Military Review

Media: America lacks aircraft carriers to fulfill “global commitments”

97
This year, the US Navy will face a significant shortage of aircraft carriers in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific, according to The National Interest magazine.




"The absence of the required number of ships will primarily affect the US military campaign in Syria against the militants of the Islamic State, as well as the operation of the US Navy in the South China Sea," the article cites. RIA News.

Now the Pentagon has 10 aircraft carriers, although according to American law, the Navy must have 11 such ships. The fact is that “in 2013, Congress approved the request of the military leadership for the disarmament of the aircraft carrier Enterprise (USS Enterprise, CVN-65), which served the fleet more than 50 years, ”explains the publication.

"Enterprise" was donated to the ship "Gerald R.Ford" (USS Gerald R.Ford, CVN-78), which was initially commissioned for 2016 year, but the gap between the removal of the previous model and the delivery was new than planned, ”adds the magazine.

According to Brian Clarke, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, “it was expected that the period when the fleet would have ten aircraft carriers would last fourteen months, but now the gap has increased to eight years due to additional tests of the impact resistance of the vessel made during the preparatory period.”

The article notes that "the critical moment is that the US Navy now has too few aircraft carriers to fulfill its global obligations."

“It is obvious that reducing the carrier fleet from sixteen to less than twelve after the Cold War was a mistake. The American fleet needs at least sixteen aircraft carriers, ”concludes the publication.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com/
97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The black
    The black 10 January 2016 09: 16
    48
    When the USA will not be enough for the world. winked
    1. vlad66
      vlad66 10 January 2016 09: 22
      24
      the critical point is that the US Navy has too few aircraft carriers to fulfill its global obligations. ”

      They ask for money, they spat on global commitments.
      1. hrych
        hrych 10 January 2016 09: 58
        26
        No, it makes sense. To control the world's oceans (which in fact cannot be completely controlled by a thousand aircraft carriers), or rather the main trade routes, control of the "bottlenecks" is required, such as the Strait of Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, Singapore Strait, Suez with Panama Canals, Gibraltar, Dardanelles and so on. Moreover, in the Persian Gulf there is a constant presence of one aircraft carrier (on a rotational basis), etc. From here, the total amount is calculated for key points of the world waters of the state, plus the British trough and Charles de Gaulle in the catch. Therefore, the absence of even one AUG in this scheme leads to an imbalance, and taking into account the construction of ships in the far zone of the Chinese Navy, the revival of Russian squadrons. The same Russian technologies of the Kyrgyz Republic turn the maskite fleet of the same Iran into a formidable force, and Clabs in sea containers can strike from anywhere. This leads to the need to move the AUG further from the target, it is necessary to increase the air wing, increase the number of support and cover vessels in the AUG, etc.
        1. Simon
          Simon 10 January 2016 10: 34
          +3
          Let them build, there will be targets for our "Calibers". All the same, the whole world cannot be held by aircraft carriers, and the debt of the US government will be even greater!
          1. remy
            remy 10 January 2016 16: 48
            -2
            IMHO: it’s still advisable for our Navy not to have aircraft carriers but aircraft carriers,
            so as they say: "- and one warrior in the field"
            TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" transfer from the Northern Fleet to the Black Sea Fleet, and add an aircraft carrier to the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet
            Below is a diagram of a promising aircraft carrier
            1. Alf
              Alf 10 January 2016 21: 42
              +1
              Quote: remy
              TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" from the Northern Fleet to the Black Sea Fleet,

              And what should he do in such a puddle, which for him is the Black Sea? It is completely shot by RCC and aviation. Kuznetsov must be kept precisely in the Federation Council.
        2. varov14
          varov14 10 January 2016 10: 35
          +9
          You need to come up with a fish that sticks, went into the "bottleneck", and under the bottom you have a fish and swim for the time being. Self-destruct, either on command or on any inspection by diving enthusiasts.
          1. SanSuh
            SanSuh 10 January 2016 17: 44
            +1
            A small fish will not give that effect, but a large fish will be spotted, although if a swarm of small ones ....
        3. samoletil18
          samoletil18 10 January 2016 20: 30
          0
          Here, damn it, you can't tell what is worse for the world community. The presence of aircraft carriers or "obligations".
      2. tomket
        tomket 10 January 2016 10: 52
        +7
        Quote: vlad66
        They ask for money, they spat on global commitments.

        The Americans once had an unshakable number in 15 aircraft carriers, like the British unshakable numbers in 50 cruisers to protect the interests of the empire. And Admiral Beatty once vowed that the empire would spend the last guinea to save this amount. And where is this British empire now?
        1. Alf
          Alf 10 January 2016 21: 45
          +1
          Quote: tomket
          the empire will spend the last guinea to conserve this amount. And where is this British empire now?

          The guineas are over ...
    2. Sweles
      Sweles 10 January 2016 09: 36
      +7
      Well so, what problems? it is necessary to build another ten or twenty aircraft carriers with f35mi from Antarctica to the Arctic and there will be a new, old world order, the rich will be even richer and the poor even poorer, and who doubts that will explain all the charms of such a democracy ...
      1. Sid.74
        Sid.74 10 January 2016 09: 47
        23
        That's what I like about the Americans, so that they answer any problem - give money. It doesn’t matter why the problem arose, because of social problems, or because of racist or political issues, anyway give money. eat cactus endlessly, prick and cry, and continue to eat cactus.
        Such a stubborn, blinkered and monotonous thinking does not exist in any nation in the world, truly exceptional, exceptional morons.

        I wonder how aircraft carriers will help the Americans in this case.



        This is another group of armed people who visited Origon to protest farmers. There is a possible conflict among social groups in the USA ...

        Farmers versus Pacific Patriots Society, but what ... fellow
        As if the federal farmers were few.
        1. Greenwood
          Greenwood 10 January 2016 09: 59
          +9
          The FBI will work with these guys, don't worry. They have extensive experience in restoring public "order" in the country.
          1. Sid.74
            Sid.74 10 January 2016 10: 06
            +5
            Quote: Greenwood
            The FBI will work with these guys, don’t worry.

            No, no ... You didn’t understand ... these guys in the photo represent the society of some Pacific patriots ... and they didn’t come to extend a hand of friendship to farmers ... but rather the opposite. But they left, because the farmers did not open ....laughing
            1. Greenwood
              Greenwood 10 January 2016 12: 07
              +2
              Well, my opinion is that all this is a minor showdown of a bunch of marginals. At least that's what the feds see. As soon as it begins to develop into something more serious, they will be dealt with very densely.
          2. varov14
            varov14 10 January 2016 10: 52
            +3
            Yes, these guys from Soviet times were taught the little part of the party i.e. to forward our ours to a foreign country and public order is now beautifully created on it, very social.
          3. remy
            remy 10 January 2016 11: 07
            +8
            FBI say ....
            there among the farmers there are rangers and green berets ...
            therefore, they will agree, and then they will arrange a guerrilla war
            1. Greenwood
              Greenwood 10 January 2016 12: 09
              +4
              And I didn’t say that someone would kill, shoot, and disperse someone from hoses. Who needs to be bribed, who does not need to be quietly removed or put up as a laughing stock. A lot of ways.
        2. chunga-changa
          chunga-changa 10 January 2016 14: 08
          +4
          Quote: Sid.74
          I wonder how aircraft carriers will help the Americans in this case.

          They will not help in any way, aircraft carriers are for "our foreign partners". Anything can happen inside the country, it does not affect AB in any way. Even if these "rebels" take power, they will immediately complete the missing AV and with the same pleasure as the current "democrats" will rush to rob those who are weaker. This is America, they are all the same there, and the sum of them never changes from the change of places of the terms - "rob, steal, kill."
        3. Lord of the Sith
          Lord of the Sith 10 January 2016 14: 46
          +2
          In the US, protesting farmers and the militia seized the national park
          http://lenta.ru/news/2016/01/03/farmer/
        4. SanSuh
          SanSuh 10 January 2016 17: 51
          0
          The problem of a lack of financing concerns any sphere of any country, and the US Army naturally suffers from corruption and lobbyists who tell us the ships give us money on planes, let's say. So shipbuilders with aviation, to whom more are bad.
      2. vlad66
        vlad66 10 January 2016 09: 53
        20
        Quote: Sveles
        and who doubts that explain all the charms of such a democracy ...

        So I heard in Antarctica, emperor penguins scoundrels oppress ordinary penguins, an urgent need to send an aircraft carrier to support and establish democracy among penguins. fellow
      3. dorz
        dorz 10 January 2016 13: 19
        +4
        In many problems, America would not be hindered by more brains than aircraft carriers hi .
    3. GELEZNII_KAPUT
      GELEZNII_KAPUT 10 January 2016 09: 40
      +3
      Quote: Black
      When the USA will not be enough for the world.

      I agree, blah blah blah, what is the article about ?! If necessary, they will find an aircraft carrier, be sure! wink
      1. Sid.74
        Sid.74 10 January 2016 10: 02
        +5
        And how will the aircraft carriers help the Americans in this case?

        Republican Governor of Texas Greg Abbott strongly supported the idea of ​​holding a Constitutional Convention in the United States (the first since 1787) to "restore the rule of law and fix the breakdown in the Constitution" (ie, limit the arbitrariness of the federal administration, especially the democratic). The idea of ​​convening a Constitutional Convention is now popular among Republicans, and presidential candidate Mario Rubio has already promised to help states convene a Constitutional Convention if elected president of the United States.

        There are nine points there, and all will limit the center’s influence on the states, as well as limit the center’s expenses ... that is, aircraft carriers will not be enough ... sadness. wassat
        And the point is lovely ...
        Orders from federal agencies - and no-one elected officials from these departments - should not take precedence over state law adopted by elected state legislatures.
    4. 222222
      222222 10 January 2016 10: 00
      +4
      Media: America lacks aircraft carriers to fulfill “global commitments”
      .. exorbitant greed of the American defense industry ..
      yes .and what kind of altruism is this ... an American global commitment ... laughing
      1. Sid.74
        Sid.74 10 January 2016 10: 08
        +1
        Quote: 222222
        and what kind of altruism is this ... American global commitment ... laughing

        They will be the carriers of migrants from Germans to drive away ... laughing
        1. APASUS
          APASUS 10 January 2016 10: 25
          +3
          The article notes that "the critical moment is that the US Navy now has too few aircraft carriers to fulfill its global obligations."
          “It is obvious that reducing the carrier fleet from sixteen to less than twelve after the Cold War was a mistake. The American fleet needs at least sixteen aircraft carriers, ”concludes the publication.

          The American approach from each phrase is directly rushing, lobbying interests on the air.
      2. wasjasibirjac
        wasjasibirjac 10 January 2016 10: 57
        0
        Quote: 222222
        yes .and what kind of altruism is this ... an American global commitment ...

        this obligation is binding on the whole world - the USA SHOULD MUST HAVE 12 Aircraft carriers. and the world agrees, providing resources for the United States. till ...
    5. Finches
      Finches 10 January 2016 10: 39
      +2
      Exactly! I was well taught in the army, even using documents as an example — never remove an old tag until a new one is ready! laughing

      To be serious, the United States needs to moderate its geopolitical appetites and tackle its internal problems, and not to teach the whole world how to live, rolling on its whistles and farts! The world has changed significantly since Pearl Harbor ...
      1. wasjasibirjac
        wasjasibirjac 10 January 2016 10: 59
        +2
        currently the United States cannot do this. as long as you control the ocean - he is the best anti-tank moat. but if you lose control, the ocean is a freeway.
    6. Red_Hamer
      Red_Hamer 10 January 2016 10: 46
      +1
      If things in the world go on like this, then already in this century
      1. yuriy55
        yuriy55 10 January 2016 10: 51
        +2
        “It is obvious that reducing the carrier fleet from sixteen to less than twelve after the Cold War was a mistake. The American fleet needs at least sixteen aircraft carriers, ”concludes the publication.


        On the other hand, our decision to create the "Carrier Assassins" was the correct number of them, in excess of our necessary need to neutralize these "American ships" ...
  2. Ami du peuple
    Ami du peuple 10 January 2016 09: 17
    +8
    The US Navy needs at least sixteen aircraft carriers

    What is there at sixteen .. At sixty! Or a hundred and sixty! Let them build more of these pelvis. With an average price of $ 6 billion for one floating airfield, the States may burst as soon as possible from a strain.
    1. The black
      The black 10 January 2016 09: 18
      +8
      it is like another cut and bloat of the largest and fattest military budget in the world at the expense of US taxpayers and a Fed loan smile..... how to say: stingy pays twice, stupid pays three times, sucker always pays ... laughing
    2. Tersky
      Tersky 10 January 2016 09: 30
      +8
      Quote: Ami du peuple
      What is there at sixteen .. At sixty! Or a hundred and sixty!

      The rates rose after the United States published a video of an Iranian exercise near the American "aircraft carrier" ...
      1. tomcat117
        tomcat117 10 January 2016 09: 45
        +9
        Video Comments:
        Everywhere they rang out that Iran launched its naval missiles near the American aircraft carrier, but the video clearly shows that this is an ordinary tanker, a hippopotamus ... "Iran shoots rockets fire". (the aircraft carrier is where? well, yes, somewhere in the bushes).
        Amer.y love to star, not tossing bags.
        1. Greenwood
          Greenwood 10 January 2016 12: 11
          +2
          Well, it is unlikely that the Americans would allow Iranian boats to come so close to the aircraft carrier, and even defiantly launch missiles.
    3. Koshak
      Koshak 10 January 2016 12: 05
      +1
      "Sixty! Or one hundred and sixty!"
      ... here the ocean will come out of the shores and flood their coast .... crying
  3. venaya
    venaya 10 January 2016 09: 18
    +4
    US Navy has too few aircraft carriers to fulfill its global obligations

    Moderate the appetites of the gentlemen "good", all the same, all the money is not stolen. Competition!
    1. udincev
      udincev 10 January 2016 09: 27
      +1
      Quote: venaya
      all the same, all the money is not stealing

      Why steal when you can print ...
  4. Hydrograph
    Hydrograph 10 January 2016 09: 18
    +6
    Maybe they’ll overtake with their aircraft carriers. Rather.
    1. 0255
      0255 10 January 2016 12: 18
      0
      Quote: Hydrograph
      Maybe they’ll overtake with their aircraft carriers. Rather.

      Every month, various analysts promise us that the United States is about to fall apart from its military spending and 17 trillion foreign debt. Well, when will their promises come true?
      As much as we would not like the collapse of the United States, hoping that they themselves will collapse is simply stupid.
      1. DobryAAH
        DobryAAH 10 January 2016 12: 27
        0
        I do not promise that they themselves will fall apart, it will be necessary to bring down.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  5. avvg
    avvg 10 January 2016 09: 18
    +3
    And Washington has a huge appetite all over the world. It would not be bad if he was advised to reduce his appetite. The world will do without the USA.
  6. LÄRZ
    LÄRZ 10 January 2016 09: 19
    +5
    “The critical point is that the US Navy has too few aircraft carriers to fulfill its global obligations.”
    The critical point is that too doh ... much you want. Moderate your appetite and you have enough aircraft carriers.
  7. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 10 January 2016 09: 20
    14
    Hey, ichthyander ...! lol
  8. udincev
    udincev 10 January 2016 09: 20
    0
    “It is obvious that reducing the carrier fleet from sixteen to less than twelve after the Cold War was a mistake. The American fleet needs at least sixteen aircraft carriers, ”concludes the publication.
    Then, against the backdrop of the geopolitical strengthening of Russia, we will return to a full-fledged cold war on the brink of a hot one.
    Apparently, the publishers wanted to say so. Is this a true goal?
  9. V.ic
    V.ic 10 January 2016 09: 23
    +4
    More aircraft carriers = more BIG targets.
    1. iliitchitch
      iliitchitch 10 January 2016 09: 51
      +1
      Quote: V.ic
      More aircraft carriers = more BIG targets.


      Maybe I don’t understand, but I’m looking at the picture for the article, so it begs me to go to the center of that gang of "Caliber NK" with nuclear warheads. From the Caspian, from Buyana-M. Purely free from concerns about the fate of the world.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 10 January 2016 10: 03
        +2
        One Caliber will not be enough - knocked down.
        1. iliitchitch
          iliitchitch 10 January 2016 13: 47
          +1
          Quote: Vadim237
          One Caliber will not be enough - knocked down.


          Well, suppose they get knocked down. What distance? Not for 500 km, and not even for 300-200-100 (optimistic). Anyway, the reaction will go. Here, throw a grenade at me, too, with your fist, knock down, all the same both kirdyk, and grenade, and me.
      2. sa-ag
        sa-ag 10 January 2016 10: 11
        +6
        Quote: iliitch
        Maybe I don’t understand, but I’m looking at the picture for the article, so it begs me to go to the center of that gang of "Caliber NK" with nuclear warheads.

        Yes, they obviously forgot that nuclear weapons were created for containment, not for attack, the ease with which some representatives of the electorate operate "but how we would deliver a nuclear strike" is simply amazing, as I read this maxim yesterday on YaP - "the war will begin when society will agree with its beginning ", multiple" but we will hit ", drives the beginning of the war into the minds as a kind of everyday reality, without forcing to think about its consequences, as in a computer game
        1. iliitchitch
          iliitchitch 10 January 2016 11: 27
          +1
          As a representative of the electorate, I affirm that nuclear weapons were created as a means of attack by those freaks who drag him around the world on those pelvis from the picture, to scare the Papuans. And I, non-Papuan, have a completely understandable desire to calibrate these radishes, since there is something good, not only NK. Everyone has their own weaknesses, you see.
          Here is THEIR society (yes, what kind of shaitan, society, a herd of sheep) in advance, according to everything. But for THEM we are definitely bots on the monitor.
        2. Koshak
          Koshak 10 January 2016 12: 00
          0
          "drives the beginning of the war into the minds as a kind of everyday reality, without forcing us to think about its consequences"
          well yes, overton's window
        3. dvina71
          dvina71 10 January 2016 13: 05
          0
          Quote: sa-ag
          "the war will begin when society agrees with its beginning", the multiple "but we will hit", drives the beginning of the war into the minds as a kind of everyday reality,

          We Russians don’t need to bother. We get it with mother’s milk.
          So there’s nothing strange in the willingness to fight .. We have the same willingness to climb into a red-hot steam room, jump into an ice hole, dump in a wild forest for a few days .. and other readiness, which is the height of recklessness for a Westerner.
  10. Tusv
    Tusv 10 January 2016 09: 26
    +4
    Not enough avionics? Take advantage of the British idea. Ice with cellulose, concrete strip on top and swim yourself in the ice hole
  11. kursk87
    kursk87 10 January 2016 09: 28
    +7
    Big ship, big torpedo laughing
  12. izya top
    izya top 10 January 2016 09: 29
    +6
    and it’s also necessary to the Belarusian Sea, it wasn’t taken into account recourse
  13. Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 10 January 2016 09: 31
    +4
    Ask the Chinese, they will stick them to you, a hundred before the end of the year!
    1. ilichstar
      ilichstar 10 January 2016 09: 36
      +8
      better to order from the French !!! so reliable! wink
  14. HAM
    HAM 10 January 2016 09: 36
    24
    Off topic, but liked it !!
    1. iliitchitch
      iliitchitch 10 January 2016 12: 30
      +1
      drinks Maybe brother? Or a cousin.
  15. Junior, I
    Junior, I 10 January 2016 09: 45
    0
    According to Brian Clarke, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, “it was expected that the period when the fleet would have ten aircraft carriers would last fourteen months, but now the gap has increased to eight years due to additional tests of the impact resistance of the vessel made during the preparatory period.”


    That’s out of luck, the deadlines fell through!
    How can I stretch the test for such a period? This cut the budget is not otherwise.
  16. valokordin
    valokordin 10 January 2016 09: 49
    +2
    Something missing from US aircraft carriers in the Caspian and Aral Seas is also a zone of their national interests?
  17. guzik007
    guzik007 10 January 2016 09: 51
    +3
    Fight with nine aircraft carriers behind you? No! I can’t understand this! (brilliant hand).
    As Hitler said in one famous picture: Americans will be destroyed by their own technology.
  18. Stinger
    Stinger 10 January 2016 09: 54
    +2
    America lacks aircraft carriers to fulfill “global commitments”

    They have not enough brains. There is a lot of strength.
  19. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 10 January 2016 09: 54
    +5
    America is not enough not carriers, but brains! lol
    They thought up exclusivity for themselves, and now they are pushing, puffing, trying to prove something to someone, impose something on someone and themselves suffer from it ... They live in a world invented by themselves and wonder why everyone thinks differently they do not share their own points of view.
    An attempt to dominate the world in combination with mental problems on the basis of leadership and imposing one’s will on others will not lead to good. Because the cries of the lack of aircraft carriers in terms of psychology look like the roar of a small child who wants to have all the toys in the sandbox, then he will be the strongest and coolest. That's why the American admirals are forged and dream of a bunch of aircraft carriers with whom they will run around all corners of the globe and show how cool they are. And the more the merrier lol A two-word phrase spoken by S.V. Lavrov at a press conference and has already become a winged one is the best way to characterize such lovers of power: "..... s, .... b" winked I would also add that the fabulous ...
    Personally, America causes me only aversion to moral ugliness and degradation, lies and hypocrisy ... hi
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 10 January 2016 10: 59
      +3
      Quote: Rurikovich
      ... Personally, America causes me only aversion to moral ugliness and degradation, lies and hypocrisy ...


      You are not the only one who has the same feelings ... Now they are trying to prove to the world that it is impossible to give real goods to the touch for colored paper with different degrees of protection, the manufacturing cost is higher than the nominal ... hi
  20. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 10 January 2016 10: 01
    0
    The immensity cannot be grasped, especially since the United States pokes its nose everywhere.
    as well as the operation of the American Navy in the South China Sea

    Here is a concrete example of an attempt to once again intensify the situation around China. But sooner or later everything comes to an end.
  21. jovanni
    jovanni 10 January 2016 10: 09
    +2
    Media: America lacks aircraft carriers to fulfill “global commitments”

    Well, here is one of two things: either build more aircraft carriers, or cut back your obligations. And it’s better to cut back on ambition - it will be cheaper ...
  22. Vadim237
    Vadim237 10 January 2016 10: 10
    +4
    The USA will have no problems with the construction of new aircraft carriers, the only question is the means for their construction, they will allocate - they will not.
    1. cap
      cap 10 January 2016 16: 18
      +1
      calibercaliber
      Iran
      Quote: Vadim237
      Vadim237 (1) RU Today, 10:10 AM New

      The USA will have no problems with the construction of new aircraft carriers, the only question is the means for their construction, they will allocate - they will not.


      Every aircraft carrier has a "rocket on tracks" laughing
      Iran on Tuesday April 16, 2013 tested a new land-based anti-ship ballistic missile. According to PressTV, the Deputy Minister of Defense of Iran, Brigadier General Majid Bokaei, said. According to him, this ammunition is capable of hitting naval targets with high accuracy. At the time of the missile test, according to the Iranian military, all enemy warships left Iranian territorial waters.

      "The missile was tested in the Persian Gulf." This new missile, after launch, leaves the atmosphere, then re-enters the atmosphere at high speed and completely destroys the target, "Bokey said. The Iranian military did not disclose other details about the new ballistic missile.
      And on the cart "simpler" wassat
  23. guznorodov
    guznorodov 10 January 2016 10: 10
    +4
    Americans lack everything; one cannot embrace the immense. They climb around the world and do not want to notice the ulcer that is growing inside their country. I would like to see how America will be divided into separate states, of course the consequences of this will be enormous, there will be a big redistribution. For at least 30-40 years from Russia, they’ll roll it off like that.
    1. DobryAAH
      DobryAAH 10 January 2016 12: 13
      +1
      Americans lack everything; one cannot embrace the immense. They climb around the world

      They simply want to overwhelm creditors, small and large, and so that they do not get confused underfoot.
  24. askort154
    askort154 10 January 2016 10: 15
    +1
    When it comes to American aircraft carriers, I have a question. What can they do against this
    huge over the territory of the state, like Russia ?! In the Black, Baltic, Okhotsk and Berengovo seas,
    including from the north, they "meddle" - suicide because of the coastal defense of the Russian Federation. I.e,
    closer to the shore 300km. you can’t. The range of carrier-based aviation is 500-700km. It turns out clean
    entry to the territory of the Russian Federation, maximum 400km. For a territory like Russia, this is not critical.
    Onboard 11 aircraft carriers, about 500-600 aircraft, this is a trifle, compared with tens of thousands
    aircraft used in World War II. In my opinion, aircraft carriers are good for small regional wars against small coastal countries. In a big modern, global war,
    and it will certainly be nuclear and last, aircraft carriers will not affect its outcome.
    1. smith7
      smith7 10 January 2016 10: 58
      +2
      Inciting in a certain sequence and direction the "fires" of local conflicts, with the help of the Navy, basically, the United States is quite successfully solving the problem of enrichment at the expense of external world resources, while simultaneously capturing sales markets on its own terms. With the advent of Russia in the world arena, the success of kindling "bonfires" in the right direction has slightly decreased ... And the "good guys" came up with a standard idea to support the pants of large arms manufacturers - to place an order for a few more aircraft carriers :) because the motive is convincing! There is no point in attacking Russian territory. The Naglo-Saxons think sophisticated enough to fight Russia with someone else's hands. Aircraft carriers are needed for something else.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 10 January 2016 11: 12
      0
      Only these 500 - 600 planes will surpass those tens of thousands of planes used in the Great Patriotic War in combat power - with additional tanks and 1000 kilometers will fly, but only after the attacks of thousands of cruise missiles.
      1. Yuyuka
        Yuyuka 10 January 2016 11: 25
        +3
        Only these 500 - 600 planes will surpass those tens of thousands of planes used in the Great Patriotic War in combat power - with additional tanks and 1000 kilometers will fly, but only after the attacks of thousands of cruise missiles.

        Well, yes, yes, yes ... and ours all will hide from fear behind the backs of polar bears ... and yet - only one American plane would easily have dealt with a hundred Eroplans since the First World War! wassat Lepote! repeat
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 10 January 2016 14: 10
          0
          In the future, these 500-600 aircraft may become carriers of hypersonic strategic missiles - they will not even have to fly into the air defense coverage area.
    3. IrOqUoIs
      IrOqUoIs 10 January 2016 11: 31
      0
      In the event of a global non-nuclear conflict in Europe and Eurasia, these augs will be a safe guarantor of supplying our opponents with all the necessities. Remember the wolf packs? Then it didn’t work out, do you think it will work out with Us? Despite the revival of our Navy, alas, there will not be enough forces to do this, as it will have to deal with the combined US and NATO fleets.
      And as practice shows in global conflicts, it is the destruction of logistics that is, if not the main, then an essential factor in victory.
    4. Dart2027
      Dart2027 10 January 2016 11: 42
      +1
      Quote: askort154
      What can they do against a state as vast as Russia?

      I recommend the book of Alfred Thayer Mahan "The influence of sea power on the history of 1660-1783."
      In short, the current role of the US Navy is not an attack on the Russian Federation, but the creation of a colonial empire, which serves as a source of resources for its own strengthening, that is, "small regional wars against small coastal countries." But those who like to talk about defensive doctrines do not want to understand the simple fact that if you lock yourself in your borders, then this is a guaranteed loss in the future.
      1. askort154
        askort154 10 January 2016 12: 45
        +1
        Dart2027 .... I recommend the book of Alfred Thayer Mahan "The influence of sea power on the history of 1660-1783."

        Unfortunately, I have not read it. But from other historical sources it is known that the powerful fleets of England, Spain, and France were needed to conquer distant lands. The USA is the brainchild of these countries, which managed to bring this strategy to the 21st century. But, as modern practice shows, aggressive US policy
        hinders her in maintaining superiority in the world. It is not quite possible to keep the world in check with bombs, dollars and "controlled chaos". In addition, a state has reappeared that does not agree with this US policy.
        And you cannot take this state with aircraft carriers.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 10 January 2016 12: 56
          +1
          Quote: askort154
          US aggressive policies prevent it from maintaining superiority in the world

          The fleet is a tool, and the possibilities of using this tool depend on those who give orders.
          Quote: askort154
          And you cannot take this state with aircraft carriers.

          And they don’t need to. The essence of the strategy devised by the British in the confrontation with France and Spain is that the conquests on the continent are secondary to the capture of the colonies and the use of their resources for their gain. As a matter of fact, most of the book is just about this, and despite some bias, the author is right in this. And this can only be prevented by projecting the strength of their Navy.
    5. avva2012
      avva2012 10 January 2016 12: 45
      +1
      In my opinion, aircraft carriers are good for small regional wars against small coastal countries.
      You know, if you consider that aircraft carriers are needed where there are bottlenecks, then an analogy with blood clots appears. They will seal it up somewhere, so we will have problems with the delivery of something. Of course, such blockages are not entirely related to a global war, but if it does not reach nuclear weapons, then the blood supply can be disrupted.
    6. V.ic
      V.ic 10 January 2016 16: 01
      0
      Quote: askort154
      That is, closer to the coast 300km. you can’t. The range of carrier-based aviation is 500-700km. It turns out, a clean entry into the territory of the Russian Federation, a maximum of 400 km.

      It is enough to cover the second echelon of the invasion!
  25. nemec55
    nemec55 10 January 2016 10: 41
    +1
    America lacks aircraft carriers

    Mozgoff, I would say they’re not enough. If the brains of the country’s development could follow a softer and less bloody development.
  26. Ros 56
    Ros 56 10 January 2016 10: 54
    +3
    In my opinion, the most "global obligations" of the United States is to sit quietly between Canada and Mexico and fish in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and not bother the rest of the world with their stupidity. People lived before the appearance of these USA, they will live without them with God's help.
  27. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 10 January 2016 11: 00
    +3
    I think, even taking into account the sharp increase in China's fleet
    12 pieces are enough for their eyes.
    It is only necessary to increase the combat readiness, so that 10 out of 12 always
    were in the oceans. The restriction is not even technical, but personal
    composition. We need to more prepare a reserve of specialists for
    rotation. What is expensive - people on the contract.
    And to make 2 extra Fords is not a problem. They are launched in 5 years,
    modular assembly, 3-D drawings, everything in a computer, like Lego.
    1. DobryAAH
      DobryAAH 10 January 2016 11: 48
      +3
      They recently whined that aircraft carriers are a dead end, obsolete branch. That cruise missiles will smash everything to someone’s mother. And now they are missing. I have an assumption that they want to grab on the production process. It’s expensive.
      By the way, how do they want to finance everything? Many countries are leaving the buck. So they will fly into the pipe.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 10 January 2016 12: 47
        +3
        The number of AUG decided to reduce to 10 after graduation
        cold war. But now the Chinese factor and the Russian factor ...
        Apparently, the decision is being reviewed.
        1. DobryAAH
          DobryAAH 10 January 2016 12: 50
          -1
          Plus you for supporting the American fool, well done, so work. Then you will return to your homeland, we will immediately give a medal "For Courage"
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 10 January 2016 13: 10
            +3
            I am at home, thank you. I wish all your blessings to your Motherland
            and oil for 50 bucks in the New Year! drinks
            1. DobryAAH
              DobryAAH 10 January 2016 14: 21
              +2
              Thank! But the homeland is not yours there. You are from here. There are some Arabs-Jews in the Homeland. Maybe you just wanted heat? bully hi
              And the loot from the oil was somehow wasted. No, in order to set up production in a country with a high degree of localization, it’s necessary not only to supply cars from abroad, but also to transfer money for resigning belly at resorts. Not everything can be regulated by the market. People should work and develop in their own country, not guards and financiers receive from the air grandmother. It's time to go to science and education. Not EG, return exams to universities and free education so that diplomas are not sold under the guise of a fee.
  28. evge-malyshev
    evge-malyshev 10 January 2016 11: 02
    +4
    It remains only to sympathize with the Americans ... Wow !!! For 8 years now, 10 aircraft carriers have to do instead of 11.
  29. behemot
    behemot 10 January 2016 11: 22
    +1
    when will their priest break from global obligations. Sad as it may seem, an American cancerous tumor does not seem to be operable. And the patient (humanity) has two exits, hard radiation therapy with the hope not to die after treatment, or, in fact, die.
  30. Yuyuka
    Yuyuka 10 January 2016 11: 26
    +2
    a Russian rocket sits on the shore and draws on the sand - "more aircraft carriers, good and different" laughing
  31. DobryAAH
    DobryAAH 10 January 2016 11: 42
    0
    Not enough aircraft carriers? Nothing to complain about Military Review. Do it.
  32. Jozhkin Cat
    Jozhkin Cat 10 January 2016 11: 45
    +2
    We will pick up the repair if that)) let them build fellow
  33. v.yegorov
    v.yegorov 10 January 2016 12: 57
    +1
    Their brains are bad, and not with aircraft carriers, however, but with the lobbyists of the military-industrial complex
    good.
  34. pts-m
    pts-m 10 January 2016 13: 08
    0
    according to the law of physics, the “excess crowding out” water in the oceans will have a negative effect on the land of the planet. Pendosovsky Orleans has already paid.
  35. fa2998
    fa2998 10 January 2016 13: 31
    +1
    Here’s a thrifty nation — instead of 11 aircraft carriers-10 and it’s already a boom! We have banished destroyers for the whole fleet once or twice, and there’s no panic, everyone praises and applauds! laughing hi
  36. Oleg7700
    Oleg7700 10 January 2016 13: 46
    +2
    Do those who offer to read and sympathize with such an American "trouble" on a Russian resource understand how it looks? A lack of... laughing
  37. red rocket
    red rocket 10 January 2016 14: 31
    0
    Where to them even more .... this is the moralism of the brain!
  38. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 10 January 2016 15: 08
    0
    Where did they get it "global obligations belay "?
  39. marder4
    marder4 10 January 2016 15: 38
    0
    how many of these aircraft carriers do they need?
  40. Nikxnumx
    Nikxnumx 10 January 2016 15: 47
    0
    Quote: Simon
    Let them build, there will be targets for our "Calibers". All the same, the whole world cannot be held by aircraft carriers, and the debt of the US government will be even greater!

    They will forgive their duty to everyone.
  41. Zomanus
    Zomanus 10 January 2016 16: 58
    +1
    Interestingly, how old are the other carriers?
    In general, for the United States, as a remote oceans from the main movers,
    aircraft carriers are very important, even despite the huge number of bases around the world.
    True, with the modern development of weapons, aircraft carriers are only suitable for intimidation
    poor and underdeveloped states.
  42. Michael easily
    Michael easily 11 January 2016 00: 52
    0
    Carriers are no longer relevant (ours yes).