Military Review

Carriers: past and future

134

Wars have always been the “engine of progress”! Funny paradox - all the scientific potential was used to create the means of their own destruction, which ultimately contributed to a giant leap in human development.


Introduction

Sometimes people invent another kind weapons, tactically and strategically correctly used which could only after years. For example, this was the case with a tank, by plane, by submarine and ... with an aircraft carrier.

Someone thinks that "история aircraft carriers "began with the legendary flight of Eugene Eli, when he landed on the warship" Pennsylvania ". And someone from the day when ArkRoyyal took part in the Dardanelles operation. And although there were only seaplanes on board, historians consider this ship to be the first aircraft carrier in the world to take part in hostilities.

In any case, mankind has received a completely new military tool, which he really had to use in decades.

Patrimony

At the very beginning of its appearance, aircraft carriers were not actively used. After all, the combat potential of the aircraft as the main carrier of weapons has not yet been fully disclosed. The First World War, it seemed, had forever buried the still not strong child. And although between the two world wars this class of ships continued to develop, not one of the states even thought about giving the palm to the sea to the aircraft carrier. Ball ruled battleships and battle cruisers. Having powerful artillery, the caliber of which could exceed 400 mm, they were the most powerful means of destruction.

Eugene Eli takes off from the deck of the USS Pennsylvania 18 January 1911.


During the Second World War, such giants as Bismarck and Richelieu, Yamato and Iowa were launched.

The first alarming calls for battleships were November 1940 and December 1941. In the first case, a British deck attack aviation Italy's linear fleet allowed Britain to seize the initiative in the Mediterranean. In the second, the devastating raid of Japanese aircraft at Pearl Harbor completely destroyed the linear fleet of Americans. After the Battle of Midway ended in June 1942, it became clear that only aircraft carriers could provide supremacy on the high seas. Finally, the nail in the lid of the tomb of the battleships was hammered on April 7, 1945, when the US carrier-based aircraft simply torn apart the largest battleship Yamato in history. Two hundred planes in two hours inflicted mortal wounds of "pride of the Japanese fleet". Having received hits of 10 torpedoes and 13 bombs, the battleship took with him more than 3000 sailors to the bottom.

In the Second World War, aircraft carriers received rapid development, performing the widest range of tasks. Separate classes of aircraft carriers appeared: heavy, light, escort, auxiliary, training, etc.

The escort aircraft carrier was intended for air defense and anti-submarine defense of convoys and reconnaissance. It had a displacement of up to 24 KT and a speed of up to 20 knots (37 km / h). Armament: 25 – 30 aircraft, up to 50 anti-aircraft guns. Crew to 1000 people. Most escort carriers were converted from transport ships that did not have a reservation.

A light aircraft carrier was designed for air defense of formations of warships, convoys, amphibious units, the destruction of enemy ships (ships) at sea, and the air support of amphibious assault forces. It had a displacement of up to 20 KT and a speed of up to 32 knots (59 km / h). Armament: up to 50 aircraft, around 70 anti-aircraft guns. Crew to 1400 people.

The heavy aircraft carrier was designed to destroy (destroy) the formations of warships, transports and landing craft of the enemy, to gain air supremacy in the combat area. It had a displacement of up to 55 KT and a speed of up to 33 knots (61 km / h). Armament: up to 100 aircraft, up to 12 guns of caliber up to 200 mm and up to 120 small-caliber anti-aircraft guns. Crew to 4000 people.

During the war, the 194 aircraft carrier was built, much of which was converted from the previously laid down battleships, cruisers and transport ships. Almost every fifth was sunk.

In the postwar period, most naval powers began to massively write off their warships, getting rid of battleships, aircraft carriers and cruisers. Britain finally lost the status of a great maritime power, and Japan could not even dream of its former greatness. Only the Americans remained a powerful carrier fleet; they were not in a hurry to destroy it. Moreover, strategists at the Pentagon continued to actively develop this type of ships.

The launch of the aircraft carrier Enterprise with a nuclear power plant in 1961 opened a new era in the development of aircraft carriers. At that time, it was the largest surface ship in the history of the fleet with almost unlimited autonomy of navigation. This year can be safely considered the birth year of the US aircraft carrier fleet.

Aircraft carrier "Enterprise" with a nuclear power plant


Over the past seventy years, aircraft carriers have actively participated in many local wars. These are the wars in Korea and Vietnam, the Falklands crisis, the operation “Desert Storm”, the bombardment of Belgrade and others.

The aircraft carrier evolved and became a universal combat platform, deadly for a potential enemy. The presence on board of various types of aircraft allows the aircraft carrier to perform many combat missions. This is the search and destruction of aviation, submarines and ships of the enemy, the landing of troops on the coast and the application of rocket-bombing attacks on coastal targets and in depth. Before the advent of strategic nuclear submarines, even nuclear bombers were stationed on aircraft carriers. Carriers were an essential tool in the US strategy for the destruction of the USSR.

Ship structure

A modern aircraft carrier is, in my opinion, the most sophisticated type of armament to date.

Carriers - the largest in the world and technically very complex warships in the history of mankind.

To present the grandeur and uniqueness of such a "technical monster", we give a few figures (the Nimitz aircraft carrier is taken as an example):

60 000 t of steel and 1360 t of filler materials are being spent on aircraft carrier construction;
on the ship more than 4000 premises for various purposes;
A nuclear power plant of two water-cooled reactors of the type A4W / A1G powers four steam turbines with a total power of 280 000 hp;
the mass of the propeller (there are four of them on the ship) is almost 3 t, and each of the two anchors is 30 t;
flight deck area 18 200 square. m;
the ship has four steam catapults weighing 180 t, which ensure the smooth take-off of combat aircraft, whose weight reaches 40 – 43 t, with an acceleration speed of up to 300 km / h;
total mass of ammunition 2000 t;
6000 crew of people (including staffing, wing service and marching headquarters).
The creation of such a ship requires huge financial and labor costs.

The cost of the US Navy aircraft carrier George Bush (the last in the Nimitz class series) is estimated at 6,5 billion US dollars (at 2009 prices of the year), and the French Charles de Gaulle - 3,3 billion (at prices of 2001 a year). The new aircraft carrier "Gerald Ford" will cost US taxpayers 14 billion dollars, and Queen Elizabeth English - in 6,5 billion pounds. And this is without the cost of the wing. The lead aircraft carrier, as a rule, is built 6 – 7 years. This is the optimal time, provided that the shipbuilder receives the final approved project documentation and has extensive experience in building such ships.

The last condition is very important. For example, Northrop Grumman, founded in 1886, is one of the largest shipbuilding companies in the USA and one of two (General Dynamics) companies producing nuclear-powered ships. The first CV-4 Ranger aircraft carrier was built at this shipyard in the 1934 year. In total, the shipyard built 30 aircraft carriers, including all 11 US nuclear aircraft carriers, starting with the CVN-65 Enterprise in the 1961 year.

Advantages and disadvantages

The main obvious advantages of aircraft carriers: high combat potential, versatility and high mobility.

High combat potential is expressed in a large and diverse amount of weapons. AUGs are capable of striking deep: on naval targets - up to 1000 km, on coastal up to 1600 km.

The versatility of the ship lies in the ability of an aircraft carrier to perform a wide range of tasks. Let us list the main ones: the destruction of enemy ship groups in the maritime theaters of military operations; strikes against targets located on the sea coast and in the depth of the enemy’s territory; air cover and support for airborne forces and ground forces operating in the coastal zone; winning and maintaining air superiority in the area of ​​operation; providing air defense of ships, airborne troops, large convoys at sea crossings, blockade of the enemy’s coast; aviation tactical intelligence; landing on the coast.

The mobility of aircraft carriers is the ability to deploy in the shortest possible time a large aviation group. The ability to make daily throws on 1000 km is impressive.

The obvious minus of an aircraft carrier is its low degree of secrecy. The exclusivity of this ship is not only its blessing, but also a curse. When attacking torpedo missiles, an aircraft carrier will always be a priority target for the enemy. The times when an aircraft carrier performed a single voyage, forever sunk into oblivion, it should always be guarded by escort ships.

The versatility of the aircraft carrier has a negative side. On board are thousands of tons of fuel and ammunition. In fact, it is a powder keg, going with the speed of 30 nodes. And although experts say that on modern aircraft carriers, the system for fighting for survivability is very reliable, this can only be verified in the case of real combat operations.

The accident rate of aircraft carriers

The USS Forrestal crash aircraft carrier Forrestal (CV-59), which occurred in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1967, was the largest accident in the US Navy in the last fifty years. According to the official conclusion, the fire began after a spontaneous launch of an unguided rocket under the effect of an accidental surge of voltage in the circuits of one of the planes on the deck. Result: The 17 th fire engulfed the six decks of the ship, the detonation of nine bombs on the flight deck, killed the 134 man (161 was wounded). The ship and its aircraft completely lost their combat capability, the 21 burned down aircraft was thrown overboard (not counting aircraft damaged by fire).

Approximately 70 miles from Honolulu, during the preparation of one of the fighter-bombers for a combat mission, a combat unit of an unguided missile suspended under its wing exploded. The explosion occurred as a result of overheating of the missile warhead caused by a rather long exposure to the jet of the engine of another aircraft that was on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier and was also preparing for departure. Within only 20 minutes, 18 powerful explosions occurred on the flight deck of the nuclear-powered ship, including eight 500 pounds caliber bombs (227 kg) detonated. Later there was a series of explosions. In total, 28 people were killed as a result of the accident, injuries of varying degrees of severity of 343 people from the crew and the ship's wing of the Enterprise and the destroyers Benjamin Stodert and Rogers were injured. 15 combat aircraft were completely destroyed. On the various equipment that was destroyed and say no. The combat service of an aircraft carrier in the Vietnam region had to be postponed.

Above are the sign accident. More small happened more than a hundred. For example, on the aircraft carrier "Nimitz":

1981 year. The landing plane crashed into an unsuccessfully parked helicopter on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Fire. Explosions. Result: 18 aircraft units destroyed, 14 dead and 39 injured.

1988 year. At the attack aircraft jammed electric launch speed artillery cannon. The tanker truck caught fire. Losses: 8 units of aircraft.

1991 year. Aircraft crash during landing. The burning car, abandoned by the crew, caught on to the aero-finisher and froze in the middle of the deck. But her engines roared in afterburner. If it were not for the actions of the brave technician (who turned off the engines), the situation would have gotten out of control.

There were accidents in the navy and in the USSR ...

The antisubmarine cruiser “Moscow” is an aircraft carrier, more precisely, a helicopter carrier. As a result of a short circuit on the switchboard of the diesel generator, a fire broke out that put out the 6 hours. Three dead and injured 26 people.

The aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov was also on fire. One example is the January 6 2009, when the aircraft carrier was heading the group of ships of the Northern Fleet in the southeastern Mediterranean. There was a fire in the engine room. The fire was extinguished for two hours. One sailor died.

Summing up, I want to note that these are only a few examples of accidents that occurred in peacetime. In terms of hostilities accident rate increases significantly.

Defense AUG

To date, the most effective means of destroying aircraft carriers are: anti-ship cruise missile and torpedo. And the main carriers of these means of destruction are ships, submarines and aircraft.

For the effective defense of the aircraft carrier created a group of ships. This group, including the aircraft carrier, is called the carrier strike group (AUG). The AUG, as a rule, includes cruisers, destroyers, frigates, multi-purpose submarines and supply vessels. Their number depends on the number of aircraft carrying ships of the group and the mobility requirements of the group. Of course, this greatly distracts resources, but the ship group gathered into a single fist has a very large combat potential.

AUG ships create defense lines providing anti-missile, anti-aircraft and anti-submarine defense. Thus, a multi-layered defense system emerges, which is rather difficult to overcome. Do not forget that the aircraft carrier wing is the main shock power of the AUG and also provides all kinds of its (group) defense!

Against the cruise missiles, which will launch air attack weapons, submarines and surface ships of the enemy, the defense forces of the ship group create a deep echeloned defense to a depth of 700 km. For the fullest use of the combat capabilities of the air defense systems, their multi-level construction by zones is envisaged - three air defense zones are being formed: long-range (long-range radar detection aircraft (DRLO), radar patrol ships, combat air patrol fighters, anti-aircraft missile systems ) medium-range escort ships), medium (ships and helicopters of the closest RLD, electronic warfare aircraft (EW), air defense ships using air defense systems, EW facilities of the main forces and air defense ships) and b lizhnyaya (ZRK, artillery and electronic warfare of all ships).

Anti-submarine defense is organized to search for and destroy submarines. The depth of such a defense today reaches 600 km. The ship group in this case also has the widest range of possibilities for the search and destruction of enemy submarines. Anti-submarine guards of the AUG are carried out by anti-submarine aircraft by patrols, making shuttle flights from the center of the AUG and back towards the likely appearance of the enemy. In addition to aircraft, anti-submarine protection is provided by submarines that are part of the AUG and are equipped with hydroacoustic stations (GAS). The close guard forces of the AUG include helicopters and surface ships. Their main task - to prevent the torpedo attack of enemy submarines. GAS surface ships are used in active mode. Surface ships are positioned in such a way as to create a continuous ring of sonar surveillance. Helicopters are also used, which use lowered gas, magnetic detector and radio acoustic buoys to detect enemy submarines.

In 1983, a new warship appeared on the ocean expanses. At the stern a huge banner fluttered in the wind: “Stand by, Admiral Gorshkov:“ Aegis ”at sea!” (Watch out, Admiral Gorshkov! “Aegis” in the sea!). Thus, the USS Ticonderoga (CG-47) missile cruiser began its service. And so began the combat service of the ship's multi-functional combat information and control system Aegis combat system. This is an integrated network of ship means of lighting the situation, means of destruction and controls. The system allows you to receive and process information from sensors of other ships and aircraft of the connection and to issue target designation to their launchers. In simple terms, this is an electronic brain center.

Thus, AUG has a system that provides for the collective defense of ships, allowing it to intercept almost all modern means of air attack, including ballistic missiles. The Aegis system detects and accompanies simultaneously up to 300 targets and leads up to 18 SAMs on the most dangerous of them. Deck fighters and early warning aircraft can also be used to repel a strike. The decision to hit targets can be made automatically.

Fighting AUG

US admirals consider their aircraft carrier invulnerable. In part, they are right. With such a multi-layered and versatile defense, you can really feel completely safe. Destroy AUG possible only mass rocket salvo. At one time in the USSR, it was calculated that in order to ensure the destruction of AUG, it is necessary to use 70 – 100 anti-ship missiles in one strike. A cruise missile must have a warhead of 500 kg and a flight speed exceeding the speed of sound 2,5 times. These missiles today are P-700 ("Granit") and P-1000 ("Vulcan") / P-500 ("Basalt").

To deliver such a strike, it is necessary to approach the AUG at the launch range of its missiles. And here the problems begin. AUG's reconnaissance assets make it possible to detect the enemy several hundred kilometers from the point of the missile strike. Let me remind you that the main factor that influenced the victory of the Americans in the Battle of Midway Atoll was that they were ahead of the enemy in deployment. The enemy AUG nothing left, as with the battle to break through to the starting point. And still it is necessary to issue target designation to submarines, synchronize the launch of cruise missiles with other carriers. In general, AUG is in a deliberately advantageous situation. A break through the defense of AUG will be fraught with large losses. There is another way: striking an AUG with cruise missiles (torpedoes) with a special warhead (SBS). But this will go only as a last resort.

And what about us?


In the Soviet Union aircraft carriers began to be built only from the 1960-s. These are anti-submarine cruisers of the 1123 project, i.e. full helicopter. It was built two buildings: "Moscow" and "Leningrad." In the 1970-s began construction of aircraft-carrying cruisers of the 1143 Ave. “Kiev”, “Minsk”, “Novorossiysk” and “Baku” entered into operation. And in 1991, the Admiral Kuznetsov (1143.5 Ave, in the photo above) came into operation. The main difference between our aircraft-carrying cruisers of the 1143 Ave. and aircraft carriers of western construction is the presence of the Basalt and Granit cruise missiles on board.

It is difficult to say whether our constructors went the right way or on a dead-end branch. Then (as now), our shipbuilding industry could not build such giants as Enterprise. There was only one plant in Nikolaev, therefore, not very large (relative to American aircraft carriers) displacement. And why do we need such giants? Admirals of the USSR did not plan to fight with the United States at sea. Then the policy of containment was pursued. The main tasks that were assigned to our aircraft carriers were defensive. Our aircraft carriers came out of the Black Sea as "anti-submarine cruisers" (which was partly true).

Are our aircraft carriers much inferior to the US? In 1970's, definitely not. These ships had a lot of advanced technology. As a matter of fact, we went our own way in everything. The cruise missile P-500 with a range of 550 km then represented a very formidable weapon. And the deck aircraft of the USA was not so technically developed to guarantee the destruction of our cruisers before approaching the launch point of cruise missiles.

Was it a dead end? I think yes. The ship is the most complex combat mechanism. And attempts to create “something universal” can lead to a “monstrous hybrid”. A vivid example today is the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov. With a full displacement of 65 000 t to have deck aircraft, not exceeding 30 aircraft, this is a clear dead end. And when did this cruiser perform missile firing for the last time? A long time ago. Because he no longer performs the shooting. Can not technically. Ruined material part.

Will we build or not?

To try to figure out, take a neutral position between opponents and allies of the construction of aircraft carriers.

Do we plan to control the largest trade routes? No.

Do we plan to blockade any coastal state? No.

Or maybe we have to capture the archipelago X? Not. But this is no today. And who knows what will happen tomorrow?

Carriers is a very expensive toy. Build and maintain them very expensive. Absolutely nothing to argue. But the fleet itself is “very expensive.” And it’s not necessary to build monsters like “Gerald Ford”, whose daily maintenance costs 7 million dollars. In the Soviet Union, they understood this.

Carriers, like the entire navy - is an extra costly item and a hole in the budget! And how do you calculate the dividends? In Norway at the end of the 1930-x also thought so. Said to adhere to the policy of neutrality. Their military budget was almost zero, which Hitler took advantage of in 1940.

Carriers are cardboard ships. It is heated very easily. Maybe, but who checked it? Only real hostilities show the effectiveness of weapons. The Second World War showed a fairly high survivability of aircraft carriers.

Carriers are explosive ships. Accidents happen to them quite often. Right. But all the ships are burning and exploding. As practice shows, most accidents occur due to elementary carelessness of personnel. The problem is not in "iron", but in people.

We are all enemy aircraft carriers peretopim cruise missiles. We have a complex "Bastion"! The Bastion complex is a coastal missile system. It is designed to protect the coast. The range of cruise missiles in the 300 km. An aircraft carrier never dares to come so close to the shore. In general, the further the AUG from the coast, the more secure the aircraft carrier will be. We currently do not have cruise missiles capable of destroying an aircraft carrier at long range.

It seems this debate will last forever. On opposite sides of the barricades are opponents and supporters of aircraft carriers. Some claim that aircraft carriers are expensive and morally obsolete weapons. Others that this is the most powerful tool of war at sea.

My subjective opinion is the following.

Hurry with the construction of a new aircraft carrier is not worth it. Do design work? Yes. Urgent mortgage? Not. There are big problems in the Navy with ships of 2, 3 and 4. It is necessary to update the coast guard. It is now extremely important for us to close our inland seas for the “foe”. And so, step by step, go to the seas and oceans. I repeat, step by step.

What is the point of straining the shipbuilding facilities with the “construction of the century,” when we now have ships and boats waiting in line for repairs and upgrades? It is necessary to produce (and it is underway) the renewal of shipbuilding capacities and the increase in the workforce (and this is the biggest problem today). It’s impossible to build today. But this does not mean that we should not build tomorrow. For this, it is extremely important for us not to lose the last half-dead aircraft carrier, in order to preserve the flight personnel and operating experience of this sophisticated technology. It is necessary to maximize the life of the Admiral Kuznetsov TAKR by completing its deep modernization.

No one invested so much power in the appearance of aircraft carriers in our fleet, like Admiral Gorshkov. But there is an opinion that by the end of his activity he came to the conclusion that aircraft carriers are hopeless because of their great vulnerability. He proposed the use of "sea airfield platforms" on the basis of ships with a small waterline area, proposed at the time by the inventor from Canada Frederick Creed.

Very logical. Cheap and practical. The Chinese also realized that there was a partial replacement for aircraft carriers, and began to build "unsinkable aircraft carriers." The appearance of artificial islands in the South China Sea today is very annoying to Japan and the United States.

In defense of aircraft carriers I want to bring one indisputable fact. To date, 12 countries have aircraft carriers in their fleets. Many of them not only do not refuse these ships, but also continue to build them. And if we add to this number of countries the owners of universal landing ships (and this is the same, to some extent, aircraft carrying ships), the question arises ... So is it worth bury aircraft carriers?

Finally, I want to say that the fleet must be balanced. Therefore, aircraft carriers will always find a place in it. The ideal option for us would be a ship with a displacement of up to 50 000 t with a nuclear power plant. But as they say, everything has its time.

Personally, I really want these beauties to please us with power only at parades and never fight with each other.

The aircraft carrier Vikrant of the Indian Navy has been under construction since 2006.


References:
Shunkov V.N. Aircraft carriers and naval aviation. - Minsk, Publisher: “Popurri”, 2003
Belavin N.I. Aircraft ships. - Moscow, Publisher: "Patriot", 1990
Katorin Yu. Carriers. - Moscow, Publisher: Galeya Print, 2010 g.
Author:
Originator:
http://dfnc.ru/c108-novosti-2-1/14372/
134 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. godofwar6699
    godofwar6699 April 23 2016 06: 01
    0
    NORFOLK
    The team unmanned center was installed on board the aircraft carrier for the first time, which indicates the commitment of the Navy to the future of unmanned aircraft.
    The center was installed aboard the San Diego Carl Vinson last week; the next will be stationed aboard Norfolk at the USS base by Dwight Eisenhower next year, according to the Navy.
    1. Armored optimist
      Armored optimist April 23 2016 08: 09
      +7
      Literary translation:
      The control center for unmanned aerial vehicles was first placed on an aircraft carrier, which indicates the commitment of the Navy to the future of unmanned aircraft.
      Installation of the center was carried out at the San Diego Naval Forces aboard the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson last week; another will be stationed in Norfolk aboard the Dwight Eisenhower aircraft carrier next year, in accordance with the plan of the Navy.
      1. godofwar6699
        godofwar6699 April 23 2016 08: 22
        0
        Google translator request
    2. max702
      max702 April 23 2016 11: 37
      +22
      Everyone forgets one simple thing .. Namely, what kind of conflict is this in which WE are forced to destroy the AUG? That is, we are fighting as an adult with at least one of the NATO countries .. And it’s not Estonia or Croatia, or even Turkey .. It’s the USA, England, or France .. And ... What happens in the event of a conflict with any of these powers? EVERYTHING IS JUST 3 WORLD WAR .. And then absolutely EVERYTHING will go into action, and whether the adversary has an AUG or not will not make any difference ..
      1. Robin - Bobbin
        Robin - Bobbin April 23 2016 21: 42
        +1
        I think the same ... In the case of World War 3, one nuclear warhead next to it is enough for the AUG.
    3. Malkor
      Malkor April 23 2016 18: 12
      +1
      ACG is of course a powerful offensive complex, but the author did not mention the real effective means of countering ACG are coastal missile systems. In our case of open conflict and the battle against the AUGs, special ammunition will go into action en masse, during the first wave there is enough blasting without an exact defeat and even with some shortfall, even several high-altitude air explosions are permissible - a shock wave, electromagnetic radiation and penetrating radiation will greatly cool AUG air defense, the second wave will bury him.
    4. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 April 24 2016 17: 04
      +3
      Hello gentlemen. The article is certainly interesting. Aircraft carriers are the admiral’s favorite toys, the deck is big l / s too. America’s aircraft carriers are lovely. Take a look at a map of America across two oceans, no one threatens her there, and there is, by and large, no worthy adversary. The main Enemy is far beyond the ocean Russia now they saw China. The USSR found its solution how to deal with AUGs, the solution was simple, why look for those same AUGs when there is always a strike group of the diverse surface forces of the Fleet. These are also the strike missile systems. You think the Yankees didn’t know and very afraid. Now the situation is different. The fleet is gaining strength while keeping in mind ours. We cannot keep a large connection in the vicinity of AUG so far. There are no opportunities. Life is making its own corrections. The concept of using our Fleet has changed. Create a compact group of surface ships capable of not only repelling the first strike but also destroying the enemy without using nuclear weapons. The demonstration of our small ships showed that not only ships at gunpoint but also coastal complexes. American experts are already shaking their cards and scaring their inhabitants. Russia is reborn. Kerry blabbed. Cook was on combat work. Yes, and the horse is clearly testing our defense. Do not forget a little earlier the electronic reconnaissance plane lit up there .. As long as we have no opportunity to do this. Although Peter’s trip to the Caribbean has already been once, an upgraded nuclear-powered ship with new capabilities will come out and will make a similar trip with testing American capabilities. I’ll assure you there will be even more. Cheer up, give the time for our shipbuilding industry to solve the problems .. Although, by and large, the problem is completely different there. The problem is the creation and delivery of the latest products to ship hulls. Grigorovich is our new Fleet base. We are testing all systems. And here is another moment after the fourth Ashen, a completely new boat with completely different capabilities will go. Here representatives of Severodvinsk wrote about this. Well, aircraft carriers are not yet visible although the application concept is being worked out. This is a matter of time. There will be a concept then they will decide really. Not all at once. Anecdote is standing in the middle of the pedestrian road. Everyone goes and stumbles and scolds at the full stump. And he is also outraged. Not all at once, not all at once not to be torn to me. I will accept all. Good luck to all.
  2. Nik_One
    Nik_One April 23 2016 06: 13
    -1
    Of course, we do not need such an aircraft carrier fleet, like the United States (we are not going to conquer other continents). But a couple of aircraft carriers in the North and Pacific Fleets are needed. And not for parades, and then, so that Russia would have the strength and ability to conduct a large-scale punitive operation anywhere in the world.

    PS Of course, we can punish anyone anyway, but I mean the ability to shoot Papuans from a low-flying flight, the possibility of air support of special forces units, which theoretically can storm the palaces of unwanted native rulers ... etc. etc.
    1. Armored optimist
      Armored optimist April 23 2016 08: 18
      +16
      And on a fig we shoot Papuans? U.S. aircraft carriers can operate anywhere; they have an entire base full of bases and commercial ports where they can bunker supply vessels and have a short delivery arm. And ours, they move at least 300 miles from our bases, cut off the delivery routes and in a week will have to proudly drown the aircraft carrier, or die of starvation. After all, this ship in the lead intense military operations often have to take aviation fuel, ammunition, food. According to the experience of conducting military operations in Vietnam, every two days either a tanker or a logger got underboard.
      What, organize convoys to the shores of Africa? Then add to the AUG ships a dozen more transport and a dozen convoys.
      The pleasure of driving the natives is very expensive. Do we need it?
      1. Reddragon
        Reddragon April 23 2016 12: 19
        +3
        Russia is well developed: the submarine fleet, missile technology (PLO and air defense) and anti-aircraft system. So it’s impossible to supply as in Vietnam, and we know from the experience of the Cold War that our submarines have repeatedly surfaced in the middle of the AUG. DO NOT forget that you can organize a counterattack.
        1. Armored optimist
          Armored optimist April 23 2016 18: 00
          0
          So and I about the same!
      2. Dart2027
        Dart2027 April 23 2016 13: 07
        +3
        Quote: armored optimist
        And on a fig we shoot Papuans?

        So that some DAISH would not one day come to our borders.
        1. Armored optimist
          Armored optimist April 23 2016 18: 04
          0
          On foot they will come only from the south. Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe Pakistan. Here the aircraft carrier has nowhere to act. From the ground it’s easier.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 April 23 2016 23: 14
            0
            Quote: armored optimist
            On foot they will come only from the south. Syria

            And Syria and Iraq and Pakistan in the area of ​​carrier-based aviation.
            1. Armored optimist
              Armored optimist April 24 2016 09: 32
              0
              Why scratch your right ear with your left hand?
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 April 24 2016 15: 47
                0
                But essentially?
      3. Suhow
        Suhow April 24 2016 10: 21
        0
        I apologize for the interference, but I also hold the opinion for a couple of TAKRs, in total ... this is a fact of prestige-pressure-influence, and training and working out the counteraction of the AUG, but a couple of takers were enough for the Union, for the Russian Federation I think there will be enough, but in camping readiness ....
    2. user
      user April 23 2016 20: 20
      +1
      But a couple of aircraft carriers in the North and Pacific Fleets are needed.


      I fully support it, but the author of the article is right, there is no need to rush and you need to bring ships of rank 2,3 and 4 in line, and at the same time the fleet infrastructure. Especially considering the creation of a navy base in the Kuril Islands.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa April 24 2016 07: 08
        +2
        Quote: user
        I fully support, but the author of the article is right,

        An extremely balanced, unemotional, probably even objective article.
        I always said that we have "drops" with our heads!
        Hello author, article "+".
  3. sa-ag
    sa-ag April 23 2016 06: 52
    +3
    “... Today we do not have cruise missiles capable of destroying an aircraft carrier at a long range.
    "

    Now here about the Caliber argument will appear :-)
    1. venik
      venik April 23 2016 10: 27
      0
      I agree, of course, but why only "Caliber"? Or that 550-600 km is no longer a long range (P-500 Basalt (4K80), P-700 Granite (3M-45)) ???
      1. Bongo
        Bongo April 23 2016 11: 15
        +4
        Quote: venik
        Or that 550-600 km is no longer a long range (P-500 Basalt (4К80), P-700 Granite (3М-45) ???

        Excuse me, how are you going to open the location of targets at such a range and carry out target designation?
        1. Armored optimist
          Armored optimist April 23 2016 11: 49
          +1
          1. Space. And not necessarily military. All satellites that give surface images. You can’t hide AUG in your pocket.
          2. RTR. Stealth and radio silence are all bullshit. If he is silent, then he does not know the situation in the air. Turned on the radar - lit up.
          1. Bongo
            Bongo April 23 2016 11: 57
            +6
            Quote: armored optimist
            Space. And not necessarily military. All satellites that give surface images. You can’t hide AUG in your pocket.


            Igor Vladimirovich, do we now have many satellites, even dual-use ones, capable of fulfilling this task?
            Quote: armored optimist
            RTR. Stealth and radio silence are all bullshit. If he is silent, then he does not know the situation in the air. Turned on the radar - lit up.

            At what distance and with what? In Soviet times, dozens of reconnaissance ships served in the ocean, now it’s practically zero.
            Some time ago there was a publication:
            Is the Russian fleet capable of fighting US Navy aircraft carriers?
            For 1,5, little has changed.
            1. Armored optimist
              Armored optimist April 23 2016 18: 11
              -1
              Satellites are enough for one or two. AUGs are tracked not only by satellites. And not only in the optical range. Frequency portraits are known. Glow like stadium chandeliers. Every day their position is known at our headquarters. If suddenly they switch to radio silence mode, then this is one of the signs of an attack. You can optionally launch the satellite.
            2. Malkor
              Malkor April 23 2016 18: 17
              0
              In the event of a nuclear war, if anyone survives with us, of course, and the task is to sink the enemy’s AUGs - we will hit AUGs with nuclear missiles on intelligence at all levels (space, aircraft, agents, etc.), then there’s nothing to lose, all the same world to dust.
              1. Come on
                Come on April 24 2016 05: 35
                -1
                Do you have children? And parents, relatives, schools, kindergartens in the neighborhood? Do you say everything in ruin? Nothing to lose? Wars start with politicians, or when diplomats run out of arguments. Is there really something, any reason to annihilate children, women, the elderly and millions of other innocent people? Indeed, unlike a conventional war, when it is possible to evacuate a civilian population, or to prevent the use of heavy weapons in a radius that is dangerous to them, a nuclear war will spare no one. Yes, no ambitions, neither territorial, nor economic, nor any disputes of any kind, cost the lives of children.
                1. Armored optimist
                  Armored optimist April 24 2016 07: 05
                  +1
                  A non-nuclear war with the states will instantly turn into a nuclear one. Take off your pink glasses! What does the children have to do with it? Do you and I decide anything? Or will the Americans care about this?
                  Or do you think that a child burned with a phosphorus bomb will suffer less than a nuclear bomb?
                  Come on do you blame me for propagating nuclear war? Read carefully. I said that if it comes to the need to destroy the AUG, then a full-scale war is already underway. And between the nuclear powers there can be no persuasion to conduct it by non-nuclear means. As a pilot, I know that there are no reliable ways to determine whether the KR, RSD fly in nuclear or conventional equipment, and that bomb carriers are carrying. The point is not iron, neither they nor ours. So the attacked will respond with all its capabilities.
                  1. Come on
                    Come on April 24 2016 08: 45
                    0
                    As your commentary, I understand that if there is a war with NATO / the US, all kinds of AUG will go into action and the situation for the Russian Federation will not develop for the better, then TNW will go into action? And why should such a war actually turn into a nuclear one? During WW2, after all, both sides refrained from using gas and chemicals, especially when the coalition countries squeezed the 3rd Reich from all sides in a vice? What did it cost Hitler to give such an order? What does my "rose-colored glasses" have to do with it? And what has "phosphorus bombs" to do with it? Do you want to compare the consequences of phosphorus bombs and nuclear weapons for the civilian population? Of course there are persuasions, agreements, etc., even in case of war, about not using nuclear weapons! If, for example, in the course of a conventional conflict, one side begins to use nuclear weapons, then again my question is, for what? I strongly doubt that NATO forces will start with this first, having such a qualitative and numerical superiority. Then where is the border where you can say there is no other way out, should you apply?
                    1. Armored optimist
                      Armored optimist April 24 2016 14: 59
                      0
                      Holy naivety!
                      Why did you decide what exactly TNW? FSE! Everything that is in the arsenals of the belligerents will be used immediately and without regard to "restrictions". Moreover, they will use such types of weapons that we do not even know about.
                      And what about contracts and persuasions about non-use, did I miss something? Or did the Amer solvers and their servants presidents suddenly become Knights? Are they not hitting a lying one?
                    2. Armored optimist
                      Armored optimist April 24 2016 15: 32
                      0
                      The only reason Hitler didn’t use chemical weapons was because he was afraid of the answer.
                      1. Come on
                        Come on April 24 2016 21: 04
                        +1
                        Quote: armored optimist
                        The only reason Hitler didn’t use chemical weapons was because he was afraid of the answer.



                        Here I am about it! One single missile that will break through the missile defense system and, say, will hit the military infrastructure, as part of the Air Force, or the AUG group, can cause a retaliatory strike against all possible bases of nuclear weapons on the territory of the Russian Federation, and if a strike falls on a part located in a populated city, there will be casualties among the civilian population, then the answer will be appropriate. NATO / USA have a multiple superiority in long-range cruise missiles, other precision weapons, as well as superiority in modern carriers of precision weapons, from the same AUG, to aviation, Los Angeles class nuclear submarines (154 Tamagavki), Arlie Burkov (90 Tamagavoks) and much more, which is also multiple. They have no reason to attack with TNW having such an advantage in conventional strike capabilities. If there is something modern, hypersonic, or something else, then all this is again a piece goods, which means that the bulk of the carriers used will be already well-known systems. Here and again a question that few people ask themselves, who speaks about the use of nuclear weapons in some form, tactical strategic, or even so, to scare: Where is the border when there is no other way out but to use nuclear weapons? Is there any goal at all that would justify such sacrifices? And stop talking to me about naivety and rose-colored glasses. I served in the respective troops and have a rough idea of ​​the consequences. They will be irreversible. But many seem to think that a nuclear war is like shooting Katyushas. Too easily people have recently begun to scatter thoughts about the use of nuclear weapons, no matter tactical or strategic, apparently thinking little about the consequences.
                      2. Operator
                        Operator April 24 2016 22: 08
                        0
                        We are talking about the exact opposite situation - NATO countries were the first to strike conventional weapons (airplanes, cruise missiles), which they have many times more, at Russian military bases, airfields and naval groups.
                        You, being a resident of Germany, suggest that we surrender right away - otherwise there would be a nuclear apocalypse.

                        It will not work - in response, Russia will openly start a local nuclear war in Europe and use tactical nuclear weapons (carriers of "Caliber", "Iskander", "Zircon", X-102) at NATO military bases, airfields and ship groupings. Since nuclear weapons are more than an order of magnitude more effective than conventional weapons, the number of carriers used can be correspondingly less - within the capabilities of the Russian military-industrial complex.

                        And after the exchange of asymmetric attacks (conventional from NATO and tactical nuclear from Russia), your politicians, and not ours, will scratch your turnips: press the red ICBM launch button (and go to tartarars with your LGB-shaman) or not. The use of tactical nuclear weapons by NATO will mean a retaliatory strike by Russian ICBMs.

                        Something tells me that your politicians will raise their paws up and give up, because there are no ideological contradictions between us - both you and us have developed capitalism in the yard bully
                      3. Come on
                        Come on April 25 2016 23: 26
                        0
                        Quote: Operator
                        We are talking about the exact opposite situation - NATO countries were the first to strike conventional weapons (airplanes, cruise missiles), which they have many times more, at Russian military bases, airfields and naval groups.
                        You, being a resident of Germany, suggest that we surrender right away - otherwise there would be a nuclear apocalypse.



                        Let us leave aside whose resident I am, as if this generally matters in the discussion of the topic. Moreover, you do not know this.

                        It depends on what reason the military conflict began. And in what territory. If initially there will be aggression of the Russian Federation against any of the NATO countries, or allies, then if during the knockout of the Russian grouping of NATO it will naturally be used aviation, etc. And here is such an option, if the situation develops not in the best way for the RF Armed Forces and large losses are expected, then you think that you need to use nuclear weapons? Or all the same, declare the withdrawal of troops in order to prevent the loss of drugs, equipment and further escalation of the conflict with a very tragic end. If NATO / USA, in the manner of George W. Bush and his attack on Iraq, begins an operation to seize the Russian Federation, seize cities, and it is difficult to stop the enemy in a conventional way, then the use of tactical nuclear weapons is completely legitimate in order to bring the enemy into stop the offensive. And then, of course, if all diplomatic ways lead to nothing.

                        Quote: Operator
                        It will not work - in response, Russia will openly start a local nuclear war in Europe and use tactical nuclear weapons (carriers of "Caliber", "Iskander", "Zircon", X-102) at NATO military bases, airfields and ship groupings. Since nuclear weapons are more than an order of magnitude more effective than conventional weapons, the number of carriers used can be correspondingly less - within the capabilities of the Russian military-industrial complex.


                        That is, in the event of a military aggravation and destruction of a part of the military infrastructure of the Russian Federation, in your opinion, can TNW be used? You are waving a nuclear saber so bravely, which is obvious that the civilian population of the Russian Federation does not really bother you. If you said that in response to the destruction of the military infrastructure by the Tamaghawks, we would respond with Iskanders and Callibras, as well as for NATO's military infrastructure, then this is one thing and there is nothing to add to this. But endangering civilians and contaminating the neighborhood with radiation, just because a military unit was bombed, is another matter. Moreover, not only on the enemy's territory, but also on our own, first of all, since after the use of TNW, a nuclear response can be expected. You should think over all these nuances much more accurately. For example, the political component, the attitude of countries not involved in the conflict. Which, after the use of nuclear weapons, will be included in the conflict against the Russian Federation.

                        I would like the topic of "nuclear weapons" to be treated more meaningfully, perhaps, and thought about how to get rid of it in the future, all over the world.
                      4. Operator
                        Operator April 26 2016 10: 56
                        +1
                        Since 1992, Russia has never been the initiator of military conflicts with NATO countries. The latter during this time managed to crush several Russian allies - Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, provoked Georgia to attack our military contingent in South Ossetia, destabilized Ukraine, and waged a war in Syria against our friendly government.

                        In European Kosovo, the UN Charter (regarding the impossibility of separating the territory and creating a second state of one nation on it), the Yalta Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration and the Helsinki Act (regarding the invariability of borders in Europe) were violated.

                        As I understand it, de facto all this set of rules of international law has ceased to be valid. The notions of state sovereignty and zones of national interests entered into force automatically. Which requires reliance on military force, and not on paper.

                        We have strength - a larger number of tactical nuclear weapons and an equal amount of strategic nuclear forces with the enemy. Trained, armed, and motivated general forces are just a cherry on the cake.

                        What else can we expect — NATO’s convention with conventional weapons directly on Russian territory and occupation, for example, of the Kaliningrad region and / or the Republic of Crimea?

                        In this case, why do we need to assume the obviously losing rules of warfare only with conventional weapons, which we have few? And what will prevent NATO from using its tactical nuclear weapons at any moment to finish off the RF Armed Forces after the occupation of part of the territory?

                        The only guarantee of non-aggression is our nuclear potential superior to NATO. In case of aggression, we will use it (by half) and liquidate the NATO military machine in Europe.

                        In this, the US and China will support us by default, who are vitally interested in localizing a nuclear conflict outside their territory. Therefore, with a high degree of probability, the conflict will not go into the Armageddon stage - the exchange of ICBM strikes.

                        As for the retaliatory strike against Russia with tactical nuclear weapons located in Europe, including British and French, something tells me that these countries are more likely to capitulate after several local attacks on military targets on their territory than to use their nuclear potential, risking disappearing from the face of the earth.

                        Germany is generally a special case, in the event of a military conflict, mainly foreign military bases will disappear on its territory, so why should it strive to expand the scale of the conflict before the destruction of the whole country?

                        And in conclusion: what nonsense to assume that Russia will be the first to attack NATO countries - to hell with us such hemorrhoids as the occupation of dozens of states with half a billion people. It’s another matter that you don’t have to invade our zone of interests - Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Syria.

                        The zone of our interests will expand (Iran, Iraq, Libya), yours will narrow. But it’s not our fault.
                      5. Come on
                        Come on April 26 2016 17: 51
                        0
                        Quote: Operator
                        to crush several Russian allies — Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya — to the ground, provoked Georgia to attack our military contingent in South Ossetia, destabilized Ukraine, wage war in Syria against our friendly government.


                        Smash to the ground? None of these countries have been bombed to the ground, what do you compose? Yugoslavia collapsed a few years before NATO intervened in the civil war and attacks fell on the Serbian army, by that time there was no longer any Yugoslav one. The civil war began because one after another the republics began to separate, and the Serbian minority was against in these republics. Was that war to be stopped, or do you think they should have exterminated each other? For the most part, Serbs themselves condemn Milosevic’s policies and want to join the EU. Iraq and Libya, the locals themselves, during their religious quarrels, defeated, like Syria, where in general there has never been a single American or other NATO soldier. Assad leveled Syria to the ground, only he had weapons capable of this. Iraq, on the conscience of the mattresses, is not in the sense that they defeated it, but that they defeated the Iraqi army and drove Saddam out of power, dispersed the entire nomenclature, army, and security forces, thereby first subjecting the country to chaos, fraud, settling old accounts, and then religious war began. Moreover, if the Sunni minority rule used to be the rule, then after Saddam, the Shiites drove all the Sunnis and those who went where, who went to Al Qaeda, who went to the militias and took revenge. The Shiites did not react for 3 years, but then they started to nightmare the Sunnis and so the religious war began. The mattress workers got on all sides, and since they dispersed all the power structures, they had to fulfill their duties. When the Americans were less able to put things in order and withdrew from Iraq, Maliki's paranoid politician led the Sunnis to the point that when ISIS moved from Syria to Iraq in 2014, the army, or rather the Sunnis in it and many civilians, supported them.
                      6. Operator
                        Operator April 26 2016 18: 52
                        -1
                        And what did you care about the internal problems of Yugoslavia (Serbia + Montenegro), Iraq, Libya and Syria?
                        They are not members of NATO, they do not have any assistance agreements with NATO, all of them had and have legitimate governments (sometimes original ones, but in Saudi Arabia it is no better).

                        The fact that the Albanians would cut the Serbs in Kosovo is fantastic. If NATO respected international law, the Serbs would simply oust the Albanian minority into Albania.

                        In general, the situation is wild - at first, NATO unleashes aggression, causes damage, then claims a mistake (Iraq, Libya), and who will compensate the damage?

                        In any case, you have confirmed my thesis - now it is not contractual obligations enshrined in the charters, declarations and acts, but Wishlist.

                        Well, okay - Russia and the United States want and adhere to the SALT and INF Treaty agreements, which do not impede the deployment of medium-range missiles on sea carriers. Returning to our rams (aircraft carriers) - a local nuclear conflict at sea and in Europe (without expansion to the territory of Russia, North America and Asia) is more real than ever.

                        If you want to avoid it - restore the effect of international law. Incidentally, it implies an obligation to indemnify at least Serbia and Syria, which have no oil and gas fields.

                        PS The question of dissolving or not dissolving the NATO bloc remains at your discretion - unless the United States leaves the bloc earlier in accordance with the Monroe Doctrine, which Donald Trump likes to mention laughing
                      7. Come on
                        Come on April 26 2016 22: 57
                        0
                        ]

                        Quote: Operator
                        And what did you care about the internal problems of Yugoslavia (Serbia + Montenegro), Iraq, Libya and Syria?
                        They are not members of NATO, they do not have any assistance agreements with NATO, all of them had and have legitimate governments (sometimes original ones, but in Saudi Arabia it is no better).

                        The fact that the Albanians would cut the Serbs in Kosovo is fantastic. If NATO respected international law, the Serbs would simply oust the Albanian minority into Albania.



                        What does that matter to me? I answered your comment. Or did I have to ask the same question? What does my business have to do with it? Am I speaking here on behalf of whom? Here I am writing my opinion, on the basis of certain facts and trying to give arguments, which I also wish you, because no one authorized you here to speak on behalf of the Russian Federation, or the Russians. But the Europeans had a problem before the civil war in Yugoslavia 1992-1996, because they did not want war, genocide, refugees, etc. that could grow to hell in Europe among Europe. For 4 years they would have ignored it and would have ignored it further, but in Europe there is a very strong civil society and this, in turn, would negatively affect those parties that were in power in European countries at that time. Especially when pictures of the selection of Bosnian refugees and the executions of all men circled the whole world. But this was only one episode. And you somehow easily forget that it was not NATO / EU / USA that ruined Yugoslavia, but its collapse that entailed a civil war. Which before the intervention of Europe / USA lasted 4 years. You see the first time you hear a lot and are not familiar with the chronology of the conflict in Yugoslavia. Any Croat, Bosnian, Serb, Slovenian, Montenegrin, Macedonian and even Albanian will tell you how cool Yugoslavia was before the death of Tito, whom everyone loved and respected. But Milosevic was primarily responsible for the collapse, it all started with his nationalist course, which in turn accelerated the desire of the republics of the former Yugoslavia to leave its composition. Rather, it gave an occasion to the elites of other republics to start a company to separate the republics from the Seba protectorate.

                        Let me remind you what the non-intervention of the world community in Rwanda led to, then one part of the Hutsi country, in a couple of months, cut the people of another part of the country, Tutsi, for a million! In front of the eyes of the whole world, a meat grinder went on for several months. The people in the refugee camps begged for the peacekeepers, a small number of whom were there to observe the situation, so that they were shot! The running price for such a business was $ 5 and being shot was in great demand, since the alternative was to be chopped into pieces by Macheta, or burned, or some other monstrous way. It was a disgrace to the world community, because they did not interfere, it was with the proviso of "non-interference in internal affairs" and hundreds of thousands of people were tortured for stuffing in front of the eyes of the whole world. This is your own business, if you think that when something like this happens, then you have to shrug your shoulders and say - it doesn't concern me and I didn't care about genocide. But the majority in the world thinks differently, and therefore, after Rwanda, the UN adopted a resolution that the basic right of any person, the right to life, is not a sovereign matter and not a single government, not a single dictator, not a single majority, or a minority, if it is the right of the strong is satisfied with the massacres in his country, then it will be suppressed. True, in Syria, the West did not help the Syrians who stood up against Assad, who, in order to retain power, razed the whole country to the ground and limited themselves to all sorts of resolutions, although already from the beginning of 2012 there were already under 20 thousand civilian casualties.
                      8. Come on
                        Come on April 26 2016 23: 40
                        -1
                        Quote: Yeah, well.
                        In general, the situation is wild - at first, NATO unleashes aggression, causes damage, then claims a mistake (Iraq, Libya), and who will compensate the damage?


                        There has not been any NATO in Iraq and still is not. Most Western countries not only did not support Bush’s aggression against Iraq, but also condemned it, along with Russia. I wrote above (or below) what happened in Iraq, the complete irresponsibility of the Bush administration. Colin Paul then left with shame from politics, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfovets shrug, although their place is behind the cage. Although if, after a fairly quick, successful military operation, when the Iraqis had not yet been saturated with religious obscurantism, the Bush administration did everything wisely, there would not have been so much grief and terrible consequences. According to Saddam, the Iraqis do not shed tears, it was, they compare him with Hitler, but they are also blamed for the current state by the right of Americans.

                        In Libya, the situation is very contradictory. On the one hand, Gaddafi sent heavy weapons to Benghazi to suppress the uprising there and everyone understood how he would deal with the separatists. That's why he was asked, threatened, warned to stop the troops and try to solve everything in a different way. But Gaddafi for 40 years has become bronzed and has lost a sense of reality. He was used to brutally suppressing any protests and even criticism to his address, and there were a lot of problems. And since there were no fair elections, no social elevators, or other mechanisms to release steam, hatred in 40 years has become explosive. He didn’t even trust his army, he used the services of mercenaries. That’s why it blazed there, as in Iraq, since over the decades many claims to each other and feelings of revenge have accumulated.
                      9. Come on
                        Come on April 27 2016 00: 18
                        -2
                        Quote: Yeah, well.
                        If you want to avoid it - restore the effect of international law. Incidentally, it implies an obligation to indemnify at least Serbia and Syria, which have no oil and gas fields.

                        PS The question of dissolving or not dissolving the NATO bloc remains at your discretion - unless the United States leaves the bloc earlier in accordance with the Monroe Doctrine, which Donald Trump likes to mention



                        First, what is the damage to Serbia? Has Serbia been subjected to carpet bombing? Or should NATO restore the bombed-out armored vehicles, air defense radars and command centers? Do the Serbs themselves even set such demands? In my opinion, if I’m not mistaken, the majority wants to join the EU, and the Serbian parliament has decided not to join yet, but proposed NATO partnership, similar to Finland, which also implies participation in military operations and the transition to NATO standards.

                        Well, to repair the damage to Syria, this is generally nonsense, and for what reason? Cities and infrastructure are ruined by aviation, missiles, artillery and other heavy equipment, not Kalash and RPGs, I hope you will not argue with this? And what side is NATO there? Assad bombed Syria to maintain power. But the fault of the West is not small, because they watched and did nothing, although it was already in 2012 that it was clear that Assad was ready not to leave stone unturned in order to maintain his power. In addition, the bombing of civilians, the best advertising for Islamists, all sorts of Al Nusr, who, moreover, unlike the armed opposition (Free Syrian Army) was supported by wealthy Salafists from Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, as well as ISIS, for which the brutality of the regime and the loss of territory by Assad’s army turned out to be excellent soil for the growth of popularity, that they could become a mortal danger from one detachment of growth into an entire army, and even for Al-Qaeda Islamists.

                        P.S. At my discretion ?! :)) Wow, I didn’t even know that I had such powers !! :)) But I don’t quite understand why this NATO should dissolve? Moreover, the US should leave it ?! Only because of the US claims to Europe that they say little has been done to maintain the alliance’s fighting efficiency and prefer to reduce and reduce their armies over the past 25 years, NATO will certainly not fall apart. Especially after the well-known events in Ukraine, the aggressive rhetoric of the Kremlin, the swelling of huge funds in the Russian army and its concentration in the western direction, the Europeans have reversed the trend of reductions and are thinking about building up military force. And Trump .., even if he suddenly becomes president, then most of what he is carrying now, he will quickly forget and many in Russia are very mistaken that Trump is more beneficial for the Russian Federation than Clinton.
                  2. Come on
                    Come on April 26 2016 18: 04
                    -1
                    Quote: Yeah, well.
                    In European Kosovo, the UN Charter (regarding the impossibility of separating the territory and creating a second state of one nation on it), the Yalta Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration and the Helsinki Act (regarding the invariability of borders in Europe) were violated.

                    As I understand it, de facto all this set of rules of international law has ceased to be valid. The notions of state sovereignty and zones of national interests entered into force automatically. Which requires reliance on military force, and not on paper.



                    Kosovo is a scam of a friend of Putin and an employee of Gazprom, former German chancellor Schroeder. Imno he and mattress turned into a solution to this problem. On Kosovo, opinions in the west are very divided. If the first, civil war in the former Yugoslavia escalated into Genocide, in Bosnia, the Serbs nightmarized the Bosnois, in Horvatsia the Croats drove out the Serbs, etc. FRG Ministry of Defense Sharping, Chancellor Schroeder and Foreign Ministry Yoshka Fischer. As in the first grater, the Americans were reluctant to intervene in the Kosovo scam. Bill Klintow was not a supporter of any wars at all. But to argue on Kosovo that "de facto, this entire set of international law has ceased to operate." stupidity and does not contradict "The concepts of state sovereignty and zones of national interests have automatically come into force." And its violation entails consequences. That is why such a reaction to the annexation of Crimea, therefore not a single country in the world (even those whom you call "allies", those to whom Putin wrote off tens of billions of dollars of debts, even Syria) supported the Anschluss of Crimea.
                  3. Operator
                    Operator April 26 2016 19: 26
                    -1
                    Until 1999, Russia complied with international law, after that - its national interests. Now, if it is interesting for us - we comply with individual agreements, it is not interesting - we do not comply.

                    Therefore, we are deeply indifferent to the moral assessment of the reunification of Crimea and Russia (carried out, by the way, in strict accordance with the UN Charter on the right of nations to self-determination, but this is true, by the way). Time will pass and the moral assessment will change, but the fact of reunion will not.
                  4. Come on
                    Come on April 26 2016 21: 00
                    -2
                    If the reunification had been "strictly in accordance with the UN Charter," then the Russian Federation would not have been so isolated in this matter. Why everyone, absolutely all countries did not support the Russian Federation on this issue, you prefer to ignore. Even those who cannot be called a friend or ally of the United States. And if you stop observing international treaties, no one else will conclude them with the Russian Federation and I doubt that this is in the interests of the Russian Federation, both the state and the country of Russia and its people. You say this as if you are deciding something at all, or the Russians have empowered you, or you are part of a narrow circle of those who decide everything in Russia.
                  5. Operator
                    Operator April 26 2016 21: 30
                    0
                    And who authorized you to evaluate the actions of Russia?
                  6. Come on
                    Come on April 27 2016 00: 31
                    0
                    I express my opinion and think quite reasonably. Especially since I, as a Russian, all this also applies. I am with both hands that Crimea would be part of Russia. But this is done differently, and since the authorities did it, it is more like a desire to achieve high ratings. The Russians gave Crimea, well, joy, but they did not say what price they would have to pay. And all these consequences are also exacerbated by low oil prices and a declining economy.
          2. Come on
            Come on April 26 2016 18: 47
            +1
            Quote: Operator
            What else can we expect — NATO’s convention with conventional weapons directly on Russian territory and occupation, for example, of the Kaliningrad region and / or the Republic of Crimea?

            In this case, why do we need to assume the obviously losing rules of warfare only with conventional weapons, which we have few? And what will prevent NATO from using its tactical nuclear weapons at any moment to finish off the RF Armed Forces after the occupation of part of the territory?

            The only guarantee of non-aggression is our nuclear potential superior to NATO. In case of aggression, we will use it (by half) and liquidate the NATO military machine in Europe.


            I don’t see any logic when you say that NATO, having occupied the territory of the Russian Federation, will begin to use nuclear weapons? Why do they need to do this? For what purpose? And as I understand it, do you think that start a military conflict, then the Russian Federation should immediately use nuclear weapons? And thereby putting even more massive blow their territories, maybe the lives of citizens? Like the first strike of the Russian TNW of the life of civilians of the same Europe? You are trying everything on the part of the country's leadership to see a situation that has the opportunity to be saved in bunkers and can sacrifice the lives of its own citizens. And you, from the point of view of civilians, try to look at the reason for using nuclear weapons, whose lives are more expensive than any political and geostrategic ambitions of the state. That's why I try to understand in the discussion when it makes sense to use nuclear weapons, when exactly there is NO EXIT already! And do not think that the strategic nuclear forces are less dangerous than the strategic nuclear forces, it can bring even more irreversible consequences than the strategic nuclear forces, as they will be applied en masse and more scattered.
          3. Operator
            Operator April 26 2016 19: 42
            -1
            We must proceed from the unpredictability and nihilism of NATO, therefore it is necessary to protect ourselves from a nuclear attack after a conventional attack. The only means is a tactical nuclear strike by Russia after NATO’s conventional strike.

            The loss of civilian population in Europe will be minimal. TNW will be applied selectively - only in the places of deployment of NATO troops, primarily in the US contingent - to leave the way for European governments to stop the escalation of the conflict.

            In this situation, the civilian population of Russia will not suffer at all from nuclear weapons - only from conventional NATO.
          4. Come on
            Come on April 27 2016 03: 54
            +1
            Quote: Operator
            We must proceed from the unpredictability and nihilism of NATO, therefore it is necessary to protect ourselves from a nuclear attack after a conventional attack. Russia's only tactical nuclear strike after NATO’s conventional strike


            That is, your logic is as follows: What if they then hit TNWs, after using conventional weapons, this is why we should be the first to hit TNWs, and it’s not enough. And this is with the multiple superiority of NATO in high-precision weapons and their carriers then! That is, you are already ready to start a nuclear war on the assumption that NATO will take without any reason and use nuclear weapons. I would understand your logic if you said: If NATO starts ruthlessly ironing Russian cities and civilians begin to die, we will use nuclear weapons to stop the aggressor. But are you ready to endanger civilians like Europe / USA and Russia already because of military clashes?
          5. Come on
            Come on April 27 2016 03: 55
            0
            Quote: Operator
            The loss of civilian population in Europe will be minimal. TNW will be applied selectively - only in the places of deployment of NATO troops, primarily in the US contingent - to leave the way for European governments to stop the escalation of the conflict.

            In this situation, the civilian population of Russia will not suffer at all from nuclear weapons - only from conventional NATO.



            You are very mistaken. Military bases are often within the city limits. And not always because it is the malicious intent of NATO or the Russian army in order to hide behind the civilian population. It’s just that cities grow and often new microdistricts grow around military bases. Or are these old military bases since ancient times. Even near military airports, sleeping areas are often located. And tactical nuclear weapons can be 1.- with quite powerful BGs in several CTs. 2. - they can fly in bulk, at several objects at once within several km from each other, which will create an even larger radiation zone than the strategic BG, which can be an order of magnitude or orders of magnitude larger than the power of the explosion and the blast wave, but the radiation spot will remain less. 3. - the whole thing will still add up to a mass of factors like wind, precipitation, which direction the radiation spot will stretch due to the wind. So for example, an explosion, its thermal effect and a blast wave of a tactical battlefield at an airfield 10 km from some village may not be felt by the inhabitants, but the wind towards them and the rain of the inhabitants of this ancient village, or maybe even a couple of the following villages, will give a dose of radiation , from which many will die within hours, days, and the consequences will remain for decades. High birth rate of children with cancer with cancer .., but I don’t even want to list .. I served in such troops that maintain databases in the polluted WMD regions. You see, when our senior warrant officer, in his humorous manner, conducted almost daily WMD lessons, no one in the battalion even smiled. No conventional war should go nuclear. All this talk about nuclear weapons as protection of supposedly sovereignty from the United States, all this is a chatter of authoritarian governments that don't give a damn about the lives of their fellow citizens. I already wrote in this discussion that I consider nuclear weapons the most vile and vile that humanity could come up with. There are few natural disasters and catastrophes that could destroy humanity, and two ideological camps that were at war with each other took and did something hellish, and in such a quantity that it is possible to destroy all life on earth several times. Damn those scientists who created it. I am for a strong conventional army, which Russia and no less than NATO should have, which one fine day, the heads of the USA and the Russian Federation again sat down at the negotiating table on the final destruction of all arsenals and nuclear weapons manufacturing technologies in their countries and around the world. I do not know if you have children. But look at their cluster in some kind of kindergarten. And honestly ask yourself if there are any reasons, graters, geopolitics there, or territories to expose such innocent children, women, etc., that is, 99% of the rest, not the military population, forward several generations. If anything survives.
          6. Come on
            Come on April 27 2016 04: 21
            0
            Quote: Operator
            First of all, for the American contingent - to leave the way for European governments to stop the escalation of the conflict.

            In this situation, the civilian population of Russia will not suffer at all from nuclear weapons - only from conventional NATO.



            You are very mistaken if you think that if a nuclear skirmish begins, it will be purely between the USA and the Russian Federation. If in a conventional war the conflict, depending on what causes it, is purely theoretical, it may happen that Europeans begin to slow down with the help of the United States. That as soon as the first missile with a nuclear warhead takes off, even the smallest one will cause significant damage. That is guaranteed to be retaliatory strikes already prepared for such a case from all sides, and maybe even from those from which the General Staff of the Russian Federation never expected this. The only exception is if the carrier of the nuclear warhead is intercepted, or does not bring much damage and death, that is, it will be possible for specialists to contaminate the lesion area. And at the same time, the Russian Federation will immediately declare that this is a warning strike and others are not following it yet. Such a turn was possible in the days of the USSR and was even laid down in the tactics of the USSR, I know for sure how I don’t know about NATO, but NATO probably had the same option. It was an opportunity to hit a small JBCh, without subsequent exchange of blows. But, unfortunately, the modern RF has lost this opportunity, due to the level and capabilities of today's NATO air defense / missile defense and allies and the lack of carriers capable of this. NATO, by the way, has this opportunity, it’s their stealth aircraft. Whoever says anything and does not breed theories, but what’s in service today, even if the modernized S-300 air defense system, at an object that is dangerous for itself, or it is guarded by it, it will be very difficult to keep it closer than the tactical unit’s strike distance . It is impossible today to launch one missile, bomb, or something else through the modern NATO missile defense / air defense network, and this leaves only a massive TNW strike at each important object. This is where all the trouble and danger lie. The only carrier for the Russian Federation that could fulfill such a preemptive strike function of a weak NFC is Pak Fa, unless of course it can confirm its performance characteristics. And I didn’t even mention one thing anywhere, as much has already been forgotten. What if one country starts a nuclear war, for whatever reason, no matter what, the first one strikes nuclear weapons against someone, is also not important, then all other countries declare war on it. This agreement should keep the balance of a large threshold, so that the country that did this understands how it will end for it. Sincerely.
          7. Operator
            Operator April 27 2016 09: 56
            -1
            Make no mistake - in the event of a retaliatory strike by Russian tactical nuclear weapons against NATO military facilities in Europe, the United States will immediately withdraw its troops to the North American continent, which has remained untouched.

            Responsibility for collateral damage to the civilian population of Europe from an attack on NATO military facilities will rest entirely with those who give the order for a preventive strike on Russia with conventional weapons.
          8. Come on
            Come on April 27 2016 17: 21
            0
            Quote: Operator
            Make no mistake - in the event of a retaliatory strike by Russian tactical nuclear weapons against NATO military facilities in Europe, the United States will immediately withdraw its troops to the North American continent, which has remained untouched.


            On what basis is such a categorical statement?

            Quote: Operator
            Responsibility for collateral damage to the civilian population of Europe from an attack on NATO military facilities will rest entirely with those who give the order for a preventive strike on Russia with conventional weapons.



            You are very mistaken! The use of WMD will be condemned by the whole world! And while in a conventional war, many will most likely be neutral, both politically and militarily, then after the use of WMD, especially nuclear weapons, the whole world will be against the one who applied it first and military pressure will increase by a factor, moreover, in this case, both since the responsibility not only for the death of civilians in the territory of the attacked nuclear weapons will rest with the country from whose territory it will be launched, but also the death of civilians in the territory of the aggressor itself.

            "According to its military doctrine, Russia can use nuclear weapons only in response to the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction - chemical or biological - against it or its allies, or in the event of an attack on Russia with the help of conventional weapons, when the very existence is threatened states. The rest of the nuclear powers have a similar approach. "

            That is, no use of nuclear weapons in Europe, only because the situation is unsuccessful according to the doctrine of the Russian Federation is not spelled out anywhere. If only to violate their own military doctrine. The loss of some military facilities and personnel does not yet threaten the state. Now, if parts of NATO enter deep into the territory of the Russian Federation in order to capture the capital, then nuclear weapons can be applied following the doctrine. But even then you need to weigh everything and choose between even occupation, but the survival of the nation, in order to save the life of the next generations and space for life, cities, nature, etc. With the option of guerrilla warfare and crowding out the aggressor after some time. Or the complete destruction of the whole people, just everything.
  4. Come on
    Come on April 26 2016 19: 15
    +1
    Quote: Yeah, well.
    In this, the US and China will support us by default, who are vitally interested in localizing a nuclear conflict outside their territory. Therefore, with a high degree of probability, the conflict will not go into the Armageddon stage - the exchange of ICBM strikes.

    As for the retaliatory strike against Russia with tactical nuclear weapons located in Europe, including British and French, something tells me that these countries are more likely to capitulate after several local attacks on military targets on their territory than to use their nuclear potential, risking disappearing from the face of the earth.

    Germany is generally a special case, in the event of a military conflict, mainly foreign military bases will disappear on its territory, so why should it strive to expand the scale of the conflict before the destruction of the whole country?



    And where is such confidence at the expense of China ?? In fact, since the 70s, China began cooperation with the United States and since then it has only grown and strengthened, until today, when without the United States, China will simply collapse, since the orders of the United States, and the rest of the West, their markets constitute the entire economic strength of China . But there are no close ties with Russia, except for the supply of resources that China receives from other directions, which is why Russia is twisting its hands under new gas contracts. This is essential, and not hold hands on heads of state on camera.

    At the expense of the Britons, French and Germans and their determination to respond in the event of a nuclear aggression of the Russian Federation on the territory of the EU, I would not be so sure that they would scare. And I don’t see why so many people think.
  5. Operator
    Operator April 26 2016 19: 49
    -2
    In the event of a nuclear conflict, China will proceed from survival rather than from economic interests. By the way, now the Chinese are specifically rolling into Southeast, not Northwest Asia.

    In Germany, Britain and France there are enough people who correctly understand their national interests. Their circle clearly does not include the destruction of European nations in the global nuclear conflict.
    Well, no one has any doubt that Russia does not want to enslave European countries - rather the opposite bully
  6. Come on
    Come on April 26 2016 20: 08
    -2
    Quote: Yeah, well.
    And in conclusion: what nonsense to assume that Russia will be the first to attack NATO countries - to hell with us such hemorrhoids as the occupation of dozens of states with half a billion people. It’s another matter that you don’t have to invade our zone of interests - Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Syria.

    The zone of our interests will expand (Iran, Iraq, Libya), yours will narrow. But it’s not our fault.



    Who "you" shouldn't invade? :) Did I say somewhere where I live, or am I writing on behalf of someone else? I express my opinion and try to look at things from the outside, which is what I wish for you. And who is intruding? And how to understand it is not necessary to invade "our zone of interests." Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Moldova and other former republics of the USSR, independent countries, what is this "zone of interests" of the Russian Federation? We should have tried to preserve the USSR earlier. They can do at home and invite whoever they want to, as well as enter wherever they want. If the Russian Federation tries not only politically and economically, but also militarily to prevent them from doing this, then it will be calculated as an act of aggression all over the world. Although I would only be glad if they were closely related economically and in other ways. But for this, the Russian Federation must become attractive for them and offer more favorable conditions, or something else, than the same USA. And if you try to hold them back by force, then they will run even faster under the protection of the USA, or NATO.

    Now, unfortunately, the zones of interests of the Russian Federation are not only not expanding, but rather, on the contrary, are narrowing significantly. Starting from South America, as in the example of Cuba, which Putin forgave $ 35 billion of debts, and they ran to the USA to make friends with the countries of the Middle East, the Muslim countries, which are 90% Sunni, and the Russian Federation took the side of Assad in the civil war in Syria , Alevita, what turned the whole Sunni Muslim world against herself. And Syria itself is 80% minimum composed of Sunnis who do not want to see Assad in power. And Iran is moving towards rapprochement with the United States, bans on oil sales will soon be lifted from it, and they are not even going to discuss with Russia a reduction in oil production, as it will fight for the oil market. As well as the Arabs, who even then are in the black if oil falls by $ 10. Belarus, Kazakhstan are more like allies in words, but if they smell fried, they won’t move a finger, rather the opposite. So to the great regret, the Russian Federation does not currently have any allies or friends.

    And now "nonsense" is not nonsense, but we are discussing at what point the Russian Federation can use nuclear weapons. And I did not speak about the occupation of any of the EU countries, let alone dozens. One is enough, for example one of the Baltic countries. Or already the official entry of troops into the same Ukraine. The reasons are a separate topic. We will leave this out of brackets, since this is all conditional.
  7. Operator
    Operator April 26 2016 21: 38
    -1
    Change the flag on the author, then you won't be "they".

    Russia has permanent zones of interests along the borders and allies - the Strategic Missile Forces, the Army, the Navy, and the VKS.

    Independence was done in 1999 with your own hands. Therefore, re-rush with post-Soviet countries. Baltic States in NATO - feed it yourself, North and South America - zone of interests SSA.

    But with the Middle East as a potential area of ​​interest, we still have to work, Syria is only the start, and successful, no matter what your assessment.
  8. Armored optimist
    Armored optimist April 25 2016 06: 45
    0
    "... could be a reason to retaliate ..."
    The exchange of blows by this time will already take place in full. And not TNW. The tactical one is scary for you in Germany, and the aircraft carrier is African. This means that if we had a need to sink it, then the war by this moment is already underway, using all types of WMDs as well. And the exchange of ICBM attacks has already taken place or is in the process. I do not believe in nuclear thresholds. If you are attacked by a bandit, you must hit him with all his might, and then think about the restrictions.
  9. Come on
    Come on April 25 2016 21: 50
    0
    How does this exchange of blows come about? For what reason, just like that? To exchange blows, you first need the first blow, and it is important who and why will deliver it! You don't read all my comments and ignore the facts given by me? And also you jump for some reason immediately to the stage of "exchange of blows to all in a row", although before that a lot of different things happen. It's not just that I compared the arsenals and the presence of Russian and NATO / US inhabitants. The exchange of strikes will be in the first place (although not in the first place) tactical missiles and aviation, and it is not clear for what reason NATO / USA, having a multiple advantage and the ability to hit many targets at the same time, with precision weapons, will suddenly start using TNW? It is necessary to clearly understand, or ask a question, when the Russian Federation will be ready to use TNW. For what purposes? After all, it is so simple to discuss the possibility of incapacitating or sinking an aircraft carrier end with a TNW strike. It may not even reach the use of strategic weapons when there has been an exchange of tactical nuclear warheads, in the Kremlin, I suppose, not so much frostbitten sit and know how to weigh what the consequences will be after the very first launch of some Yars. Therefore, there will never be any random blows to everyone in a row, "in full", except in some horror films.

    P.S. What does Germany and I have to do with it? Are we discussing me and Germany? Or do you think the constant mention of me and Germany makes your comments more convincing?
  10. Armored optimist
    Armored optimist April 26 2016 09: 03
    -1
    How do you imagine the use of nuclear weapons against states? If they will use it in your territory from ours, then we will need to use ICBMs across the United States, and we’ll give you a shot.
    Mentioning Germany makes our comments more intelligible. You too openly defend the nature and the amers.
  11. Come on
    Come on April 27 2016 04: 33
    +1
    Quote: armored optimist
    You too openly defend nature and amers.


    Can you examples where I "protect NATU and amers"? I express my opinion, which has been built over the years, with a deep study of issues, and of course I am aware of what the mainstream opinion is, which I cannot blame, since not everyone can and wants to spend so much free time studying all sorts of nuances. And often many add up their opinions after watching one program or article. I am opposed to taking the arguments of someone else's, even if it is their own, but fundamentally false, or even half-truth. In general, I never take, or very rarely, the position of governments, authorities, which are often false cynics, on both sides, I am for people, for countries that, unfortunately, the authorities often instrumentalize and set against each other. Which is what I wish for you.
  • Shark Lover
    Shark Lover April 24 2016 08: 47
    +1
    There was an article about American Cook, a destroyer. Directly said, the Russian Navy is tracking ships of this class, since they are capable of launching missiles with nuclear warheads. They track their location in order to obtain information about building into a warrant for launch. These are destroyers. I think AUG is not easy to track and establish, but also not difficult, if necessary.
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 April 23 2016 18: 08
    +1
    But only in the conditions of the exchange of nuclear strikes, all these search engines can cover themselves.
    1. Armored optimist
      Armored optimist April 23 2016 18: 46
      -1
      Not for long.
  • Operator
    Operator April 27 2016 10: 05
    -1
    Over-the-horizon radar "Container" (sees AUG for 9000 km) and electronic reconnaissance satellites - our everything.

    Trying to compare only the Navy of NATO and Russia, bracketing other types of forces and means - a substitution of concepts.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo April 27 2016 10: 08
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      Over-the-horizon radar "Container" (sees AUG for 9000 km) and electronic reconnaissance satellites - our everything.

      Andrey, you are too optimistic ... No.
      1. Operator
        Operator April 27 2016 11: 44
        -1
        The "Container" has a predecessor - "Arc" with the specified characteristics. Well, RTR nanosatellites are on the way.

        So far, my predictions tend to come true - limiting the production of the T-14, stopping the production of the F-35, classifying the Sarmat as a heavy missile (not on this portal).

        Next in line are sea-based medium-range ballistic missiles in the dimensions of "Caliber" (as a kind of quintessence of information stuffing about hypersonic missiles).

        In general, wait and see laughing
        1. Come on
          Come on April 27 2016 17: 25
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          So far, my predictions tend to come true - limiting the production of the T-14, stopping the production of the F-35, classifying the Sarmat as a heavy missile (not on this portal).


          None of this came true. T-14 until the cat is in the bag, until they demonstrate its capabilities at the training ground and until they are accepted into service. Nobody stopped producing F-35, but the production lines are cheerfully expanding. Sarmatia is still not like. He has not yet been tested, much less taken into service.
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 April 23 2016 18: 06
    +1
    Very soon, the P 700, P 500, P 1000, X 22 and Mosquito will be removed from service.
  • demiurg
    demiurg April 23 2016 06: 59
    +10
    Some inaccuracies in the article. 3 ton propeller? Zero is definitely not enough. An anchor with a chain on Kuz weighs 1000+ tons like. And it is impossible to do less of it under the rules of shipping. By the way, ekranoplanes were considered ships, and therefore were forced to carry two main and a spare anchor.
    Every time you write about the power of an aircraft carrier, do not forget that on an aircraft carrier of ammunition and kerosene for a couple of weeks of intense fighting. Moreover, the ammunition is spaced by type. There are air bombs and air-to-air missiles. Roughly speaking, it may turn out that there will be something to fight with fighters, but there is nothing to bomb the coast. And ammunition can not be replenished in the sea.
    The lion's share of tasks in the same desert storm were performed by ground-based aircraft. Despite a bunch of smart carriers.
    But you can’t argue with one, we are sorely lacking ships of the far ocean zone. Buzzards almost all the time stand at the walls. Deleted 7 pieces, half of which are either waiting for repair or are being repaired. If you create a full-fledged KUG for Kuznetsov, there will simply be no combat-ready ships in the North. First, we need to stamp some sufficient number (here the military knows better) of ships of rank 1, and only then think about building an aircraft carrier.
    In general, the military, as always, is preparing for the last war. For some reason, with the start of any major war, most surface ships suddenly turned out to be morally obsolete.
    1. Come on
      Come on April 24 2016 05: 45
      0
      Quote: demiurg
      Every time you write about the power of an aircraft carrier, do not forget that on an aircraft carrier of ammunition and kerosene for a couple of weeks of intense fighting. Moreover, the ammunition is spaced by type. There are air bombs and air-to-air missiles. Roughly speaking, it may turn out that there will be something to fight with fighters, but there is nothing to bomb the coast. And ammunition can not be replenished in the sea.

      Quote: demiurg
      Every time you write about the power of an aircraft carrier, do not forget that on an aircraft carrier of ammunition and kerosene for a couple of weeks of intense fighting. Moreover, the ammunition is spaced by type. There are air bombs and air-to-air missiles. Roughly speaking, it may turn out that there will be something to fight with fighters, but there is nothing to bomb the coast. And ammunition can not be replenished in the sea.



      In the AUG group, there always follows a huge ship providing everything that may be needed, from fuel to ammunition. For example: USNS Regulus - Fast Sealift Ship. So in fact, One AUG can carry out intense hostilities for a very long time.
    2. shkiper83
      shkiper83 April 24 2016 06: 39
      +2
      What a thousand tons ??? How is it with physics? I have a tanker with a displacement of two times more than that of a kuzi, the anchor weighs 11 tons, plus a chain another tone 100 maximum
  • X Y Z
    X Y Z April 23 2016 07: 15
    +1
    According to the official conclusion, the fire began after a spontaneous launch of an unguided rocket under the influence of an accidental surge in the circuits of one of the aircraft standing on the deck. Result: the 17th fire, covering six decks of the ship, the detonation of nine bombs on the flight deck, killing 134 people (161 wounded). The ship and its aircraft completely lost their combat effectiveness, 21 burned-out aircraft were thrown overboard (not counting aircraft damaged by fire).


    And according to another version, the notorious grandfather McCain is to blame, who, having killed such a lot of people and technology, nevertheless managed to get out of this story with the help of admiral relatives. Grandfather is a hero. Here - http://nnils.livejournal.com/567358.html everything is described in more detail and eloquently.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich April 23 2016 07: 22
    +13
    How many people - so many opinions. and my personal opinion is that the aircraft carrier vessel is specific and designed to perform specific tasks. It’s just a floating airfield for airplanes, which, due to its specifics, has its own size and cost, allowing certain types of airplanes to work. And the presence of such ships is determined by the tasks that the Navy solves in accordance with the military doctrine of the state. Those. Americans have their own views on the world order and capabilities of the fleet, we have our own, the Japs have our own, the Chinese are generally imitators and they have their own doctrines.
    And therefore, there is nothing for us members to measure against "partners" in terms of quantity, but we just need to specifically identify the tasks to be solved by aircraft carriers, decide how many of them are needed and for which aviation, what are the country's economic capabilities, and gradually, step by step, move along our path. work out ways to neutralize such airfields from potential enemies, and this can be achieved by asymmetric measures, much more economical and cheaper
    Personally, my opinion hi
    1. sa-ag
      sa-ag April 23 2016 10: 29
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      and you just need to specifically identify the tasks being solved by aircraft carriers

      Covering ship grouping from the air, AWACS, PLO
  • Armored optimist
    Armored optimist April 23 2016 08: 02
    +8
    Throwing up the idea of ​​building an aircraft carrier in Russia is a big diversion. Concentrate on it finances, design and production capacities and thereby undermine much for the other forces of the fleet.
    And we do not need aircraft carriers. Within our area of ​​interest, everything can be reached by aviation from our shores. We don’t need to chase anyone across Africa and South America, in a serious confrontation the aircraft carrier will be quickly destroyed. There are already ballistic missiles against them - DF21. I think we are not dumber than the Chinese and are already making, probably, something like that.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 23 2016 09: 11
      +2
      Our fleet needs large landing and transport ships.
    2. ametist415
      ametist415 April 23 2016 11: 56
      0
      And we do not need aircraft carriers.

      We need atomic, 100 thousand tons of displacement and with catapults. It’s just that we are not able to build them, and we don’t even have such dry docks.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 April 23 2016 18: 01
        +2
        And we do not have hundreds of billions of rubles for aircraft carriers.
  • rica1952
    rica1952 April 23 2016 08: 38
    -4
    Avinos have no future, given the development of Russian anti-ship missiles, so there is no subject for discussion.
    1. Armored optimist
      Armored optimist April 23 2016 08: 50
      0
      30 minutes of life for an aircraft carrier if the US-PRC or US-Russia database starts. Only couples for catapults will breed.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 April 23 2016 09: 23
        +4
        We don’t have ICBMs capable of hitting moving targets - it’s necessary to create a separate space-based guidance system - so that at the expense of 30 minutes of life, the aircraft carrier’s connection is bent, in case of such a war, our fleet will have to fight alone in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and our chances are there will be no fleet - the alignment is not in our favor 1 in 7-10.
        1. Armored optimist
          Armored optimist April 23 2016 09: 45
          +2
          Vadim, I cannot agree with you. Now it’s not, but if we have progressed so well in hypersound, then there is no problem in the short term to create an MS for ICBMs in the form of a hypersonic missile, which the ICBM delivers to the area, slows down to 3M, and then an active GOS captures the target and accelerates to 5-7M by inertial guidance (with nuclear warhead), so as not to solve problems with plasma. For a minute at a speed of 30 knots, the aircraft carrier will leave for 900m, which is easy to take into account at the time of capture and introduce a lead in inertial.
          Well, if we need to fight AUG, then the matter is apparently so bad that there is no need to talk about the defeat of their non-nuclear warhead
        2. Lekov L
          Lekov L April 23 2016 14: 19
          +3
          We do not have ICBMs capable of hitting moving targets - it is necessary to create a separate space-based guidance system - so at the expense of 30 minutes of life you have bent the aircraft carrier connection
          Vadim237

          There are already ballistic missiles against them - DF21. I think we are not more stupid than the Chinese, and we are already making, perhaps, something like that.
          Armored optimist

          So we talked ..
          With respect to mutual opponents, I can report the following.
          In the early years of the beginning of perestroika, he worked in the defense industry and talked a lot as a specialist in ultimate ballistics with RCC developers.
          So even then, a guaranteed withdrawal (not sinking) of the aircraft carrier was provided by 12-25 cruise missiles with conventional warheads from a total volley of at least 50 units, but it was always stipulated that the AHU would strike a strike using a special warhead.
          I do not think - I know that the Armored Optimist is right. wink
          With deep reverence for colleagues.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 April 23 2016 17: 55
            +1
            With a high likelihood of a nuclear conflict, the United States will withdraw all ships into the oceans - they will spread across the globe - "So even then the guaranteed withdrawal (not sinking) of an aircraft carrier was ensured by the hit of 12-25 cruise missiles with conventional warheads from a total salvo of at least 50 units" - At that time, there were no such air defense and missile defense systems as now on the escort ships of an aircraft carrier, add an air wing here that will always be in the air - none of the cruise missiles will be able to reach. - the US Navy also has cruise missiles and there are 20 times more of them than ours - the US Navy has this second deterrent after nuclear weapons and should not be underestimated.
            1. Uncle Murzik
              Uncle Murzik April 24 2016 09: 22
              0
              where do you get the numbers on the number of cruise missiles in Russia! in a nuclear conflict, the use of aircraft carriers is zero!
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 April 24 2016 16: 11
                0
                Carrier formations can be used after a nuclear conflict, because I won’t get hit, because they will be dispersed all over the world’s oceans, and then they will come together after exchanging nuclear strikes to deliver a second crushing blow to a half-dead enemy, about the number of cruise missiles in the fleet us and the United States — for comparison, the US Navy has 75 destroyers, each of which can carry 50 cruise missiles, and now you can compare it with the number of our ships armed with cruise missiles.
          2. igor.borov775
            igor.borov775 April 24 2016 17: 29
            0
            Lord calm down. not so long ago. There was a debate about why nuclear workers were involved in the creation of high-power ammunition. I assure you there will be ammunition of normal performance, but what will happen to the side of the ship is a question. Of course, it will not be tomorrow, but our scientists are busy with this problem and I’m sure they will solve it.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 April 24 2016 19: 15
              0
              "We have attracted nuclear scientists to create a high-yield ammunition." - Ammunition for what?
              1. igor.borov775
                igor.borov775 April 25 2016 08: 02
                0
                Tank ammunition. Artillery. You should mention the entire Charter. The work is carried out precisely on the usual ammunition. This is the main thing.
  • Uncle Murzik
    Uncle Murzik April 23 2016 09: 26
    -3
    To deliver such a blow, it is necessary to approach the AUG at the launch range of its missiles. And this is where the problems begin. AUG reconnaissance means allow you to detect the enemy several hundred kilometers before the point of application! But what about the "caliber" missiles that were launched from a distance of 1500-2000 km to the target! A single missile hit can disable an aircraft carrier, and for a long time
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 23 2016 11: 26
      0
      Well, if you park an aircraft carrier at the pier, you can also hit 2000km in caliber.
    2. Come on
      Come on April 24 2016 05: 51
      +1
      Callibers were hit on stationary targets, with coordinates known in advance. That is one difficulty. Another, to overcome the AUG air defense, that is, about a rocket or salvo will be known for hundreds of kilometers.
      1. igor.borov775
        igor.borov775 April 24 2016 17: 33
        +1
        And you listened attentively to the report of the Ministry of Defense there and it was said that they were moving slowly. Moreover, the revealed shortcomings were already being resolved. So that not all at once not all at once.
        1. Come on
          Come on April 26 2016 06: 08
          +1
          Quote: igor.borov775
          it said slow moving


          So this is if the goal was highlighted and then if it has already been implemented on Callibre. The stationary target does not need to be highlighted, but the UAV is enough for the scout, or to establish coordinates from the plane.
  • Taoist
    Taoist April 23 2016 09: 46
    +2
    "At one time in the USSR, a calculation was made that for the guaranteed destruction of the AUG, it is necessary to use 70-100 anti-ship missiles in one strike." (from)

    I was wondering all the time - where did such a figure go for a walk? Well, nowhere, in any textbook did I even come across such a thing ... Everywhere the outfit of forces was almost three times smaller. That in general is logical ... Never in the USSR have there been and never created carriers capable of providing such a salvo density and simultaneous guidance ...

    The standard outfit of forces for guaranteed defeat of the AUG is two regiments of the MPA i.e. 40 - 45 missiles in total in two volleys. "Antey" is 24 missiles in total in 2 x volleys ... Project 1144 is 20 missiles ...
    1. barbiturate
      barbiturate April 23 2016 10: 54
      +3
      Exactly no one will vouch for the figures, of course, but the article was interesting on topwatches, an excerpt from the book “Battle for the World Ocean in the Cold and Future Wars” by Fleet Admiral (retired) Captain Ivan Matveevich, in which he testifies:

      "The air defense of the AUG includes the zone of action of fighter aircraft up to 300 km and the zone of responsibility of the ZURO up to 90 km (it is aimed against aircraft and launched missiles). The formation of air defense depends on the expected threat, and this is naval missile-carrying and long-range aviation, which has a launch range of aviation cruise missiles from 150 to 450 km.Therefore, the combat order of the aircraft carrier-strike group also relies on the coastal air defense zone, where the fighter aircraft of the operational-tactical aviation commands (5 and 6 attacks) played the main role, especially when flying in the strike areas of long-range and naval missile-carrying aircraft . Directly in the air defense zone of the AUG can be permanently located up to 8-16 fighters. The required number of forces for the destruction of an aircraft carrier, according to our calculations - at least two regiments of naval missile aviation and 60-70 missiles fired. "

      We are talking about the AUG of the 60-70s, then we have a lot of things, but amers, too, on the basis of the blow-answer principle, think the same (plus or minus) numbers are relevant now.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist April 23 2016 14: 17
        +1
        Well, right, the outfit is two regiments ... The MPA regiment is an 3 squadron of 10 vehicles on an 1 rocket X22 on a machine. Those. ideally, up to 60 missiles in a salvo ... (Actually 40-50 - because 100% of combat readiness is unrealistic and the regiment raises 20-25 vehicles usually) But not 100 ...
        1. Lekov L
          Lekov L April 23 2016 14: 38
          +1
          Thanks for confirming my details just above.
          Not really, I lost the memory - already happy! winked
          Respectfully..
          1. Taoist
            Taoist April 23 2016 15: 00
            +3
            Well, along with the strengths, you remember correctly, the truth was not about 12-25 missiles that were hit, but about 2-5 ... even Yamato couldn’t withstand 12 of almost a ton of warheads ... ;-)

            All the same, I was just serving in naval aviation and I haven’t complained about it yet ... According to the textbook, the outfit of forces in the 2 regiment (as I wrote about the 50 heavy anti-ship missiles) provided a strike distance of 300-400 km. and launch of the BC two waves. At the same time, in the first wave, the strike was necessarily carried out by special ammunition with air blasting - which ensured the suppression of electronic warfare and weakening the air defense of the AUG, in the second wave of the rocket in conventional equipment they guaranteed a breakthrough to the warrant and the defeat of the aircraft carrier from 2 to 5 hits.
            The probability of completing the task was estimated at 96% with a possible loss of up to 50% of percussion machines.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 23 2016 23: 40
              +2
              Quote: Taoist
              at the same time, in the first wave, a blow was inflicted by special ammunition with air blasting

              Which, in fact, explains the 100 anti-ship missiles at the AUG. Or two waves on 25 at least in the first wave of special ammunition, or a stolnik without special warheads
            2. igor.borov775
              igor.borov775 April 24 2016 18: 04
              0
              Quote: Taoist
              Well, along with the strengths, you remember correctly, the truth was not about 12-25 missiles that were hit, but about 2-5 ... even Yamato couldn’t withstand 12 of almost a ton of warheads ... ;-)
              You see what a thing the Yankees dropped on a suburban bomb to the suburbs of Baghdad to create a powerful radio pulse. Of course the action was limited but the effect was. For a short time, all the radio equipment that was turned on failed. So it was not necessary to use nuclear weapons. The truth was that there was one subtlety. The Yankees knew all the working frequencies. Our thanks were given to Gorbachev. That was an experimental munition with certain properties. Well, ordinary people that they shot on phones, the raid was left without phones. The filling is covered. The second ammunition was also experimental, they dropped it later. During the explosion, many tapes were thrown out which disabled overhead electric lines. Technology does not stand still find a solution how to blind the enemy.
              1. Taoist
                Taoist April 24 2016 20: 15
                0
                They already exist, the generation of electromagnetic radiation without a nuclear explosion is a completely existing technology. But I wrote about textbooks - and these are 70 years ...
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 April 23 2016 18: 00
          +2
          You can forget about these squadrons of bombers - warheads will cover all airfields within 15 minutes - if there is a war it will be nuclear.
      2. igor.borov775
        igor.borov775 April 24 2016 17: 41
        0
        Yeah, Americans have repeatedly pierced precisely the vaunted air defense. Forgot. One took away the duty link and not only drew all his attention, and the second SU-24 calmly went near the side and photographed the confusion of the Yankees on deck.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 April 24 2016 19: 25
          0
          These destroyers did not have a combat regime, so our planes flew up, but if there was a combat situation they would be shot down.
          1. igor.borov775
            igor.borov775 April 25 2016 08: 46
            0
            Valim there with might and main sought the enemy in the air that is the problem. Then, in the USA, disassemblies began as they were allowed. Well this is not our problem
        2. igor.borov775
          igor.borov775 April 25 2016 08: 44
          0
          And here you are mistaken with the aircraft carrier there were in full swing exercises and air defense too. Question in another how it turned out in the Campaign warrant and blinked. We noticed and spotted it unacceptably close to the aircraft carrier.Moreover, they scrambled for the first one and then the greeting to the commander flew over from above.
    2. srelock
      srelock April 23 2016 15: 06
      +5
      TaoistI agree with you.
      The number of missiles on board the carriers was obviously not taken from the ceiling. Rather, on the contrary, they were built precisely for this number of missiles.

      The United States produces and uses a large number of target missiles (subsonic, supersonic aeroballistic, etc.) in exercises, but does not use the GQM-163, and a total of 54 of them were built. and that is all. This number is enough for research, but not enough to prepare the Navy of NATO and Co. Now they are sawing a new GQM-173.
      References:
      http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012targets/TBarnes.pdf
      http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/CLSS/AT-PROC-NAVY-FY12.pdf
      Thus, it can be assumed that realistically, the interception of even a single high dive supersonic anti-ship missile system by means of missile defense / air defense missile defense is an unlikely event, and given the real combat radius of carrier-based aircraft, the advantages of an aircraft carrier in naval combat as compared, for example, with pr.1144 - are melting before our eyes.

      PS. Once upon a time, the young Soviet republic inherited from the former empire a couple of battleships and plans for their further construction, but the Second World War and the once mighty ships died down, they were sent to the scrap, and the projects were handed over to the archive and so everywhere. Now, inherited from the USSR, we got the "Kuzya" and a bunch of plans for the construction of floating airfields ... History tends to repeat itself, isn't it?

      Just a beautiful clip
    3. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 April 24 2016 17: 36
      0
      Well, you will refute the Americans. It is impossible. let it be so once they want.
  • sub307
    sub307 April 23 2016 10: 05
    +1
    The author forgot to recall the first Russian air transport - "Orlitsa", http: //ahtubinskpilot.ru/? P = 8096.
  • venik
    venik April 23 2016 10: 13
    +3
    The article, by and large, is quite interesting and the conclusions about the feasibility of building aircraft carriers in the Russian Federation are correct from my point of view! You should not rush into this matter, but lead the development “for the future”, and possibly close - it should!
    Recently there was information about the possible participation of the Russian Federation in the development of the Indian “project”, etc. If so, it will be fine. The groundwork for the developments must be created (and preferably "at someone else's expense" !!!). Yes, and the "epic" with the "Mistrals" has benefited - some interesting technologies have gained ...
    The question of the number of those is also understandable. For the Russian Federation, 1-3 units are enough to ensure their own interests in remote areas of the world. The "staff" has a different interest - world domination, and therefore, they need to be "always and everywhere", and on an ongoing basis, hence the enormous number of "floating airfields"
    ===
    Now about the “invulnerability” of the AUG itself. Here with the author, strongly disagree. AUG - very VULNERABLE. As they say, the rumors that the ACG simply will not let the enemy’s striking force at a distance of a missile / torpedo salvo are “greatly exaggerated”! It is enough to recall how, in the recent past, the Russian nuclear submarines watched for several days the exercises (anti-submarine, by the way) by NATO AUG, being LITERALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ORDER !!! And its ascent caused a complete shock ...
    As for the calculations mentioned by the author about the expenditure of the Kyrgyz Republic for the destruction of ACG (70-100 anti-ship missiles), they were indeed carried out. But the calculation was carried out for the FULL (I emphasize) destruction of the WHOLE carrier group according to the worst (or as they say “pessimistic”) scenario: the successive destruction of the guard ships, and then the aircraft carrier itself, taking into account the fact that the attack and attacking means will be timely detected and the air defense effectiveness / PRO AUG will be MAXIMUM! And this in practice is realized, as we see, by no means always!
  • Verdun
    Verdun April 23 2016 10: 21
    -1
    Have our aircraft carriers been far behind the American ones? In the 1970s - definitely not
    According to foreign experts who published their research in the mid-80s, the cost of aircraft-carrying cruisers of the "Kiev" type is many times higher than the cost of the US Navy strike aircraft carriers. This was tied to the fact that a conventional aircraft carrier is just a floating self-propelled hangar to accommodate aviation, ammunition and fuel, which requires a large ship group to cover. Soviet aircraft-carrying cruisers had their own missile armament, moreover, powerful and effective air defense, allowing them to operate without cover formations. In giving these ships a high rating, the Americans recognized that in the conditions of their economy, the construction of such ships would be extremely expensive.
    1. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 April 25 2016 09: 24
      0
      Lord !! Is there really a man who told the truth about this type of KIEV-class cruisers? We have always been very worried about the question, and suddenly one with the enemy. A lone cruiser with a tanker and an honorary neutral zone around. 6- The US Navy instantly freed up space in front of it. Too serious an adversary, even if alone. There was even something to hide. The 5th and 7th operational forces of the Fleet's diverse forces are far from their native coasts with honor and dignity, they served. Hard YES hard YES. But everyone knew the simple motto of the Airborne Forces If not us then someone. After 1968, under water on water in the air, the Navy practically deprived the huge US Navy of the privilege of being the only one on all the oceans. We gained experience by studying the habits of our dear adversary and deprived of the main operational maneuver. This is our older generation that saved the world from horror and saved us. And the United States had a lot of plans. And pricks and itches and does not give. A low bow to all veterans, regardless of the types and types of troops. They were our fathers grandfathers did the main thing bite us teeth fly out. Health and longevity. Thank you.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst April 23 2016 10: 53
    +3
    Argued, logical, article and author - plus! The only thing I disagree with is a displacement of 50 kt. Compared to Kuzey of 65 kt and 300 meters, this will be degradation, and again the dimensions of the newly built ship will become an excuse for the impossibility of performing certain tasks, again narrowing the combat capabilities to the level of "Kiev", again without a full-fledged AWACS and with vertical arms, a step forward ( NPU), and two ago (MiG-29 and SU-25). I apologize for the emotions, it flooded!
  • Cartalon
    Cartalon April 23 2016 11: 31
    +2
    The article is wonderful, if we consider Russia as an ideal Russian empire, then aircraft carriers are needed, based on the current reality, then anyone who proposes to build them should be sent to the fool, because there are no problems for them.
  • Nirvanko
    Nirvanko April 23 2016 12: 09
    +2
    Carriers are not needed, especially Russia. Especially against aircraft carriers there are cruise missiles with a range of several thousand kilometers and a nuclear warhead. One hit is enough. IMHO, aircraft carriers are outdated as well as battleships in due time. Chasing the Americans in the construction of aircraft carriers is stupid and wasteful.
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter April 23 2016 12: 28
    +4
    Kamikaze became a terrible weapon against aircraft carriers already in WWII in the Pacific Ocean. The lack of radars in the Japanese fleet and, in general, the general drop in the qualifications of the pilots did not allow serious damage to the aircraft carriers. Modern cruise missiles are modern kamikaze, much more cold-blooded and deadly. The author is wrong that putting forward (quite rightly) the security lines of the AUG at a distance of 600 km or more, he assumes a HIGH DENSITY defense at such distances. A very dense defense is possible at much shorter distances, and therefore the AUG is not as protected as they would like. Well, actually. When you have to "jam" AUG - this is the situation of the Third World War, and the presence or absence of aircraft carriers will not affect anything much.
  • Verdun
    Verdun April 23 2016 12: 42
    +2
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    Kamikazes became the terrible weapon against aircraft carriers already in WWII in the Pacific Ocean.

    Kamikaze pilots during the Second World War destroyed only four US escort aircraft carriers out of 120 in the fleets. Do not exaggerate.
  • igor 1976
    igor 1976 April 23 2016 12: 51
    0
    I am joining! The article is wonderful! My opinion aircraft carriers are needed! We need to look at the country's security issues more widely. Of course cruise missiles are cool, but they won’t be able to rescue the hostages, evacuate the civilian population! All this can be people in military uniform and it doesn’t matter what they are called special forces, airborne forces, marines! And they will not hurt to put it mildly, air cover! You ask why and whom should we save? Well, for starters, our country conducts world trade and thousands of our citizens work outside our homeland! And unfortunately sometimes countries where the so-called progressive world does not go! The story of the capture of the Tuapse tanker in 1954 should not be repeated! And if the Soviet Union had a powerful aircraft carrier fleet, I strongly doubt that the Taiwanese leadership decided on such a provocation !!! And what kind of aircraft carriers and how much I think there are enough smart people in Russia to solve this problem!
    1. Uncle Murzik
      Uncle Murzik April 23 2016 13: 26
      +1
      disagree article from 80-90 of the last century, does not correspond to current realities! Russia does not need to get involved in the arms race, which we were dragged into during the USSR! in the construction of ships, concentrate our forces on the construction of ships of 2,3,4 rank, and the submarine fleet!
  • Gardamir
    Gardamir April 23 2016 13: 26
    +1
    In times of rockets and space, aircraft carriers are a waste of money
    1. Verdun
      Verdun April 23 2016 13: 51
      +1
      For those who are already ready to fight in space - it is quite possible.
  • Yarhann
    Yarhann April 23 2016 14: 52
    0
    By the way, one of the options for guaranteed destruction of an aircraft carrier can be a BR with a hypersonic controlled unit (with weapons of mass destruction or just explosives). The only problem is the reconnaissance of the location of the AUG and the launch of BR into this area.
    First of all, the problem is how to find the AUG - if it is from a satellite, it can be shot down by ships carrying stratospheric interceptors like SM3. I do not consider other options because it is very difficult to provide guaranteed accurate detection.
    Okay, let's say we find a place we know - we can launch a rocket - the time of approaching from the territory of the Russian Federation is 20-30 minutes - the aug will leave 20-25 km during this time - it is necessary to search for a target and select for an exact hit by a hypersonic shock block.
    The fact that on such a unit is impossible for the GOS, as it is already understandable, the flight speed is very high - because there is such an option - when you reach the alleged square at an altitude of 100-200 km, the warhead is divided into a combat strike unit and a detection and target designation unit - the detection unit has on board the radar and possibly a radio channel of communication with the strike unit to adjust its path when flying to the target - naturally, the detection and target designation unit should be paralyzed, that is, it will be braked by rocket brakes to normal speed and then descend by parachute and search for the target and coordinate the attack of the strike unit on aircraft carrier.
    Although another option is possible - to use two BRs - one we throw a reconnaissance and target designation unit and the second BR we throw a hypersonic shock blocks. Naturally, a missile with reconnaissance units starts a little earlier - literally for 5-10 minutes.
    In this case, it is possible to launch several reconnaissance units 2-3 on each BR and have 2-3 strike units on a missile carrying warheads. Yes, the project will turn out to be expensive and difficult, but it’s damn mine much more efficient and cheaper than building boats like Antei to fight AUG, and in order to guarantee the removal of an aircraft carrier, you must simultaneously attack 5-7 such boats with missiles like Granite from different directions. And while all the same, targeting gives them a satellite - which can be shot down - then the boats generally become meaningless.
    And here we get a practically guaranteed defeat of the aircraft carrier.
    1. Armored optimist
      Armored optimist April 23 2016 15: 27
      0
      A good option
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 23 2016 21: 39
      +1
      Unfortunately, we will not do any kind of reconnaissance ICBMs - we are limited by the number of ICBMs to the START 3 treaty.
  • Yak28
    Yak28 April 23 2016 15: 37
    -1
    Russian aircraft carriers are needed, this is a means of quickly deploying an attack air group with the support of other ships anywhere in the world, and they would be useful in Syria too. Plus, this aircraft carrier is a sign of a strong and modern fleet. Those who say that the aircraft carrier is not needed and it’s easy they are not right to destroy. An aircraft carrier group is a whole complex consisting of an air carrier cruiser, anti-aircraft defense ships, and other ships that are very difficult to defeat. Air carrier ships will continue to be built in the future, thanks to the vast expanses of the ocean, in the future, designed for hundreds of aircraft. But unfortunately in Russia there has not been and will not be in the coming decades, technology, experience, for the construction of large aircraft carriers. And in 100 years it will not be possible to catch up or come closer to the USA in the quantity or quality of ships of this type, so something new must be done such as ekranoplanes with hypersonic missiles or submarines designed to combat aircraft carrier formations.
  • Pirato
    Pirato April 24 2016 00: 10
    +2
    The propeller cannot weigh on a 3t aircraft carrier. It weighs more, only the blade can weigh 3 tons. We had a bulk carrier under repair with a deadweight of 30 tons, 000 holds and its propeller weighed 7 tons.
  • Vladimir Postnikov
    Vladimir Postnikov April 24 2016 01: 13
    +1
    I'll bring in my five kopecks. Over and over again: no rush. There is already one "Kuznetsov". The experience of its operation showed that this is a black hole for the budget, this is muddy water for catching fish (which made it possible to write off all the fish caught on this ship and not only in this water), this is a ship in which there were so-called white (inhabited) zones, and black zones of rejection (garbage dumps, or habitats for "zombies"), according to open information. But the most annoying thing is that at the moment when Russia could find a use for it in Syria, it turned out to be incapable of this use. All 25 years of keeping this ship went down the drain. What now, to build a new aircraft carrier?
    I don't think it's worth it. Kuznetsov, in my opinion, needs to be reformatted. It should be used to make an aircraft-carrying landing ship, with the possibility of partial conversion into a hospital, or a command ship. To make draft designs of different options, for which to attract various design groups, which for "a small share and then" will agree to participate in this competition. The task of these design groups should not be the production of design documentation, but the proposal of conceptual solutions for modernization. And so that not a single room on this modernized aircraft-carrying ship would be empty anymore and would not be "torn apart" by "ghosts wandering in the darkness." If a ship is needed, then it should be a ship, on which there should be nothing superfluous. Of course, the power plant can even be replaced with a nuclear one. Cut, stitch, but do. The second should not be built in any case, otherwise there will be two black holes. Modernization should be cheaper. But, "as always", it may be more expensive. This is another question. I don't know how to prevent theft in the current system of sovereign capitalism.
  • bars1
    bars1 April 24 2016 03: 57
    +2
    Aircraft carriers for the Russian Federation are needed to provide air defense of the fleet in the open ocean and to provide combat deployment of SSBNs. And all the talk about "bombing the Papuans" from the evil one should be considered as an attempt to mislead readers.
    1. Vladimir Postnikov
      Vladimir Postnikov April 24 2016 11: 49
      +2
      The young man started playing in the online game "World of Warships". There is still a big question, who will provide "combat deployment" to whom. SSBNs at least have some kind of stealth. AUG has zero secrecy. How much AUG is needed? And the country's economy is in a deep black hole, thanks to the same "sovereign capitalism". The mobilization prospects of the "joint-stock sovereign capitalist economy" are utterly vague.
      Right now, we’ll configure the aircraft carriers to sail across the ocean like meatballs in a soup. Go back to your online game, and don’t fool readers.
  • krops777
    krops777 April 24 2016 06: 21
    +1
    A cruise missile should have a warhead of 500 kg and a flight speed exceeding the speed of sound by 2,5 times. Such missiles today are the P-700 (Granite) and P-1000 (Volcano) / P-500 (Basalt).


    And where are the wonderful anti-ship missiles "Moskit", warhead, though 300kg, will bring a rustle, be healthy.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 24 2016 08: 54
      0
      Mosquitoes were discontinued earlier this year.
  • Bayun
    Bayun April 24 2016 10: 39
    0
    Big is vulnerable: 1000 soldiers on a "nickel" is an unaffordable luxury for the war of the 21st century.

    Battleships - 19th century, aircraft carriers - 20th. I do not know when and how the "Papuans" will sink the first aircraft carrier, but they will, UNWAYS, do it with "God's" help;)

    The author of the 1st comment is right: military equipment follows the path of "dronization". While "toys" are clumsy, akin to airplanes of the early 20th century, but I think they will very quickly turn into a lethal weapon, forcing many existing models of military equipment, including aircraft carriers, to take places in museums.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 24 2016 16: 15
      0
      Papuans aircraft carrier connection will not be able to sink.
  • Bramb
    Bramb April 24 2016 18: 52
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    Igor Vladimirovich, do we now have many satellites, even dual-use ones, capable of fulfilling this task?

    I think that a lot.
    Last year there was a scandal that we did not cover: the Americans discovered about 10 Russian military satellites over their territory. How much they flew there and what they did is unknown. But they continue to fly.))
    It is no accident that the Air Force was renamed the VKS and the S-500, and so on is done with an eye to space assistance.
  • demiurg
    demiurg April 24 2016 20: 14
    0
    Quote: Yeah, well.


    In the AUG group, there always follows a huge ship providing everything that may be needed, from fuel to ammunition. For example: USNS Regulus - Fast Sealift Ship. So in fact, One AUG can carry out intense hostilities for a very long time.

    By name, I found the ship in reserve, judging by the transfer, high-speed transport of military cargo. I could be wrong.
    Quote: shkiper83
    What a thousand tons ??? How is it with physics? I have a tanker with a displacement of two times more than that of a kuzi, the anchor weighs 11 tons, plus a chain another tone 100 maximum

    Again, I could be wrong. If you are a professional sailor, you probably remember the regulations, anchor weight, strength and chain length are regulated. You can figure it out on your fingers. I read about Kuznetsov back in the nineties, and the weight of the anchor with the chain amazed me how much "extra" weight the ship was pulling.
    I rummaged in the internet, found news about a fake anchor for him. He weighed 14 tons. And it was much easier than required.
    1. Seaman77
      Seaman77 April 24 2016 22: 20
      +1
      I rummaged in the internet, found news about a fake anchor for him.



      Oh, these Internet theorists ....)))))

      Well, you yourself think how he will choose this anchor in a thousand tons? What kind of windlass should it be?
  • 1rl141
    1rl141 April 24 2016 22: 28
    0
    I want to ask, like a sea wolf, sea wolves. What should an aircraft carrier and the entire AUG do if the wind blew? And a storm started? I don’t know how often storms occur on the Black Sea, but they are not uncommon on the Barents Sea. And the fog sets in a matter of minutes.
    And now I’ll express my thought. On which of our seas can the AUG of Americans feel calm and do something effective?
    Black How will the straits go?
    Baltic? Also, you will not expand too much throughout the AUG. Peter, of course, can get it from afar. But it does. They won’t leave with impunity.
    Barents? And How? Airplanes took off, and then the breeze and fog. Fall into the sea, dear friends. Again, it makes me feel sick.
    In the 80s, every summer, when the weather was fine, bourgeois aircraft carriers came into our waters. We got up kilometers 70-80 from the coast and hung out for a couple of weeks. The planes did not take off from them even once. But helicopters flew from 4-5 in the morning to 2-3 nights. One flew off, stsuka, along the border and home. Then another takes off.
    I think that they did not launch planes just because of the high probability of a sharp deterioration in the weather.
    North Seas for AUG, I think unattractive.
    Sea of ​​Okhotsk. What can they do there? From the Kuril Islands to large cities far. And when passing the Kuril Islands you can get something on board.
    So it turns out that in order to effectively use an aircraft carrier, he needs to come closer to our shores. And it's scary to approach, because they can easily fill up from the shore.
  • gregor6549
    gregor6549 April 25 2016 06: 31
    +1
    Future aircraft carriers are submarine aircraft carriers equipped with drones, including drones to control airspace and control other types of drones. The surface branch of aircraft carriers has long since become a dead end, especially in connection with the advent of missile weapons capable of independently locating AUGs in the ocean, classifying vessels as part of AOGs, including aircraft carriers and destroying them according to a given priority. The projects of submarine aircraft carriers, the first of which appeared back in WWII, are now being actively developed in different countries (China, USA, etc.) and their appearance in the respective fleets is not far off. I believe that in Russia, which has the largest nuclear submarines in the world like Shark, such aircraft carriers could appear earlier than in other countries. I discussed this idea with the Navy specialists, and for many of them it does not seem wild. The issue does not even rest on the aircraft carrier itself, but on the possibility of developing domestic UAVs capable of being based on the same aircraft carriers and their control system independent of their submarine carrier after launching them. Although there should not be any special technical problems. The question, as always, rests on the adequacy of funding, personnel and component base, especially electronic. There is still no way to do without import equipment too everything has been launched in the last ... years
  • Taoist
    Taoist April 25 2016 10: 35
    0
    By the way, here is a version of the future aircraft carriers ...
    http://inosmi.ru/military/20160425/236269301.html

    The future of American aircraft carriers? Floating drone factories
  • Div Divich
    Div Divich April 26 2016 08: 15
    +1
    Water - roads, delivery routes.

    So, first of all, you need to make landing ships for the delivery of military cargo, and destroyers are heavily armed ships to protect cargo ships and protect borders.

    In landing ships and destroyers, make a helipad and helicopter hangar, universal, so that it is suitable for Ka-29 and Ka-52 helicopters and for drones, when delivery of aircraft is needed - send several ships to a given point on the planet.