Military Review

In the USA, they are starting to design an atomic aircraft carrier of the renewed series

167
Huntington Ingalls Industries (USA) signed a contract with the military to develop a "construction plan for the nuclear multi-purpose aircraft carrier CVN-80 Enterprise, such as Gerald R. Ford," reports Flotprom with reference to TSAMTO.




“The works, including the design, construction, planning and acquisition of materials with long periods of use, will be performed by the division of Newport News Shipbuilding. The deadline for the completion of the contract is March 2018 of the year, ”the message says.

The construction of the aircraft carrier itself is scheduled to begin in the same 2018. It is scheduled for completion - 2027. It will replace the Nimitz-type Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier.

Huntington Ingalls Industries is the only American company engaged in the construction of nuclear aircraft carriers.

The company was told that "when planning the construction, the experience gained in the implementation of the development and construction programs of the first atomic aircraft carrier of the series, CVN-78" Gerald R. Ford "(launched in 2013 g) and CVN-79" John F "Kennedy." This will reduce the cost of the ship and reduce the time of its construction.

The declared service life of the ships of this series is 50 years. According to the resource, "they were created as an improved version of the Nimitz type and differ, with comparable sizes and aircraft armament, shortened by a high degree of automation by the crew and, as a result, lower maintenance costs." In addition, stealth technology was used in new ships.

Resource reference: “The displacement of new aircraft carriers is about 100 thousand tons, length - 337 m, speed - up to 30 knots, crew - 2500-2700 people. Aviation group - more than 75 planes and helicopters. ”
Photos used:
US Navy
167 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 26 May 2016 18: 01
    +2
    If they will build like buzzworms, then the TOTAL annual budget of the mattress will not be enough for one aircraft carrier))))
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 May 2016 18: 06
      +28
      If this aircraft carrier will cost 10 billion, then the annual US budget will be enough to build 60 aircraft carriers - so you were in a hurry about "They don't have enough budget".
      1. Inok10
        Inok10 26 May 2016 18: 59
        +11
        Quote: Vadim237
        If this aircraft carrier will cost 10 billion, then the annual US budget will be enough to build 60 aircraft carriers - so you were in a hurry about "They don't have enough budget".

        ... ah, an air group to him? ... 50 pcs. F-35C x 142 mil. = 7,1 billion ... this does not include weapons, and AWACS, electronic warfare, helicopter group aircraft ... in total it will crawl out for 20 billion presidents forever dead ... let them build and preferably from a dozen, think about 2 trillion here, 2 trillion there, little things ... laughing
        1. tforik
          tforik 26 May 2016 19: 31
          +25
          The USA has one of the most developed and richest countries in the world. its GDP exceeds the most developed countries, and if you really need it, they will build 3 such aircraft carriers in 10 years. Do not underestimate the enemy.
          1. xetai9977
            xetai9977 26 May 2016 20: 32
            +28
            I do not understand comments with mocking and derogatory comments on this topic. Everyone who writes such comments themselves are well aware that these ships are very beautiful and powerful ships. And the USA is a powerful superpower. Like it or not. If you see this country as an adversary for yourself, then all the more so I do not understand. Underestimating the enemy has never led to good, never and nowhere.
            1. 73bor
              73bor 27 May 2016 00: 32
              -4
              Do you at least familiarize yourself with the material in the conditions of modern realities, I do not underestimate the United States, just your "powerful" US Navy is not able in modern conditions to form more than two aircraft wings on "excellent ships" therefore three aircraft carriers out of a dozen go to sea, the rest are without aviation !
              1. Makarov
                Makarov 27 May 2016 02: 07
                0
                The basis of their military power is not aviation at all, but the BGM-109 "Tomohawk" cruise missiles, of which, according to the most conservative estimates, they have 5000 units ... look at how ALL US wars begin against some militarily standing countries: the fleet is approaching, strike CD, clearing the sky (if something else is capable of flying) and a ground operation, which usually does not meet resistance ... They need aircraft in rather modest volumes ...
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 27 May 2016 23: 57
                  +1
                  In fact, they have more than 14000 sea-based and air-based cruise missiles, and this number is increasing by 500 every year.
            2. godofwar6699
              godofwar6699 27 May 2016 02: 03
              -1
              USS Gerald R. Ford
              1. kuz363
                kuz363 27 May 2016 06: 24
                +2
                Indeed, in the United States the highest technological level of production of warships. It’s just envious that Russia will NEVER reach their Navy level. But in principle, maybe this is not necessary, because the tasks are different. Russia should not blindly copy the structure of the US Navy, but should go its own way, using its other advantages - a large territory, land strategic nuclear forces, and an ammunition base. Because what could be catching up if the budget of Russia is more than 10 times less than in the USA? More precisely, 16 times in 2016.
            3. sergey2017
              sergey2017 27 May 2016 09: 06
              0
              The American doctrine has always been built on an aircraft strike group, namely aircraft carriers! And in cases of engaging in active hostilities, they need aircraft carriers! Russia does not need so many aircraft carrier groups, this has become well understood from the experience of Syria! Therefore, this powerful superpower understands perfectly any aircraft carrier, how not to cover it (cruisers, submarines, etc.), it’s a very beautiful target and protect it from a missile strike not possible! The biggest unsinkable aircraft carrier you know is CRIMEA!
          2. 73bor
            73bor 27 May 2016 00: 24
            +2
            They already have so many of them configured that they do not know which volleyball to play and which baseball, I do not doubt the ability of the United States to build another trough, at one time the Liberty was riveted in three days, only the ship had a bad property to break on a steep wave!
          3. kuz363
            kuz363 27 May 2016 06: 12
            +4
            In 2013, US GDP was 20 trillion. dollars, the EU - 17 trillion, China - 10, and Russia only 2! They can afford such a luxury.
            1. ARES623
              ARES623 27 May 2016 07: 04
              -2
              Quote: kuz363
              In 2013, US GDP was 20 trillion. dollars, the EU - 17 trillion, China - 10, and Russia only 2! They can afford such a luxury.

              Firstly, the bandits have always lived more luxurious hard workers. And the United States raised its entire economy by plunder and unleashing wars. And therefore Russia is unlikely to find a common language with the United States in the foreseeable future, there are too many differences in fundamental issues. Secondly, the methodology for calculating the volume of US GDP raises many questions from experts, but even it shows that 80% of GDP is services (he didn’t turn a light bulb himself, but invited a master under a contract - here’s GDP growth for you, primitive, but where- then so). I'm not saying that their economic leadership is a fake, but if you look closely, the gap in real production is not as fatal as at first glance. And thirdly, as the commander of the 20th Army, General Albert Makashov, said: "Comrades officers, stop practicing pessimism."
        2. sandrmur76
          sandrmur76 26 May 2016 19: 40
          +7
          Striped violet how much it costs. The whole WORLD will pay. Economic institutions do not work in vain for them. And they have nothing to do with crises. They earn on them. (Inok10) and, in theory, drive in the utilization of old ones, re-equipment of the infrastructure. what
        3. Skubudu
          Skubudu 26 May 2016 20: 13
          +7
          What difference does it make to them how much it will cost if all the money remains in the country, orders for companies, salary workers, the navy are a new toy, the country is another weighty argument in world diplomacy.
        4. GSH-18
          GSH-18 26 May 2016 21: 14
          +6
          Quote: Inok10
          Ah, an air group to him? ... 50 pcs. F-35C x 142 mil. = 7,1 billion

          Is it a problem for Americans to print extra lards on green pieces of paper?
          In light of what is happening, we need to think hard about our fleet, and take our own lave more carefully!
        5. GSH-18
          GSH-18 26 May 2016 21: 16
          +1
          In the USA, they are starting to design an atomic aircraft carrier of the renewed series

          Well what can I say? Handsome man! We certainly wouldn’t be bothered request
        6. g1v2
          g1v2 26 May 2016 21: 22
          0
          Oh, I’d like to get a contract for the construction of an aircraft carrier for mattresses in our shipyards. At such a cut, you can build a fleet for yourself. Okay, maybe the Chinese will succeed or the Indians will someday be able to untwist a contract.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 27 May 2016 00: 19
            +4
            Quote: g1v2
            Oh, I’d like to get a contract for the construction of an aircraft carrier for mattresses in our shipyards.

            Sorry, do we have such shipyards where you can build an aircraft carrier?
            Quote: g1v2
            Okay, maybe the Chinese will succeed or the Indians will someday be able to untwist a contract.

            When we build such shipyards or modernize old ones, then of course, even most likely ...
            Quote: GSH-18
            Well what can I say? Handsome man! We certainly wouldn’t be bothered

            To be honest, then we need about five ...
            Quote: Stroibat stock
            If they will build like buzzworms, then the TOTAL annual budget of the mattress will not be enough for one aircraft carrier))))

            So far, we are not even enough for a full-fledged destroyer or TARK, not to mention the aircraft carrier. The MAPLs of the Yasen-M project should be reminded of how much we are already building and the deadlines have already been postponed.
            Quote: CORNET
            The times of the US AUG have passed when they terrified the "rebellious" countries ... Russia spoiled everything ...

            Yes, it’s not so far yet. Today, the mattresses have the most powerful fleet in the world. And what do we have? One pre-aircraft carrier, two TARKs, one of which is under modernization and four Atlanta, which will soon hit 4. What is there to rejoice about?
            Our task now is to strengthen the coastal zone and the seas ... and then think about building ships of the first rank (if you are lucky after 19). The states did not have 90 years like ours.
      2. viktorrymar
        viktorrymar 26 May 2016 19: 13
        -2
        the experience gained in the framework of the development and construction programs of the first nuclear-powered aircraft carriers of the series, CVN-78 "Gerald R. Ford" (launched in 3013) will be used

        In 3013, just right)))))
        1. godofwar6699
          godofwar6699 27 May 2016 02: 11
          +4
          envy is not good hi
          1. Operator
            Operator 27 May 2016 12: 32
            -5
            What luxurious targets for just a dozen cruise missiles (or one ICBM warhead) are the envy of US Air Force laughing
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 27 May 2016 23: 59
            +1
            As the F 35C will be adopted, so all landing ships will also become aircraft carriers.
      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 May 2016 19: 24
        +6
        Quote: Vadim237
        If this aircraft carrier costs 10 billions, then the US annual budget will be enough to build 60 aircraft carriers

        ??? It’s nothing that the expenditure part of the US federal budget in 2014 is 3 504 billion, which would be enough for such aircraft carriers on 350? Or do you only mean the military budget?
        1. kuz363
          kuz363 27 May 2016 06: 29
          0
          It seems that only the military budget of about 600 billion. in 2016
      4. Bronis
        Bronis 26 May 2016 19: 55
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        If this aircraft carrier costs 10 billions, then the US annual budget will be enough to build 60 aircraft carriers

        amendment ... of the military budget ... but in general, they have a consolidated budget of somewhere 3,6 trillion. dollars.
        Russia, for reference, has about 250 billion dollars.
      5. Kent0001
        Kent0001 26 May 2016 22: 21
        0
        who remembered that the big ship was a big torpedo.
      6. 73bor
        73bor 27 May 2016 00: 19
        +1
        You can’t build it, you can’t maintain it, it will not cost you an annual budget, given how many aircraft carriers the United States goes to sea, I doubt the advisability of building them at all (there are no planes either)!
      7. kuz363
        kuz363 27 May 2016 06: 09
        0
        And if 100 mld. dollars - then 6 aircraft carriers! Enough money anyway.
    2. Yak28
      Yak28 26 May 2016 18: 19
      +4
      The United States is pulling money from its allies, they will not give a dollar if they do not receive 10 in return, then they just have a lot of money, they have so much welded up on the collapse of the USSR that they will last for another 50 years.
    3. self-propelled
      self-propelled 26 May 2016 20: 20
      +3
      Quote: Stroibat stock
      If they will build like buzzworms, then the TOTAL annual budget of the mattress will not be enough for one aircraft carrier))))

      The printing press is working. as long as hydrocarbons are traded for $, amers have nothing to fear
    4. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 21: 14
      +2
      In the USA, they are starting to design an atomic aircraft carrier of the renewed series
      well ... there is a lot of drawing here and in Stroybat ... who else, if not my Friend (Stroybat Reserve), know about this crap. they generally paint wherever there is a horizontal surface ...! and vaapche, EVO, "AVA", completely mlyn, reflects the essence of these mad dogs ... with a shudder I even write about them, they are not people, they are "stitched" in the military registration and enlistment office, and they come out from there with glass eyes, and the only desire is to kill the imperialist ... scumbags ... I am in line for the east, always obsequiously I give up my place ... these are not people ... these are friends of Russians, the current will find out that he served in the "zalupinskrvsn" - you- treated kindly, watered, fed, presented on demand ... and this is true. soldier
    5. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 26 May 2016 21: 15
      +4
      Quote: stock buildbat
      If they will build like buzzworms, then the TOTAL annual budget of the mattress will not be enough for one aircraft carrier))))

      thumped again, lopatoin? drinks
  2. CORNET
    CORNET 26 May 2016 18: 03
    -1
    The times of the US AUG have passed when they terrified the "rebellious" countries ... Russia spoiled everything ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 May 2016 18: 07
      +3
      ... Russia spoiled plans ... - This is what?
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 26 May 2016 18: 21
        +4
        Quote: CORNET
        The times of the US AUG have passed when they terrified the "rebellious" countries ... Russia spoiled everything ...
        Why then did the USSR launch naval guidance satellites, constantly trained in detection and "conditional" defeat, kept such a useful thing as naval missile-carrying aircraft? The regiment is there, the regiment is right there, you know ... Russia has nothing of this now, but it ruined everything . You are probably hinting at the "Caliber" -living?
        1. Altona
          Altona 26 May 2016 18: 25
          -6
          Quote: Thunderbolt
          Why then did the USSR launch naval guidance satellites, constantly train in detection and "conditional" defeat, keep such a useful thing as naval missile-carrying aircraft?

          ------------------
          They will put Tu-22M3 in the Crimea again, what’s the problem?
          1. Thunderbolt
            Thunderbolt 26 May 2016 18: 44
            +5
            Quote: Altona
            Tu-22M3
            How many of them will there be, regiments will be restored? Enough planes and trained crews? Less will be fraught, because. defense of the AUG under the Union even now is not exactly the same thing. In the event of a major war, up to ten aircraft carrier groups will be able to attack. Here you can count. But you can not refer to the use of nuclear weapons.
            Quote: CORNET
            The main surprises still think ahead.!

            Indeed, surprises are still waiting and not small .. hi
            1. Ride78
              Ride78 26 May 2016 20: 37
              +2
              It was a surprise for me today from the calculations that in Ukraine a pensioner can buy 250 kg of radish for his retirement, while we have 120 kg. So there are such surprises. He began to take a closer look at propaganda.
              1. goblin xnumx
                goblin xnumx 26 May 2016 21: 01
                0
                but it was a surprise for me to decide to build such a rather big ship - how could it be? - immediately an aircraft carrier - but what about boats? - why don't they build boats? - immediately- a ship ...
              2. atalef
                atalef 26 May 2016 21: 13
                -2
                Quote: Ride78
                It was a surprise for me today from the calculations that in Ukraine a pensioner can buy 250 kg of radish for his retirement, while we have 120 kg. So there are such surprises

                no, that's right
                Radish, (Gopnik)
                value:
                bad person.

                sample text:
                Yes, this radish is just overgrown, we need to teach it a lesson.

                synonyms: frostbite.
                1. Ride78
                  Ride78 26 May 2016 21: 15
                  +3
                  What’s funny, I don’t understand? In Kiev, radishes are 8 hryvnias kg, in our region, 100 rubles. Isn't it true where to laugh? when they say once again according to zombie, that the x-ohls freeze this winter for sure?
                  1. co-creator
                    co-creator 26 May 2016 23: 01
                    +2
                    Quote: Ride78
                    What’s funny, I don’t understand? In Kiev, radishes are 8 hryvnias kg, in our region, 100 rubles. Isn't it true where to laugh? when they say once again according to zombie, that the x-ohls freeze this winter for sure?

                    Shove a reference, because there are a lot of types of radish and the price is different.
                    So of course you can not laugh and just compare that the majority of pensioners in Ukraine spend on the housing and communal services an average of 80-90% of their pension, and in the Russian Federation 30%. And so no one will freeze.
                2. rudolff
                  rudolff 26 May 2016 21: 18
                  +2
                  Atalef, how is your appointment
                  Evik Lvovich is being discussed by the Minister? Palestinians must have grabbed their heads?
              3. GSH-18
                GSH-18 26 May 2016 22: 19
                0
                Quote: Ride78
                It was a surprise for me today from the calculations that in Ukraine a pensioner can buy 250 kg of radish for his retirement, while we have 120 kg. So there are such surprises. He began to take a closer look at propaganda.

                What pensioner, for what pension and what radish? Answer yourself to start with these questions.
            2. max702
              max702 26 May 2016 21: 06
              +1
              Quote: Thunderbolt
              .A you can not refer to the use of nuclear weapons. Otherwise, then 98% of the articles lose all meaning.

              So if it weren’t for nuclear weapons then even the USSR would have lost its meaning .. or do you think that NATO would not have used nuclear weapons in a conflict with the USSR? It would even be like 1 So you don’t have to be afraid of your complexes .. And the doctrine of the use of nuclear weapons to expand dramatically .. What do we need missile-bearing regiments and a dozen AUGs, thousands of tanks and other things when it’s enough to make it clear to the adversary that if all his AUGs and the Air Force and others they’ll burn with hellish fire .. ALL the problem is that the adversary doubts the use of nuclear weapons .. This is when the nuclear weapons only appeared and the consequences were not clear, the consequences were studied only then they planned to use it, but as soon as they realized that everything would be shut up .. And now why escalate? so repeat Doubt about our ability to use nuclear weapons ..
          2. Inok10
            Inok10 26 May 2016 19: 03
            +3
            Quote: Altona
            They will put Tu-22M3 in the Crimea again, what’s the problem?

            ... with the X-32 ... by the way, it goes sort of like flying ... well, there and the height is already 40 km. and speed under 5000 km / h and range (600-1000 km) in gossip ... to a large US ship, a large and fast Russian missile ... hi
            1. Inok10
              Inok10 26 May 2016 21: 04
              +9
              P.S. ... those wishing to attack Russia 100500 AUG, well, that is 10 ... a card as a gift ... you will be nice to attack Okedov? ... from Kara, Laptev, East Siberian? ... that is, from the Arctic Ocean? ... so I would look at these things ... laughing ... more ... Barents, Norwegian - forget 10 months of the year the catapult will freeze, North - 6 months a year for the same reason ... the Pacific Ocean remains, but the Mediterranean ... but then another surprise ... The Volna radar in Nakhodka closes 3000 km from Kamchatka to the Philippines, and the Container "in Mordovia, from Spitsbergen and Iceland to the Red Sea, he sees everything for the same 3000 km. ... and one more thing ... ah, do you have enough attacker aircraft range? ... alas and oh no ... 800 km. F-18 and 940 km. the F-35 ... that's all ... that is, so that the AUG in the Pacific Ocean does not get hit by a volley of "Bastion", it needs to stay at a distance of 500 km., with a combat radius of 800 km. ... well, who will allow him ... so a big swindle of these AUG in this particular case ... laughing
              1. Operator
                Operator 26 May 2016 21: 31
                0
                On the Russian coast of the Arctic Ocean, there are no targets for US carrier-based aviation.

                In Europe, the Persian Gulf and Japan, the United States has its own ground-based air bases.

                Therefore, the only target of the American aircraft carriers is the Vilyuchinsk nuclear submarine base on the Kamchatka Peninsula. But on the approaches to it, aircraft carriers will receive a warm welcome in the form of missile attacks by Zircon missiles from the Yasen nuclear submarine (up to 6000 km) and Caliber-A from the Su-35S (up to 3600 km).

                As a result, US aircraft carriers will not be able to reach Vilyuchinsk with their F-35C (combat radius 1140 km) and Tomahawk (flight range 1600 km).
                1. rudolff
                  rudolff 26 May 2016 22: 11
                  +4
                  Zircon, this is RCC. The caliber in the RCC variant is the 3M54 rocket. In both the first and second, the surface range is limited to several hundred km. Do not confuse with 3M14.
                2. Makarov
                  Makarov 27 May 2016 02: 18
                  0
                  and that at least enough for 2500 tomahawks?
              2. mav1971
                mav1971 26 May 2016 21: 32
                +4
                Quote: Inok10
                P.S. ... those wishing to attack Russia 100500 AUG, well, that is 10 ... a card as a gift ... you will be nice to attack Okedov? ... from Kara, Laptev, East Siberian? ... that is, from the Arctic Ocean? ... so I would look at these things ... laughing ... more ... Barents, Norwegian - forget 10 months of the year the catapult will freeze, North - 6 months a year for the same reason ... the Pacific Ocean remains, but the Mediterranean ... but then another surprise ... The Volna radar in Nakhodka closes 3000 km from Kamchatka to the Philippines, and the Container "in Mordovia, from Spitsbergen and Iceland to the Red Sea, he sees everything for the same 3000 km. ... and one more thing ... ah, do you have enough attacker aircraft range? ... alas and oh no ... 800 km. F-18 and 940 km. the F-35 ... that's all ... that is, so that the AUG in the Pacific Ocean does not get hit by a volley of "Bastion", it needs to stay at a distance of 500 km., with a combat radius of 800 km. ... well, who will allow him ... so a big swindle of these AUG in this particular case ... laughing



                The catapult will not freeze ...
                Do not invent.

                The enemy, if desired, can enter the Baltic, after clearing the Kaliningrad region. Due to its location, the Kaliningrad region can be cleaned by the enemy in 6-8 hours.

                And to the Sea of ​​Japan
                And even in Black.
                Do not forget that even though Crimea reaches all the enemies, it must be understood that the stick has two ends. Crimea is also reachable from all sides.
                And throw it with a thousand tomahawks and 5 by thousands of Mulds from the side, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine. Georgia - and not a single air defense can handle it.

                And no Bastions, Balls, and others - the same will not remain. As well as military camps, radar, bridges, power lines, hidden points PU, Navy and other things.

                The same goes for the Far East.
                They will carry all the infrastructure on 500-1500 km inland.
                Also a thousand Tomahawks and 5 thousand Mulds.
                They have plenty of carriers. At the same time, at least 6000 Tomahawks can organize a coordinated volley.

                Neither Wave nor Container is capable of giving exact coordinates, and even more so target designation.

                Teach materiel.
                And stop comparing a spherical horse to a spherical donkey.
                The world is not binary. He does not tolerate an idiotic elephant against a whale.
                An aircraft carrier does not go alone against the country.
                If they go, they will go in a coordinated manner. All NATO. With Japan, South Korea, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and a couple of military police from Vanuatu.

                And no one will hit the cities.
                Will carry out military, infrastructure and life support facilities.
                in order to paralyze the communication of authorities.

                Teach the materiel how others were beaten. And remember.
                1. Inok10
                  Inok10 26 May 2016 21: 56
                  +5
                  Quote: mav1971
                  The catapult will not freeze ...
                  Do not invent.

                  ... Oh well ... laughing
                  Quote: mav1971
                  The enemy, if desired, can enter the Baltic, after clearing the Kaliningrad region. Due to its location, the Kaliningrad region can be cleaned by the enemy in 6-8 hours.

                  ... from this you can generally go under the table right away from laughter ... I’m telling you like a Kaliningrad man ... who will clean it up? ... the Baltic states? yes Poles? ... laughed heartily ... laughing
                  Quote: mav1971
                  And to the Sea of ​​Japan
                  And even in Black.

                  ... I'll see how he enters the Japanese ... right after the strait under the sight of the Bastion ... laughing ... but, at the expense of Cherny ... don’t forget to cut the superstructure on Nimitz by 10 meters or first destroy the Bosphorus Bridge, I'm sorry, you don’t go into height overall ... 64 m. ... Nimitz - 73,2 m ... oops ... laughing
                  Quote: mav1971
                  And throw it with a thousand tomahawks and 5 by thousands of Mulds from the side, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine. Georgia - and not a single air defense can handle it.

                  ... another fan of the "tomahawk" sect ... count first carriers and how can you launch them ... take the map in hand and take into account, GRK "Moskva" closes the Bosphorus from the outer raid of Sevastopol with its "Volcano" ... well, there are no ground launchers for the tomogovs and is not expected ... the INF Treaty is still valid, anyway .. ... laughing
                  ... go and really learn the materiel ... laughing
                  1. GSH-18
                    GSH-18 26 May 2016 22: 59
                    +1
                    Quote: Inok10
                    GRK "Moskva" closes the Bosphorus from the outer raid of Sevastopol with its "Volcano" ... but, the tomahawk do not have ground launchers and is not expected.

                    Well, why should I write such crap, dear 10 monk? lol And you probably forgot about the Turkish and other NATO Navy in the Black Sea, oops! And what about the destroyers Arly Burke and the 6th American operational fleet in the Mediterranean? You can still remind you, but I think this is enough to moderate your urry-patriotic ardor lol
                    Learn the materiel of the enemy fleet and its tactics - useful for a real understanding of who wants what and who can hi
                    1. Inok10
                      Inok10 27 May 2016 01: 12
                      +5
                      Quote: GSH-18
                      And you probably forgot about the Turkish and other NATO Navy in the Black Sea, oops!

                      ... which ones ? ... Bulgarian and Romanian? ... laughing
                      Quote: GSH-18
                      And what about the destroyers Arly Burke and the 6th American operational fleet in the Mediterranean? You can still remind you, but I think this is enough to moderate your urry-patriotic ardor

                      ... well, well, which Zhenya Psaki sent to the shores of Belarus? ... replace while she is on maternity leave? ... laughing
                      Quote: GSH-18
                      Learn the materiel of the enemy fleet and its tactics - useful for a real understanding of who wants what and who can

                      ... attached visual aid ... laughing
                      1. GSH-18
                        GSH-18 27 May 2016 01: 20
                        0
                        Quote: Inok10
                        which ones ? ... Bulgarian and Romanian? ... laughing

                        Yes, you at least read about Turkish, a smile will slide off guaranteed.
                        Quote: Inok10
                        well, well, which is that Zhenya Psaki sent to the shores of Belarus? ... replace while she is on maternity leave? ... laughing

                        This is generally something obscure request
                        If you smoke, go to sleep.
                        Quote: Inok10
                        visual aid attached ... laughing

                        Does this red bar show where the NATO surprise will come to Crimea?
                        I wouldn't idolize Bastion that much. Firstly, there are few of them, and secondly, against a serious ship group with a network-centric air defense "Bastion" is powerless - there is simply no way to form a sufficiently massive consolidated salvo request
                      2. srelock
                        srelock 27 May 2016 08: 05
                        0
                        Quote: GSH-18
                        I wouldn't idolize Bastion so much. Firstly, there are few of them, and secondly, against a serious ship group with network-centric air defense "Bastion" is powerless - there is simply no way to form a sufficiently massive consolidated hall

                        It is extremely unlikely that air defense / missile defense even of an entire AUG can bring down at least one supersonic low-flying anti-ship missile. They just do not know how.
                      3. GSH-18
                        GSH-18 27 May 2016 09: 19
                        0
                        Quote: srelock
                        It is extremely unlikely that air defense / missile defense even of an entire AUG can bring down at least one supersonic low-flying anti-ship missile. They just do not know how.

                        It is regrettable that you are captivated by illusions. The Aegis air defense system with the SM-3 Rocket doesn’t bring down supersonic missiles, but even low-orbit space satellites that fly much faster than any fastest hypersonic anti-ship missile today!
                      4. srelock
                        srelock 27 May 2016 10: 06
                        +2
                        Quote: GSH-18
                        The Aegis air defense system with the SM-3 Rocket doesn’t bring down supersonic missiles, but even low-orbit space satellites that fly much faster than any fastest hypersonic anti-ship missile today!

                        SM-3 is not "friendly" with low-flying targets.
                        The Americans tried to put into service the GQM-163, but things didn’t go further than experiments, the project was wrapped. In exercises such targets have never been used.
                        Are you sure about illusions?
              3. Bongo
                Bongo 27 May 2016 01: 58
                +4
                Quote: GSH-18
                Well, why should I write such crap, dear 10 monk?

                Do not mess with him, this person has "exceptional knowledge and rare horizons." The respected "10th Monk" not so long ago argued that our air defense forces did not have the S-300PS modification, and with the help of the Voronezh early warning radar, it was possible to control the airspace over North America. lol
                1. GSH-18
                  GSH-18 27 May 2016 09: 21
                  0
                  Quote: Bongo
                  The "10th monk" not so long ago argued that our air defense forces did not have the S-300PS modification, and with the help of the Voronezh early warning radar, it was possible to control the airspace over North America. lol

                  Tin, as it is! lol
            2. mav1971
              mav1971 26 May 2016 23: 46
              +1
              Quote: Inok10

              ... go and really learn the materiel ... laughing


              Wikipedia will not help you. Do not try to seem knowledgeable.

              All Amer carriers - pass under the Turkish bridges ...

              Threat. Consider the draft :)

              In addition to the Baltic states, there are Germans, Danes, British and other NATO ...
              Well, the Americans will easily customize their marine corps corps.
              And do not forget that in Germany there are still 60 thousands of American soldiers.
              And to clean the soldiers are not particularly needed.
              Aviation and rockets.
              The entire military and near-war infrastructure is destroyed, the management and livelihood infrastructure is also destroyed - and the whole modern population in a week becomes wild and uncontrollable.

              Bastions are destroyed from a distance of a couple of thousand kilometers. You have already been told about this. You continue to believe in a spherical horse.
              And even if not all are destroyed, then for the AUG - the Bastions are not a problem.
              For they are not able to make a massive salvo in 120 and higher missiles. necessary for overloading the network-centric AUG air defense based on Aegis.


              Already a month or two ago, I counted one obstinate one by one the number of carriers and the ammunition of the Tomahawks, which could be in strike, coordinated.
              It turned out 7700 missiles, without loss of air defense and anti-aircraft defense.

              I am not a fan of tomahawks.
              I am a fan of stock numbers figures.
              Figures and tactics of application.
              And this is the Tomahawk, or its full copy - Caliber - on the drum.
              I am not a fan of the Kyrgyz Republic.

              so the materiel is still to you.
              1. Inok10
                Inok10 27 May 2016 01: 02
                +5
                Quote: mav1971
                Wikipedia will not help you. Do not try to seem knowledgeable.

                All Amer carriers - pass under the Turkish bridges ...

                Threat. Consider the draft :)

                ... well, well ... let's take care of your education and elementary mathematics ... the height of Nimitz is 73,2 from keel to top lights ... subtract the draft 11,7 m = 61,5 m ... but ... the top lights are not located on Nimitz at the highest point ... gee-gee-gee ... ... attention to the attached picture ... 61,5 to the top lights minus draft and plus another 5 meters ... total 66,5 ... not prolazit ... Bosphorus Bridge 64 m. ... the rest do not respect yourself to comment ... the guy has a fever ... laughing
            3. Vadim237
              Vadim237 26 May 2016 23: 56
              +2
              "Another fan of the" tomahawk "sect ... count first the carriers and where you can launch them from ..." The US has 75 destroyers - each can load 56 tomahawks, that's a total of 4200 missiles, and that's not counting cruisers and submarines, and carrier-based aviation, which also has cruise missiles in service.
              1. Inok10
                Inok10 27 May 2016 01: 19
                +2
                Quote: Vadim237
                The United States has 75 destroyers - each one can load 56 tomahawks, which is a total of 4200 missiles, and this is not counting cruisers and submarines, as well as carrier-based aircraft that also have cruise missiles in service.

                ... divide by 2 at once, 26 pcs. in shock equipment, the rest of the air defense and now determine the launch point on the map and where they will fly at a tomahawk range of 2600 km. ... that you would not be erased into radioactive dust earlier than your tomahawks reach 3 hours before the target ... laughing
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 27 May 2016 09: 57
                  +2
                  "Divide by 2 at once, 26 pieces in shock equipment, the rest of the air defense" - Why is it - on Burke destroyers there are 94 universal launchers - 56 tomahawks is the maximum load of the rest of the air defense and after delivering nuclear strikes there will be nothing to erase these ships, but about Forget the calibers, we can count the number of their carriers on the fingers.
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 26 May 2016 22: 29
          +1
          Quote: Inok10
          those wishing to attack Russia 100500 AUG, well, that is, 10th ... card as a gift ... you will be nice to attack Okedov? ... from Kara, Laptev, East Siberian?

          This is your card-nonsense utterly for people of kindergarten intelligence. Do not make people laugh. Read better about the tactics of applying AUG. In the northern direction, Nata has a combined squadron as part of an aircraft carrier, not to mention the 6th operational fleet (Mediterranean Sea), but I generally keep silent about the Pacific direction, this is so for you, as a free educational program.
        3. SOKOL777
          SOKOL777 26 May 2016 23: 21
          +4
          This card is kind of muddy!
          Where four crosses are drawn in the north of Russia, it is inaccessible to our partners year-round and around the clock, because You can get the full program instantly.
          It is dumb to go to the Mediterranean Sea, there the "Life-giving Caliber" does not sleep.
          In the Russian Far East, "Batons" are bored at the piers, waiting for unwelcome guests.
          How many of you, dear ones, have heard that the USA AUG came close to our shores?
          I have never heard ...
          Americans are far from fools, they are well aware that the reaction of Russia can be completely unexpected negative
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 26 May 2016 23: 32
            +1
            Quote: SOKOL777
            How many of you, dear ones, have heard that the USA AUG came close to our shores?
            I have never heard ..

            And where did you get it, dear, that the American AUG should generally come close to our shores in order to do something there? They are usually suitable for a predetermined distance to lift aircraft or a consolidated salvo of anti-ship missiles or missile launchers from escort and submarine destroyers (this point is usually outside the field of view of coastal radars), and THINGS begin after that. Why should they substitute? In addition to airplanes, they also have missile destroyers in the warrant and there are multi-purpose submarines with Tomogawks, and hell knows what they still have there!
        4. Vadim237
          Vadim237 26 May 2016 23: 46
          -1
          Well, in the event of hostilities, the first will be a decontaminating nuclear strike - both we and them will be delivered to us, and after that the fleet will enter the battle and attack with cruise missiles, at the same time, sink all our ships that they will meet on the seas and oceans, there will not be any help from our ships and submarines - only a heroic death - the alignment is not in our favor 8-10 to 1, the next wave of aircraft carriers will bring down on us - 1000 planes and helicopters that will dump dozens on the surviving infrastructure thousand tons of bombs and missiles, including atomic ones and no Bastions will save us, no matter what they say, and the fleet, including aircraft carriers, are the second deterrent after nuclear weapons - we must admit that Russia has against them no effective countermeasures at sea.
    2. wasjasibirjac
      wasjasibirjac 26 May 2016 19: 10
      +2
      Quote: Altona
      They will put Tu-22M3 in the Crimea again, what’s the problem?

      the problem is in the ocean. there is a lot of space, and even a 100 thousand ton aircraft carrier is small for such a scale. "go find that knife" bully
  3. CORNET
    CORNET 26 May 2016 18: 27
    +7
    Quote: Thunderbolt
    . You probably hinting at the "Caliber" -living?

    No .. "Gauges" are flowers and quite good rackets in general (they effectively and unexpectedly hit targets from the "lake" thousands of kilometers away ... I think the main surprises are still ahead! hi
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 26 May 2016 19: 56
      +1
      Quote: CORNET
      The main surprises still think ahead.! hi


      A bright future is always bright - because the future ...
      Because it is not achievable ...
      Because no responsibility for fantasies and notions ...

      D, B!
  4. mav1971
    mav1971 26 May 2016 19: 49
    0
    Quote: Thunderbolt
    You are probably hinting at the "Caliber" -living?


    he’s a provocateur ...

    He writes with the money of the American budget, introduces misinformation and inflates a cap-and-show mood, then. when there is nothing to boast about.
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 26 May 2016 21: 44
      +3
      Quote: mav1971
      Quote: Thunderbolt
      You are probably hinting at the "Caliber" -living?


      he’s a provocateur ...


      He is also not only a provocateur, he is also a cowardly draw ..cher ...
      He did not answer my messages, but he ran through each post and put down the minuses
      as they say: "Rzhu-nimagu" :)
      Rotten rotten ...
      Deatsat! :)

      :))))))))))
  5. GSH-18
    GSH-18 26 May 2016 21: 43
    -3
    Quote: Thunderbolt
    What then did the USSR launch naval guidance satellites

    Let's not. In the USSR, there was a coast guard navy. However, like now ours. Because without air cover, any steepest cruiser in the oceanic zone, when meeting with the AUG, had every chance to go to the bottom. And this fierce nonsense about "guidance satellites" for static sea targets is only suitable for kindergarten.
    Until we have at least one normal nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, we will lick our lips and suck at ourselves to calm down the ancient, like a mammoth guano, Soviet fairy tales about "non-pontoon" floating target barges with planes of a potential enemy. fool
    An interesting fact from our Soviet past: An ardent supporter of the construction of the Soviet AUG was the one whose name is called our only aircraft carrier cruiser. Here's a hello from the USSR.
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 26 May 2016 23: 09
      +1
      Quote: GSH-18
      In the USSR, there was a coast guard navy ...... And this fierce nonsense about "guidance satellites" for static sea targets is only suitable for kindergarten.
      Tartus (Syria), Aden (Yemen), Kamran (Vietnam), Lourdes (Cuba), Dahlak Island, Massawa (Ethiopia), Berbera (Somalia), Dalian (China), Ramona (DPRK), Poland, the Baltic States, Ge
      romania ----- straight song:
      ... my country is wide
      and her coast guard ...

      target designation by global space reconnaissance devices. This was the "Legend" of our coastal fleet.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 26 May 2016 23: 53
        0
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        Tartus (Syria), Aden (Yemen), Kamran (Vietnam), Lourdes (Cuba), Dahlak Island, Massawa (Ethiopia), Berbera (Somalia), Dalian (China), Ramona (DPRK)

        If you yourself did not understand what you have just listed, then I will explain to you. These are ports of refuge for our ships, because the AUG could not get there without harming itself. From the shore would start to peel. But to lock our ships in these ports is easy! And then what is the use of them? And what is left of this list now? I hope you got what I meant.
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        target designation by global space reconnaissance devices. This was the "Legend" of our coastal fleet.


        Satellite target designation, if you still do not know, really works against motionless targets. Ship groups do not belong here. Or for the use of tactical nuclear weapons, for which accuracy is not important.
  • CORNET
    CORNET 26 May 2016 18: 22
    +1
    Quote: Vadim237
    ... Russia spoiled plans ... - This is what?

    Well, let's say these AUGs are no longer close to Syria .. And why? Probably they are afraid of our "rusty vessels .." which can go to ram ... bully Such an answer suits you ..? hi
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 26 May 2016 20: 22
      +2
      Quote: CORNET
      Quote: Vadim237
      ... Russia spoiled plans ... - This is what?

      Well, let's say these AUGs are no longer close to Syria .. And why? Probably they are afraid of our "rusty vessels .." which can go to ram ... bully Such an answer suits you ..? hi


      Hrenase logic ...
      That is, by your logic, if you walk along the street of the settlement in which you live and no one hits the pilot every 5 minutes - does this mean that all the inhabitants of your town are afraid of you? You think so ...

      D, B!
    2. max702
      max702 26 May 2016 21: 16
      -1
      Quote: CORNET
      Well, let's say near Syria these AUGs are no longer close .. And why?

      Because AUG is a show off! And it doesn’t make sense, the combat effectiveness is too low and the price is high .. For 10% of the costs for the use of ACG, you can hire and equip the dash of barbarians for one utilizing the most violent .. So ACG is a weapon of the past .. And the fact that the US is building new Well Duc .. Saw a shura a saw!
    3. GSH-18
      GSH-18 26 May 2016 21: 51
      0
      Quote: CORNET
      Quote: Vadim237
      ... Russia spoiled plans ... - This is what?

      Well, let's say these AUGs are no longer close to Syria .. And why? Probably they are afraid of our "rusty vessels .." which can go to ram ... bully Such an answer suits you ..? hi

      No. Casserole them in the drum. They do not approach our base in Latakia, which covers from the air our Mediterranean group of ships. AUG is intended primarily for the ocean zone, where it has a total aviation advantage over conventional ship formations.
  • Yak28
    Yak28 26 May 2016 18: 52
    +5
    Our aircraft carrier sailed to the American, and the Americans died of laughter lol
  • goblin xnumx
    goblin xnumx 26 May 2016 20: 59
    +1
    Russia built a dozen boats ...
  • razmik72
    razmik72 26 May 2016 18: 30
    -5
    Quote: CORNET
    The times of the US AUG have passed when they terrified the "rebellious" countries ... Russia spoiled everything ...

    We all know that Russia is a force, it will bend anyone into a ram’s horn.
    1. Yeraz
      Yeraz 26 May 2016 19: 00
      +5
      Quote: razmik72
      she will bend anyone into a ram’s horn.

      I thought you were a realist, not a dreamer. You obviously went too far with anyone.
      1. razmik72
        razmik72 26 May 2016 19: 04
        +2
        Quote: Yeraz
        Quote: razmik72
        she will bend anyone into a ram’s horn.

        I thought you were a realist, not a dreamer. You obviously went too far with anyone.

        Eraz, today I have a gaming mood wink sometimes no harm and joke smile .
        1. Chisayna
          Chisayna 26 May 2016 19: 31
          -3
          Played, and now go to sleep, late time for people like you. And for Yeraz, you doubt it in vain.
        2. mav1971
          mav1971 26 May 2016 19: 57
          -2
          Quote: razmik72

          Eraz, today I have a gaming mood wink sometimes no harm and joke smile .


          When they joke. they talk about "play mood".
          Usually associated with female perception.

          you are more careful with your words, otherwise we will perceive you as "the daughter of an officer. not everything is so simple2 ...
          1. xtur
            xtur 26 May 2016 21: 38
            0
            > you are more careful with your words, otherwise we will perceive you as "the daughter of an officer

            scary, already scary.

            for a resident of Armenia - Russia will bend everyone into a ram’s horn.

            And yes, for those for whom the Russian language is not their native language, the mood can be playful, and sparkling, and tiger and tiger
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 26 May 2016 22: 11
              +2
              Quote: xtur
              > you are more careful with your words, otherwise we will perceive you as "the daughter of an officer

              scary, already scary.

              for a resident of Armenia - Russia will bend everyone into a ram’s horn.

              And yes, for those for whom the Russian language is not their native language, the mood can be playful, and sparkling, and tiger and tiger


              Sorry. did not notice the flag. Fair.
              And I forgot to put the emoticon right away - because I wrote no offense, but also "in a mood" :)

              For a "normal" inhabitant of Russia - cries about that. that "Russia will roll everyone into a ram's horn" - always causes gnashing of teeth.
              The last first Chechen one - taught a lot and many, but there is no mosque.
              These are usually already in the tutorials after the first explosion-packet about-se-l-s and wrote to mummies "take me back."

              These noisy little pugs of the couch-stooped Internet spetsnaz - for some reason, are either sick, or pence, or children - and the rest will have to fight. Normal and not flaunting anything.

              Just bream in real life, such pugs need to be given more often.
              To open the bread slicer.
              1. xtur
                xtur 28 May 2016 14: 44
                0
                > Well, I'm sorry. did not notice the flag. Fair.
                > Yes, and forgot to put the smiley right away - because he wrote no offense, but also "with mood" :)

                Well, that's fine, we understood each other :-)
                I, in turn, simply clarified the issue, as I understood it
      2. Eragon
        Eragon 26 May 2016 20: 32
        0
        Quote: Yeraz
        You obviously went too far with anyone.

        Yes, the comrade did not overdo it. Or do you think that 1700 warheads for planet Earth are so small? For some reason, scientists and the military believe that it is enough to explode the nuclear weapons that Russia has, just a "kirdyk" will come on its territory and planet
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 26 May 2016 21: 37
          +1
          Quote: Eragon
          Quote: Yeraz
          You obviously went too far with anyone.

          Yes, the comrade did not overdo it. Or do you think that 1700 warheads for planet Earth are so small? For some reason, scientists and the military believe that it is enough to explode the nuclear weapons that Russia has, just a "kirdyk" will come on its territory and planet


          Do you have children, grandchildren?
          Ready to burn them yourself?
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 27 May 2016 10: 15
          0
          In the 50s, super-powerful hydrogen charges were tested, the power of one such charge exceeded the power of Topol M by 30 times, and several hundred such megaton explosions were made - as you can see, the planet is alive and if there is an exchange of nuclear strikes, they will destroy only those countries that enter conflict, the rest of the countries will continue to live in new environmental conditions, they will cope with the consequences of this war.
          Test Castle Rameo 11 megatons.
    2. CORNET
      CORNET 26 May 2016 19: 06
      +2
      Quote: razmik72
      Quote: CORNET
      The times of the US AUG have passed when they terrified the "rebellious" countries ... Russia spoiled everything ...

      We all know that Russia is a force, it will bend anyone into a ram’s horn.

      Your malice, counted ..))) hi
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 26 May 2016 20: 33
    +8
    Quote: CORNET
    Times AUG USA passed ...

    Apparently Amer’s strategists do not know about this ... Surely they cram the platform with drones. And in the guard of the AUG there will be cyberPLA and NK-semiautomatic devices ...
    The answer of Russia. What will he be like? Maybe all the same, the space mission control and the new generation of underwater vehicles. Or maybe SLBMs with a head-RCC modeled on the DF-21.
    But the antidote must be found. For the destruction of the AB before its approach to the line of aviation recovery is the most important task of the fleet in both the conventional and REV war.
    IMHO.
  • kostiknet
    kostiknet 26 May 2016 18: 03
    +3
    something strange happens with dates in this article !!! recourse
    (launched in 3013 g)
    (The construction of the aircraft carrier itself is planned to begin in the same 208. Its completion date is 2027)
  • semuil
    semuil 26 May 2016 18: 04
    +4
    CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford (launched in 3013)
    Correct, otherwise you had to look at the calendar and specify.
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 26 May 2016 18: 05
    -1
    It's funny The counter-Papuan trough of unimaginable value ... Let them build. Or do they expect that by the time of launching serious opponents will be over? Bravely, bravely.
    1. The Little Humpbacked Horse
      The Little Humpbacked Horse 26 May 2016 18: 21
      +3
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Or do they expect that by the time of launching serious opponents will be over?


      I think they expect to give high-paying shipyard jobs to their citizens, why not, if there is money
      1. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 26 May 2016 18: 33
        +1
        It would be much cheaper to just pay benefits. There is such a saying - generals (and admirals) are preparing for the PAST WAR! Mattress with a bang defeated the samurai with the help of aircraft carriers, and assured of their omnipotence ... More wars did not happen wassat
        1. dvina71
          dvina71 26 May 2016 18: 44
          +1
          Quote: Mountain Shooter
          Mattress with a bang defeated the samurai using an aircraft carrier

          You confuse a couple .. don’t you? The USA with great difficulty, and somewhere with luck, coped with the imperial Japanese fleet. but the units of the Red Army defeated the Kwantung group of the Japanese army with a bang .. something about 900t. composition.
        2. Lens
          Lens 26 May 2016 23: 10
          +1
          But what about Falkleno - the Malvinas conflict? There, aircraft carriers and ersatz-helicopter carriers played an important role.
  • Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 26 May 2016 18: 06
    +2
    I was surprised about stealth. Such a colossus should be tried very hard to disguise. Even using all the means of this technology, this object will be the brightest spot. However, even field kitchens are not released without stealth now. wink
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 26 May 2016 18: 23
      +6
      And what, you thought that only you know how to cut the budget? On some studies of the use of stealth on an aircraft carrier, figure out how much you can cut.
      1. Putinets
        Putinets 26 May 2016 18: 27
        0
        Quote: Nagan
        And what, you thought that only you know how to cut the budget? On some studies of the use of stealth on an aircraft carrier, figure out how much you can cut.

        From a prominent place
    2. VadimL
      VadimL 26 May 2016 19: 03
      +3
      Yes, a stealth aircraft carrier is powerful. :)) An oil painting appears right before my eyes: "A stealth fighter is trying to board a stealth aircraft carrier." How will they find each other?
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 26 May 2016 21: 40
        +4
        Quote: VadimL
        Yes, a stealth aircraft carrier is powerful. :)) P


        There will be a flare of the destroyer level.
        The range of equipment for such a target in 3-4 times less than not a stealth aircraft carrier.

        Can you further brainwash yourself? Although I think that "everything is already scattered before us ..."
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 26 May 2016 22: 37
      +2
      I think they will change the shape of the control tower, and the top of the sides will be "overwhelmed" inward a bit.
      This can somewhat reduce its EPR. If Zumvolt looks on radars, like
      fishing schooner, then this monster will be confused with a cruiser. smile
      1. opus
        opus 26 May 2016 23: 31
        +4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        If Zumvolt looks on radars, like
        fishing schooner


        And who saw something Z on "radars"
        ?
        they also "say" the F-22 on the radar gives the same hail as a ping-pong ball ...
        / They say a lot

        I've asked LM at least for these ancient measurements (1/2 ball) to send a record

        refused, but for a long time they asked where I took this photo.
        For the answer (from) I asked for data on measurements of this:

        are silent. It looks like barter won't work
        1. Operator
          Operator 27 May 2016 00: 02
          -1
          Do not give a link to the words of Lockmart’s employees on the ping-pong ball?
          1. opus
            opus 27 May 2016 02: 01
            +1
            Quote: Operator
            Do not give a link to the words of Lockmart’s employees on the ping-pong ball?

            Only after the presentation of the photo / video, how Falcon is transported by railway to "Long Distances"



            No other way request
            1. Operator
              Operator 27 May 2016 12: 42
              -1
              Ping pong means ping pong.
              1. opus
                opus 27 May 2016 17: 17
                +1
                Quote: Operator
                Ping pong means ping pong.

                3,7 meters "fucking shiit", and "only for short distances"
        2. mav1971
          mav1971 27 May 2016 00: 20
          +2
          Quote: opus

          refused, but for a long time they asked where I took this photo.



          It is really interesting - where does this photo come from? :)
          1. opus
            opus 27 May 2016 02: 05
            +2
            Quote: mav1971
            where does this photo come from? :)

            Advanced Technologies, Inc.


            they have good woodworking


            ATI has produced the following test articles:

            Boeing RCS Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
            F / A-18 EF, F-22, UCAV, & F-35 Antenna & Avionics Models
            Comanche RAH-66 Helicopter
            Several Generic Test Bodies & Platforms for Avionic Component Testing
        3. srelock
          srelock 27 May 2016 00: 37
          +1
          Quote: opus
          refused, but for a long time they asked where I took this photo.

          Are they there, in their own Google could not?
          http://advancedtechnologiesinc.com/products-and-services/full-scale-models-and-m
          ockups / antenna-pole-rcs-models /
          1. opus
            opus 27 May 2016 01: 43
            +1
            Quote: srelock
            Are they there, in their own Google could not?

            do not take everything literally ....
            1. srelock
              srelock 27 May 2016 08: 13
              +1
              It’s sometimes difficult for you to understand hi
              1. opus
                opus 27 May 2016 17: 16
                +1
                Quote: srelock
                It’s sometimes difficult for you to understand

                belay
                Are you not familiar with my wife?
                I have heard the same ("hard to understand") for the 24th year already ...
                From children, differentiated: from 22x.
                I did not hide:

                =========================
                Today I was driving along the CD, on the electronic scoreboard the inscription:
                "CAUTION!!!! CONSTIPATION ON THE ROAD"
                really, it's hard to understand here wink
  • Primipilus
    Primipilus 26 May 2016 18: 07
    +10
    Don’t say that they are ahead of everyone in the construction of aircraft carriers.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 27 May 2016 00: 04
      +2
      They have been in the construction of the fleet since World War II, they are and will be ahead of the rest - in 1945 they had 100 aircraft carriers.
  • Putinets
    Putinets 26 May 2016 18: 09
    +2
    And the F-35s, Falcon and Scully steps with Agent Mulder will take off and land on them.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 26 May 2016 22: 51
      +3
      Anything, square, like a football field.
      Even Mriya can be planted good
  • GSVG 86-88
    GSVG 86-88 26 May 2016 18: 22
    +2
    I can hardly imagine "aircraft carrier-stealth", some incompatible concepts.
  • Putinets
    Putinets 26 May 2016 18: 22
    -3
    Quote: Primipilus
    Don’t say that they are ahead of everyone in the construction of aircraft carriers.

    Have you ever watched when the last one was built? And second, why are Russian aircraft carriers needed? If from the excavator in the reeds of the Volga with the Gauges we tickled the grandmother? And after a couple of decades Caliber-2 you will wet from the trunk of your car.
    1. Primipilus
      Primipilus 26 May 2016 19: 02
      +3
      With their geographical position and ambitions for the whole world, a large carrier fleet is necessary. Russia needs to build more nuclear submarines.
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 27 May 2016 00: 25
      +1
      And after a couple of decades, Caliber-2 will be wet from the trunk of your car.


      Yes there too.
      The car still start.
      Let’s wet from the balcony ...
      Who is higher - wets everyone!

      D, B!


      https://youtu.be/_DS2PKjV1PI

      https://youtu.be/D5D7s3lVZbM
  • ollee
    ollee 26 May 2016 18: 24
    -2
    Americans! .... two and three years as a state the United States may not exist ....
    1. tforik
      tforik 26 May 2016 19: 41
      +2
      in theory, they should have been destroyed in 2003 - Zhirik told you about the collapse if they get into Iraq. Apparently lucky that time.
  • Barakuda
    Barakuda 26 May 2016 18: 25
    +4
    Maybe this is a temptation for opponents, primarily Russia? In order for the budget to spend the same vessels request
  • maxim1987
    maxim1987 26 May 2016 18: 27
    0
    good target for "Dongfeng 21".
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 26 May 2016 18: 27
    +3
    Author in the studio! "Construction is planned to start in 208" BC or after? "CVN-78" Gerald R. Ford "(launched in 3013) and CVN-79" John F. Kennedy "- sorry we won't see!" Declared term "- imprisonment, fermentation, half-life? Will you squeeze 100.000 tons of high-grade iron so that any radar station would not notice it? Did you get a "Black Hole" at the collider? I would be ashamed of such material!
  • Verdun
    Verdun 26 May 2016 18: 30
    0
    It's curious how this "new series" will look like in the end. Will the Americans focus on the use of the F-35 in the design? Or will they spit on this wunderplan and go the traditional way? At one time, they wrote a lot about the fact that the United States was developing aircraft carriers of a semi-submerged scheme. Where are these developments? Now everything is quiet ...
  • engineer74
    engineer74 26 May 2016 18: 31
    0
    Um .. The "probable partners" themselves declared - "The future belongs to unmanned aircraft!" And what for drones have a trough of 300 meters and 3000 servicemen dug?
    1. Ride78
      Ride78 26 May 2016 20: 41
      0
      Well, for example, in order to bring these drones closer to enemy territory on it, no?
    2. Revolver
      Revolver 26 May 2016 20: 44
      +3
      Quote: engineer74
      And what for drones trough 300 meters

      For basing
      Quote: engineer74
      and 3000 snouts of servants?
      Serve, refuel, hang bombs ... You never know what to do
    3. Lens
      Lens 26 May 2016 23: 14
      +1
      And you google x-47 drone drone (for example). Its dimensions .... And everything will become clear. The times of copters out of the boxes go back by leaps and bounds.
  • sir_obs
    sir_obs 26 May 2016 18: 32
    0
    Just in time, God will give the ekranoplanes the drums built. They started something like that. It is interesting to see how their meeting goes.
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 27 May 2016 00: 28
      +1
      Quote: sir_obs
      Just in time, God will give the ekranoplanes the drums built. They started something like that. It is interesting to see how their meeting goes.


      There will be no ekranoplanes of the military.
      neither large, nor small, nor percussion, any.
      And nobody was up to anything.

      Do not dream at night looking.
  • jekasimf
    jekasimf 26 May 2016 18: 47
    0
    Big ship, a big torpedo.
  • masiya
    masiya 26 May 2016 18: 48
    +1
    Everything is numb. they don’t have enough different shit, they only want to surprise, probably freedom-loving Antarctic penguins ...
  • K-50
    K-50 26 May 2016 18: 54
    +1
    Works, including design, construction, planning and procurement of materials

    Do they have every aircraft carrier on a different project? belay laughing
    Cut the dough above all! laughing
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 26 May 2016 21: 41
      +1
      Quote: K-50
      Works, including design, construction, planning and procurement of materials

      Do they have every aircraft carrier on a different project? belay laughing
      Cut the dough above all! laughing


      Do you think that as in 77 they began to build Nimitz. and after 40 years should build on the same projects chtoli?

      D, B!
  • valent45
    valent45 26 May 2016 19: 06
    +6
    What does the Amer’s budget have to do with it, guys. How much money is needed, so much will be printed.
    The thing is different. The aircraft carrier, in the modern interpretation, is another military base,
    mobile. and to this situation it is necessary to react accordingly.
    1. Vladimir61
      Vladimir61 26 May 2016 19: 53
      +3
      + That's for sure.
      And we are ironic amicably because we all really want Russia not only to modernize the remnants of the former luxury of the "big fleet", but also to build a new one. But alas, not yet! In the meantime, we have to reckon with the fact that the launch of the next boat or tug is good news!
      1. CORNET
        CORNET 26 May 2016 20: 30
        -2
        Quote: Vladimir61
        + That's for sure.
        And we are ironic amicably because we all really want Russia not only to modernize the remnants of the former luxury of the "big fleet", but also to build a new one. But alas, not yet! In the meantime, we have to reckon with the fact that the launch of the next boat or tug is good news!

        Of course we are being ironic .... and the West squeals, to the whole world about the "Russian threat" And why is it all of a sudden ..? These boats are already on duty (and there are more and more of them ..) Russia is a mysterious country! fellow
  • Every
    Every 26 May 2016 20: 07
    +1
    Quote: valent45
    What does the Amer’s budget have to do with it, guys. How much money is needed, so much will be printed.
    The thing is different. The aircraft carrier, in the modern interpretation, is another military base,
    mobile. and to this situation it is necessary to react accordingly.


    This base is expensive, both in construction and in operation. Ground bases are much more convenient, cheaper, etc. And to sink this base is quite real, despite the escort.
  • Operator
    Operator 26 May 2016 20: 15
    -1
    It is interesting how the EMALS electromagnetic catapults installed on all three aircraft carriers of the Gerald R. Ford class will react to EMP from a nuclear explosion am

    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 26 May 2016 22: 42
      0
      Thanks, interesting catapult test video.
  • iliitchitch
    iliitchitch 26 May 2016 20: 33
    +1
    From stealth aircraft carriers in general trembling on the skin - this is how many working places, and with each can be cut? So we will stupidly rivet the pelvis under the missile defense, and what if we win? They don’t even count the chances. Stupidly hide and hide in New Zealand ...
  • Skubudu
    Skubudu 26 May 2016 20: 55
    +1
    Eh ... we would have at least one full AUG not with Kuzei at the head.
  • Alexdark
    Alexdark 26 May 2016 22: 59
    +1
    "The budget is big, they can build a hundred other such aircraft carriers." Judging by the comments, our people are proud of the United States. But let's take into account one small thing, you can build and do as much as possible, but bloating this money-eating industry is also not good. This leads to failure. Huge military spending is absolutely the same thing as zero military spending. Ie a huge army in everything, this is the same if there were no army at all. Many states fell from this. Hmm, I remember the USSR collapsed for this reason. But even if this is not an arms race, the essence of my text is that a giant "mouth" needs to be fed all the time. It will not work endlessly, especially since the "mouth" grows.
    PS So there's nothing "cool" about the fact that they can build 100500 such ships. I am 100% sure that when this country collapses (nothing lasts forever), the reason will be precisely in its astronomical military budget and army. You need to know when to stop! If you inflate the balloon for a long time, it will burst, this is a fact.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 27 May 2016 00: 11
      0
      Huge spending on the fleet helped the US defeat Japan in the Pacific Ocean war of 1941 - 1945. And they learned this lesson in history.
      1. Makarov
        Makarov 27 May 2016 02: 31
        0
        This history lesson tells us that a country producing 20 thousand planes a year will always defeat a country producing 5 thousand planes a year with any commanders and any heroes ...
  • Evil 55
    Evil 55 27 May 2016 02: 36
    0
    But the durability (service life) of American galoshes is long overdue to measure with a salvo of "Calibers" required to destroy it ...
  • mart-kot
    mart-kot 27 May 2016 07: 32
    0
    here some write about the destruction of missile defense and bastions by tomahawks. The question arises, from what distance can tomahawks cover the MOBILE complex? Yes there are few Bastions, here I agree, but you don’t need songs about how 1000500 Tomahawks will cover them very quickly. This time, the second, the concentration of a large enemy naval group on our shores will not go unnoticed, squaring the concentration of nuclear weapons for such a group will not go unnoticed, and such a blow will be dealt when a massive missile strike is detected on our territory. And no missile defense will save the aircraft carrier group, believe me. And thirdly, no one canceled our submarine fleet, just as our submarines followed aircraft carriers like that. Like everything I wanted to say. And yet, in the current situation, the US aircraft carrier group is a very good target, it is effective for conducting local conflicts, in the war with the Russian Federation these funds are ineffective. IMHO
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 27 May 2016 08: 36
      +1
      Quote: mart-kot
      here some write about the destruction of missile defense and bastions by tomahawks. The question arises, from what distance can tomahawks cover the MOBILE complex? IMHO


      All these mobile complexes have one problem.
      They do not always move.
      They depend on the level and quality of roads.
      All possible launch points are pre-tried, tested, access roads are laid to them.
      Accordingly, having lost 5-10 tomahawks to close all potential points of the BKPRK and its route, it is possible to have a high percentage of probability that the launch of the anti-ship missiles will not occur. The same applies to the location points of the radar detection and target designation.
      Destroying only them - SCRC turns into a pumpkin.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 27 May 2016 15: 32
      0
      Carrier formations will wait for the exchange of nuclear strikes on the seas and oceans, and then they will come close to our shores and will finish off everything that has survived, Russia does not have ICBMs that can hit moving surface and underwater objects around the globe and we do not have tracking and recognition detection systems ships - this is not expected from us, even in the most distant future.
  • Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 27 May 2016 09: 30
    0
    Dear Sirs Experts! And who "enlightened" you that these new AUGs are directed ONLY against Russia, and not against the growing power of CHINA? So Tang completely changes his strategy to TAP - begins to "make friends" with India and Vietnam against the Celestial Empire ?! With all due respect to our country, the Americans understand that it will take more than one decade for the Russian Navy (MIC) to bridge the gap of the 90s? Another thing is China, where they also understand that the United States will not allow itself to get ahead in the economy. nor in the military sphere - they will be the first to strike a global blow much earlier than 2027, when a new super-aircraft carrier is built! The Americans, realizing that they will not be able to win in mainland China with the superior army of the PRC ?! Victory at sea is another matter! The Chinese also understand this, but they do not have time to build a powerful fleet, but ??? Necessity for inventions is cunning - land aircraft carriers on the islands are at least a line of defense: and effective. both cheap and cheerful !!! We will see. how will it continue ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 27 May 2016 15: 44
      0
      They will defeat China with nuclear weapons, and aircraft carriers will enter the battle after - they will beat everything that has survived.
  • GAndr
    GAndr 27 May 2016 10: 18
    +2
    Yes, we do not need an aircraft carrier fleet, damn it, we don’t need it. Let's really look at things. USA is a sea power surrounded by the sea on all sides. They need a strong fleet to control the sea routes, it is a matter of their survival in case of war. Russia is a purely land power. Whoever says anything there, but our ground army, even now, after the collapse of the union, will be stronger than the US army. Like lovers of the United States or not, but it is a given :)
    So, we have stupidly different concepts. Ok, for example, who is stronger than an elephant or a whale? the whale is the USA, the elephant is Russia.
    And the huge US military budget, hmm ... Do you know how much one pair of American soldier’s shoes cost? And how much does it cost to maintain one military base abroad? And what is the salary of the US military and civilian personnel? This can be continued further. And by the way, all this in hard currency :)
    I don’t say that we don’t need a fleet at all. We need it, but not an expeditionary one, but above all a defense fleet. And of course there are more underwater missile carriers. It is both cheaper and much more practical. Aircraft carrier guards an escort, with a dozen different ships + submarines. This is a very good target and only one nuclear warhead is needed for this target. After all, you have no doubt that in the case of a real batch between the United States and Russia, the issue will be decided precisely by nuclear weapons :) So one shot minus a dozen or more ships and a few dozen aircraft.
    And now go get into a brisk submarine that walks alone, and not in a pack somewhere in the depths :) That's it.
    Carriers are a purely colonial weapon, which is good to have in the event of a war with the enemy many times less weak. Well, or there to scare someone thread, remember the gunboat policy. No one will stupidly fight with Russian aircraft carriers.
    The Union also had the opportunity to rivet the aircraft carriers in batches, but something did not rivet :) And so something, but at that time there were fewer fools in the USSR Ministry of Defense than in the RF Ministry of Defense ...
    Once again, the whale and the elephant ...
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 27 May 2016 11: 31
      +1
      Quote: GAndr
      Yes, we do not need an aircraft carrier fleet, damn it, we don’t need it.

      Quote: GAndr
      They need a strong fleet to control the sea routes, it is a matter of their survival in case of war.

      And the question of Russia's survival then is yours, what? Two-thirds of the Earth is water. Do you suggest we close on our continent and sniff quietly? We need aircraft carriers in order to upset the appetites of the exceptional and not only them. Plus, trade through the seas and oceans has not been canceled. And now Think for example, what will happen if Turkey blocks the Bosphorus? Will you hammer the Turks with nuclear weapons?
      The security of trade routes has not been canceled. You can argue that for this, the mosquito fleet is enough for the eyes ... but that’s the whole point, we should not conduct military operations with Turkey, Japan and so on. hands. I need a trump card that would completely discourage the mattress satellites even look askance in our direction.
      And as regards the mattresses themselves, they perceive and speak only with the strong. But Russia's interests do not end at its borders.
      Nobody says that we need to rivet 11 aircraft carriers. We don’t need this. In order to feel confident anywhere in the world, we need 4-5 AUGs. In this situation, we don’t have to grab a nuclear weapon every time sword when the Americans or someone else would once again try to step on our tail.
      Quote: GAndr
      Once again, the whale and the elephant ...

      So who says that we don’t need to develop that land component of the army? At the same time, I agree with you on the issue of building a different class of submarines.
  • GAndr
    GAndr 27 May 2016 12: 08
    +1
    Dear NEXUS
    :) Who is talking about self-isolation here? Self-isolation is evil! An empty place does not exist ... Humpbacked, before self-isolation, left from wherever he could leave. As a result - now there are everywhere mattresses and mattress covers instead of us. I did not talk about self-isolation, I talked about the uselessness of aircraft carriers, in principle, for a war with an equal strength enemy.
    Regarding the defensive fleet, with the strongest long-range weapons, but without large air defense systems on board (it operates in the area of ​​coverage of coastal air defense) and, as a consequence, having small ships, then for the defense really more is not needed. Mosquito fleet you say? :) Well, so be it, only I would call such a fleet more like a hornet. Very powerful weapon "Caliber". And it is better to have 100500 small ships than 30 huge cruisers. Want to know why? Because a swarm of bees will always defeat a bear.
    Among other things, how much does it cost to build one aircraft carrier and the time of money? And how much does it cost to build one corvette? Tell us that there is so much time and money to build a fleet that you need to spray funds on expensive and in no way necessary projects for real defense? Awww, war is on the verge. We need a weapon and not pathos.
    Want an example? Remember the parades on the red square of 1940, when columns of giants and handsome T-35s passed. Agree effective and formidable weapons, the earth was trembling, right? And how did it come to real battles with a strong enemy, where did all these huge and terrible giants go?
    So I say that now the aircraft carrier is the T-35 of our time. A terrible, expensive and pnt, but meaningless toy. So scare only any Papuans having little value in a real combat situation.
    As for all kinds of Turkey and other Japan, it is not aircraft carriers that are needed, but a completely different class of ships, something between a large UDC and an atomic cruiser. That could make a demonstration of power and so that it was not worth dragging a whole pile of support ships. On one side is the huge, hurricane power of a weapon, a powerful air defense system and an expeditionary landing. Something like that .. As a result, you have a huge combat gunner on the roads of the Turks or the Japanese, which even without the presence of a bunch of escort ships does not become less terrible.
    This is several times cheaper than a full-fledged AUG, and in terms of its combat and "frightening" abilities it is not inferior to AUG. And again, from these ships and sea routes can be controlled
    But then again, this is good for Turkey and Japan, but not for a commensurate force opponent.
    And I, for you to understand, an imperialist, in the good sense of the word:) That is, for the empire on Earth to be one and this is the Russian Empire, the Russian Federation or the USSR, whatever you want and call it. And of course, on this very Earth, in my opinion, there is simply no place for the USA. What do not say, but the place on this ball for two will not be enough.
    However, to everything else, I’m also a realist and I understand that it’s really possible to build my country both technically and financially as an adequate response to all the US show-offs. Let them indulge in a lot of money :))
    Something like this..
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 27 May 2016 13: 45
      +1
      Quote: GAndr
      And it’s better to have 100500 small ships than 30 huge cruisers. Want to know why? And because the swarm of bees will always defeat the bear.

      All of you correctly say ... but ... the range of the same frigate is several times shorter than that of an atomic cruiser or aircraft carrier. Secondly. With regards to
      what is needed is not aircraft carriers, but a completely different class of ships, a cross between a large UDC and an atomic cruiser.
      But who argues that? There is a project of the destroyer Leader of 15 tons, but now this is just a layout.
      The balance of the fleet has not been canceled and air cover will never be superfluous. The memory of the history of battles in WWII mattresses with the Japanese comes to mind.
      I’m not saying that we need to build aircraft carriers in batches, but we still need these ships. Especially if carrier-based aircraft have a range of a couple of thousand kilometers. Let’s imagine the situation with the same Syria. How many problems would be solved with the deployment of an air wing, the transfer , the security of our forces and the effectiveness of the operation in Syria.
      Something like this.
  • bibobo
    bibobo 27 May 2016 17: 03
    0
    Nuclear weapons at sea are not effective. With a charge of 150ct, the radius of destruction is a maximum of 2 km
    1. GAndr
      GAndr 27 May 2016 20: 42
      0
      It is enough to neutralize the AUG, completely. And then the charges come in different strengths, again EMP :)
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 28 May 2016 00: 04
        +1
        We do not have ICBMs capable of hitting moving targets.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 28 May 2016 00: 07
      0
      And the most important question is how to deliver these 150 kilotons to a range of 10000 kilometers.
  • GAndr
    GAndr 27 May 2016 20: 40
    0
    Dear NEXUS, for the range we have submarines :)
    Regarding the Second World War, I agree that aircraft carriers are the kings of the seas of the Second World War, exactly the same as battleships at one time, and even earlier frigates and so on for centuries. During the Second World War there were no long-range anti-ship missiles. As not used, and many other weapons known now. Given the hypothetical war between the Russian Federation and the United States, there is nothing to look for by plane over enemy territory. Deeply layered air defense reduces any air attack to suicide. The emphasis should be on missiles, not on airplanes. This is by the way that an arsenal ship with a bunch of missiles is more likely to be needed than a classic aircraft carrier with many useless planes and a bunch of cover ships. At the same time, an arsenal can be made on the basis of a submarine :) Remember what I wrote about submarines?
    Once again, this is what I’m talking about is a war between equal opponents, and not a swot of Papuans.

    As for the projection of power, in the same Syria. There is a normal airbase there, which is much more reliable in operation than the deck of an aircraft carrier. Well, for the projection of force where there are no bases, as I said, a ship is needed a mixture of a larger UDC with a powerful cruiser, and not an aircraft carrier. Well, let's call such a ship, let's say "station wagon" :)
    How many such universal ships do we need? Hmm, ideally, two for each fleet. However, I am afraid that such station wagons will also be very expensive, but they are much more promising than aircraft carriers and nevertheless are much cheaper. After all, we know that the aircraft carrier needs both airplanes and a huge pile of escort ships. And this in today's Russia is stupidly unrealistic to afford, and absolutely not necessary. Let's not prepare for the wars of the past.