Military Review

NI: the newest American aircraft carrier may become obsolete even before the end of its construction

109
The latest and most technologically advanced aircraft carrier USS Gerald Ford, worth $ 15 billion, may not become a symbol of American power, Harry Center Casianis, a researcher for Center for the National Interest, writes in his article for The National Interest magazine.




“The states possessing technology, especially such great powers as China and Russia (which the Pentagon considers the future to be the main challenge for the US military), are developing long-range missile systems that can deliver massive strikes from several points. Like weapon (and this is the reason for doubt) with accurate use by a highly qualified crew in combination with target detection tools in the open ocean can turn American superravianos into a grave worth billions of dollars for thousands of American sailors, ”he quotes. RIA News.

"The proliferation of such technologies indicates the critical situation of American aircraft carriers," the author believes. According to him, "China and Russia presented special missiles against aircraft carriers that can destroy a ship at a distance of up to 1,5 thousands of kilometers from the coastline."

“At the same time, the Navy made an internal decision to reduce the distance of the aircraft located on the aircraft carrier to 800 kilometers. If we want to attack the enemy with these planes, the armed forces will have to bring the ships into the zone of reach of these missiles, "aircraft-carrier killers." This task poses a physical danger to the vessel and the crew, ”the analyst notes.

“The Pentagon’s rejection of the program to develop combat drones in favor of drones-refueling aircraft,” he said, does not contribute to solving the problem.

In his opinion, the only solution is “the expensive development of long-range unmanned aircraft with technology to reduce visibility.” However, "it is not included in the plans of the US Department of Defense," notes Kazianis.

“I’m afraid that if we don’t equip the most expensive US armament with the equipment needed to deliver strikes over long distances, an aircraft carrier can join the ships of the past as a floating museum faster than we would like,” the analyst concludes.
Photos used:
official site of aircraft carrier "Gerald Ford"
109 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. DIVAN SOLDIER
    DIVAN SOLDIER 14 February 2016 11: 31
    -34 qualifying.
    We should have at least one such "obsolete" aircraft carrier!
    1. Alex_Rarog
      Alex_Rarog 14 February 2016 11: 34
      42
      Well, why? if our strategy for another type of war is sharpened ... to demonstrate the flag?
      1. DIVAN SOLDIER
        DIVAN SOLDIER 14 February 2016 11: 38
        -21 qualifying.
        What do you mean why? Well, for how many Turks, for example, will they take hmeimim? And so an aircraft carrier is a mobile airfield, with its cover.
        1. 11 black
          11 black 14 February 2016 11: 42
          36
          Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
          What do you mean why? Well, for how many Turks, for example, will they take hmeimim? And so an aircraft carrier is a mobile airfield, with its cover.

          And how do you think the aircraft carrier surpasses the ground air base? What nonsense ...
          1. DIVAN SOLDIER
            DIVAN SOLDIER 14 February 2016 11: 46
            -14 qualifying.
            The aircraft carrier, if desired, can depart, and the base must be evacuated for a sufficiently long time.
            1. Oleg14774
              Oleg14774 14 February 2016 11: 53
              24
              But if two or three missiles get to the air base (if they get) the crew will not drown!
            2. 11 black
              11 black 14 February 2016 12: 01
              17
              Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
              The aircraft carrier, if desired, can depart, and the base must be evacuated for a sufficiently long time.

              This is certainly true, but the aircraft carrier needs a whole fleet of cover, and in such seas as the Mediterranean - which is shot right through by RCC and torpedoes of Turkish submarines this is generally the first corpse.
              And for that matter - here are 200 fighters and American anti-ship missiles in Turkey - what do you think the appearance of an aircraft carrier will fundamentally change something, and how long it will live in the Mediterranean, and isn’t it easier to organize a new air base in the depths of defense and strengthen Khmeimim along the way?
              An aircraft carrier is needed if it is impossible to organize a ground base, if this is possible then it is preferable.
              1. Karlovar
                Karlovar 14 February 2016 12: 51
                +3
                The Chinese, for example, prefer to wash artificial islands with runways and associated infrastructure instead of aircraft carriers in their seas .... Cheap! Angry! Fast! Unsinkable! And does not require warrants of air defense missile defense (all air defense missile defense on the same island and lope hosh can be placed) ...
                1. Gorodovik
                  Gorodovik 14 February 2016 13: 04
                  -1
                  Again, they are already building an aircraft carrier. And no, these islands require protection ships. Without them, they are only good targets for enemy ships and aircraft.
              2. Gorodovik
                Gorodovik 14 February 2016 13: 03
                +1
                Nevertheless, we are holding an impressive fleet near Syria. So nothing would fundamentally change besides the fact that we could bring even more aircraft to Syria. And as the events showed a fairly limited number of aircraft. Therefore, an aircraft carrier would be very helpful. Yes, the base is preferable. But if it would not be possible to arrange a base7
                1. kuz363
                  kuz363 14 February 2016 15: 46
                  +1
                  An impressive fleet of 2-3 ships of the Black Sea Fleet?
                  1. Gorodovik
                    Gorodovik 14 February 2016 18: 44
                    -1
                    Well, I googled it now, and about 8 or so. And with Kuznetsov, usually walks less.
                    1. Maks-80
                      Maks-80 15 February 2016 08: 50
                      0
                      There are 10 of them there.
          2. just exp
            just exp 14 February 2016 12: 01
            +4
            so that it can be sent there where there is no ground base.
            1. 11 black
              11 black 14 February 2016 12: 02
              +5
              Quote: just explo
              so that it can be sent there where there is no ground base.

              Are you going to attack someone?
              1. just exp
                just exp 14 February 2016 22: 43
                0
                and what is necessary to attack?
                What do you think, in Syria would the AB stop us or not?
                1. cap
                  cap 15 February 2016 05: 47
                  0
                  Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
                  We should have at least one such "obsolete" aircraft carrier!

                  Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
                  What do you mean why? Well, for how many Turks, for example, will they take hmeimim? And so an aircraft carrier is a mobile airfield, with its cover.

                  Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
                  The aircraft carrier, if desired, can depart, and the base must be evacuated for a sufficiently long time.


                  The idea of ​​attacking the enemy from a floating platform called an "aircraft carrier" was born a long time ago and has played its role. Perhaps the costs incurred for their construction are justified. Build mobile high-tech coffins to intimidate "sworn overseas friends" who do not allow placing aircraft on their territory for "advancement" democracy. "This strategy has remained in the minds of US military strategists and has not gone anywhere.
                  There were times when only the US Navy could dictate rules from a distance in the past.
                  Other times have come today. Having a second car in the family is not forbidden, and the choice is great. There is money in the family, under the name of NATO, buy it. It is possible on credit. You can even buy a plane, again if you have the money. A little nuance, movement on the ground land and sea transport at sea requires compliance with international regulations. A small bird caught in the engine of the aircraft can lead to the crash of a large airliner. Losses are not comparable.
                  A flock of sparrows at the airport will not allow Boeing 747 to fly. Three small missile ships of the Russian Navy in the Volga River Delta can negate the presence of an aircraft carrier far from the Bosphorus.
                  All this is from the field of strategy.
                  Strategists and flag in hand.
                  That something like this. hi
            2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 February 2016 15: 42
            +3
            And in your opinion, is it more difficult to bang a ground base than an aircraft carrier? THIS IS really nonsense.
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 14 February 2016 17: 36
              -1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And in your opinion, is it more difficult to bang a ground base than an aircraft carrier? THIS IS really nonsense.


              And it depends on what base.
              If you consciously compare the base in the Tyumen region and the aircraft carrier then yes.
              And if Khmeimim, that at a distance of 70 km, it simply has no chance of protection against simple "stupid" unguided TR-300 missiles, which are launched from unified mobile launchers.
              And that. that just one salvo of all 10 mobile launchers is enough, so that nothing would be left of the air base ...
              1. Allech28-2
                Allech28-2 14 February 2016 17: 45
                +2
                Quote: mav1971
                And that. that just one salvo of all 10 mobile launchers is enough, so that nothing would be left of the air base ...

                Some kind of rascal .. Apparently the American militants have seen enough .. Type of portable systems:
                1. mav1971
                  mav1971 14 February 2016 18: 23
                  -1
                  Quote: Alleh28-2
                  Quote: mav1971
                  And that. that just one salvo of all 10 mobile launchers is enough, so that nothing would be left of the air base ...

                  Some kind of rascal .. Apparently the American militants have seen enough .. Type of portable systems:


                  Now turn on the brain.
                  Find the characteristics of 220-320 mm caliber rockets for multiple launch rocket systems.
                  Look at which chassis they are mounted on.
                  Look at the number of launchers mounted on each mobile chassis.
                  Look - what modularity they have.
                  Look at the launch range of these missiles.
                  Look at the area of ​​destruction of these missiles.
                  Think!
                  Think think!
                  Summarize, try hard!
                  Your head is not only a hat to wear and a stew to eat.

                  And do not write your heresy! without thinking in advance!
                  1. Allech28-2
                    Allech28-2 14 February 2016 19: 59
                    -1
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Now turn on the brain.

                    1
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Think!

                    2
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Think think!

                    3
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Summarize, try hard!

                    4
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Your head is not only a hat to wear and a stew to eat.

                    5
                    Quote: mav1971
                    And do not write your heresy! without thinking in advance!

                    6 wassat belay In short your quote
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Now turn on the brain.

                    Quote: mav1971
                    And do not write your heresy! without thinking in advance!

                    hi
                    1. mav1971
                      mav1971 14 February 2016 21: 09
                      +3
                      Quote: Alleh28-2

                      hi


                      Where did you come from?
                      Remake from 14 February 2016 year?

                      Nicky already began to write number plates?
                      In order not to get lost and not to get confused and not start to communicate with ourselves?

                      Manuals chtol would be what you idiots brought.
                      Well, so as not to look so disastrous ..
                      1. Allech28-2
                        Allech28-2 14 February 2016 21: 14
                        -1
                        Quote: mav1971
                        Where did you come from?
                        Remake from 14 February 2016 year?

                        And you ask those who live a little more on the site.
                        Quote: mav1971
                        Manuals chtol would be what you idiots brought.
                        Well, so as not to look so disastrous ..

                        I see the experience on this part you have great .. Have you run away long ago?
                        Quote: mav1971
                        Nicky already began to write number plates?
                        In order not to get lost and not to get confused and not start to communicate with ourselves?

                        Quote: mav1971
                        mav1971 (1
                        All ... Words are over .. There is no more. fool laughing
                      2. mav1971
                        mav1971 14 February 2016 21: 32
                        +2
                        Quote: Alleh28-2
                        Quote: mav1971
                        Where did you come from?
                        Remake from 14 February 2016 year?

                        And you ask those who live a little more on the site.


                        Well, okay. Normal skinny troll ...
                      3. Allech28-2
                        Allech28-2 14 February 2016 21: 52
                        0
                        Quote: mav1971
                        Well, okay. Normal skinny troll ...

                        You can not understand laughing But judging by the comments, you just understand the trolls. Your comments are not meaningful. hi Good night. I will not answer more to your boring nonsense .. repeat
                      4. Allech28-2
                        Allech28-2 14 February 2016 21: 52
                        0
                        Quote: mav1971
                        Well, okay. Normal skinny troll ...

                        You can not understand laughing But judging by the comments, you just understand the trolls. Your comments are not meaningful. hi Good night. I will not answer more to your boring nonsense .. repeat
                  2. Allech28-2
                    Allech28-2 14 February 2016 21: 14
                    0
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Where did you come from?
                    Remake from 14 February 2016 year?

                    And you ask those who live a little more on the site.
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Manuals chtol would be what you idiots brought.
                    Well, so as not to look so disastrous ..

                    I see the experience on this part you have great .. Have you run away long ago?
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Nicky already began to write number plates?
                    In order not to get lost and not to get confused and not start to communicate with ourselves?

                    Quote: mav1971
                    mav1971 (1
                    All ... Words are over .. There is no more. fool laughing
          4. Allech28-2
            Allech28-2 14 February 2016 17: 45
            -1
            Quote: mav1971
            And that. that just one salvo of all 10 mobile launchers is enough, so that nothing would be left of the air base ...

            Some kind of rascal .. Apparently the American militants have seen enough .. Type of portable systems:
      2. mav1971
        mav1971 14 February 2016 17: 16
        +1
        Quote: 11 black
        Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
        What do you mean why? Well, for how many Turks, for example, will they take hmeimim? And so an aircraft carrier is a mobile airfield, with its cover.

        And how do you think the aircraft carrier surpasses the ground air base? What nonsense ...


        At least for its mobility.
        Even if this may be the only virtual plus in the discussion of couches.
        In direct comparison with the Khmeimim airbase, this is 100% working for the superiority of the aircraft carrier DOVOD!
    2. Proxima
      Proxima 14 February 2016 11: 54
      +5
      Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
      What do you mean why? Well, for how many Turks, for example, will they take hmeimim? And so an aircraft carrier is a mobile airfield, with its cover.

      The most important thing is that the discussion does not turn into the format, as, at one time in the 20s, strategists argued on the topic: "why produce a tank if an anti-tank gun, which costs 700 times cheaper, DESTROY IT WITH HURRAY. Let's better produce 700 guns ". So the main thing is that we do not overdo it with the "Caliber". In your post, the key phrase is "mobile airfield".
    3. gergi
      gergi 14 February 2016 12: 47
      +1
      We have unsinkable aircraft carrier Crimea near the Turkish coast anchored for millions of years. What the hell is this expensive iron for us? Who should they fight with?
    4. gergi
      gergi 14 February 2016 13: 19
      +1
      To do this, declare war on Russia. Then the Turks will be a huge ass. Not until hemeimim it will be.
    5. VP
      VP 14 February 2016 14: 59
      +2
      Protecting a well-fortified airfield located far from the line of contact is much easier than an aircraft carrier located near the enemy submarine bases and surface ships. Even if you defend the aircraft carrier, then many of the ships of the group will not find it enough.
      In addition, not all types of aircraft are designed to work from the deck.
      For example, how many deck-based F-15s do they have, the main striking force of the Air Force?
      And how do you fix 24 and 34 on the drying deck?
      Deck aviation is always castrates in something.
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 14 February 2016 17: 40
        +1
        Quote: VP
        Protecting a well-fortified airfield away from the line of contact is much easier


        Why compare a remote air base with an aircraft carrier?
        You need to compare similar things - seaside, or border bases with aircraft carriers. That conditions would be equal ..
        1. VP
          VP 14 February 2016 18: 37
          0
          Actually, I didn’t compare, I just answered a person who claimed that it would be easier to destroy a ground-based ground station hundreds of kilometers away and a covered ground airdrome than the AUG would have been in our Sr. Sea. Oga, the Mediterranean is the most for the invulnerability of the AUGs)
      2. spravochnik
        spravochnik 15 February 2016 01: 22
        +1
        Quote: VP
        How many deck-based F-15s do they have, the main air force strike force?

        This is where you saw the deck F-15? Something new. Here, damn it, the specialists went.
        1. VP
          VP 15 February 2016 05: 55
          +1
          It was an irony if you did not understand.
          From the same series as the deck SU-34
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 15 February 2016 11: 20
        0
        Quote: VP
        Protecting a well-fortified airfield located far from the line of contact is much easier than an aircraft carrier located near the enemy submarine bases and surface ships.

        The problem is that such airports are not everywhere. We were lucky with Khmeimim - in addition, they equipped it for basing for two months.
        If there is no AB, get ready to spend money on a network of air bases. And not the fact that it will be cheaper.
        Quote: VP
        In addition, not all types of aircraft are designed to work from the deck.
        For example, how many deck-based F-15s do they have, the main striking force of the Air Force?

        What did the "Super Hornets" do for you? wink
    6. poquello
      poquello 14 February 2016 15: 17
      0
      Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
      What do you mean why? Well, for how many Turks, for example, will they take hmeimim? ...

      will not take
    7. BilliBoms09
      BilliBoms09 14 February 2016 19: 36
      +1

      In his opinion, the only solution is “the expensive development of long-range unmanned aircraft with technology to reduce visibility.” However, "it is not included in the plans of the US Department of Defense," notes Kazianis.
      I have a strong feeling that the article was written by a lobbyist from drone manufacturers.
    8. ssergn
      ssergn 15 February 2016 08: 41
      0
      Well, if this happens, then we will fly (will fly) from the Crimea. Fortunately, Turkey is within reach. Everything is simple - it will be a war.
  2. just exp
    just exp 14 February 2016 12: 03
    +1
    But how do you not consider air defense reinforcement for KUG?
    Or do you really believe that the Ka-31 has a normal AWACS and can carry out target designation for RCC?
    ask yourself a question, and if our KMG will have fifty fighter aircraft as part of the air defense and the KUG’s strike capabilities will grow? and if so, how much?
    I’ll remind you that AB, apart from fighters and AWACS, is also EW.
    1. 11 black
      11 black 14 February 2016 12: 12
      +3
      Quote: just explo
      But how do you not consider air defense reinforcement for KUG?
      Or do you really believe that the Ka-31 has a normal AWACS and can carry out target designation for RCC?
      ask yourself a question, and if our KMG will have fifty fighter aircraft as part of the air defense and the KUG’s strike capabilities will grow? and if so, how much?
      I’ll remind you that AB, apart from fighters and AWACS, is also EW.

      You see - you are right about the AWACS, right about the fighters, right about the strike capabilities BUT - all this works in the ocean and is useless in the Mediterranean Sea.
      And the aircraft carrier for these purposes needs an ESCORT, much smaller in size with the 50 air group of fighters, excluding AWACS and PLO which 4 pieces are for eyes hi
      1. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 14 February 2016 12: 32
        0
        Quote: 11 black
        And the aircraft carrier for these purposes needs an ESCORT, much smaller in size with the 50 air group of fighters, excluding AWACS and PLO which 4 pieces are for eyes

        Absolutely right! If Russia needs to build aircraft carriers, then it is the light ones to support the expeditionary forces. True, it would be nice to have a UDC like the same "Mistrals" for them. And there is already an escort to protect such an IBM. The Russian doctrine does not provide for the protection of interests beyond the Kuriles, Kaliningrad and the Russian North. Remember, Russia is a land power.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 15 February 2016 11: 27
          0
          Quote: Ami du peuple
          Absolutely right! If Russia will need to build aircraft carriers, then it is lightweight to support the expeditionary forces.

          The problem is that the lightweight AB quickly becomes obsolete - the big AB has more options for locating new cars.
          In addition, providing takeoff and landing of the same AWACS from the light ABs is far from an easy task. And in general, if there is an AWAC, then a catapult and a relatively long deck are needed. Plus 50 fighters, for the basing of which you need a sizable size hangar, and at least 3 aircraft lifts for normal operation.
          All this automatically takes us to at least "Ulyanovsk".
    2. gergi
      gergi 14 February 2016 13: 10
      -1
      This gigantic military caput is good against partisans. Against a high-tech attack, he is defenseless. Coffin.
  3. atalef
    atalef 14 February 2016 12: 59
    +3
    Quote: Alex_Rarog
    Well, why? if our strategy for another type of war is sharpened ... to demonstrate the flag?

    And aircraft carriers (as I understand from the article) are needed exclusively for the war with Russia and China?

    Somehow I have the opinion that when attacking an aircraft carrier, such means will be used as an answer that there is an aircraft carrier or not, the piano will not play.
    In the New War of tank wedges and breakthroughs, the same sort of thing is not expected, so why the heck are they building Armata?
    Because the role of tanks and aircraft carriers has changed, and the country that has nuclear weapons, without aircraft carriers, can do nothing in a regional conflict.

    Article minus. rave.
    1. gergi
      gergi 14 February 2016 13: 15
      +2
      They are good to scare the natives around the world, from those that are weaker. Something I did not see their aircraft carriers near our shores. Although we are the number 1 threat to them. They can drown overnight.
      1. 1rl141
        1rl141 14 February 2016 21: 24
        +1
        I saw. In the mid-80s, French and English aircraft carriers came to our southern shores of the Barents Sea, hang out about 70 kilometers from the coast and every day, from 5 in the morning until 2-3 in the morning, helicopters took off from them, went to our border and flew along to and fro. Fuel runs out, it goes back, another takes off. And so all day. The border was not violated, but it got on my nerves.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 15 February 2016 12: 37
        0
        Quote: gergi
        Something I did not see their aircraft carriers near our shores. Although we are the number 1 threat to them. They can drown overnight.

        That is, regular reports of the passage of our scouts over the American AB to the Far East passed you by?
        However, it is still quiet now. In the 80s, it came to imitating a BShU in our territory:
        1983 generally became a hot year for air defense of the Far East. On April 4, 6 aircraft violated the airspace of the USSR in the area of ​​the Green Island of the Lesser Kuril Ridge. Airplanes took off from the decks of aircraft carriers Midway and Enterprise, maneuvering 200 km northeast of the scene of the incident. According to some, these were A-7 attack aircraft, according to others, F-14 fighters. Before this, another group of aircraft maneuvered 30 ... 50 kilometers from the border of territorial waters. After making sure that our air defense does not react to these actions, the next group entered the territorial waters and worked out simulated attacks of targets on Zeleny Island for 15 minutes, making 9 calls in pairs for "bombing." Another group of aircraft maneuvered all this time on the traverse of Iturup Island, 50 ... 60 km from the coast, providing cover for violators. Our aircraft from the Petrel did not take off.
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 14 February 2016 14: 21
      +1
      Quote: atalef
      Because the role of tanks and aircraft carriers has changed, and the country that has nuclear weapons, without aircraft carriers, can do nothing in a regional conflict.

      About anything - is debatable. But to quickly strengthen their grouping in the region - yes, definitely
      1. atalef
        atalef 14 February 2016 14: 24
        +1
        Quote: Pimply
        Quote: atalef
        Because the role of tanks and aircraft carriers has changed, and the country that has nuclear weapons, without aircraft carriers, can do nothing in a regional conflict.

        About anything - is debatable. But to quickly strengthen their grouping in the region - yes, definitely

        Hi Zhen
        I generally did not expand the comment
        I mean - promptly in a remote regional conflict.
    3. edeligor
      edeligor 14 February 2016 14: 53
      +1
      Quote: atalef
      Because the role of tanks and aircraft carriers has changed, and the country that has nuclear weapons, without aircraft carriers, can do nothing in a regional conflict.

      I completely agree with you. Still - AUG, and even in such quantity, can only afford USA. IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE! My opinion is that the content of aircraft carrier groups is like cruise missile attacks on kitchen cockroaches!
      1. cap
        cap 15 February 2016 06: 08
        0
        Quote: edeligor
        My opinion is that the content of aircraft carrier groups is like cruise missile attacks on kitchen cockroaches!


        + in neighing))))!
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. VP
    VP 14 February 2016 14: 51
    +2
    An aircraft carrier is good for operations against a more technically weak opponent.
    It is wildly expensive itself, very expensive to maintain both it and the entire AUG, but it is a floating airfield and an arsenal against which most have no arguments.
    It does not work against us and China.
    But they have the concept of "power projection" and does not provide for clinching with us.
    Another question is that there are an excessive amount of them to pressure the papus, but they constantly remove them from the battle schedule.
    Costly toy of limited applicability. But where applicable, it works.
    1. edeligor
      edeligor 14 February 2016 16: 49
      -2
      Quote: VP
      Costly toy of limited applicability.

      Moreover! It is possible to disable this target (which is visible from space with the naked eye!) Without using expensive rockets! It is enough to cause precipitation in the area of ​​operation of the AUG (not a problem, by the way). The Chinese comrades have adapted BALLISTIC MISSIONS for strikes on aircraft carriers !!! In short, for the minusator, the value of the aircraft carrier, in the present tense, is only to "scare" the inhabitants around the world. Well, perhaps, to cut off a couple of lards from the budget of the US "partners" for the house, for the family ...
      1. Allech28-2
        Allech28-2 14 February 2016 16: 51
        -1
        Quote: edeligor
        In short, for the minusator, the value of the aircraft carrier, in the present tense, is only to "scare" the inhabitants around the world. Well, perhaps, to cut off a couple of lards from the budget of the US "partners" for the house, for the family ...

        I have argued this for a long time. Aircraft carriers are good Bananostans for war, and with a normal army they are only a good target.
  6. poquello
    poquello 14 February 2016 15: 15
    0
    Quote: Alex_Rarog
    Well, why? if our strategy for another type of war is sharpened ... to demonstrate the flag?

    there’s nothing to frighten the poats, trouble, all is gone!
  • yuriy55
    yuriy55 14 February 2016 11: 37
    +2
    Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
    We should have at least one such "obsolete" aircraft carrier!

    Enough of their killer aircraft carriers:
    1. Baikonur
      Baikonur 14 February 2016 11: 44
      +7
      Yes here (in the article) is not about that at all!
      the only way out is "expensive development long-range unmanned aerial vehicles with low-visibility technology. " However, “it is not part of the US Department of Defense’s plans,” says Casianis.
      There he is! The aircraft carrier has nothing to do with it! The question is to increase the power of BABLOSOS! They scare the Congress that they would turn the "Jet pressure" handle in a positive direction! laughing
      if we not equip the most expensive weapons US equipment that is necessary for delivering long-range strikes, an aircraft carrier can join ships of the past
      If they push us to the river, we get a COVER! (feature film "At home among strangers, stranger among friends!) drinks
  • Ami du peuple
    Ami du peuple 14 February 2016 11: 39
    +5
    Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
    Well, we should have at least one such "obsolete" aircraft carrier!

    What for? To bring down the defense budget? Known that the content one the aircraft carrier costs US taxpayers $ 160 million a year. Besides, where do you order to use such whoppers? The Americans need AUG to "maintain the balance of power" throughout the world, but why do we need it? It is better to spend money on something else, especially since we do not have appropriate ships for a full-fledged aircraft carrier grouping and ships. Vaughn "Kuzya" goes on trips with a BOD and a sea tanker. Great strength, yes.
    But this pleased:
    the only way out is “costly development of long-range unmanned aerial vehicles with low-visibility technology". However "she US Department of Defense plans not included»

    The US military and defense will once again selflessly cut the budget, now with a 6th generation fighter armed with laser weapons. Good luck guys!
  • PEDRO
    PEDRO 14 February 2016 11: 40
    +6
    Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
    Well, we should have at least one such "obsolete" aircraft carrier!

    What for! Scare small states ..? This is not our level .. Near Syria for some reason there is no US AUG! If the war begins, these huge coffins will be wetted "for a sweet soul" Our allies! And we will have other goals .. hi
  • 11 black
    11 black 14 February 2016 11: 40
    +1
    Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
    Well, we should have at least one such "obsolete" aircraft carrier!

    We already have one - unsinkable, deck area 27000 square km, this is the only aircraft carrier that serves as the base for the whole fleet laughing
    But seriously - we just don't need such an aircraft carrier, IMHO the future at sea belongs to long-range aviation - if there is a good anti-ship missile system with a launch range of 600-800 kilometers, the AUG will have no chance, even the 16 TU-160 currently available will suffice for sinking. at the same time, the planes will not even be substituted for the "response", only anti-ship missiles are needed ...
    1. SPACE
      SPACE 14 February 2016 12: 26
      +1
      the latest American aircraft carrier may become obsolete even before the end of its construction

      The latest American aircraft carrier is already out of date, and even before the start of its construction laughing
      All aircraft carriers, as a class of ships, were out of date exactly on the day when the first anti-ship missile was born. yes
      1. dauria
        dauria 14 February 2016 13: 18
        +2
        became obsolete exactly on the day when the first anti-ship missile was born.


        It's wonderful how, only the current anti-ship missile system should be hypersonic and receive target designation outside the AUG air defense line. But target designation will be difficult. Or how do you imagine it? "Come on, racket, fly to the Atlantic, somewhere in the Bay of Biscay an aircraft carrier sailed? There you can figure it out, but on the way back, run for a beer"
        1. 11 black
          11 black 14 February 2016 20: 12
          0
          Quote: dauria
          It's wonderful how, only the current anti-ship missile system should be hypersonic and receive target designation outside the AUG air defense line. But target designation will be difficult. Or how do you imagine it? "Come on, racket, fly to the Atlantic, somewhere in the Bay of Biscay an aircraft carrier sailed? There you can figure it out, but on the way back, run for a beer"

          Hypersound is preferable of course, but not required - a salvo in 100-120 even supersonic missiles will bring down the AUG for sure.
          With target designation it’s more difficult - there is hope for 29Б6 - it is able to determine the coordinates of an airplane scattering in a strip, then it certainly won’t miss AUG, there are reliable communication channels - what's the problem?
          http://topwar.ru/37142-radiolokacionnye-stancii-konteyner-sovershenstvovanie-gol
          ovnoy-i-plany-na-stroitelstvo-novyh.html
  • vodolaz
    vodolaz 14 February 2016 16: 01
    0
    Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
    We should have at least one such "obsolete" aircraft carrier!

    For the United States, aircraft carriers have long become a means of persuading not too loyal allies. In addition, in order to maintain combat readiness, they need a bunch of escort ships, because they will be dismantled from modern means very quickly and, if they don’t sink, because the supply of buoyancy and strength is still large, then making it a big target is not easy to go.
  • NordUral
    NordUral 14 February 2016 19: 04
    0
    I give you! And Russia they do not need to hell.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 14 February 2016 23: 24
    0
    Friends. And the old aircraft carriers were not intended to storm our shores. They are needed to disrupt maritime communications and fight and monitor nuclear submarines, and they do it well. But all this is not critical for Russia, since we are a land power. And the places where they can come are shot through through coastal complexes and coastal aviation.
  • aszzz888
    aszzz888 14 February 2016 11: 32
    +1
    in combination with means of target detection in the open ocean, it can turn American supercarriers into a grave worth billions of dollars for thousands of American sailors, ”RIA Novosti quoted Kazianis as saying.


    Yeah, and there’s not enough money saved! Will anyone feed the crabs! laughing
  • Alex_Rarog
    Alex_Rarog 14 February 2016 11: 32
    +1
    This is good))) let them come closer! Enough for all the calibers !!!
    1. Afinogen
      Afinogen 14 February 2016 11: 40
      +3
      Quote: Alex_Rarog
      This is good))) let them come closer! Enough for all the calibers !!!


      That's for sure. Enough missiles for all aircraft carriers, let them build smile


    2. Forest
      Forest 14 February 2016 11: 59
      +2
      Gauges AUG do not scare. For missile defense orders, these will be training targets flying high enough and slowly.
      1. 11 black
        11 black 14 February 2016 12: 36
        +2
        Quote: Forest
        Gauges AUG do not scare. For missile defense orders, these will be training targets flying high enough and slowly.

        Well, in fairness, for the sake of the ground aviation group, the AUG also does not scare ...
        1. Forest
          Forest 14 February 2016 13: 59
          0
          So they are not calculated especially to fight with the ground forces. A small country, of course, will be rolled out, and during a war with a large one, the main severity of the battles will be taken over by aircraft from NATO bases.
  • PKK
    PKK 14 February 2016 11: 33
    +6
    Yes, this aircraft carrier must be made diving, so that he would still hope for something. The "killer" of the aircraft carrier flies from above, almost from space, with the first space velocity. And explodes inside the hull. Amen!
  • Proxima
    Proxima 14 February 2016 11: 34
    +4
    Tales about the fact that aircraft carriers will soon become obsolete go from the moment of their creation. It all depends on the concept of their application. If a power does not need a MOBILE MILITARY AIRDER with an appropriate infrastructure, then what can we talk about?
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 14 February 2016 11: 42
      +2
      Quote: Proxima
      Tales about the fact that aircraft carriers will soon become obsolete go from the moment of their creation. It all depends on the concept of their application. If the state does not need a MOBILE MILITARY AIRDER with the appropriate infrastructure, then what to talk about?


      The modernization of air defense systems makes it possible to nullify all the advantages of aircraft based on a mobile military airfield. And the presence of coastal missile systems is the very existence of a floating island ...
      1. Proxima
        Proxima 14 February 2016 12: 07
        0
        Quote: yuriy55
        Quote: Proxima
        Tales about the fact that aircraft carriers will soon become obsolete go from the moment of their creation. It all depends on the concept of their application. If the state does not need a MOBILE MILITARY AIRDER with the appropriate infrastructure, then what to talk about?


        The modernization of air defense systems makes it possible to nullify all the advantages of aircraft based on a mobile military airfield. And the presence of coastal missile systems is the very existence of a floating island ...

        I don't quite agree with you. For example, let's take at least "Caliber", which our couch strategists were going to use to send all enemy aircraft carriers to the bottom. If the target is mobile, the missile's hitting radius drops sharply. Need to explain why? There is little space left for fuel! This place will be taken by the system for monitoring and determining the mobile target.
  • newcomer
    newcomer 14 February 2016 11: 34
    +2
    Well, yes. your troughs are not a hindrance to our missiles. American: “the best aircraft carrier!“ Russian: “a great target!“
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 14 February 2016 11: 37
      +4
      Oh, these hat-takers ...
  • Wiruz
    Wiruz 14 February 2016 11: 34
    +3
    Stupidity!
    First: never will an aircraft carrier go unaccompanied by a squadron whose mission it will be to defend.
    Second:
    "China and Russia have introduced special missiles against aircraft carriers that can destroy a ship at a distance of up to 1,5 kilometers from the coastline."

    But what, does the enemy have surface ships, submarines, aviation, all that can attack an AB from a shorter distance, you do not take into account?
    Thirdly:
    At the same time, the Navy made an internal decision to reduce the flight distance of aircraft placed on the aircraft carrier to 800 kilometers.

    And this is a shade to the wing, and not to the aircraft carrier. Name the article correctly
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 14 February 2016 11: 55
      +5
      As I remember now, medieval knights, clad in iron armor, with a crowd of armor-bearers and other assistants running after the crowd (all of a sudden fall off a horse? He himself will not sit in the saddle ... or something will be unfastened ... and, if you suddenly need to go ?) ...

      With the advent of firearms, the need for knights disappeared by itself. There remained a demand for knightly manners and a romantic expectation of a rider on a white horse ...
      laughing
    2. NIKNN
      NIKNN 14 February 2016 11: 55
      +4
      Quote: Wiruz
      At the same time, the Navy made an internal decision to reduce the flight distance of aircraft placed on the aircraft carrier to 800 kilometers.

      And this is a shade to the wing, and not to the aircraft carrier. Name the article correctly

      It’s just that the cost of delivering weapons of destruction becomes comparable with the use of a BR with a non-nuclear warhead ... request those. the goal does not justify the means, otherwise I agree, AUG has not yet outlived itself, because any weapon is intended for its purposes and is constantly being improved, it’s like the eternal struggle of armor with a shell ... request
  • Finches
    Finches 14 February 2016 11: 35
    +3
    But who cares what will happen there in the future - the kickbacks will be today ...! The meaning of the life of any official (in America, in Russia, in Papua New Guinea) is after me a flood! laughing
  • Wiruz
    Wiruz 14 February 2016 11: 36
    +8
    In short, the Americans wanted to say this
    All my life, the Papuans bombarded the aircraft carriers - everything was the way. Right now, we figured - if it will bomb China or Russia in the same way - we’ll grab the lyuley ourselves belay
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 14 February 2016 11: 58
      +1
      Fu! What does "lyuley" mean? They will just fail ... However, I liked the style and thoughts ... good
  • VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 14 February 2016 11: 37
    +4
    However, to date, "Gerald Ford" is the most modern aircraft carrier in the world and the largest warship.
    1. barclay
      barclay 14 February 2016 11: 50
      +3
      Technology and size are good. But the size is clearly not the main thing.
      There is a saying: "The larger the cabinet, the louder it falls."
      A number of small missile ships and submarines with cruise missiles make all this beauty very vulnerable.
  • Oml
    Oml 14 February 2016 11: 37
    +1
    No, well, let their taxpayers kill money. We wanted us to have more benefits for safety and efficiency.
  • Polite Moose
    Polite Moose 14 February 2016 11: 42
    +5
    “The proliferation of such technologies testifies to the critical situation of American aircraft carriers”

    the only way out is “the costly development of long-range unmanned aerial vehicles with low-visibility technology”

    “I’m afraid that if we don’t equip the most expensive US armament with the equipment necessary for delivering long-range strikes, an aircraft carrier may join the ships of the past as a floating museum

    The purpose of these statements can be summed up in one phrase: "Dengi come on! Come on dengi!"
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 14 February 2016 11: 43
    +4
    Aircraft carriers at one time beat battleships because they possessed more long-range and accurate weapons than these armored monsters. Aircraft "got" any ship of the line at distances of hundreds of kilometers. Weapons opposing aircraft carriers are more long-range than the radius of action of the weapons of aircraft carriers of 1500 km. Not a single carrier-based aircraft has such a range. And for such a monster and special ammunition is not a pity. And now small ships - the MRK of Russia, in combination with modern reconnaissance means, become dangerous for them, and even at distances inaccessible to their main weapons.
    1. Former battalion commander
      Former battalion commander 14 February 2016 19: 40
      0
      Well, it’s not so simple ... All of these missiles from small boats easily get off on approach ... According to some reports, if less than 95 missiles are involved in the attack, at the same time any AUG can cope with such an attack with a 50% probability ... If the number of missiles increases , then the probability of repelling the attack falls, so when attacking HUNDREDS of missiles, SIMULTANEOUSLY the probability becomes XNUMX% ... I.e. fifti fifti ... I can’t remember the link to the source of this data, but then the arguments given there seemed convincing to me. There, the composition of the air defense of the AUG ships and the capabilities of this air defense were analyzed, and conclusions were drawn from this ...
  • Dart2027
    Dart2027 14 February 2016 11: 44
    0
    The article is about nothing. Weapons capable of destroying aircraft carriers have existed for a long time and new missiles will not change anything. Another thing is how to implement it in practice - cover ships and huge dimensions make it "difficult to sink".
  • newcomer
    newcomer 14 February 2016 11: 47
    +3
    wruz and you are probably a crystal-minded realist_ well, where am I to mortal before you. I meant: for the lack of an aircraft carrier, the production and use of killer aircraft carriers is in my opinion a good idea, while we build our own. yes sure we will build. even if you think I'm a hat-taker or who else is there.
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 14 February 2016 12: 40
      +3
      Let's do it this way. What exactly do you mean by "aircraft carrier killer"? It can be taken out of the 152mm artillery piece, if it gets very close, and what now is every cannon a "carrier killer"?
      Let me remind you that over the past well, at least 50 years in my memory there was not a single case of the destruction of an American aircraft carrier by anyone. In the same way as ours say that the S-400 shoots down "everything that flies", only this SAM has not yet shot down a single combat target.
      Here I will immediately note: I do not doubt the quality of our weapon, but I believe that there are not stupid people sitting "overseas" either.
      To destroy an aircraft carrier, you need to not only overcome its system of near air defense, but also the air defense squadron. How many missiles are needed for this - a kilometer! Do we have the opportunity to deliver to the AUG at a time and launch so many missiles at once? No. Even stupidly there are no carriers, not yet. In addition, the range of our RCC 3m54 by and large is still unknown, they stutter like about 350 km ...
      As for me, the best weapons to defeat AB will be the X-32 (continuation of the X-22) and, shrouded in a veil of secrecy, 3m22 "Zircon" hi
  • AlexTires
    AlexTires 14 February 2016 11: 48
    0
    Our RTOs, consisting of three to four units, with the support of detection tools and the possibility of long-range hikes, are miserably destroying the most modern aircraft carriers. So - build, the worth is worth it to end your days in some sort of ocean trench.
    1. kepmor
      kepmor 14 February 2016 13: 25
      +3
      Sorry, but you wrote the absolute BAD!
      Why? Will explain:
      1.Our MRKs of all projects are coastal ships, with a rather limited range and seaworthiness. I do not think that with waves of more than 5 points, which is almost the norm for the North Atlantic, MRK with a displacement of 1000 tons will generally be able to effectively use weapons .With such a wild pitching, on the "head-legs" ocean wave, no gyro-stabilization system can help. I tested it on my own skin ..
      In the North, of course, they will reach the Nordkap-Medvezhy line, but no further ... Moreover, the AUGs will be 100% deployed in the North and Norwegian Sea. And they have nothing to climb into the Barents and Kara Sea for this is the duty area of ​​the nuclear submarines of the USA, England and the diesel-electric submarines of Norway.
      2.Even, hypothetically, if the KMG of the MRK and reaches the area where the AUG is located, then the ships, nuclear submarines and aviation warrants simply will not allow them to the effective range of anti-ship missiles.
      3. To our great regret, but today, only our SSGNs and "strategists" -TU-160, TU-22M3 and TU-95M can really fight AUGs. But that's another story ...
  • Forest
    Forest 14 February 2016 12: 01
    0
    Another shake of money from the US budget for a new project.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 14 February 2016 12: 07
    +4
    An aircraft carrier, in fact, is a floating airfield, whose task is to deliver to a certain point a certain amount of aircraft and ammunition to perform a specific task. All! Security of this transfer is provided by guard ships. Now, if a tactical victory is to be ensured in the conditions of battle, then it is necessary to at least put it out of order (to make the functioning of the air group impossible - either damage to the launching devices and the deck, or deprivation of energy by disabling the EC. In short, there are a lot of options - everyone thinks out by virtue of their brains winked ) Or to achieve a complete advantage you need to completely drown him. What seems to be very difficult under the conditions of counteraction due to the large displacement and size. But achievable. Again, there are a lot of options - either by conventional means with delivery, whether it be missiles, bombs or torpedoes, or by special means - it is enough to ensure one hit.
    And now it is very important in which conflict these conditions are observed. If in the massacre to the end, that is, the World War between us and the West (hypothetically), then here all the arguments of couch analysts are reduced to simple balabolism. Oh, I think, admirals with generals will come up with how to deal with the enemy at the lowest cost. So do not languish languages wink
    The Chinese are inventing their own, we are ours, the Americans are inventing horror stories for themselves, but the result is the same - each one remains his own. Only a real battle can check speculation - how and by what. but he may be the last winked
    1. PEDRO
      PEDRO 14 February 2016 12: 15
      0
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Only a real battle can check speculation - how and by what. but he may be the last

      AUG will definitely be wet ...! The goal is excellent ..
  • Alexander 3
    Alexander 3 14 February 2016 12: 41
    0
    We have an unsinkable aircraft carrier-Crimea. The first time it turned out that we need to defend our homeland so far. We have enough coastal airfields and bases. Their maintenance is cheaper than building and maintaining an aircraft carrier.
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 14 February 2016 12: 56
    +3
    And I look at the dock and envy.
    This is how many ships can be built there ...
    And an aircraft carrier is only useful against weak states.
    And then, soon they will be able to buy cheap RCC from China,
    with which it will be possible to bring down such a monster.
    But America needs aircraft carriers,
    for it is on the mainland aside from Europe and Asia.
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 14 February 2016 13: 52
      0
      Quote: Zomanus
      And I look at the dock and envy.
      This is how many ships can be built there ...
      And an aircraft carrier is only useful against weak states.
      And then, soon they will be able to buy cheap RCC from China,
      with which it will be possible to bring down such a monster.
      But America needs aircraft carriers,
      for it is on the mainland aside from Europe and Asia.

      "You are apolitical, dear." America has so many air bases around the world that, by and large, they do not need aircraft carriers. These are the vestiges of the Cold War. "Generals are preparing for the past wars." And this is not to be won.
      As for the "weak states". Let's separate flies from cutlets. Except Iran, India, well, maybe 1-2 more, whom I did not see from the couch, so there is no one else to defend their interests to the end. Here they are still interested in RTOs. Who else? Indonesia or Argentina, fear God. Aircraft carriers are not the main danger, but the dollar. And so far everything is only at the stage of projects.
  • Kibl
    Kibl 14 February 2016 13: 39
    0
    A big torpedo or a missile to a large ship is a matter of taste! Better than a submarine as a watercraft to destroy their own kind of people have not yet come up with !!!
  • Belopolyak
    Belopolyak 14 February 2016 14: 01
    +3
    I am amazed at your general mania to assent in the course of the play .... If you dig around, most of you met with a bang the news about the domestic aircraft carrier under construction (whether they want to build even such), in general there is a "hurray" "that's right." Then someone began to write in the topic of why this "big expensive target" and everything began to nod in time with the Chinese dummy. Those who write "need!" minus not in time with the flock nod. I have been commenting on almost nothing here for a long time, or I rarely do it, because a herd society, I am glad that not everything.
  • RUSLAN
    RUSLAN 14 February 2016 14: 32
    -1
    2 TO THE WORLD TOO battleship build dreams of MARINE ARTILLERY DUEL BUT aircraft carriers and submarines proved that battleships PROSHLO.CHTO TIME-TO DO WITH ALREADY NASHTAMPOVANYMI LEVIAFANTAMI? Everything changes exert their enormous firepower CAN works perfectly along the shore, even with the Earth is in WITHIN dosigaemosti SNARYADA.TAK And from the aircraft carrier, any serious Collisions at Sea With destruction of one of the aircraft carrier, to change the very CONCEPT OF COST PRIMENENIYA.UCHITYVAYA both the aircraft carrier, SO wing To him the money can buy a small STATE ANYWHERE IN THE NORTH AFRICA! laughingOR SCREAM ON THE ISLAND IN STRATEGICALLY IMPORTANT DIRECTIONS - EVERYTHING WILL BE CHEAPER, YES AND WILL NOT GO TO THE DAY!
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 14 February 2016 14: 55
      0
      Nevertheless, battleships built the entire war.
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 14 February 2016 19: 29
      -1
      Quote: RUSLAN
      TO 2 WORLD ALSO LINKORS ....


      It has been noticed that most of the mentally unbalanced are inadequate, more so than sick people - in all kinds of forums - they write only in caps ...

      either configure the computer. or go to the hospital ...
      Caps are a symptom!
      1. RUSLAN
        RUSLAN 14 February 2016 23: 51
        -1
        RELAXED WISDOM, THIS IS EVERYTHING IS YOUR PAINFANT FANTASY!
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 14 February 2016 23: 57
          0
          Quote: http://topwar.ru/rules.html
          General rules on the site

          i) It is forbidden to write comments in only CAPITAL LETTERS (with Caps Lock turned on)

          Just for your information ..

          In general, as far as I remember, when writing, Caps means talking in elevated tones .. which is not welcome negative
  • newcomer
    newcomer 14 February 2016 15: 32
    +2
    viewers of wrruz, no matter how good an aircraft carrier (naturally in the warrant), the principle of destruction thereof is also worked out to the smallest detail (especially to our navy). I want to remind you that the hunt for an aircraft carrier is also not conducted alone. and our navy knows how to destroy an order. Our missile ships / cruisers are well aware of what to do with this. what else to say, I can only give friendly advice: do not hang labels on the interlocutors. I don’t do it myself, I don’t advise others. do not want_ do not communicate, but do not hang tags.
  • dzeredzavkomimu
    dzeredzavkomimu 14 February 2016 15: 45
    -1
    and why the Americans do not drive the aircraft carrier to the coast of Syria))) as to the coast of Belarus))) the aircraft carrier is needed for operations in those areas where the action of anti-missile missiles is excluded, it cost ours to fire a lionfish from the Caspian, the Americans now do not stutter about the aircraft carrier, about which there is a dispute then?
    1. Andy
      Andy 14 February 2016 17: 11
      0
      yes, they were afraid of your three missiles. nothing in Yugoslavia or Iraq they themselves threw the enemy cr? hundreds! Turkey is now the tanker, but there is Amer’s aviation on its territory (why didn’t she be frightened of caliber if ours decided to embed the Turks at the air bases of Su24). Just political castling, they say, we joined the international puppet coalition, we were asked .. Obama directly told you that the United States the whole world ASKES FOR INTERVENTION.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 14 February 2016 15: 52
    +1
    The author did not report anything new.
    Anti-ship missiles are constantly being improved. Are trying
    and infantry reconnaissance ballistic missile systems for attacks for aircraft carriers.
    But the Aegis system, deployed on all destroyers, which
    cover aircraft carriers, developing and improving. And against the Kyrgyz Republic, and against the BRDS.
    Common competition: sword and shield.

    And with the radius of action of the ship’s aircraft, the ASG range will not be enough - there will always be few.
    Do not strategists launch from an aircraft carrier!
  • Andy
    Andy 14 February 2016 17: 03
    +4
    not the site became, but the Klondike of idiots and hats. to see on an aircraft carrier in a week they drown and they know that he will definitely "snatch away" ...
    for example one writes - "how long will he live in the Mediterranean, which is being shot by the Turks." how long will the Turks live by starting a war? and there is no need to be afraid of nuclear weapons: smacked into the chocks, cooled the ardor of the rest of NATO, swallowed the offense - have a conflict with the whole bloc (what are you afraid of, you won't dare to use nuclear weapons anyway!)
    They write how easy it is to fill up aug with rockets. aha, and we will carry out target designation by missiles with a finger? in the USSR, aug were not so easily treated as local experts; fools were, every second field marshal was on the VO site!
    about aug mobility it is said that you can’t fill it with a ballistic missile (unlike a land aerodrome). As one they forget that an aircraft carrier is able to provide fighters with air defense of its ships, helicopters, search for enemy boats. and this is in addition to the shock functions on ships or shore!
    we don’t need .. yes you, sofa experts don’t need anything. play your tanks further, brag about the fake epaulettes of the site and promise to tear everyone with your bare hands ... because you just refused weapons!

    py.s. Russia needs an aircraft carrier. and not one. the problem is that until now the army does not have enough even land aircraft, and the fleet, even frigates! there’s nothing for us to staff the Aug yet. I’m finishing this, I know that I didn’t get through, but I couldn’t keep silent.
  • mamont5
    mamont5 14 February 2016 17: 15
    0
    Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
    What do you mean why? Well, for how many Turks, for example, will they take hmeimim? And so an aircraft carrier is a mobile airfield, with its cover.

    We reach Turkey from the mainland. That's when the line comes to the United States ... there is already worth thinking about.
  • satelit24
    satelit24 14 February 2016 19: 19
    0
    But what about superiority in the sky - while the landing party with the ship reaches the shore?
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • barsik92090
    barsik92090 14 February 2016 19: 59
    0
    We should have at least one such "outdated" aircraft carrier! [/ Quote]
    An aircraft carrier, even a modern one, is an amazing target with concentrated manpower and equipment, for the destruction of which there are already means of destruction and with great interest are being developed, which are and will be one step ahead of the means of its protection. Its only advantage is to temporarily survive if used, suddenly (?), By the first massive nuclear strike, in order to "celebrate victory" in terrible agony.
  • Legionnaire
    Legionnaire 14 February 2016 20: 01
    +1
    [quote = Andy] is not a site, but a Klondike of idiots and hats. to see on the aircraft carrier in a week they drown and they know that he will definitely "snatch away" ...
    for example one writes - "how long will he live in the Mediterranean, which is being shot by the Turks." how long will the Turks live by starting a war? and there is no need to be afraid of nuclear weapons: smacked into the chocks, cooled the ardor of the rest of NATO, swallowed the offense - have a conflict with the whole bloc (what are you afraid of, you won't dare to use nuclear weapons anyway!)
    They write how easy it is to fill up aug with rockets. aha, and we will carry out target designation by missiles with a finger? in the USSR, aug were not so easily treated as local experts; fools were, every second field marshal was on the VO site!
    about aug mobility it is said that you can’t fill it with a ballistic missile (unlike a land aerodrome). As one they forget that an aircraft carrier is able to provide fighters with air defense of its ships, helicopters, search for enemy boats. and this is in addition to the shock functions on ships or shore!
    we don’t need .. yes you, sofa experts don’t need anything. play your tanks further, brag about the site’s fake epaulettes and promise to tear everyone with your bare hands ... because you just refused weapons! [quote = Andy]
    py.s. Russia needs an aircraft carrier. and not one. the problem is that until now the army does not have enough even land aircraft, and the fleet, even frigates! there is nothing for us to staff the Aug yet. for this I finish, I know that I didn’t get through, but I couldn’t keep silent. [/ quote]
    personally, in my unsophisticated view, aircraft carriers as such are needed to squeeze their interests in third world countries that simply cannot adequately respond to a huge hulk approaching their shores ... this looks formidable. But if you use aircraft carriers against militarily developed states, then the situation is not so unambiguous ... how long can an aircraft carrier intensively use carrier-based aircraft requiring fuel, weapons in autonomy? How many and when in time will be able to lift fighters into the air at a time in order to protect itself from a massive frontal strike by airplanes with similar technical characteristics? What can oppose the massive use of anti-ship missiles? All the hope for the guard ships? One rocket burst through to the aircraft carrier and he leaves the theater of operations for a long repair, two or three and he is a pile of burning iron with serious losses in the crew ... if at all it will stay afloat. This technique does not like when someone bothers it and loves well-functioning logistics. Let’s say that at a floating airfield the stock of weapons intended for carrier-based aviation is coming to an end, ammunition transport is expected, but the news comes that it was destroyed by some kind of low-noise submarine and there wouldn’t be any ammunition ... In a word, I would weigh everything well before I took it building.
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 15 February 2016 06: 02
    +1
    It’s expensive to take a look at the SC that begins after each article about aircraft carriers.
    Some for, others against ...
    For me personally, an aircraft carrier is a certain level
    development of industry, industrial cooperation, R&D, logistics and other things.
    A similar level is still unattainable to us.
    So for now, regardless of our Wishlist,
    we will not see new aircraft carriers.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 15 February 2016 08: 35
    +1
    Quote: Alex_Rarog
    Well, why? if our strategy for another type of war is sharpened ... to demonstrate the flag?


    Why did the Soviet Union begin the construction of nuclear aircraft carriers? Your memory is very short.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 15 February 2016 12: 46
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      Why did the Soviet Union begin the construction of nuclear aircraft carriers? Your memory is very short.

      Heh heh heh ... You still ask - why all the fleets, starting with Kuznetsov, demanded aircraft carriers? smile
      How many projects were nailed down by the navigators and shipbuilders ... 71, 72, 85, 1160, 1153. Moreover, a full-fledged atomic AB, with catapults and AWACS, was developed for the fleet in the late 60s.