Serg65 12 November 2015 06: 57
                      +2
                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      I would like to read in expanded form how they see this confrontation in the article

                      Dear Mikhail, this confrontation depends on the military doctrines of the states you have chosen, the historical and economic features of these states. It is difficult to describe this confrontation in comments, for this you need to write an article, and to write this opus you need to shovel a bunch of information.
                      As for the "research" of Koptsov, out of 11 US aircraft carriers lost in the theater of operations of World War II, 2 sank submarines, 4 sank aircraft and 5 surface ships. Aviation is still in the lead, although by a small margin. During the war, Germany built 2 submarines, of which 1175 submarines were lost in battles, including 768 submarines from aviation + 352 from joint actions of aviation and surface ships.
                      Output; one cannot consider the confrontation between an aircraft carrier and a submarine, it is the same as "who is stronger than a tank or an aircraft." The fleet is a product of state policy, it is the ship composition that determines the aggressiveness or peacefulness of the state, the geographic component and economic development of the state.
  • AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 10 November 2015 07: 40
    12
    Ahhhhh! New-old superweapon against aircraft carriers! On figs and battleships battleships!
    All bullshit against submarines!
    Yes, and submarines, garbage ... wassat
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 10 November 2015 08: 01
      +7
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      Yes, and submarines, garbage ...

      Here is a submarine with 300mm armor, and with a 300mm GK turret, and with the possibility of underwater launch of wearable aircraft ... winked But shaving is the best. laughing
    2. Santa Fe
      10 November 2015 10: 55
      +4
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      Ahhhhh! New-old superweapon against aircraft carriers! On figs and battleships battleships!
      All bullshit against submarines!
      Yes, and submarines, garbage ...

      What did this person want to say? )))
      1. AlNikolaich
        AlNikolaich 10 November 2015 14: 02
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        What did this person want to say? )))

        Oleg, all by articles, by articles!
        It turns out, from article to article:
        Aircraft carriers- rubbish, battleships-things !!!
        Battleships- rubbish, zumvolt- thing !!
        Zumvolt- rubbish, submarines-thing!
        Always like this. Be consistent!
        And then my people liked the ironic comment, and the forum users understood it!
        I hope for your understanding too! hi
  • egor670
    egor670 10 November 2015 07: 55
    +5
    AUGs are now escorting submarines, so sneaking up on an aircraft carrier to strike an enemy submarine will not be easy
    1. core
      core 10 November 2015 09: 23
      +2
      the keyword is NOT SIMPLE, but that does not mean IMPOSSIBLE. War is a complicated matter.
    2. kashtak
      kashtak 10 November 2015 09: 49
      0
      accompany 1-2. go at the forefront at a distance. until they detect until they reach the line of attack, the boat can use all anti-ship missiles on the squadron. the difference in the range of anti-ship missiles and anti-missile defense is, to put it mildly, significant.
  • Amurets
    Amurets 10 November 2015 07: 59
    +1
    I was struck by the book of Inright, the commander of the boat Archerfish, how they chased and attacked Sinano. I do not suppose the successes of Marinesco, but Joseph Inright sank the largest ship.
    1. vitya1945
      vitya1945 10 November 2015 16: 27
      +2
      And it looks like a down
  • parusnik
    parusnik 10 November 2015 08: 00
    +1
    Not a single Japanese submarine could dive deeper than 75 meters. Was everything really upset with the Japanese submarine fleet?
  • kuz363
    kuz363 10 November 2015 08: 12
    -1
    The photo is wrong. The aircraft carrier is always in the center, and the rest of the ships surround it from all sides.
  • Mantykora
    Mantykora 10 November 2015 08: 13
    +5
    Well, it seems that in a serious conflict, aircraft carriers are waiting for the fate of the battleships in World War II. That is, visual inefficiency.
  • VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 10 November 2015 08: 26
    +3
    You can try to add to the list of victories of German submariners the English escort aircraft carrier "Nabob", damaged by the German submarine U-354 on 22.08.44/21/15.01.45 and more that was not included in the fleet. 482 people died on the aircraft carrier. Here you can also add the English escort aircraft carrier Thain, damaged by the torpedo of the German submarine U-XNUMX on January XNUMX, XNUMX and also not commissioned until the end of the war.
    1. Santa Fe
      10 November 2015 09: 36
      0
      And they forgot the damaged "Dzunyo"

      TOTAL = 20 Avik
  • Mera joota
    Mera joota 10 November 2015 08: 30
    +4
    When they mention the victories of the NNS over the AUG, they somehow forget to mention many circumstances. The speed of the AUG for example. Modern submarines are really silent ... at a speed of 6 knots ... It is worth developing 20 knots. and the noise they create gives them away. Like an NNS going 6 knots. can catch up with the AUG which goes to 20 knots? No way. The situation in which the submarine can use its "inaudibility" is possible only if the AUG itself goes to the area where the submarine is located. But go and know where she will be.
    According to the recollections of the commanders of the nuclear submarine, access to the AUG was considered an achievement and for this they were heartily thanked with an extraordinary title or a prize. Those. this was not an ordinary case. Well, and most importantly, before approaching the aircraft carrier, it took a long time to "throw off the tail" of numerous anti-submarine weapons, there is no doubt that in the event of a war, these very anti-submarine weapons will immediately use non-training ammunition.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 10 November 2015 09: 01
      +2
      It is worth developing 20 knots. and the noise they create gives them away. Like an NNS going 6 knots. can catch up with the AUG which goes to 20 knots? No way. The situation in which the submarine can use its "inaudibility" is possible only if the AUG itself goes to the area where the submarine is located. But go and know where she will be.



      The French nuclear submarine Safir of the Ryubi type, which participated in joint exercises with the 12th carrier carrier strike group (AUG) of the US Navy led by the carrier Theodore Roosevelt, was able to successfully break through the anti-submarine defense of the aircraft carrier, unnoticed.
      The message about this was deleted from the site of the French Ministry of Defense, but it was saved in Google’s cache.


      The French succeeded and therefore the rest of the submariners have the same chance to get in the way of the AUG.
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 10 November 2015 09: 22
        +1
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        The French succeeded and therefore the rest of the submariners have the same chance to get in the way of the AUG.

        Sure. There is always a chance that someone will slap their ears, or be reinsured, thereby aggravating any "thin spot". But you must not forget that one torpedo will not be enough, because they have an anti-torpedo for your torpedo, and an air defense system for your missile. The fate of the non-nuclear submarine of the attacking AUG will be sad, it is possible to simulate the launch of a torpedo to remain unnoticed in the exercises, in a real situation the operators of the SAC will detect the exit of the torpedo from the TA and start the engine.
        1. Andrey NM
          Andrey NM 10 November 2015 17: 51
          +2
          Judging by the number of breakthroughs in exercises at various levels, the chances are very decent. If we consider such a torpedo as 65-76 and its modifications, then one can be enough for an aircraft carrier. And most importantly, it’s practically impossible to interfere with it, unless it’s next to carry another scumbag of similar dimensions. And you can shoot well from very distant distances. The Americans did everything for us to remove it from service. I don’t know whether it is being used now or not, but many of our submarines have TA 650mm, I don’t think they are empty.
          In the mid-80s, it was lucky to be on the flagship during the exercises, there were 3 anti-submarine ships in the warrant. Project 671 boat twisted them as she wanted. Orange clouds with rackets flew out in the middle of the building easily. If I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes ... It’s just that a submarine has the ability to occupy favorable depths for performing search and evasion tasks.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 11 November 2015 02: 39
        +2
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        The French succeeded and therefore the rest of the submariners have the same chance to get in the way of the AUG.
        AUG-- a connection, if not cool, shock. But when a PLA emerges in the center of the ANTI-MILITARY compound and asks for medical assistance to a sailor with peritonitis, then it’s time to think about it ...
        February 29, 1996 during a NATO fleet exercise after a mission Upon detection of the conditional enemy submarines, an undetected Russian submarine with a request for help contacted the ships. Soon in the middle of the warrant of NATO ships a submarine surfaced, recognized by the British sailors as project 971 "Pike-B". One of the crew members needed urgent medical attention due to an acute attack of appendicitis (according to other sources, the Russian embassy in London turned to the British Navy command with a request to provide assistance to a sailor patient with peritonitis who underwent surgery on board the Pike). The sick submariner was delivered to the British Glasgow destroyer, and from there he was sent to the hospital by a Link type helicopter. The British press covered the incident, and the Times noted that it was a demonstration of the invisibility of Russian submarines. The British sailors then made a mistake: in front of them was the Pike of Project 671RTMK, and not the Pike-B.

        So, the paddling pool is still swimming shallow ...
    2. Santa Fe
      10 November 2015 09: 41
      +1
      Quote: Mera Joota
      Like NAPL going to 6 bonds. can catch up with the AUG which goes to 20 knots?

      In fact, they are deployed in advance at sea and dispersed in squares along the enemy’s route

      NAPL is cheap, can be built in dozens
      Quote: Mera Joota
      But go and know where she will be.

      obviously not in Madagascar

      convoys leave the ports of North America - and go to European ports, the main plot of the Cold War
  • fa2998
    fa2998 10 November 2015 08: 35
    +3
    Quote: egor670
    AUGs are now escorting submarines, so sneaking up on an aircraft carrier to strike an enemy submarine will not be easy

    But it would have been in service with the Russian Navy 4-5 AUG, I think such articles would not have appeared. AUG would have been "unsinkable fortresses", "a concentration of all advanced technologies," and so on. But no, you need to criticize what the enemy has.
    At the moment, NOT ONE AIR CARRIER leaves without an escort. Many PLO (helicopters), powerful GUS, and other devices. And many bases around the world allow the use of coastal patrol (PLO) aviation. And the weapon against boats has changed. From PLUR ( missile torpedo) to nuclear depth charges. And under each AUG-1-2 nuclear submarines are "hunters". And shipbuilders do not stand still, even being hit by 1-2 conventional torpedoes will not disable an aircraft carrier with a displacement of more than 100 thousand tons. Or there were exceptions - the sinking of modern aircraft carriers, give examples! Time is lost, there is no need to rush to build your aircraft carriers now. It is necessary to develop countermeasures. But this is a dangerous enemy! hi
    1. DimanC
      DimanC 10 November 2015 09: 04
      +3
      Yes, in fact, the Soviet fleet in a simple way adhered to the concept of a massive missile strike. Not less than 32 units for AUG. Maybe you should continue in the same vein? The issue of sinking modern AV is not on the agenda, because the "terrorists" do not have the appropriate weapons, and those who have them are not attacked by the AUG.
    2. Same lech
      Same lech 10 November 2015 09: 05
      -1
      Time is lost, you don’t need to hurry to build your aircraft carriers now. You need to develop countermeasures. But this is a dangerous opponent!

      Why RUSSIA AUG?
      It’s another matter that new and new ways and methods of removing aircraft carriers from a standing position need to be invented ... there are no unsinkable ships .... even the TITANIC who was once considered the top shipbuilding ship and sank.
    3. core
      core 10 November 2015 09: 29
      +1
      you get a weapon for a weapon. it turns out approximately, I HAVE A PESTLE. and that would not be taken away from me, I hire a couple of dozen "gary". AND WHAT FOR ME IN GENERAL THIS SEVERITY TO LONGER, 20 Gopniks and without a pestle will fight off.
    4. Santa Fe
      10 November 2015 09: 42
      +1
      Quote: fa2998
      And weapons against boats have changed

      So the boats themselves have changed))
    5. Imperialkolorad
      Imperialkolorad 10 November 2015 10: 20
      0
      Quote: fa2998
      .Or there were exceptions, the sinking of modern avionics, give examples!

      So now, nobody particularly tried to drown them.
  • Andrey NM
    Andrey NM 10 November 2015 09: 02
    +5
    Something happened ... An article that does not cause irritation with praises ... For the sake of completeness, you can also cite indicators of the effectiveness of the use of torpedo weapons, the number of torpedoes fired to destroy one target (such statistics were carried out by fleets and countries), as well as those the most cases of the "cold war" times, recall K-162, K-10 (Commander Ivanov N.T. later taught at VVMUPP), etc.
    Again, if memory serves, we had up to 9 torpedoes per sunk target, about 15 for the Americans, about 6 for the Germans, I don't remember the rest. If you "lied", correct it.
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 10 November 2015 09: 15
    +4
    The success of the Americans in the submarine war is largely due to the fact that the Japanese did not favor the convoy system. The merchant fleet of the Japanese was cleaned up by American submarines. And in the graph of Oleg’s article, it’s clear that aircraft carriers destroyed the Japanese warships more. So not everything is so simple.
    There is, of course, a threat from the submarine submarines, but now it is a ghostly threat. ACGs go around the seas and oceans, project power, participate in regional conflicts, and those they attack have nothing like a nuclear submarine or nuclear submarine. Moreover, everything changes / develops. Now there is one balance, tomorrow another.
    1. Santa Fe
      10 November 2015 09: 52
      +2
      Quote: sevtrash
      And in the graph of Oleg’s article, it’s clear that aircraft carriers destroyed the Japanese warships more.

      Submarines destroyed more

      201 vs 160

      On the graph, AB has slightly more tonnage due to large targets (such as Yamato and Musashi were bombed in eight on one)
      1. sevtrash
        sevtrash 10 November 2015 15: 08
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        On the graph, AB has slightly more tonnage due to large targets (such as Yamato and Musashi were bombed in eight on one)

        In other words, the most serious and significant ships were still sunk by AUG?
  • Belousov
    Belousov 10 November 2015 09: 18
    +3
    So what?!? It turns out that AUG is actually quite edible, although not the most delicious, pie?!? And this is the most super-super-megaflot of the world?!? I do not recognize the author in makeup! Where is the worship of exclusivity? Where are the allegations of the inability of someone to cause at least some damage to the greatest fleet?
    And in fact, submarines will always have an advantage in surprise. Even with the support of AUG submarines, the group remains very bulky and clumsy colossus.
  • Corsair
    Corsair 10 November 2015 10: 07
    +2
    what It seems to me that the future lies in deep low-noise autobots, which will be launched by a submarine or other vehicles and independently follow the aircraft carrier at great depths, and then, at a given signal, float along the AUG and undermine the UBF, although there is a possibility of a conventional torpedo based on the principle of a cumulative projectile with undermining The warhead is already inside the ship (maybe this is interesting in the water?).
    Autobots will be small in size with combined engines, there will be no excess voids inside, a multilayer body (not two or even 3) made of different materials will drown out all sounds, plus maybe there will be a different principle of mover operation - not screws or screws of a special shape.
    The command to detonate and other actions can be given in encrypted form according to the "song of the whale" principle. bully The cost of such a bot will be scanty, and the efficiency is under 95%.
    Our scientists thought interestingly about this direction of development?
    1. sniper
      sniper 10 November 2015 14: 39
      0
      Quote: Corsair
      and independently follow the aircraft carrier at great depths, and then

      Good suggestion ... Only how to make this papelats develop a speed comparable to AUG speed for a long time, and even exceed it
      Quote: Corsair
      , and then at a given signal to emerge in the direction of the AUG and undermine the NLS,

      I understand that we have already overtaken AUG?
      Quote: Corsair
      Our scientists thought interestingly about this direction of development?

      Unfortunately, not everything is so simple ... Here, most likely you can not do without a nuclear reactor ...
      1. Corsair
        Corsair 10 November 2015 15: 19
        0
        Quote: sniper
        Good suggestion ... Only how to make this papelats develop a speed comparable to AUG speed for a long time, and even exceed it

        what a hybrid engine - possibly diesel-electric or some other chemistry, low weight and volume, streamlining - and you don’t need any nuclear reactor, you can even make batteries on suspensions discharged with beacons, or a locomotive system - in the bow, of course, the main torpedo, with a trailer on quick connectors additional engines, tanks with fuel or fuel cells, etc.
        These are purely my fantasies - but why the hell not? winked Is it possible that a speed of 25-30 knots is unattainable in cruising mode, and in an attack, let's say the system is switched on from the Shkval torpedo system, or the Autobot itself is the transport and control link for several Shkvalov.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 11 November 2015 02: 56
        +3
        Quote: sniper
        I understand that we have already overtaken AUG?

        Nobody chases after him about the sea! They are waiting at the turn of the task. The forces and means, the time of the approach of the anti-ship missiles - everything is tied precisely to the line. Unless, of course, there is no task "in the shortest possible time!"
        1. Andrey NM
          Andrey NM 11 November 2015 07: 41
          +1
          This is more true for the defense of its coastal zones, and if there is a point of tension far from their bases? Have to catch up and overtake. Or operate long-range aviation.
          1. Corsair
            Corsair 11 November 2015 10: 07
            0
            Quote: Andrey NM
            This is more true for the defense of its coastal zones, and if there is a point of tension far from their bases? Have to catch up and overtake. Or operate long-range aviation.

            what so if it’s far in the ocean, then the AUG will not reach anywhere, carrier-based aviation cannot fly very far - if only with refueling and without air defense cover from ships.
  • dvg79
    dvg79 10 November 2015 10: 23
    +1
    It is foolish to calculate the effectiveness of one type of weapon in isolation from others. For example, the Yorktown was torpedoed after aircraft from an aircraft carrier worked on it, not counting the damage from the previous battle, the Japanese mostly died from inept crew actions, not counting the purely Japanese the survivability of the structure, in the Atlantic, aviation turned the actions of the "Doenitz boys" into Russian roulette, in no small measure thanks to the escortmen. And now the worst enemy of submarines is aircraft, including deck-based aircraft.
  • Wiski
    Wiski 10 November 2015 10: 59
    +3
    There is an interesting article on this subject.
    -
    http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/73
    In the Russian Armed Forces, the fight against the AUG (AUS) is assigned to attack groups of submarines and surface cruisers with anti-ship missiles, naval missile aircraft and long-range air forces. For fire destruction AUG specified forces are used in conjunction. To date, anti-ship missile systems P-700 Granite and P-1000 Volcano can be considered effective enough to combat AUG weapons. The missile cruisers of the 1164 Atlant project - Moscow, Varyag, and Marshal Ustinov, after modernizing their armaments, carry the Vulcan complexes on the 16 (previously they carried the same anti-ship missile system Basalt, which are now outdated). 10 nuclear submarine cruisers of Project 949A Antey carry 24 Granit missile launchers. Two Project 1144 heavy nuclear missile cruisers - "Peter the Great" and "Admiral Nakhimov" each carry 20 missiles of the same class, and the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" - 12 anti-ship missiles. Long-range aircraft, capable of solving the tasks of defeating the AUG, are the Tu-22M2 and Tu-22M3 long-range bombers. These aircraft can carry from 1 to 3 X-22MA air-to-surface missiles with a range of destruction of naval targets up to 400-550 km. The most advanced Russian anti-ship missiles today is Vulkan. Currently, there are no analogues to this rocket in the world. Its flight range is 700 km. This is a hundred kilometers greater than the range of anti-ship modifications “Tomahawk”, almost three times the range of the main American RCC “Harpoon”, and approximately corresponds to the radius of action of carrier-based fighter F / A-18. The marching speed of the "Volcano" is 660 meters per second, in the last section of the trajectory - a kilometer per second, which is three times the speed of the "Harpoon" and "Tomahawk" and twice the maximum speed of the F / A-18 fighter. "Volcanoes" carry a warhead (warhead) containing 500 kilograms of powerful explosives, the TNT equivalent of which, according to various sources, ranges from 1000 to 1500 kilograms. The power of the Vulcan warhead significantly exceeds the 454-kilogram TNT warhead of Tomahawka and the 227-kilogram warhead of Harpoon. As already mentioned, in the salvo of one project 949A submarine there are 24 missiles, each of which also has its own false targets for breaking through the missile defense. 23 missiles go low above the water, one rises higher, periodically turning on the radar to aim at the target. It determines the number of targets and distributes them between other missiles. In the case of the destruction of the "leader", his place is taken by the next rocket. The largest target, that is, an aircraft carrier, in the warrant of ships is automatically determined by missiles. After a breakthrough, missiles distribute targets according to their importance in order to ultimately ensure the defeat of an aircraft carrier. First, cover ships standing in the way of the missiles are destroyed, and then a strike is struck on the aircraft carrier. One rocket, when detonated in the vicinity of the side of the ship, makes a hole with an area of ​​about 30-45 square meters and a depth of 25 m. To bring an aircraft carrier out of action, it is necessary to hit 8-10 anti-ship missile systems "Granite" with conventional equipment. When breaking through missiles to an aircraft carrier, up to half of the security ships must also be destroyed. Taking into account the anti-aircraft defense, for guaranteed destruction of the AOG, it is necessary to use 70-100 anti-ship missiles from all types of carriers in one stroke.


    The breakthrough of the AUG defense (AUS) is likely to be fraught with heavy losses, if not with the complete extermination of the attackers. To incapacitate, let alone destroy such a military machine, it will require supercompetent strategists, and also a team of sailors and pilots of the highest courage and professionalism.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 10 November 2015 11: 27
    +2
    The flock shows that AUG must be seriously reckoned with
    threat from submarines.
    No more. No alternative to "floating airfields"
    not expected. They are being built by India, China, Japan (aircraft destroyers).

    The most reliable is to guard the aircraft carrier with the help of their submarines.
    To submarines fought with submarines under water.
    Cheap with cheap wink .
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 10 November 2015 11: 53
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Cheap with cheap.

      Submarine Ash, I’ll tell you not so cheap hi
    2. Amurets
      Amurets 11 November 2015 17: 08
      -1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The most reliable is to guard the aircraft carrier with the help of their submarines.
      To submarines fought with submarines under water.

      Alas, it will not work. The aircraft carrier must be guarded by all means of the fleet. The exercises were conducted both from the Soviet side and from the American one. The aircraft carrier becomes especially vulnerable at the time of release and acceptance of aircraft. And here the aircraft carrier is in danger in all three environments. Both cruise missiles and torpedoes and I’ve thought that the aircraft carrier should be guarded by multi-purpose submarines, air defense and anti-aircraft defense ships, and part of its own aviation. I expressed my personal opinion. Therefore, the AUG seems to me to be the most successful combat unit.
  • _KM_
    _KM_ 10 November 2015 11: 35
    +5
    Analogy. Tanks periodically knock out fighters in jeeps with PTURAMI. However, this is not a reason to abandon tanks. The same is with aircraft carriers. The fact that they are drowned by submarines does not negate the fact that AB is a powerful and versatile instrument of both the army and diplomacy.
  • Operator
    Operator 10 November 2015 11: 58
    -1
    PL against AUG is an outdated scheme.

    AUGs are designed to support ground operations. Therefore, ground-based missiles and medium-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads are their opposing weapons.

    The flight range of the Kyrgyz Republic and the BRSD is 2500 km, the range of carrier-based aviation is no more than 1250 km.

    Submarines armed with cruise missiles with a range of 2500 km will smash all cargo ships as part of sea convoys without entering the AUG coverage area.

    Conclusion - at present, aircraft carriers are a means of war with small countries such as Yugoslavia, Iraq or Libya in the absence of allies such as Russia, China or India.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 10 November 2015 13: 00
      +1
      Submarines armed with cruise missiles with a range of 2500 km will smash all cargo ships as part of sea convoys without entering the AUG coverage area.

      What are you planning to gather?
      1. Operator
        Operator 10 November 2015 14: 10
        0
        The missile launchers and ballistic missiles will be guided to the AUG area by means of electronic intelligence - in combat, the AUG glows like a Christmas tree in the radio range, because it turns on ship and airborne radars (AWACS aircraft) at full power.

        After reaching the AUG area, the missiles will homing at specific targets (see the principle of operation of the Iskander seeker and the algorithm for distributing Granit's targets).
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 10 November 2015 14: 24
          +2
          The satellites of the RTR MKRTs "Legenda" could not cope with such a task, since the AV went to the work area without flying and in compliance with radio silence.
          For the same reason, abandoned anti-aircraft R-27.
          What do you say KR with a range of 2500 km?
          1. Operator
            Operator 10 November 2015 21: 40
            -1
            "Caliber" with nuclear warheads - flight range 2500 km.

            How can the AUG move in radio silence mode (with radars turned off) with the risk at any time to detect several dozen RS with a flight time to the target of less than a minute at a distance of visual visibility (10-20 km)?

            What, then, is the point of building dozens of "Arly Berks", "Zamvolts" and, well, actually aircraft carriers with AWACS planes on board? Is it really just a cut of the American budget for hundreds of billions of dollars?
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 11 November 2015 06: 51
              0
              Knock down subsonic CD for air defense is not a problem. Can the source be? As far as I know, the PC version of Caliber has a shorter range.

              Silently, AWACS will provide AWACS. AWG does not need to use exclusively its means of control of the situation.

              Unfortunately, no.
              1. Operator
                Operator 11 November 2015 13: 40
                0
                You can shoot down a low-flying CR with a minimum ESR at a distance of 20 km (see comments above). At this turn, it is possible to shoot warheads with a rocket accelerator, providing a small-warhead approach speed up to 1 km / s and an approach time up to 20 seconds. Currently, there is no air defense system to intercept such an warhead.

                AWACS aircraft (400 km radar signal reception range), as well as Hawkeye carrier-based ones, will be located in the center of the AUG air defense zone and will serve as an excellent reference point for electronic reconnaissance equipment located on high-altitude UAVs (2500 km radar direct signal reception range).

                After the approach of the CD to the air defense zone of the AUG, the homing of missiles at the target will be carried out both in a passive mode by receiving a direct signal from shipborne radars, and in an active mode using onboard radar seeker (with a leading CD with the subsequent distribution of targets between the CD in a salvo like " Granite ").
                Homing of a detachable warhead - in passive mode with the help of an Iskander-type optical seeker.

                In the case of the use of nuclear warheads, everything is much simpler - the leading missile launcher, when approaching the AOG air defense zone, rises to an altitude of 20-30 km, scouts the AUG marching order, distributes targets and undermines the nuclear charge, after which all ship and air-based AAG radars (including duty fighters ) fail for 5-15 minutes (75-225 km of flight distance of the Kyrgyz Republic).

                At this distance, the RC and their warhead warheads can be shot down only with visual detection.
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 11 November 2015 15: 17
                  0
                  SHIP RADAR, RTK AN / APY-2 E-3 Sentry detects low-flying small targets at a distance of up to 400 km, a bomber at a distance of up to 520 km, targets over the horizon up to 650 km. He absolutely doesn’t need to be above the center of the order, they wouldn’t just be shot down at any distance and the AUS ships could receive information, the Hokai E-2, on the contrary, moves forward with cover up to a distance of 320 km from the center of the order, AUS from 3-4 AUG can send such patrols in all directions. As soon as the Sentry is spotted by the KR, the on-duty F / A-18 Hornets will take off and carry missiles, and the fact that in theory they can break through will finish the SAM SAM-2, SM-3.
                  I repeat the question - what are you going to direct the KR on AB?
                  The launch boundary of the P-700 Granite, even with a combined trajectory of 625 km (550), along a low altitude of 200 (145) km, carriers anyway within the boundaries of the PLO / PVO, they also need to provide the TsU.GOSN RPC will see a target the size of a cruiser only from 55-70 km. 145-200 km is a point-blank. Does the AUG itself run into Antei?
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 11 November 2015 16: 42
                    0
                    From your data it follows that if the RTR means (placed on the drones) detect a direct signal from the AWACS radar plus direct signals from the Hokaev radars above the ocean beyond 2500 km away, then this clearly indicates:
                    - about the presence of a group of several AUGs with a center in the place of AWACS barrage;
                    - on the number of AUGs with centers within the perimeter of the Hokaev’s barrage.

                    Excellent illumination of the areas of the group as a whole and each AUG in particular.
                    You can give a command to launch the Kyrgyz Republic in these areas from the sides of submarines, coastal defense ships and land launchers (for a multi-angle attack).

                    Guidance of the Kyrgyz Republic for specific purposes after approaching the borders of the districts is carried out using their on-board GOS:
                    - determination of the number of targets and their distribution between the missiles is carried out by the leading missiles without warheads, equipped with a powerful radar seeker at a distance of 200 km;
                    - homing missiles on the target inside the AOG is carried out in a standard way using the GOS, starting from a distance of 55-70 km.

                    To prevent AWACS and Hokai from guiding the Hornets to the CR, it is useful to blow up several CRs with warheads in the form of an explosive EMP generator or nuclear charge when approaching the detection line. This will disable radars (including Khornetov radars) for 15 minutes, which is equivalent to the distance of the Kyrgyz Republic in 200 km.

                    PS Descriptions of tactics for using anti-shipborne missiles published in the open press are greatly simplified. In particular, they deliberately keep silent about the use of RTR and electronic warfare systems against anti-aircraft missile defense.
                    1. strannik1985
                      strannik1985 11 November 2015 18: 18
                      0
                      This means that in a circle with a radius of 1000 km there is an automatic control system, I repeat once again-E-3 Sentry does not need to be in the center of the order, on the contrary, it is better to act at a distance from the center in order to move the air defense line.
                      Where are you going to let the KR?
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 11 November 2015 20: 02
                        0
                        If the missile systems are located both on the submarine and on the ships of the coastal zone and on board coastal aviation, then the attack on the ASG can occur from any azimuth — it is not known in advance which direction to fly AWACS aircraft.
                        Therefore, AWACS planes will obviously barrage in the center of the AUG area with an accuracy of 100-200 km - the range of the leading radar.
                        Moreover, in the case of a drone aircraft drifting to the periphery of the AUG region, the most effective tactic would be to attack the aircraft from two opposite directions - if one group of aircraft runs into the barrier from a displaced aircraft of the aircraft, then the other, having received a warning, will penetrate into the center of the aircraft with virtually no radar tracking and losses.
                        Since the cost of missile defense and the cost of an aircraft carrier / air defense cruiser differ by four orders of magnitude, the number of missile launchers in one raid on an AUG can reach 100 units.
                      2. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 11 November 2015 21: 06
                        0
                        Why shift them? There will be several, plus F / A-18 on patrol.
                        Detection and interception will be beyond detection, this is true from the mid-70s.
                        Your concept was relevant while the Tu-16 radar made it possible to detect an order outside the boundary of the AUG air defense line, until the E-2 Hokai and E-3 Sentry appeared in large numbers. Do you think in vain in the end came to ATAKR pr.11437?
                      3. Operator
                        Operator 11 November 2015 21: 35
                        0
                        Once again - we are talking about reconnaissance of the AUG location area.

                        If this area will be covered by several AWACS aircraft, then they will be evenly distributed along the periphery of the area (otherwise it is possible to fly in two groups of KR from mutually opposite directions, followed by defeat of the AUG from the direction of the uncovered radar field).

                        The region’s own reconnaissance will be conducted not by the active location of AUG ships from manned reconnaissance aircraft (detection range of hundreds of kilometers), but by the method of passive location of radiation from early warning radars from onboard RTR drones (detection range of thousands of kilometers).

                        And in this sense, strike submarines firing at the rear of the AS, so to speak, without entering the PLO zone and at the same time forcing to deploy AWACS aircraft on the periphery (to repel all-angle attacks, thereby unmasking the deployment of ASGs), are an ideal weapon against aircraft carriers and covering them air defense ships.

                        I apologize, I said everything on this topic.
                      4. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 12 November 2015 11: 49
                        0
                        Sleep of reason. Do you understand that on the "periphery" - for E-3 it is a "circle" with a radius of 400 km? And for the E-2C-320 km? Plus up to 4 F / A-18s on patrol from each aircraft carrier, plus the Norwegian Air Force (47 F-16AM at the moment), plus the US Air Force from Keflavik (if the confrontation continued, then the US 2 fleet would not be disbanded and the airbase would not be closed According to A. Nikolsky, for a simultaneous strike on the AUS in the Norwegian Sea, it would take no less than 700 missile carriers alone, not counting electronic warfare aircraft, and all of them were built before 1991-Tu-16KS / Tu-16K-10- 500 vehicles, Tu-22K-80 of all modifications and Tuu-22M3-200 of all modifications.

                        You are just phenomenal.
                      5. Operator
                        Operator 12 November 2015 15: 00
                        0
                        You are somewhat behind reality.

                        Against AWACS aircraft there are EW aircraft with multiple long-range electronic weapons.

                        We cut down AWACS REBs (without entering the AUS air defense zone), turn on Hokai, cut them down (without entering the AUG air defense zone), turn on Arli Bergov radars, detect radio signal sources with RTR drones and this is the desired target designation.

                        And several groups of the Kyrgyz Republic (starting earlier from several azimuths) are already at the border of the deployment area of ​​the ACS with a radius of 400 km (30 minutes of flight time). They are immediately redirected to the opened AUG.

                        The Khornetov radars are jammed by explosive EMP generators (in wartime, by a high-altitude nuclear explosion), after which fighters can try to shoot down each KR from onboard cannons, which the Khornets do not have enough fuel for.

                        After half an hour AUGs cease to exist as aircraft carrier formations.

                        A. Nikolsky made his calculations for the Tu-16 and Tu-22 in the absence of medium-range missiles (2500 km). Since October 2015, the calculations look new.

                        This is a reality, and by the 2020 year, sea-based (in peacetime), air and land (in time of war) basing of the Iskander type with a flight time of 15 minutes will be operational. Plus massive RTR mini-satellites weighing several kg and a detection range of 5000 km.

                        Therefore, the future of the ocean fleet is exclusively for missile submarines.
                      6. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 12 November 2015 16: 43
                        0
                        And now please confirm your words with links to sources, EWs that are guaranteed to cut down AWACS planes are especially interesting, how do you get information about the development of sea-based ballistic missiles, RTR mini-satellites, and other fiction?
                        The Kh-55 was put into service on January 1, 1983, with a range of 2500 km, Kh-55SM-3000 km, and Kh-555-2500 km.
                      7. Operator
                        Operator 12 November 2015 19: 42
                        0
                        "As the first deputy general director of KRET Igor Nasenkov said during his speech at the MAKS-2015 air show, the concern first presented the Krasukha-2 electronic warfare systems capable, in particular, of disrupting the operation of AWACS aircraft" - http: // sdelanounas .ru / blogs / 66758 /

                        Any intercontinental ballistic missile, incl. sea-based, turns into a medium-range missile (with a short flight time to the target) with a decrease in the number of stages and a corresponding increase in the number of warheads. If you remember, such a decision was planned 30 years ago when Pershing was deployed in Europe. The continued relevance of the solution is confirmed by the functionality of the shipborne missile defense system Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.

                        Nanosatellites - "Miniature spacecraft are characterized by a short development cycle, they are easy to operate, require significantly lower financial costs for launching into orbit. The narrow specialization of nanosatellites makes it possible to increase the reliability and efficiency of information systems created on their basis" http://www.spacecorp.ru / directions / nano /
                      8. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 12 November 2015 19: 53
                        0
                        1. The promise.
                        2. Your speculation.
                        3. Generally it is not clear what.
                      9. Kalmar
                        Kalmar 12 November 2015 23: 02
                        0
                        Quote: Operator
                        We cut down AWACS REBs (without entering the AUS air defense zone), turn on Hokai, cut them down (without entering the AUG air defense zone), turn on Arli Bergov radars, detect radio signal sources with RTR drones and this is the desired target designation.

                        Um, what if the cunning Yankees sense a catch and don't turn on the radars on the Berks?
                        By the way, where did AWAC come from?

                        Quote: Operator
                        And several groups of the Kyrgyz Republic (starting earlier from several azimuths) are already at the border of the deployment area of ​​the ACS with a radius of 400 km (30 minutes of flight time). They are immediately redirected to the opened AUG.

                        Some of our modern anti-ship missiles can take target designation after launch? The P-35 seemed to be able to do something like this, but it was outdated for some years.

                        Quote: Operator
                        Khornetov's radars are jammed by explosive EMP generators (in wartime, by a high-altitude nuclear explosion)

                        An immodest question: what prevents the AUG from doing the same trick with regard to electronic warfare aircraft (let us presume that they are really so omnipotent that the Khorenty cannot do anything with them)?

                        Quote: Operator
                        For the first time, the concern introduced the Krasukha-2 electronic warfare systems, capable, in particular, of disrupting the operation of AWACS aircraft

                        To me, "disrupting" and "shutting down" are slightly different things.

                        Any intercontinental ballistic missile, incl. sea-based, turns into a medium-range missile (with a short approach time to the target) with a decrease in the number of stages and a corresponding increase in the number of warheads.

                        A missile, especially an ICBM, is a very complex product, all the components of which are carefully and for a long time calculated and adjusted to each other. Do you think the approach "we will cut off half a step here, and then screw the extra warheads with bolts" is really that easy to implement?

                        Then, the ICBM is not intended for strikes against moving targets, and in 15 minutes of its flight the AUG can crawl ten kilometers in any direction. There is, of course, a chance to hook it, but with much greater likelihood, American sailors will only get the opportunity to look at a nuclear explosion from a safe distance.

                        Quote: Operator
                        The continued relevance of the solution is confirmed by the functionality of the shipboard missile defense system Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.

                        This system, as I understand it, has a different idea: to deploy missile defense components by sea as close as possible to a likely enemy in order to try to intercept the ballistic missiles in the initial part of the trajectory. Well, plus the opportunity to transfer the ABM forces to that suppostat, a conflict with which is most likely at the moment.
                      10. Operator
                        Operator 13 November 2015 00: 01
                        0
                        The area of ​​the ACG dislocation will be determined quite accurately already from the Hokai radiation, i.e. the additional radiation of Berkov is just a bonus for target designation of the Kyrgyz Republic.
                        Where does AWAX come from over ASU - this is a question for the Wanderer1985.

                        Regarding the reception of information by the RC in flight - the solution has been worked out on the example of "Granite".

                        EW aircraft are the attacking side and have the initiative. In addition, the distance of their impact on AWACS aircraft (by direct signal) exceeds the radius of action of radars (by reflected signal). Hornets fly to EW for two hours, and the Kyrgyz Republic to AUG - for half an hour.

                        As for the decoding of the word "violate" all questions to KRET.

                        According to the strategic offensive arms treaty, the number of ballistic missiles is counted by the number of first (starting) stages. There are several examples of the modification of three-stage missiles to the level of two-stage ones with a corresponding decrease in range and increase in throwing weight. In this case, the variant of the AUG attack described by me refers to the situation for the 2020 year (five years in reserve).

                        The speed of the Pershing-2 MRBM warhead when approaching the target was 2 km / s, which made it possible to get rid of the plasma cloud and use an active radar seeker. This homing method allows attacking moving targets with an accuracy of up to several meters.

                        The official Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System features set includes and the interception of the ballistic missile defense.
                      11. Kalmar
                        Kalmar 13 November 2015 09: 09
                        0
                        The area of ​​the ACG dislocation will be determined quite accurately from Hokai radiation

                        It remains to convince "Hawkeye" to hang motionless over the aircraft carrier. After all, he will hang out at a considerable distance. By its radiation, you will receive the AUG coordinates with an error of a couple of hundred kilometers.

                        Regarding the reception of information by the RC in flight - the solution has been worked out on the example of "Granite".

                        Link please? For the first time I hear about this.

                        EW aircraft are the attacking side and have the initiative.

                        I will modestly note that the AUG also has electronic warfare aircraft ("Growlers" and some modifications of the F-18), which also do not sit idly by: patrolling, conducting reconnaissance in a passive mode, turning on jammers if necessary. The question of initiative is ambiguous here.

                        The speed of the Pershing-2 MRBM warhead when approaching the target was 2 km / s, which made it possible to get rid of the plasma cloud and use an active radar seeker

                        It is a pity that nothing similar is being developed here and is unlikely to be developed until 2020.

                        Plus another moment: what are these miracle missiles to deploy? It is necessary, in theory, to remake strategic missile carriers ("Borei", for example), but we have very few of them.

                        The official Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System features set includes and the interception of the ballistic missile defense.

                        Of course: of all the official enemies of democracy, only Russia and China have real ICBMs, while the rest have only BMDs. In essence, range does not play a special role here, the main thing is that the target is ballistic.
                      12. Operator
                        Operator 13 November 2015 13: 26
                        0
                        Hokai does not hang motionless in the air, but barrages around the center of the ACG, unmasking this center with its flight path and radar radiation.

                        If the flight path of Hokai is shifted by a couple of hundred kilometers from the center of the AOG, then from one of the azimuthal directions the AUG will not be covered by radar observation. Therefore, in this case it is necessary to attack the AUG with two groups of the Kyrgyz Republic from mutually opposite directions - one of the groups will fly to the 100 line km of an unidentified Hokai.

                        The P-700 "Granit" anti-cruise missile is aimed at specific ships in flight over a radio channel.

                        The single-stage Iskander-M ballistic missile with active radar / passive optical seeker has an accuracy of 5-7 meters. Its launch weight is 3800 kg, warhead weight is 480 kg, range is 500 km.
                        The question is - what will be the range of the Iskander-M1 two-stage ballistic missile with a 40 kg warhead (homing 152-mm projectile with a nuclear charge with a capacity of 1 kiloton of TNT)?

                        Dozens of Iskander-M1 silo launchers can be installed on the Schuka-B low-noise nuclear submarine by inserting an additional compartment into the hull. The number of Shchuk-B built exceeds the number of US aircraft carriers in service.
                      13. Kalmar
                        Kalmar 15 November 2015 23: 32
                        0
                        Quote: Operator
                        Hokai does not hang motionless in the air, but barrages around the center of the ACG, unmasking this center with its flight path and radar radiation.

                        Provided that the "Hawkeye" will fly strictly in circles - all is well. And if not? And what if the "Growler", in fact, conducting reconnaissance, flies with him, and the "Hawkeye" turns on its radar only occasionally, when the "Growler" detects something interesting?

                        Quote: Operator
                        If the flight path of Hokai will be shifted by a couple of hundred kilometers relative to the center of AUG ...

                        The main thing is that the Hawkeye does not forget to clarify in which direction he has moved.

                        Quote: Operator
                        The P-700 "Granit" anti-cruise missile is aimed at specific ships in flight over a radio channel.

                        True? I read about the fact that rockets exchange data with each other. But for the first time I hear about the fact that "Granit" has a two-way communication with the carrier in order to obtain control center.

                        Quote: Operator
                        The question is - what will be the range of the Iskander-M1 two-stage ballistic missile with a 40 kg warhead (homing 152-mm projectile with a nuclear charge with a capacity of 1 kiloton of TNT)?

                        "Suha, my friend, theory is everywhere, and the tree of life is magnificently green."
                        In the sense that on paper it all turns out beautifully and in theory is quite feasible. I myself believe that there is something in the idea of ​​creating an anti-ship BR. However, I have not heard that anyone has seriously dealt with this topic in our country. It seems that only the Chinese are busy in this direction, but have not yet presented anything particularly interesting.
                  2. Kalmar
                    Kalmar 13 November 2015 09: 09
                    0
                    The area of ​​the ACG dislocation will be determined quite accurately from Hokai radiation

                    It remains to convince "Hawkeye" to hang motionless over the aircraft carrier. After all, he will hang out at a considerable distance. By its radiation, you will receive the AUG coordinates with an error of a couple of hundred kilometers.

                    Regarding the reception of information by the RC in flight - the solution has been worked out on the example of "Granite".

                    Link please? For the first time I hear about this.

                    EW aircraft are the attacking side and have the initiative.

                    I will modestly note that the AUG also has electronic warfare aircraft ("Growlers" and some modifications of the F-18), which also do not sit idly by: patrolling, conducting reconnaissance in a passive mode, turning on jammers if necessary. The question of initiative is ambiguous here.

                    The speed of the Pershing-2 MRBM warhead when approaching the target was 2 km / s, which made it possible to get rid of the plasma cloud and use an active radar seeker

                    It is a pity that nothing similar is being developed here and is unlikely to be developed until 2020.

                    Plus another moment: what are these miracle missiles to deploy? It is necessary, in theory, to remake strategic missile carriers ("Borei", for example), but we have very few of them.

                    The official Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System features set includes and the interception of the ballistic missile defense.

                    Of course: of all the official enemies of democracy, only Russia and China have real ICBMs, while the rest have only BMDs. In essence, range does not play a special role here, the main thing is that the target is ballistic.
                  3. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 16 November 2015 10: 45
                    0
                    Where does AWAX come from over ASU - this is a question for the Wanderer1985.

                    From Keflavik (now closed), from bases in the UK. The E-3C / D Sentry AEW.Mk.1 has a patrol range of 1612 km at 6 hours in the air.
  • Tatar
    Tatar 10 November 2015 12: 49
    +2
    Mines. The future belongs to mines and not to huge and super expensive ships.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 10 November 2015 13: 07
    +4
    And if you count how many "battleships" submarine drowned ... This is then a completely "break in the template" will happen ... ;-)
    Well, there is no such thing as a wunderwaffe ... Any "wunder" always has a "threaded bolt".
  • Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 10 November 2015 13: 38
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    The flight range of the Kyrgyz Republic and the BRSD is 2500 km, the range of carrier-based aviation is no more than 1250 km.


    Antiparasitic drugs with a range of 2500 km?
    In principle, such developments are underway. But all of them are not even at the stage of conceptual design, but at the stage of determining the future shape of the product and advertising companies to receive financing. By the way, some are ridiculously similar to the aircraft you criticize (unmanned carrier aircraft + upgraded anti-ship missile).

    So before the advent of such anti-carabule means in service, it will take many years, maybe decades, because Now, according to estimates, they are almost more expensive than the ships themselves.

    The radius of action of existing anti-punitive means is several times smaller than the radius of action of weapons, taking into account the radius of action of the carrier aircraft. I'm not talking about costs.

    The use of existing nuclear weapons of a similar range for ship groupings is not very effective. All ships, tactics, builds, etc. in the last 60 years, they have been developed taking into account the use of nuclear weapons against them.

    So the use of such means in the NATO fleets, especially when defending the allies, is a suicidal option, which, moreover, will not do them so much damage.

    Your reasoning applies to the long term. To questions such as whether it is worth investing in aircraft carriers now, if in 10 years a potential enemy can ...?

    So with all due respect. I can not completely agree with you.
    1. Operator
      Operator 10 November 2015 13: 53
      0
      KR "Caliber" with a conventional warhead and a range of 1600 km already exceeds the range of carrier-based aircraft.

      With prices even clearer: "Caliber" costs less than $ 1 million, "Hornet" - more than $ 50 million.

      So AUG has Elusive Joe status (outside the radius of flight of its aircraft) laughing

      Do not forget about the main goal of the domestic Armed Forces - this is combating aggression against our own territory (and not against third countries, which is secondary). This is served by land and missile defense with nuclear warheads and a range of 2500 km. Opportunities AUG and then zeroed.

      So why use expensive submarines against AUG?
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 10 November 2015 14: 42
        +1
        The caliber is a domestic analogue of the Topor. A SOUND (marching speed of 0,8 M) missile for strikes against land targets. In this case, neither conduct reconnaissance, electronic warfare, provide air defense, refuel (Super Hornet in its tank and PTB raises 14 tons of fuel) of the strike group aircraft, conduct a defensive attack, hit a target from a cannon, NAR, UAB or conventional Mk.82, cluster bombs.
        I'm not talking about AWACS aircraft.
        1. Operator
          Operator 10 November 2015 22: 11
          -1
          KR are purely striking weapons

          Accompanying events - reconnaissance (radio engineering) and electronic warfare are carried out using aircraft, including UAVs, without entering the AUG air defense hone.

          After hitting the KR aircraft carrier, all characteristics of the Hornets (the amount of fuel on board, ammunition, cannon armament) and AWACS aircraft (detection range) are reset to zero.
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 11 November 2015 06: 30
            0
            Thanks, in the know.

            By what means will you conduct reconnaissance, given that the far boundary of the anti-aircraft missile defense is at a distance of up to 1000 km from the center of the warrant?

            Get in first.
      2. SPLV
        SPLV 10 November 2015 16: 18
        0
        Quote: Operator
        Land-based BR with nuclear warheads and a range of 2500 km.

        Dear Operator! I do not have the honor of knowing what and where you are operating with, but land-based ballistic missiles are subject to the INF Treaty between the USA and the USSR (RF) and, accordingly, have been decommissioned, destroyed, and are not even officially designed in the USA or the Russian Federation, therefore - does not exist.
        1. Operator
          Operator 10 November 2015 22: 18
          0
          I agree, however, the Kalibr missile launchers have been developed, including in the form factor of a large-tonnage container.
          In peacetime, launchers are located on the deck of ships (in strict accordance with the INF Treaty), in wartime - including on auto trailers (due to the automatic termination of the INF Treaty).
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. Corsair
      Corsair 10 November 2015 17: 12
      0
      Quote: Abrekkos
      All ships, tactics, builds, etc. in the last 60 years, they have been developed taking into account the use of nuclear weapons against them.

      Well, don’t tell me, at least the ships will go blind and the airplanes on the deck will stupidly wash away or be blown up, what doesn’t wash out will have to undergo some kind of training and testing of the systems anyway. Explosion of a nuclear warhead of sufficient power in the air above the AUG will cut off all communication for some time - and here it is quite possible to work out in conjunction with a submarine - having shot the ships of the group with squalls, granites and all other weapons from under the water.
    3. Operator
      Operator 10 November 2015 22: 02
      -1
      KR "Caliber" with nuclear warheads with a capacity of 1 kt (in service with a 152-mm projectile with nuclear warheads) will fly 3000 km. The explosion of 1000 tons of explosives at the side of any ship, including an aircraft carrier, is guaranteed to disable it. I cannot agree that it will take years of construction to implement such a solution.

      Several orders of magnitude cheaper alternative to the tactical scheme "aircraft carrier-strike aircraft-KR" is the scheme "small ship of coastal defense-KR", which was demonstrated in Syria.
  • Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 10 November 2015 13: 58
    +1
    Quote: _KM_
    with aircraft carriers. The fact that they are drowned by submarines does not negate the fact that AB is a powerful and versatile instrument of both the army and diplomacy.


    Right! Just as the fact that aviation from aircraft carriers very successfully fights submarines does not mean at all that it is necessary to abandon submarines. Dialectic however.

    By the way, similar scenarios were considered in the USSR. So, according to calculations both at that time and taking into account promising means both with us and the alleged opponents, it turned out that the losses of submarines would be such that in total they would cost almost as much as the carrier sunk by them.

    As a result, the concept of the Atlantean receiver won out, but the USSR was no longer destined to realize it.

    I will not undertake to discuss the topic "how to neutralize aircraft carriers."
    This topic is too complex and multifaceted for my rather highly specialized knowledge.

    But the USSR again came to such conclusions.
  • _KM_
    _KM_ 10 November 2015 14: 23
    +1
    Quote: Abrekkos
    to realize it the USSR was no longer destined


    Unfortunately.
  • Roman 11
    Roman 11 10 November 2015 16: 04
    0
    Now the AUG has no chance at all

    In hypersonic missiles, it looks like ships of the sailing era laughing
  • Earnest
    Earnest 10 November 2015 16: 29
    +2
    The next article will be called "How many planes were shot down by submarines?"
  • lazy
    lazy 10 November 2015 17: 04
    0
    many of the sunk aircraft carriers did not have an anti-submarine escort, and if I am not mistaken, Shinano walked alone. an aircraft carrier alone is not a warrior. With all due respect to the submariners, they are not a guarantee of neutralizing aircraft carriers "aircraft carriers are needed both for air cover and for organizing anti-submarine defense. It is not a fact that the Belgrano would have been sunk if the Argentines had normal anti-submarine helicopters based on an Argentine aircraft carrier.
  • Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 10 November 2015 18: 55
    +2
    Quote: Operator
    KR "Caliber" with a conventional warhead and a range of 1600 km already exceeds the range of carrier-based aircraft.


    Well, you give a pancake!
    All long-range calibers are exclusively for ground use.
    Shooting them on ships is the same as hunting mosquitoes in a clean field by throwing hammers at them.
    The range of anti-ship calibers is less than 500 km. in ideal conditions.
    I'm not talking about the fact that the caliber with YABCh about which you spoke simply does not exist.

    Do not confuse God's gift with fried eggs.

    Quote: Operator
    Do not forget about the main goal of the domestic Armed Forces - this is combating aggression against our own territory (and not against third countries, which is secondary). This is served by land and missile defense with nuclear warheads and a range of 2500 km. Opportunities AUG and then zeroed.


    Thank you, of course, for being reminded, but they pay me a salary so that I would not forget. And I do not forget.

    And since you, by your decision, the possibilities of AUG have been nullified, then so be it. So they are reset! There is nothing to argue about.

    It would only be necessary to write about this in the Moscow Region and branch research institutes. You comrades are not going to shoot at the ships with the Caliber.
    There is no better for the president right away, since these presumptuous will rely on their own knowledge. And the president of them all to the wall and you will be "granted a general."

    About "countries without allies" you yourself wrote in the context of the use of nuclear warheads:
    Quote: Operator

    Conclusion - at present, aircraft carriers are a means of war with small countries such as Yugoslavia, Iraq or Libya in the absence of allies such as Russia, China or India.


    So I was surprised. Maybe of course I misunderstood you.

    Quote: Operator
    So why use expensive submarines against AUG?


    Well, I don’t know. Probably used because all weapons developers, headquarters, generals, admirals and strategists around the world are complete. They don’t know what they themselves are developing and how to use it.

    But seriously, what you wrote here is nothing more than a concept of the 50-60s of the last century.
    In the 70s, she was thrown into the trash as spectacular but not effective and practically not applicable.
    1. Operator
      Operator 10 November 2015 22: 51
      -4
      You are mistaken, the use of medium-range missile defense with a conventional or nuclear warhead against the AUG is a concept from October 2015 of the year, an alternative to which (or rather, its absence) has just begun to be considered in the KNS and the US Congress.

      The concept is based on the multiple difference in the flight range of the Soviet CRs of the 1970-x model (500-700 km, less than the range of carrier-based aviation) and Russian RCs of the 2010-type (1600 - 2500 km, more than the radius of carrier-based aviation).

      At the same time, the Kyrgyz Republic can be based on any warship, including boats (in peacetime), on any fighter / bomber or truck / auto trailer (in wartime).

      It turns out that admiral generals overslept the AUG funeral laughing
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 10 November 2015 19: 11
    +1
    By the way, the author brought to the idea. In AUG you can successfully
    include, on an ongoing basis, a floating base for small
    Submarines (diesel) - interceptors of enemy submarines. With a small power reserve,
    small armament - pieces 4 torpedoes and all, but
    high-speed and low noise.
  • Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 10 November 2015 19: 30
    +2
    Quote: Corsair
    Well, don’t tell me, at least the ships will go blind and the airplanes on the deck will stupidly wash away or be blown up, what doesn’t wash out will have to undergo some kind of training and testing of the systems anyway. Explosion of a nuclear warhead of sufficient power in the air above the AUG will cut off all communication for some time - and here it is quite possible to work out in conjunction with a submarine - having shot the ships of the group with squalls, granites and all other weapons from under the water.


    Vigorous weapons are certainly powerful. I do not argue. This is my VUS.

    But nothing of what you have listed will most likely simply not happen, since the YaBZ that could have done this will simply not reach there. It requires painfully large and lumbering delivery vehicles at the current level of development of weapons technology. The armor is significantly superior to such a projectile. (analogy of "competition of armor and projectile")
    Aircraft on deck are held only for the parade and even then not much.

    The standard for restoration of antenna posts of the general ship target designation system after a nuclear explosion at the Americans is if I am not mistaken for 5 minutes. I do not know ours in technical TTZ no more than 3. Yes, and they do not explode nuclear weapons in the air if they want to hit ships - not efficiently. Partly from the fact that EMR is not so deadly for those who are ready for it.

    Our squalls, granites and all other weapons will be no less difficult to use than they bring down them. Especially from under the water ...

    The theory of nuclear attack is exactly the opposite of what you indicated. First there are several non-nuclear carriers for various purposes, then one nuclear. Other scenarios are not effective. This has already been tried.

    If you are curious about the practice of using nuclear weapons on ships (more precisely, on decommissioned troughs), then here is an article for you:
    http://rufor.org/showthread.php?t=27187

    In general, our problem with aircraft carriers and everything else is that our potential opponents are not fools.

    And all this economy was made in such quantity and in such equipment not to bomb the miserable Libya. And for victory in a global nuclear war with the USSR (the powers are many times more powerful than the Russian Federation).

    And all of these with you our illiterate reasoning is just so fun.
    1. Operator
      Operator 11 November 2015 00: 36
      0
      “During the test“ Baker ”the battleship“ Arkansas ”was sunk. It is still unknown what happened to the battleship in the last seconds. A giant water column hid it from the eyes of observers, and when the spray dissipated, the battleship was gone. Later divers will find it lying prone at the bottom, buried under a layer of settled silt.
      At the time of the explosion, Arkansas was only 150 meters from the epicenter. "

      The nuclear charge power was 23 ct. I wonder what would happen to the battleship if it were in the epicenter of a nuclear explosion with a power of 1 ct am
    2. Corsair
      Corsair 11 November 2015 10: 26
      0
      Quote: Abrekkos
      And all of these with you our illiterate reasoning is just so fun.

      belay I didn’t write that there would be a single nuclear explosion, the attack on the AUG should be large-scale and diverse - I don’t think that in the event of a serious disruption - we will frighten AUGs with single Caliber and fire from deck artillery, as you write from a dozen two or three -four missiles and somewhere among them with UBC.
      The tests were carried out on ships without a team, the question is what will happen to the team - their condition, health, morale, how the airplanes in the vicinity will behave.
      I agree that we can only speculate and fantasize on this subject, wondering in theory request Who knows how everything would be in reality.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 10 November 2015 20: 04
    +2
    According to Kuzin V.P., Nikolsky V.I. The USSR Navy 1945-1991 p. 10-11 of 14,7 million tons of the tonnage lost by the Allies from the actions of the submarines, only 29% of the transports were lost as part of the convoys. From January 1941 to April 1943, convoys in the North Atlantic lost an average of 1,7 to 2,6% of transports, and in 1944-1945 less than 1%.
    To combat submarines, the Anglo-American command was forced to use up to 1500 coast-based aircraft, up to 600 aircraft with 30 aircraft and about 3500 escort ships and boats of various types. During the years of the war, 118 aircraft were built in the USA and England, to anti-submarine operations in separate no more than 25% were attracted, most often they were used to solve attack missions in landing operations.
    Base aircraft were not special anti-submarine aircraft and solved a number of attack tasks at sea: they destroyed single surface ships, bombed targets on the coast occupied by the enemy, etc., the number of this category of aircraft was only 10% of the total number of combat aircraft deployed by the United States and England in the summer of 1944 in Europe at the Western Theater. The total economic cost of eliminating the threat from submarines did not exceed 15% of the total cost of warfare at sea, even taking into account the need to make up for losses in the commercial tonnage sunk as part of convoys.
  • Nazaroff
    Nazaroff 10 November 2015 20: 12
    0
    Quote: Wiski
    To bring an aircraft carrier out of action, it is necessary to hit 8-10 anti-ship missile systems "Granite" with conventional equipment.

    For a long-term decommissioning of an aircraft carrier, one Granite is enough. 10 meters + 7 tons, with a powerful warhead, at such a speed ... IN NOT armored, stuffed from the keel to the deck with explosives, fuels and lubricants and a trough that burns like paper ...
  • polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 10 November 2015 21: 34
    +1
    I liked the article and the comments very much. If anyone is interested, then all this can be read in detail in Norman Polmar's two-volume "Aircraft Carriers". They will play their (more precisely, assigned to them) role for a long time, but not in Russia (as long as we have not enough "strength" for their construction and maintenance, we now do not attack, but defend, it is more important to cover the approaches, and for this there are effective, less expensive variants of modern weapons, the same coastal complexes, ships of the 2nd, 3rd rank armed with the Kyrgyz Republic. We certainly have experience in the combat use of AUG, about (A) submarines we build better and cheaper. And in the future, as they say: will be it is seen.
  • Dam
    Dam 10 November 2015 21: 42
    0
    I propose to confer upon Mr. Kaptsov the title: Admiral Iron Kaput
  • Greyjojo
    Greyjojo 10 November 2015 22: 03
    +1
    The article is interesting, the conclusions are strange.
    For example, how many "tigers" were destroyed by the IL-2?
    we make calculations, we say well, and what for tanks are needed if they are destroyed by aviation twice.

    calculations can be interesting and informative - the conclusion is wrong.
  • Exsubmariner
    Exsubmariner 10 November 2015 23: 06
    +1
    How many of the above have served in submarines?
  • Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 11 November 2015 00: 25
    -1
    Quote: Operator
    You are mistaken, the use of medium-range missile defense with a conventional or nuclear warhead against the AUG is a concept from October 2015 of the year, an alternative to which (or rather, its absence) has just begun to be considered in the KNS and the US Congress.

    The concept is based on the multiple difference in the flight range of the Soviet CRs of the 1970-x model (500-700 km, less than the range of carrier-based aviation) and Russian RCs of the 2010-type (1600 - 2500 km, more than the radius of carrier-based aviation).

    At the same time, the Kyrgyz Republic can be based on any warship, including boats (in peacetime), on any fighter / bomber or truck / auto trailer (in wartime).

    It turns out that admiral generals overslept the AUG funeral laughing


    Where do you get this nonsense from?

    The Congress and the KNS discuss anything intelligible in this part. Do you understand the difference between the parliamentary hearings and the work of the headquarters of the Navy? Do you seriously think that plans of military operations and combat employment schemes are being discussed in Congress and the KNSh? They all the more do not discuss withdrawing from international treaties of nuclear weapons. These guys are discussing only money, and they are being given noodles about unknown potential threats in order to get a budget or the opposite, so as not to give it to others for other purposes. Therefore, you can hear anything there. Recently, our highly mobile spy satellites almost with nuclear weapons and other nonsense were discussed.

    I beg you "do not you read the Soviet newspapers." If you read them, then the US army and together with them the Congress, the Senate and the President are simply trembling with horror in front of the RF Armed Forces. Aircraft carrier groups are just a pitiful special case.

    But those who need it know the real ranges of our anti-ship systems. They mainly discuss the exact opposite issue - the risk of hitting their ground targets and not their ships. This is a long time ago.

    And indeed, the range is not a determining indicator. In the United States, for example, as far back as the 50s, there was an anti-aircraft missile with a range of 780 km. So what? In the 60s removed from service.

    For my part, I close the topic. pure verbal diarrhea began. Especially on the topic not related to the topic of the article.
    1. Operator
      Operator 11 November 2015 13: 53
      0
      You don’t understand - in the KNS and the US Congress they are discussing a report on the feasibility of building new aircraft carriers on the fact of the combat use of Russian aircraft with a flight range greater than the range of carrier-based aircraft, and not the tactics of using AUGs.

      Judging by the scandalous nature of the discussion process, the real characteristics of Russian missile weapons turned out to be a surprise for the Americans. It turns out that the one who is supposed to know this by post is very messed up laughing

      This concludes the discussion of the "non-core" topic.
  • Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 11 November 2015 00: 31
    0
    Quote: Exsubmariner
    How many of the above have served in submarines?


    I didn’t serve, but lately I have been working on non-strategic ones.
    And for what purpose are you interested in? Pick up the crew?
    :-)
  • Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 11 November 2015 00: 42
    0
    Quote: Operator
    KR "Caliber" with nuclear warheads with a capacity of 1 kt (in service with a 152-mm projectile with nuclear warheads) will fly 3000 km. The explosion of 1000 tons of explosives at the side of any ship, including an aircraft carrier, is guaranteed to disable it. I cannot agree that it will take years of construction to implement such a solution.

    Several orders of magnitude cheaper alternative to the tactical scheme "aircraft carrier-strike aircraft-KR" is the scheme "small ship of coastal defense-KR", which was demonstrated in Syria.


    Have you ever designed anything at all for the army in order to "disagree"?
    Well, at least an ordinary cartridge for small arms?

    And you see, we’ll attach a nuclear warhead from a projectile to a missile firing at ground targets and we’ll shoot at the ships. And all the enemies multiplied by zero.

    Apparently you never built anything if you think so.
    Look how much design and testing is not even a big modification in such a product? What about the cartridge?

    Yes, while you put something on the arsenal, you put your head half gray.
  • kolyhalovs
    kolyhalovs 11 November 2015 09: 22
    +1
    The author is well done.
    No, I don’t understand anything at all about aircraft carriers and submarines and how they will fight there, if that. But it’s written beautifully, it’s always interesting for me to read it. And apparently not only me:

    Self-propelled mortar installations - 37 comments
    Winchester, which did not become “Kalashnikov” (part 2) -18 comments
    British naval anti-aircraft missile systems. Part 2 - 9 comments
    How many aircraft carriers sank submarines? -202 comment
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 11 November 2015 14: 12
    +3
    This article is the fruit of the author's metaphysical worldview. Indeed, as aptly noted here, comparing a submarine to an aircraft carrier is akin to comparing a whale to an elephant. The fact that such a huge number of comments to the article speaks only of the provocative content of the article and the commercial success of the beneficiaries. And if in essence, so, if we compare the content of the article with a cutlet, then there is simply no meat in this "cutlet". Indeed, it is foolish to compare two technical devices for waging war at sea, as in any environment, without taking into account all the factors of this very war: the technical perfection of both, the tactics of their use, in other words, the command's ability to correctly assess the situation and make competent decisions, and the crews ships, the ability to fight against each other, the survivability of ships and the ability to fight for survivability, the moral and volitional qualities of personnel. In other words, without analyzing the naval art of the opposing sides, it is completely foolish to draw the correct conclusions from this article. Another dilettante dummy of the author, wrapped in a beautiful wrapper (colorful photographs, author's jargon, etc.), as well as other articles by Oleg Kaptsov. The article is definitely a "minus". And yet, a purely personal impression from the comments. Dear forum users! It is good that you are not indifferent to military affairs. But in order to understand it, go to military schools, serve in the troops, graduate from military academies and then everything will open before you in a completely different way. You cannot comprehend military affairs from a sofa. No wikipedia will help. IMHO.
  • Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 11 November 2015 14: 32
    0
    Quote: Operator
    You don’t understand - in the KNS and the US Congress they are discussing a report on the feasibility of building new aircraft carriers on the fact of the combat use of Russian aircraft with a flight range greater than the range of carrier-based aircraft, and not the tactics of using AUGs.

    Judging by the scandalous nature of the discussion process, the real characteristics of Russian missile weapons turned out to be a surprise for the Americans. It turns out that the one who is supposed to know this by post is very messed up laughing

    This concludes the discussion of the "non-core" topic.


    Oh, here you are. Sorry I did not understand.
    We just kind of talked about the real combat use of real anti-ship weapons. So I got confused.

    And about the discussion in the congressional committees:

    First, they talk about an armament program for decades and naturally consider what a potential enemy might have in ten or more years.

    Secondly, the scandalousness consists only in the performance of some not particularly competent experts (how many I know who were not admitted by the way to information about the project itself). Everyone, even they understand that our current calibers have a chance to fly to the vicinity of their aircraft carrier is measured in units of a percent (which, however, is quite enough for us). And they have no chances to reach their future aircraft carrier at all. They will be extinguished at the distant approaches to their aircraft carrier formation. Range here is on the second or third roles. So the only question is what "calibers" will appear in 10-20 years.

    Thirdly, no one seriously took these experts. The program will only approve the issue in its scope.

    Fourth, the main reason for the appearance of the votes of these experts is that many want to cut or kill this program and send money to their programs. By the way, they have a lot of experts who say that it’s cheaper to upgrade existing aircraft carriers and that they’ll be steeper than they need for another 20 years. And nefiga spend so much money on new ones and these will tear everyone and will reliably protect themselves. Especially considering the improvement of air defense escort ships. Only on these experts and scandals we do not particularly speak and write on TV. The congressional committees are always when it comes to big money scandals.

    And in the fifth ... and in the sixth, etc. In general, the chatter in Congress, like in our Duma, has nothing to do with the real combat capabilities of what is and will appear in the next 5 years.

    Once again, I apologize to you if it was not correct. I didn’t want to offend.

    But I remain in my positions and, in addition, I believe that our verbal flow needs to be completed.
  • Gunther
    Gunther 12 November 2015 00: 29
    0
    SectaHaki Quote:
    and before the American pilots, bowing low, uncovered the RSD

    You are just like an eyewitness, akyn in one word.
    The process of bowing was observed.
    SectaHaki Quote:
    how do you comment that every second Soviet submarine came to the base with a spot of white paint near the cabin that was hastily wiped off?

    It’s strange how you can comment on such stories.
    Where did you get this, or did you personally, in the sweat of your face, wipe off this special, very stable paint and carefully bent your fingers.
    Or maybe our submarines stained with a jar and a brush)))
    Where are the woods from, SectaHaki?
    1. Secta haki
      Secta haki 12 November 2015 07: 26
      0
      Wanted to watch too? Any doubts? Newsreel and Google to help.

      Then do not comment ... Why did you decide that bikes? The wiping of what is generally experience? And how do you know about the durability of the paint?
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 12 November 2015 07: 39
    +1
    In fact, the author showed that submarines are able to sink large ships under certain conditions, I also assumed this laughing
  • Gunther
    Gunther 12 November 2015 11: 07
    0
    SectaHaki Quote:
    Then do not comment ... Why did you decide that bikes? The wiping of what is generally experience? And how do you know about the durability of the paint?

    It is clear that you have no answers, the reliability level of the information is clear, there are no questions)))
    And your stories about the "white spot" are from the area of ​​demonization of the enemy (just a children's horror story about a black spot):
    You went camping, did not have time to dive under the ice of the Arctic Ocean, and the enemy is right there - sitting, waiting on an ice floe, with a bucket of gurgling white paint and a faithful brush in his hand.
    You returned from the campaign, and he is waiting for you under the bed of your faithful spouse - staining it with white paint, under the left shoulder blade.
    1. Secta haki
      Secta haki 13 November 2015 00: 21
      +1
      Science does not know what you understand, but I can explain why the spot was on every second nuclear submarine (and almost always found out about it only at the base), and not almost every first one.

      Or write yourself here if you understand the issue of non bed (latrine) subjects, or Pushkin's poetry?