The sixth US fleet could not break through to the coast of Syria

424
The sixth US fleet could not break through to the coast of Syria


The invincible and legendary Sixth Fleet of the U.S. Navy hastily left the Mediterranean when approaching the Syrian coast of the Russian naval group. Actually, the Sixth Fleet itself and its commander, Vice Admiral Craig Pandolf, have not gone away - they are still in the zone of responsibility entrusted to them, listed in all operational reports and financial reports. At the numerous Mediterranean bases of the Sixth fleet life also flows in the usual mode - work orders, dismissal, perimeter security, painting fences, theft of property, unpaid bills for electricity, gas and fresh water.



Another thing is that the ships of the Sixth Fleet strangely disappeared from the Mediterranean Sea!
There is a fleet, but there are no ships, you will surely be surprised - Is this possible?

Yes, perhaps, if we are talking about the US Navy. Unlike the structure of the Russian Navy, where each fleet has an unchanged list of ships assigned to it, including its flagship (Northern Fleet - TARKR Peter the Great, Baltic Fleet — Destroyer destroyer, Black Sea Fleet — GRKR Moscow, Pacific - RKR "Varyag"), the concept of "fleet" for the US Navy - no more than a sphere of responsibility. It is impossible to give a specific answer to the request: “Show the ships of the Sixth Fleet” - the fleet composition changes almost daily. Here is a quantum mechanics!

For example, any carrier strike group that has passed the Strait of Gibraltar is automatically assigned the designation Task Force 60 (60 Operational Connection) and AUG is transformed into the main strike force of the Sixth Fleet. And the commander of the carrier group, respectively, receives the post of commander of the Operational Force 60, and is now directly responsible for the situation in the Mediterranean.

Following this logic, each assault helicopter carrier and its escort, which entered the Mediterranean waters, are designated Task Force 61. Now they are the main amphibious forces of the Sixth Fleet.
Any squadron of destroyers in the Mediterranean is transformed into DESRON SIX ZERO (or simply “the 60 squadron”), the destroyers are gone — the 60’s mines squadron is disbanded.

How do the Americans manage not to get entangled in this whirlpool and not accidentally lose their six dozen destroyers in the expanses of the World Ocean? Imagine such a conversation on the sidelines of the Pentagon:

- Where is the destroyer "John Paul Jones"?

“Last year he was seen off the coast of Jamaica ...”

- Damn, he was supposed to arrive in Norfolk in September. Where is he gone?

A "John Paul Jones" quietly rusting in the harbor of Pearl Harbor, in anticipation of a new order, which, perhaps, will send him to the coast of Greenland.

Three things help to avoid such a mess: a specific home port for each ship (standard and mandatory world practice), a rather fuzzy division into Atlantic and Pacific command, and, most importantly, regardless of the number of the fleet, American ships are kept in permanent divisions, combat groups and carrier strike groups.

Refueling at full speed

For many years, any aircraft carrier usually has an unchanged list of its escort ships and a clear composition of the wing with permanent squadrons, which are sometimes assigned to this aircraft carrier for decades. And nothing else.
For example, the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, together with the Cape St. George missile cruiser, four Aegis destroyers (Sterret, Hesley, Momsen and Shoup), and a number of auxiliary ships and frigates form the “combat aircraft carrier group №9 ".

Based on this concept, each of the six American fleets constantly has in its composition (i.e., in its area of ​​responsibility) one or several carrier strike groups, amphibious groups or divisions of destroyers from which the fleet is formed. Ships come and go, but their number always remains the same.

And so — noticing the Russian squadron on the horizon, most of the American ships hurried to leave the zone of the Sixth Fleet, leaving the Mediterranean frontier of NATO, sorry, with a bare bottom. Speaking in Russian - the Sixth Fleet ceased to exist, remaining only in the form of paper instructions and empty berths of the Mediterranean bases.

History This is not new - according to a similar scenario, the brave British sailors acted, who, having barely received information about the German battleship Tirpitz entering the sea, threw the unarmed transports of the PQ-17 convoy to their fate and shamefully fled on a 30-junction passage. It is significant that the British squadron, at least, was not inferior to German ships and even had an advantage due to the presence of a deck aviation. The death of the PQ-17 convoy laid a shameful spot on the entire history of the British Navy.

So it happened this time: a middle-aged rocket cruiser, a pair of large anti-submarine ships, four amphibious ships with full holds of “black towers”, a small frigate and a patrol ship, laid back in the distant 1966 year, drove away from the coast of Syria all of the “probable enemy” ", Tearing down the already prepared plans for an armed invasion. American sailors are seriously afraid of the Russian Navy - they have long understood that when the shells run out, our ships will break through their side, as happened in the Black Sea.

On a long hike


Let's see for fun who confronted a small Russian squadron:

Nuclear-powered aircraft carrier "Dwight Eisenhower" - a clot of combat matter weighing 100 thousand tons; invincible monster capable of striking the enemy at a distance of a thousand kilometers and explore the entire surface of the Mediterranean Sea in a day. Two Westinghouse reactors, unlimited autonomy for fuel reserves. The displacement of a huge ship is twice the total displacement of all the ships of the Russian group.

The main argument of the slaughter machine is 70 ... 80 aircraft of various purposes, capable of dumping tons of ammunition from the vast cellars of a super-aircraft carrier on the heads of 1900 enemies. State-of-the-art equipment, radar and supercomputers, a plant for seawater desalination, catapults, ammunition elevators, aerofinishers and aircraft lifters, heavy booking, unique fire extinguishing systems, giant storages and cold stores, nearly six thousand crew members.

1 December 2012 of the Year “Dwight Eisenhower” arrived in the eastern part of the Mediterranean. 13 December 2012, the invincible aircraft carrier Dwight Eisenhower, unexpectedly said goodbye to everyone, and a bullet flew out of the Mediterranean, heading for Norfolk's home base.
According to the official version, the ship was taken away to defuse the tense situation in this region. Hmm ... why are the Americans afraid of the "tense situation" ?! In my opinion, their entire policy is aimed at creating tensions around the world.

After the escaped “Eisenhower”, Turkish politicians looked sadly at themselves, and now they will have to resolve the situation on the border with Syria on their own.

Universal amphibious assault ship docking "Iwo Jima". A huge barge, comparable in displacement and capabilities with the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov." Onboard the Iwo Jima are thirty aircraft: vertical take-off attack aircraft, heavy transport helicopters and convertible planes, and a squadron of attack helicopters. Down below the flight deck are hidden accommodations designed to accommodate 2000 marines. Even lower - decks for the transport of armored vehicles. And at the waterline level there is a dock filled with water, in which there are three ready-made amphibious assault ships.

Two weeks of "Iwo Jima", overloaded with military equipment, it is important to spur Syrian waters, but barely seeing small Russian BDK, rushed to the West, rolling over and puffing on the 23-node course.

Together with the Eisenhower aircraft carrier, his personal guardian left the Syrian waters - the Hue City missile cruiser with full Tomahawk cellars prepared for the shelling of Syrian cities. The most modern ship, equipped with the all-seeing Aegis system and 122 launchers for launching any type of missile in service with the US Navy. But no modern technology has saved the Americans from the fierce fear of the Russian squadron. And a quarter of a century ago, the Yorktown rocket cruiser, similar in design to Hue City, returned from a Black Sea cruise with destroyed deck flooring and broken sides. Although it would seem - just tried to get closer to Sevastopol ... And then - the whole Syria, the Russian sailors of what good will be cut in half with an impact ram.

In addition to the missile cruiser, in the retinue of the American super-aircraft carrier there were three destroyers of URO of the Orly Burke type — McFaul, Kerney, and Farragut. All of them, of course, escaped with their flagship. Stunning ships, masterpieces of world shipbuilding, ready to shoot the enemy with five dozen winged “Tomahawks” or strike a target in low near-earth orbit. Lastly, Burgh's gunship destroyers are a key element of the US missile defense system. Strong, strong and modern destroyers. So what? Did it help much?

All in all, the Americans concentrated on the sea approaches to Syria from 17 the most powerful and modern ships: aircraft carrier and UDC, Ajis cruisers, destroyers, frigates, integrated supply ships and ships of the Shipping Command. And the total number of ships of the Sixth Fleet reached 40 units! To date, most of them have left the waters of the Mediterranean Sea, while the rest of the ships hid in bases.

One of the military transports of the Maritime Sealift Command. Used for fast worldwide delivery of equipment, equipment and personnel of the Army and Marines

Americans are the most modest and ascetic people. In the composition of the Sixth Fleet is constantly only ... one ship. The special command ship "Mount Whitney" is the very exception that confirms the general rule. Unlike all other ships, the Mount Whitney rarely leaves the Mediterranean basin and, in fact, is the eternal flagship of the American maritime group in this region.

The idea is not bad - to ensure effective management and coordination of the forces of the Navy and the Marine Corps, it was proposed to build a specialized staff ship, extremely saturated with receiving and transmitting equipment, with equipped briefing and conference rooms, comfortable admiral cabins and military control posts. On board there is equipment for receiving a helicopter. Externally, the “Mount Whitney” is distinguished by a flat spacious deck, which is literally littered with covers of antenna devices. In principle, Mount Whitney is difficult to distinguish from civilian research vessels or ships to communicate with spacecraft. The only thing that gives him a warship, - mounted on the bow and in the stern six-column automatic anti-aircraft gun "Phalanx".

Sixth Fleet Command Ship

In 2008, Mount Whitney, having forgotten about its flagship functions, was the first to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia. Along the way, he tried to make his way with a “friendly visit” to Sevastopol, but was booed and exhibited from the Black Sea in disgrace. This time, sensing that the Russians are determined to defend Syria, the flagship of the Sixth Fleet locked itself at its base in Gaeta (Italy) and does not appear to our sailors.

By the way, about the bases - the Sixth Fleet has in the Mediterranean Sea a significant number of points of material and technical service. Among them are facilities in Italy: in addition to the already mentioned naval base Gaeta, on the coast of this country there is a large naval base Naples with a coastal high-security command post and a forward point of stationing La Maddalena (a base of nuclear submarines on Sardinia). In addition, the Sixth Fleet may use the Italian naval forces Spezia, Taranto, Brindisi, Augusta (a major fuel supply point for fuel and lubricants). On the coast of Spain is another large object - the naval base Rota, used in conjunction with the Spanish Navy. Also, to deploy the base patrol and anti-submarine aircraft, the US fleet can use numerous air bases in European countries (for example, Sigonella AB on Sicily).

Entry into the territory of the Navy, Spain

The maintenance of all these military facilities falls heavily on the shoulders of American taxpayers. The Sixth Fleet commanders are trying to cut costs, and sometimes this leads to hilarious results - in September 2009, the Gaeta naval base remained for several days without fresh water: a private Italian water supply company simply turned off the water for non-payment.

Finale

Whatever events take place in the Middle East - the coast of Syria is under the constant control of the Russian Navy. We won this round - American ships left the Mediterranean Sea, and without the help of American aircraft carriers, UDC and Ajis destroyers, NATO has no clear advantage at sea - European non-aircraft carriers and frigates devoid of any serious strike weapons do not pose a threat to Russian group of ships of the Black Sea, Baltic and Pacific Fleets. Hopefully, the North Sea mariners will soon come to the area and our Navy will be able to conduct truly ambitious exercises in the Mediterranean.

Yes, the Sixth Fleet is cool and strong, but the era of atomic weapons guaranteed to "multiply by zero" all non-nuclear means in global war. And in local conflicts, the one who is more impudent and decisive has an advantage. The US Navy has extensive experience in fighting at sea, but the Americans do not like to fight unprepared, they need time to deploy and thorough preparation. Our sailors, on the contrary, are ready to fight in any conditions - this is our main and only trump card; unexpected tricks and desperate courage devalue any Aegis and Tomahawks.


The position of major US Navy aircraft carrier ships on 5 December 2012. The aircraft carrier Eisenhower and UDC Iwo Jima are located off the coast of Syria



The position of major US Navy aircraft carrier ships on 17 in January 2013. All but one returned to their bases.
424 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. camcos
    camcos
    0
    19 January 2013 15: 08
    Naive article
  2. gen.meleshkin
    gen.meleshkin
    0
    19 January 2013 16: 09
    An attack by one fleet on another is a war, and in the case of Russia and the United States, it is a war of destruction. Perhaps the USA has more intelligence and progmatism. Why should they die if they want to rule the world. After all, they destroyed the USSR without firing a single shot. And in Russia itself there are still many Yeltsins, Gorbachevs, Kozyrevs... What is Medvedev alone worth!
  3. Algor73
    Algor73
    0
    19 January 2013 16: 29
    And for me - Underestimating the enemy is half a defeat. And the Americans left for political reasons, and not because of fear.
  4. i.xxx-1971
    i.xxx-1971
    +1
    19 January 2013 17: 00
    I would call it a triumph of will. It doesn't matter how strong the enemy is. It is important to let him know that you will go to the end. Respect to our commander in chief.
  5. Rico1977 Rank
    Rico1977
    +4
    19 January 2013 18: 11
    All this is stupid - the Americans are not cowards, and one should not underestimate the enemy - it already backfired on us once, in 41. And these disingenuous articles are only misleading..
  6. spravochnik Rank
    spravochnik
    0
    19 January 2013 22: 18
    Actually, “Vulcans” have been standing on “Moscow” for a long time. Newer missiles. And before, in fact, there were “Basalts”.
  7. I think so Rank
    I think so
    0
    19 January 2013 23: 00
    p.i.n.d.o.s.y. Of course, not cowards, but just little pissers. But in this case, most likely they decided to extract at least some benefit from a completely losing situation (Syria).
    1. They left with their heads held high (well, they didn’t lose, those who fight will lose...)
    2. They will extract money from Congress (they say we have no money, and the Russians are right there).
    3. There is a possibility of inciting the Russians (Putin) into some kind of adventure.
    4. The Russian squadron’s missiles are still real and it’s stupid to base them on expensive aircraft carriers... no one is immune from accidents...
    1. Santa Fe Rank
      Santa Fe
      0
      20 January 2013 00: 21
      Quote: I think so
      1. They left with their heads held high (well, they didn’t lose, those who fight will lose...)


      Leave the battle or leave the battlefield... do you feel the difference?
  8. sergio12
    sergio12
    +1
    19 January 2013 23: 19
    About the Americans.. Officers and soldiers are not pissers. The high command too. But politicians play their own games. That’s why they left because it’s normal - if live firing is carried out during exercises, then it’s better to observe them from a safe distance. So no one was afraid of anyone.
  9. Gbnrby
    Gbnrby
    +1
    19 January 2013 23: 44
    The article is undoubtedly patriotic. I immediately remember the daring forced march of our paratroopers across Yugoslavia and the successful capture of the airfield in Pristina. But there are a number of points. Today, the American fleet is the MOST powerful fleet in the world. Not only in terms of the number of new ships, tonnage and high-tech weapons. This fleet has been CONSTANTLY engaged in combat operations at sea since World War II. Its aircraft carrier groups participated in Vietnam, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc. They know and are able to conduct combat operations at sea. Unlike our fleet, which is participating in major exercises for the first time in twenty years. And then on ships, and with Soviet-built weapons! If desired, our combined squadron will be swept away in a few minutes. And that's a fact. And the question is not for the sailors, who are now heroically, in foreign waters, like paratroopers in Yugoslavia, defending the interests of Russia. The question to the leaders of our country is why in twenty years not a SINGLE large combat vessel has been launched, and not a SINGLE new strike aircraft-carrying group has been formed in any of the four fleets. At the same time, money from the sale of oil and gas goes somewhere. If the Americans are leaving this area, it means they need it, and they were not afraid of several warships built in the second half of the last century. This means it’s necessary, and they won’t ask anyone. They were afraid of the ramming of a Russian ship. Laughter! You still need to approach for the ram. And who said that Americans are cowards, unpatriotic and don’t know how to fight? Who knows, they have a huge amount of combat experience! Yes, they instill patriotism with their mother’s milk. They love their homeland and are also ready to fight for it. Now let's talk about the patriotism of our soldiers, born in the mid-to-late eighties. For whom will they be ready to die? First for the faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland, then for communism. Now for whom? For those who trade in oil and keep their money offshore in the Cayman Islands? What if they were betrayed once again as conscript boys born in 76 who entered Grozny? Now let’s simulate the situation of a military collision and the destruction of our squadron. God forbid of course! What can we do in response to use nuclear weapons? Will the top officials of our state have the political will to make such a decision? I VERY doubt it.
    1. Santa Fe Rank
      Santa Fe
      0
      20 January 2013 00: 42
      Quote: Gbnrby
      A question for the leaders of our country - why in twenty years not a SINGLE large combat vessel has been launched?

      Lie! In the period from 1991 to 1999, the composition of the Russian Navy was replenished:
      - 5 nuclear submarines
      - heavy nuclear missile cruiser
      - a large anti-submarine ship
      - two destroyers (sold to China in the early 2000s)

      In addition, 8 more nuclear submarines were laid down, of which only three were completed in 2000-2012

      Quote: Gbnrby
      They were afraid of the ramming of a Russian ship. Laughter! You still need to approach for ramming

      Navala. A very real situation - no one will open fire in peacetime. But “dangerous maneuvering” with “serious consequences” is always a matter of practice

      Quote: Gbnrby
      First for the faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland, then for communism. Now for whom?

      For Assad!
      1. Beck
        Beck
        +1
        20 January 2013 12: 05
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: Gbnrby Previously for faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland, then for communism. Now for whom? For Assad!


        This is what the jingoistic patriots don’t think about, for them the main thing is the words from the Soviet song - “We shouted Hurray, and the cadets abandoned the trenches.”

        If the Russian fleet came out to protect the Far Eastern sea borders of Russia, to protect the waters of the Barents Sea, to protect international communications, then it would be clear - in the interests of Russia.

        And what interests could Russian mothers have in protecting the non-Russian uncle Assad, the dictator of Syria? Is Assad’s retention of power really worthy of the death of at least one Russian guy, at least one tear of a Russian mother?
        1. Cynic Rank
          Cynic
          0
          20 January 2013 16: 25
          Quote: Beck
          And what interests might Russian mothers have in protecting

          And what about American mothers in his exile?
          bully
          1. Beck
            Beck
            +2
            20 January 2013 17: 28
            Quote: Cynic
            And what about American mothers in his exile?


            Well, you're making me explain from afar. But I'll try.

            Humanity, among other things, has developed two fundamental concepts of GOOD and EVIL. A person’s preference for this or that determines a person’s attitude towards life.

            Save the life of Good, kill Evil. Give alms to Good, steal to Evil. Stand up for the offended Good, humiliate the helpless Evil. And so on.

            Destroying the fascist regime in Germany is good. Support for Hitler by Mussolini, the Ustashas, ​​and Vlasov is evil. The overthrow of the cannibal dictator Bokassa is good. Bokassa's justification is evil. Destruction of Paul Then 1/3 of his people is evil. The overthrow of Pol Pot by the Vietnamese army is good.

            Who is Bashar Assad? Dictator in posterity, and the dictator is already evil. The people of Syria have risen up for their rights, this is good (the fact that extremist trash has now joined the liberation movement is evil and another topic). The international community wants to remove the evil in Syria and give the people the opportunity to choose their own leader. But there is no decision of the UN Security Council on this, in view of the blocking of the decision by China and Russia, and therefore the community does not intervene with its armed forces to do Good.

            So protect Evil the lives of their sons and the tears of their mothers is unacceptable. Protect Good this is a good deed.

            And if the UN Security Council gives its consent, the West will not send in its troops. There will be an option like in Libya - air support. This will be enough to overthrow a dictator who bombs his people.
            1. Cynic Rank
              Cynic
              0
              20 January 2013 18: 12
              Hence
              Quote: Beck
              defending Evil with the lives of your sons and the tears of their mothers is unacceptable. Protecting the Good is a good deed.

              Just why did you say it this way:
              Protect Good is a good deed

              And not on the antithesis, which suggests itself
              Is it acceptable to defend the Good with the lives of your sons and the tears of their mothers?!
              Maybe, of course, I’m looking for a black cat, but your posts are too painful, dear Beck, verified psychologically. Only on the psychology of the crowd.
              For example :
              Quote: Beck
              Destroying the fascist regime in Germany is good.

              Then a few, in your opinion, killer arguments and now
              Quote: Beck
              Assad? The dictator is in posterity, and the dictator is already evil.

              The destruction of the aggressor and the attempt (for now) to destroy the inconvenient state are very beautifully linked. It is the state, not its leader.
              An example?
              The same already mentioned Libya.
              And your statement about Libya is generally a logical masterpiece:
              Quote: Beck
              The West will not send in its troops. There will be an option like in Libya - air support.

              E-hehe!
              There is no need to answer, this is just for those who take beautiful words for sincere ones.
              1. Beck
                Beck
                +2
                20 January 2013 19: 41
                Well, I’ll say this - you can sacrifice for Good. Just as the fighters against all tyrannies sacrificed.

                Quote: Cynic
                Only on the psychology of the crowd.


                But this is your completely incorrect thesis. If I were giving comments to please the crowd, I would not now be wearing skulls on my shoulder straps.

                Quote: Cynic
                The destruction of the aggressor and the attempt (for now) to destroy the inconvenient state are very beautifully linked. It is the state, not its leader


                Which states ceased to exist after the overthrow of dictators Hitler, Pol Pot, Hussein, and Gadaffi? What is not on the map of such states as Germany, Kampuchea, Iraq, Libya? There are such states, there are no tyrant dictators. Likewise, if Assad is overthrown, Syria will not fall into Tartarus. Why should Syria cease to exist because of one vain and power-hungry person?

                And then I speak beautifully, not beautifully - I speak as I think. And it is not important for me that those people who will read my comments admire the beauty of the style. It is important that they understand the essence of what I am saying.
                1. Botanologist Rank
                  Botanologist
                  +1
                  20 January 2013 20: 14
                  You can sacrifice for Good

                  Beck, in your liberalistic exercises, do not forget what audience you are speaking in. In 1990, we resolutely fought evil and goodness poured into our country.
                  And then we discovered that for some reason we alone had to sacrifice for good, and they tried to drive us into the Stone Age. Apparently it's better this way.
                  And now we see the same thing in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yugoslavia - the people must sacrifice heavily for someone’s good, having lost all their good.
                  So, is bombing cities and populations, like in Libya, a good thing? Is arming Muslim militants a good thing?
                  A big minus to you for double-dealing.
                2. Thunderbolt Rank
                  Thunderbolt
                  +1
                  20 January 2013 21: 29
                  Quote: Beck
                  Which states ceased to exist after the overthrow of dictators Hitler, Pol Pot, Hussein, and Gadaffi? What is not on the map of such states as Germany, Kampuchea, Iraq, Libya? There are such states, there are no tyrant dictators. Likewise, if you


                  Beck, all together, Hitler and Kampuchea. You can take, for example, Iraq and study it in more detail......... In 2002-2003, the American administration made great efforts to prove that the regime of Saddam Hussein poses a danger to the international communities. Iraq was accused of resuming the development of weapons of mass destruction and of collaborating with international terrorist organizations, primarily al-Qaeda. American intelligence data said the exact opposite, but was ignored by the top US leadership. Thus, on September 18, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet told George W. Bush that, according to information from Hussein’s inner circle, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. This information was not reported to the US Congress and was not made public. In early 2002, the CIA sent former American ambassador to Niger Joseph Wilson to investigate information about Iraq's alleged purchase of uranium in that country. After conducting an investigation, Wilson said that he did not find any facts confirming such a transaction. Despite this, in his speeches George W. Bush repeatedly spoke about Iraq's purchase of uranium from Nigeria (in particular, in the annual address to Congress in January 2003). The Security Council never authorized the use of force against Iraq. The US and allies launched the invasion in violation of the UN Charter on March 20, 2003. It was codenamed Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).Beck, this is about the METHODS of Western “democratizers”. And now the PRICE of “Iraqi freedom”: Over the past eight-plus years, more than 162 thousand Iraqi civilians have died during the fighting.
                  These data were published by the Iraq Body Count (IBC) website, which systematically counts the victims of the war in Iraq.
                  According to published statistics, 2011 thousand 4 civilians were killed in 63 alone. Moreover, these reports are compiled on the basis of repeatedly verified data. Thus, to identify this figure, 6 thousand 828 messages from 90 different sources were used. The total number of civilian victims of the war waged since 2003 has reached 162 thousand 333 people.Beck,But this is all nonsense, isn’t it? The main thing is that the dictator is hanged and crude oil is regularly pumped out. You also mentioned Libya. Everything is OK there too! As I understand it, the flourishing of Democracy, peaceful life is getting better, or all the news coming “from there” is Difficulties of the Transition Period?
                3. Cynic Rank
                  Cynic
                  +1
                  20 January 2013 21: 35
                  Quote: Cynic
                  No need to answer

                  Well, since they answered.
                  In general, I was not mistaken, the black cat is where it is and is quite seasoned.
                  You know, I’m even glad that we have something like a discussion with you, because you haven’t answered a single question without equivocating. Everything has been softly and unobtrusively rearranged.
                  There is such a thing as throwing off a blow, like the enemy hits with all his might, but you don’t parry completely, let the blow slide off, create the illusion of victory.
                  So
                  Quote: Beck
                  If I gave comments to please the crowd,

                  I wonder where I said about trying to please the crowd, using their psychology bully
                  Quote: Beck
                  Which states ceased to exist after the overthrow of dictators Hitler, Pol Pot, Hussein, and Gadaffi?

                  Yes, as if those states are not there, dear Beck, No !
                  1. Beck
                    Beck
                    0
                    21 January 2013 10: 20
                    Quote: Cynic
                    After all, you haven’t answered a single question without equivocation. Everything has been softly and unobtrusively rearranged.


                    And what did I say with equivocations? He called the dictatorship a dictatorship, not a secular state. The dictator was called a dictator who seized power by force, and not a legally elected representative. This is what patriots call Bashar. And it’s not worth risking the lives of your fellow citizens to support a dictator. How do you imagine the defense of Pol Pot, that it would be necessary to send ships to the USSR Navy and defeat the army of Vietnam. Of course it's nonsense. The same nonsense as supporting Assad. Well, where are the equivocations?

                    Quote: Cynic
                    I wonder where I said about trying to please the crowd, using their psychology


                    Quote: Cynic
                    Only on the psychology of the crowd.


                    Don't chew in vain. Influence the psychology of the crowd, use the psychology of the crowd - it’s all one - to please. Otherwise, why bother?

                    Quote: Cynic
                    Yes, as if those states do not exist, dear Beck, no!


                    Like not or not at all? These states exist on the map, in time and space too. They live a life without dictators, elect their own parliaments, sow grain, raise children. How is this all?
                    1. Cynic Rank
                      Cynic
                      0
                      21 January 2013 16: 08
                      Quote: Beck
                      And what did I say with equivocations?

                      Constantly .
                      Quote: Beck
                      Influence the psychology of the crowd, use the psychology of the crowd - it’s all one - to please. Otherwise, why bother?

                      As I understand it, when they wrote, they had fun over their opponent from the heart. Equalize use and please... But they said you don’t use sophistry.
                      Quote: Beck
                      These states exist on the map, in time and space too.

                      It is, of course, the Third Reich, and Cambodia, and Libya, and...
                      Yes, still
                      Quote: Beck
                      They live a life without dictators, elect their own parliaments, sow grain, raise children.

                      One might think that without parliaments and under dictators they do not do this?
                      Or are they doing it wrong?
                      Still, what is your specialization in psychology?
                    2. Strategy Rank
                      Strategy
                      0
                      21 January 2013 20: 52
                      I marvel at you, Beck! Does anyone really believe in selfless aid on behalf of the oppressed or in the righteous struggle against dictators? Was it because of Saddam that the state of Iraq was de facto destroyed? Or, for the sake of the ideas of communism, did they create a belt of the Socialist Commonwealth around the USSR? Or, as narrow-minded people say, did they feed the blacks in vain? The result of this misunderstanding is the absence of military bases for the Russian Navy and Air Force, and the actual access of NATO to the borders of Russia. Now the united squadron or whatever it is called entered the Mediterranean Sea, and except for fuel in the tankers there were no reserves of MTS.
                4. cherkas.oe Rank
                  cherkas.oe
                  +1
                  20 January 2013 22: 42
                  Quote: Beck
                  the essence of what I'm saying.

                  The essence of what you say is clear, as is who you are and what you are.
                  1. Beck
                    Beck
                    0
                    21 January 2013 11: 01
                    Quote: cherkas.oe
                    The essence of what you say is clear, as is who you are and what


                    Speak to the end. You can call them names, curse them, and your soul will calm down and you will gain psychological balance. I will not report violations of site rules.
    2. Serg_Y
      Serg_Y
      +2
      20 January 2013 01: 08
      I agree, no one needs a real showdown, the United States lost the round in Syria, an unsinkable aircraft carrier is enough to control the region, why feed our hawks. There is nothing to do without the support of the population in Syria.
      1. Beck
        Beck
        +2
        20 January 2013 21: 18
        Quote: Botanologist
        Beck, in your liberalistic exercises, do not forget what audience you are speaking in.


        In what sense should I not forget? Don't forget and remain silent? Don't forget that they will punch me in the face for my words? Remember to tune in to the general choir? Remember to protect your brain from some wrong thoughts? Or something else not to forget?

        You who claim to be personal self other people?

        Quote: Botanologist
        In 1990, we resolutely fought evil and goodness poured into our country.


        What came from the World after the fall of communism? Kill? Steal? Commit adultery? No. In the CIS space we, people themselves have taken only bad things from the World. We were not forced to kill or steal. Our people began to do it themselves - kill and steal. If we did it ourselves, who, others are to blame for this. We have transformed freedom into permissiveness. Dignity is neglected. Respect into rudeness. Thrift into stinginess. Prosperity for living. Why blame others, no one did it for us, we did everything ourselves. And now we want to push it on someone. They say they are bastards, and we, well, are not guilty of anything. They were straight virgins and even without the mind of the girl. Seduced by adversaries.

        Everyone makes their own destiny. If I stole, then it’s my fault, not yours, and it’s no good for me to blame my absurd actions on others.

        I wrote about Syria above.

        And than. If you, here on the site, are all of the same opinion, without taking a step left or right, won’t you be bored? Don’t you get tired of transferring your own, single, identical thoughts from head to head? It’s like all the time, since childhood, there was only one semolina porridge. Won't you get bored? Who will you have fun with, who will you throw out your emotions on? In the end, who fatty Will you put minuses?
        1. Botanologist Rank
          Botanologist
          +1
          20 January 2013 21: 36
          In what sense should I not forget?

          In the sense that in Russia people don’t fall for your tricks about good and evil, because we have experienced this the hard way. Therefore, be more careful with pathos, this is not a swamp hamster. And don’t worry about the muzzle, no one is interested in it.

          Are you laying claim to the personal selves of other people?

          Why do I need your self? I only claim that you are looking for normal arguments. If they exist, of course.

          If you, here on the site, are all of the same opinion, without taking a step left or right, won’t you be bored?

          Opinions here are very different. You can even see it in this thread. I, too, have never been shy about standing up for myself, even when I received 35 downvotes for one post. This is fine.
          But when you write about good and evil, decipher the concepts in relation to the topic. In this thread - write facts about Syria with conclusions (well, for example, that on the side of the militants there are nice atheists and preachers of democracy, and on the side of the government troops there are bloody obscurantists who kill poor birds in between battles because of bloodthirstiness, and so on... ). Otherwise, in your posts I caught these references to the commandments. Have you decided to move on to dogmas and postulates? Not okay. The site is not a church site.
        2. Mironk
          Mironk
          +1
          20 January 2013 23: 21
          I’m ready to subscribe to every word you say. Only one inaccuracy, in my opinion, is that Bashar Assad is not even a dictator, he’s a little liquid, but his dad, Hafez, yes, he was a real despot. True, there were different times. Arab, so-called “progressive” regimes "were reliably covered by the Soviet wing. Multi-billion dollar supplies of Soviet weapons, numerous instructors, even the direct participation of Soviet military personnel in hostilities - alas, everything was down the drain, there was no benefit. And when dad glued his fins together and his little son took over, it was clear right away that the end of the regime was just around the corner. Assad Jr. understood this, either he himself was not a complete fool, or his advisors suggested it. At that time, he even conducted secret negotiations with Israel, hoping to solve the Golan problem and, by concluding a peace treaty, stabilize the situation in the country. Unfortunately, nothing came of this, although the then Israeli leadership was seriously ready for a constructive dialogue. But Assad put forward a completely unrealistic precondition - first Israel returns all the conquered lands, down to the last meter, and then we’ll see... Complete nonsense! By the way, I want to emphasize that the territory of the Golan Heights was never Syrian. Before the formation of the state of Israel, this area was part of Mandatory Palestine and was captured by the Syrians in 1948. So in 67 the Israelis simply retook what was rightfully theirs.
          1. Beck
            Beck
            0
            21 January 2013 11: 34
            Quote: MironK
            There is only one, in my opinion, inaccuracy -


            Greetings!

            Yes, Bashar would not have been able to carry out a coup. Only how can he retain power. About the capture of the Golan, the same story is with the West Bank of Jordan - Palestine. Then, in 1948, Palestine was occupied by Jordan. And only in 1967, having repelled attacks from Egypt, Syria and Jordan, Israel captured Palestine. And now the Palestinians are crying for their state. So who for 19 years from 48 to 67 did not allow them to create their own state, only their half-brothers the Arabs - the Syrians and Jordanians.
            1. Mironk
              Mironk
              +1
              21 January 2013 22: 02
              Hello, Beck! You are absolutely right, both the West Bank and Gaza were, like the Golan, parts of Palestine, which the Arabs seized in 48. Of course, there was no talk of any “statehood”! I think you know how the then King of Jordan Hussein kicked the PLO out of his country in 70 - they say the number of Palestinians killed in battles with government troops is 10! I would like to mention one interesting fact, in my opinion, which has not yet received wide publicity. I came across it several years ago in the memoirs of one of the government employees who worked in the late 000s in the office of the head of the Israeli government, Levi Eshkol. Immediately after the 60-day war, the Israeli government had the idea to offer King Hussein the return of the entire West Bank (with the exception of Jerusalem) and in addition to Gaza in exchange for signing a peace treaty. This provided for the provision of an extraterritorial corridor to connect Gaza with the territory of Jordan. The main consideration was that Hussein, as an Arab ruler, was much more able to restore order among his fellow tribesmen than Israeli forces. And for Israel, a stable peace was preferable territory, hence such generosity... The author, who was present at the secret meeting of the parties, recalls that Hussein, having listened to the proposal of the Israeli prime minister, thought for a long time and replied: “I am aware of how beneficial your proposal is for me - to become a Mediterranean country - about this We couldn’t even dream! But, to our greatest regret, I am forced to reject it - having signed this agreement, I will not live until the next morning.” In conclusion, I note that I tried to translate the meaning of the conversation as accurately as possible, and the very fact of such contacts is confirmed by various sources.
    3. Victor Peter Rank
      Victor Peter
      0
      20 January 2018 09: 16
      Quote: Gbnrby
      The article is undoubtedly patriotic. I immediately remember the daring forced march of our paratroopers across Yugoslavia and the successful capture of the airfield in Pristina. But there are a number of points. Today, the American fleet is the MOST powerful fleet in the world. Not only in terms of the number of new ships, tonnage and high-tech weapons. This fleet has been CONSTANTLY engaged in combat operations at sea since World War II. Its aircraft carrier groups participated in Vietnam, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc. They know and are able to conduct combat operations at sea. Unlike our fleet, which is participating in major exercises for the first time in twenty years. And then on ships, and with Soviet-built weapons! If desired, our combined squadron will be swept away in a few minutes. And that's a fact. And the question is not for the sailors, who are now heroically, in foreign waters, like paratroopers in Yugoslavia, defending the interests of Russia. The question to the leaders of our country is why in twenty years not a SINGLE large combat vessel has been launched, and not a SINGLE new strike aircraft-carrying group has been formed in any of the four fleets. At the same time, money from the sale of oil and gas goes somewhere. If the Americans are leaving this area, it means they need it, and they were not afraid of several warships built in the second half of the last century. This means it’s necessary, and they won’t ask anyone. They were afraid of the ramming of a Russian ship. Laughter! You still need to approach for the ram. And who said that Americans are cowards, unpatriotic and don’t know how to fight? Who knows, they have a huge amount of combat experience! Yes, they instill patriotism with their mother’s milk. They love their homeland and are also ready to fight for it. Now let's talk about the patriotism of our soldiers, born in the mid-to-late eighties. For whom will they be ready to die? First for the faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland, then for communism. Now for whom? For those who trade in oil and keep their money offshore in the Cayman Islands? What if they were betrayed once again as conscript boys born in 76 who entered Grozny? Now let’s simulate the situation of a military collision and the destruction of our squadron. God forbid of course! What can we do in response to use nuclear weapons? Will the top officials of our state have the political will to make such a decision? I VERY doubt it.

      did you mislead the podium??? You obviously needed to go to the Gaidar forum. The same liberal rabble gathers there, like you.
      Tell everyone, what kind of homeland will the average American, a descendant of the rabble from different countries who gathered under the star-striped rag several centuries ago, fight for?
      Can you imagine this picture: a Yankee throwing himself under a tank with a grenade, shouting “for America”??? It's funny even when you read it! Americans are cowards! Their entire military history doesn’t even talk about this, it SCREAMS! Russia will NEVER have to use nuclear weapons against them in its life, because you will not fight with us. They will do nasty things in secret! Scream from all the stands! Go to war - NEVER!!!
    4. 79500125929
      79500125929
      0
      23 March 2018 17: 34
      Almost all the reasoning is to the point... But the main thing is not technology, but people. And even more precisely the military, and even more precisely the military command. And in this matter our knowledge is scanty. It’s very powerful and beautiful at parades, but in reality? If anyone knows, please share. I'm worried and sad for our guys. Hat-kicking is a dangerous policy! Gunpowder must always be kept dry and brains must work professionally!
  10. peaker
    peaker
    0
    20 January 2013 01: 03
    “Fighters”... according to Google or whatever... When was the last time a ship of the distant sea was launched... and are the remaining ones sailing? It’s just a holiday that we got to the Mediterranean... The guys are heroes that we got there... “boxes” are more than twenty years old. Nooo... WE will kill everyone... sitting in front of the monitor... everything is easy and simple...
  11. Mr.Fox
    Mr.Fox
    +1
    20 January 2013 01: 55
    If you take the article seriously, then, sorry, but this is complete nonsense and inadequate nonsense, but if it’s a joke, then it can still be accepted as an original presentation of the material. I didn’t know that the Americans had such a fleet structure, it was very informative, thank you.
  12. Stalinets
    Stalinets
    +2
    20 January 2013 05: 21
    You cannot underestimate the capabilities of the enemy. The United States is not a weak enemy and, unfortunately, they have not escaped anywhere. But it is necessary to show your teeth.
  13. raisgareev
    raisgareev
    0
    20 January 2013 08: 52
    If our fleet had not been there, Nobody would have gone anywhere. This once again confirms that the Americans recognize only strength and shows that Russia is rising from its knees.
  14. Lustrator
    Lustrator
    +1
    20 January 2013 13: 07
    It is never a good idea to underestimate the enemy, especially in a situation like this.
    Don’t think that they have only idiots and cowards there managing the activities of the troops, otherwise they wouldn’t have spread all over the world.
    1. VP123
      VP123
      -1
      20 January 2013 13: 34
      But you think that we have cowards and idiots doing this. Slave psychology You suggest sitting on the sidelines, it won’t work
  15. Komsomolets Rank
    Komsomolets
    +2
    20 January 2013 13: 14
    Everything that happens there is pure politics and nothing more. But from a military point of view, comparing our squadron with the American sixth fleet is simply not correct. It's like comparing a pug to an elephant. Unfortunately, this hodgepodge is not enough to compete with the Turkish fleet.
    Of course, you need to show your teeth, but we must not forget that our fleet is degrading and the arrival of new ships does not have time to compensate for this degradation. The combat readiness of our fleet continues to decline.
    1. VP123
      VP123
      0
      20 January 2013 13: 41
      Your suggestions
      1. Komsomolets Rank
        Komsomolets
        0
        20 January 2013 14: 18
        Distributing the production of warships across all factories in the country capable of producing them, this will significantly increase their production.
        And not like now, all orders are concentrated on the “necessary” factories, which are loaded for years to come, and the rest are dying.
    2. Mironk
      Mironk
      0
      20 January 2013 22: 30
      An objective assessment of the situation is rare on this site! Today, in reality, Russia is not even able to butt heads with the Turks.
  16. postman
    postman
    +3
    20 January 2013 16: 27
    Quote: Author
    Americans are the most modest and ascetic people. The Sixth Fleet constantly has only... one ship.


    Quote: Author
    To date, most of them have left the Mediterranean Sea,

    WHERE DID THE WHOLE US FLEET DISPERSE?
    It's too good to be true.
    This area of ​​responsibility covers about half of the Atlantic Ocean, from the North Pole to Antarctica, as well as the Adriatic Sea, the Baltic, Barents, Black, Caspian, Mediterranean and North Seas. 105 countries with a total population of more than one billion people and includes a land area of ​​more than 14 million km2 and more than 20 million miles2 of ocean, three continents and more than 67% of the Earth's coastlines, 30% of the land, and almost 40% of the world's population.


    And how far is it from Sicily to Syria: 2200 km

    ===============
    USS Mahan (DDG 72)= 130111-N-AL293-004: Augusta Bay (11 January 2013)

    USS Cole (DDG 67) 130111-N-AL293-073: Augusta Bay, (January 11, 2013)
    USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG 49) (Naples on 05.01.2013/XNUMX/XNUMX)
    Laboon (DDG 58) turns with the French FS Jean Bart (D 615)
    somewhere in the Mediterranean.(11/01.2013/XNUMX)
    There are still submarines
    Patrol Boat NP Guardian (P511) ONLY 130114-N-IZ292-247 Mindelo, Cape Verde (14 January 2013) - FAR

    SMT75 10 hours ago somewhere in the Atlantic

    He’s not walking alone, but with UG

  17. Babichev
    Babichev
    0
    20 January 2013 19: 48
    Sorry,
    I read some comments...
    Do you seriously believe that if the United States suddenly decides to bomb Syria, ours will shoot them down? If so, then you have clearly played toy soldiers.
    I think the maximum that our people will do in this case is to ensure the safe evacuation of the Russians.
    Now about the hasty “escape” of the American fleet.
    The Russians are conducting EXERCISES in this area. I think that says it all. And if at the end of them the coastal countries survive, it will be a real miracle
  18. Veteran Rank
    Veteran
    +4
    20 January 2013 20: 45
    SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Oleg, in your desire to provoke jingoists with this article, you are already crossing some boundaries, but oh well. I was interested in your discussion with Kars, especially regarding the defeat of NK by the complex use of Kharms and Harpoons. Yes, indeed, against ships not covered by aircraft, this is a deadly option. And nothing good will happen to our inter-naval grouping, which was sent to Syria, in a confrontation with the American Navy. But it simply won’t come to that. Completely different problems will be solved there.
    But to confront the amers, aviation is needed. Migi and Su have Kh31P missiles, which are similar to Kharma, including in range, but have a higher speed - 3,1 M. In this case, the problem of processing information and making decisions when detecting NCs up to a range of 110 km (up to 60 miles) becomes important. , after which the use of missile weapons at such ranges may prove decisive. As for repelling missile defense attacks, the modernity of air defense systems, both long-range and medium- and short-range, plays a role here. In the near D - ZRAK DB Dirk (aka Kashtan) is not able to repel an attack, but Broadsword is already able to (with Sosna missiles). For SD air defense systems, Shtil is suitable. And with DD complexes, new modifications are needed for the fleet, with multi-antenna SN. One "boob" 3P41 is unreliable. The 9M96E2 SAM missile has a range of 120 km, but the radar tracking range does not exceed 100 km. But if the ship is equipped with a 64N6 radar, then it is capable of detecting missiles at a range of up to 300 km. As you can see, everything is critical in terms of parameters, and much will depend on the modernity of V and VT, and on the qualifications of the people servicing them.
    1. Komsomolets Rank
      Komsomolets
      0
      21 January 2013 14: 36
      Veteran, excuse me, but write blatant nonsense, from the if only series I especially smiled about: - SAR 64N6 capable of detecting missiles at a range of 300 km.
      Let it be known that today in the world there is not a single radar capable of detecting missiles at a range of 300 km.
    2. Santa Fe Rank
      Santa Fe
      0
      21 January 2013 17: 26
      Quote: Veteran
      I was interested in your discussion with Kars, especially regarding the defeat of NK by the complex use of Kharms and Harpoons. Yes, indeed, against ships not covered by aircraft, this is a deadly option

      Yes, in my opinion this is also a promising direction.
      Quote: Veteran
      Migi and Su have Kh31P missiles, which are similar to Kharms, including in range, but have a higher speed - 3,1 M

      Great news. There is no limit to perfection
      Quote: Veteran
      But if the ship is equipped with a 64N6 radar, then it is capable of detecting missiles at a range of up to 300 km.

      What's the point? The missile launcher and its carrier (Hornet) will themselves appear at a distance of several tens of kilometers. Previously, they still could not be detected with NK

      Quote: Komsomolets
      But as you know, today in the world there is not a single radar capable of detecting missiles at a range of 300 km.

      The whole question here is: what kind of CR. If it is with a 7-ton Granite - SPY-1 will detect it at the limit of visibility (the energy capabilities of SPY-1 are about 200 miles)

      British radar with AFAR SAMPSON sees even further and even better
      1. Kars Rank
        Kars
        +1
        21 January 2013 17: 52
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        SPY-1 will detect it at the limit of visibility (the energy capabilities of SPY-1 are about 200 miles)

        British radar with AFAR SAMPSON sees even further and even better


        Something incomprehensible, you’re saying that the radar of modern ships is no better than when she was at Shefield? And here it’s 200 miles, at what altitude, by the way, should 7-ton (and is this for ESR?) granite fly?
        1. Santa Fe Rank
          Santa Fe
          +1
          22 January 2013 03: 05
          Quote: Kars
          Something incomprehensible, you’re saying that the radar of modern ships is no better than when Shefield was there?

          low flying targets

          Quote: Kars
          And then 200 miles

          The detection range of modern radars has increased - and will increase even more as the power of the emitters increases. As well as the possibilities of target selection and tracking

          But this applies only to those who fly above the p-horizon: in the stratosphere and in orbit

          Quote: Kars
          By the way, at a height of 7 tons (what does this have to do with EPR?) should granite fly?

          According to local specialists - 14...20 thousand meters

          Surely the EPR of a 7-ton Granite is more than that of a 400-kg Kharma...
          1. Kars Rank
            Kars
            0
            22 January 2013 04: 58
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            low flying targets

            Yes, but you didn’t provide any real evidence. At what range does the Ticonderoga Aegis detect an anti-ship missile flying at an altitude of 5 meters above the water?
            Ancient RK Komar spotted the destroyer Eilat from 60 km,
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            According to local specialists - 14...20 thousand meters

            Who told you such nonsense? In your opinion, Granit does not have a low-altitude flight mode? Harpoon does, but Granit, in principle, should fly at 14 km? So what?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Surely the EPR of a 7-ton Granite is more than that of a 400-kg Kharma

            Once again, what does the weight have to do with the Effective reflective surface. More of course, but just a little bit.
            1. Santa Fe Rank
              Santa Fe
              -1
              22 January 2013 13: 52
              Quote: Kars
              Yes, but you didn’t provide any real evidence. At what range does the Ticonderoga Aegis detect an anti-ship missile flying at an altitude of 5 meters above the water?

              Kilometers 30

              Quote: Kars
              Ancient RK Komar spotted the destroyer Eilat from 60 km,

              Or maybe 14 miles?

              Quote: Kars
              In your opinion, Granit doesn’t have a low-altitude flight mode? Harpoon does, but Granit, in principle, should fly at 14 km? So what?

              You want to shoot from 500 km.

              Quote: Kars
              Once again, what does weight have to do with it?

              10 meters long. Dimensions like MiG-21
              1. Kars Rank
                Kars
                +1
                22 January 2013 17: 54
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Kilometers 30

                Is this your opinion, or is there evidence to support it?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Or maybe 14 miles?

                Even the ancient English cruisers of 1939-40 could do this.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                You want to shoot from 500 km.

                What is this? Is it necessary to fly the entire 500 km at altitude? Or to a radius of 200 km, as you say, and then descend.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                10 meters long. Dimensions like MiG-21

                Do you know how the EPR is calculated? And it’s still not clear what weight has to do with it?
              2. postman
                postman
                +1
                24 January 2013 20: 09
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Kilometers 30

                Quote: Kars
                Is this your opinion, or is there evidence to support it?

                Guys, you need to decide first:
                DETECT or ACCOMPANY?
                (Discover maybe earlier (if the equipment is proper + software + power)

                In your version, EVERYTHING depends on the height of the radar.


                But it will be according to the principle: “somewhere there” (azimuth).
                HERE IS "DIRECT" so as not to torment the calculator


                If this is ABurke, then from 20 m a little earlier (for a 5 m target and taking into account REFRACTION) < 25 m
                Note: RCC does not fly at an altitude of 5m (Granite is about 20m)
                GOST 24375-80
                The geometric location of the points at which the rays from the antenna become tangent to the Earth's surface, taking into account the curvature caused by the refraction of radio waves
                Note: RCC does not fly at an altitude of 5m (Granite is about 20m)

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Or maybe 14 miles?


                And who says 13,5 miles... Yitzhak Shoshan violated the order, he should have been on the border of the 10 mile zone
                60 miles couldn’t: the maximum firing range was 80 km. The detection range of a target-type destroyer was 24 km (there was no P-15M yet) and there were boats in the port.

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                You want to shoot from 500 km.

                At least at 50, at least at 500, it will first “go out” to 14m (000 (20) 4 According to the TTZ of the military-industrial complex under the Council of Ministers of the USSR 000) in order to CONFIDENTLY detect the target (destroyer) from +/-1966 km. HERE THEY WILL SEE HER (and will accompany her, then lose her)
                1. Kars Rank
                  Kars
                  +1
                  25 January 2013 19: 52
                  Quote: Postman
                  DETECT or ACCOMPANY?

                  Detect, because the point is not in the anti-ship missile system at all, but in the carrier, in our case Hornet. And the ability to use anti-aircraft missiles with active missile launchers
                  Quote: Postman
                  60 miles could not:

                  kilometers, and then I give up - I can’t find what I posted before, maybe I confused it with detection from a coastal radar
                  Quote: Postman
                  If this is ABurke, then from 20m a little earlier

                  That’s why I’m thinking about a radar on a balloon. As we can already see, it’s a little expensive for the Yankees to carry an aircraft carrier))))
                  1. postman
                    postman
                    +2
                    26 January 2013 01: 22
                    Quote: Kars
                    Discover
                    +
                    Quote: Kars
                    ornette

                    AN/SPY-1 will detect it and take it for escort L= 15,96 km + square root of the aircraft’s flight altitude (in m), BUT NO MORE THAN 300 km (probably 250 km)
                    AN/SPS-49 (V) will detect (azimuth) no more than 345 km, and if it “climbs to 70 km (which is not realistic)” then somewhere around 295 km.
                    Accompaniment is the same according to the formula (without taking into account refraction)
                    Quote: Kars
                    maybe I confused it with detection from a coastal radar

                    Only if you raise it to 152 meters.....
                    60=3,57 * (
                    20+
                    X)

                    Quote: Kars
                    As we can already see, it’s a little expensive for the Yankees to carry an aircraft carrier))))

                    Not only will AWACS and F-35 be more expensive.
                    1. Kars Rank
                      Kars
                      0
                      26 January 2013 01: 58
                      Quote: Postman
                      Only if you raise it to 152 meters

                      Who knows (even if you look at a topographic map now) there are hills there or not. And the destroyer is still not a small thing.
                      Quote: Postman
                      BUT NO MORE THAN 300

                      Specifically, here we are arguing about the possibility of a similar maneuver that was used during the attack on Shefield.

                      I was also interested in the fact that the GOS of the Harpun Vet also falls under the radio horizon,
                      1. postman
                        postman
                        0
                        26 January 2013 03: 12
                        Quote: Kars
                        at least you'll climb now

                        I’ll climb...I was there. I didn’t see any mountains there (dead donkeys in the Nile, yes0. The Nile Delta... There are no mountains, everything is built up and dense. On the outskirts of the sakli.
                        DO NOT BELIEVE? Think about why the Suez Canal was dug up there.
                        Quote: Kars
                        a similar maneuver to that used in the attack on Shefield.

                        Uhhh. Missile boat attack?
                        By the way, they gave the entader from the ground to the control center (or the same aircraft)

                        Only with the seaworthiness and range (everything is a bit far) of the boats....... Still not the Mediterranean/Black Sea. Estrecho de Magallanes is nearby (damn cold and windy)

                        Quote: Kars
                        The GOS of the Harpun Vet also falls under the radio horizon,

                        do you mean it fits?
                        In order for the seeker to capture the target, it is necessary to rise to 14 (20-21) 000 m (including fuel economy)
  19. Strategy Rank
    Strategy
    +2
    21 January 2013 00: 31
    I recommend reading Liddell Hart's "The Strategy of Indirect Action." In chest-to-chest bayonet combat, the Anglo-Saxons are, of course, weaklings, but in long-term strategy there is a lot to learn from them. It's not even chess, but rather Go. What did they want to show by leaving? Only one thing is clear, they dominate the information space, and if we take into account the reach of the weapons of our ships and theirs, then perhaps they simply left the zone of destruction by our weapons, leaving our ships under attack, or let our squad of ships through the bottleneck (Gibraltar) and closed it. And the autonomy of our group in the absence of bases is small. Once again, several of our ships are driven into the Mediterranean Sea, and, lo and behold, the resource will be exhausted. In general, here we should not rejoice, but think carefully. Our probable “ally” is not clear!
  20. Rossmk Rank
    Rossmk
    0
    21 January 2013 01: 25
    I would say “the Yankees are pissing,” but I’m afraid that’s not the point, it’s that the money ran out and they sailed home to sit in the ports and save money. Well, that's right. Let their ships rust in ports, and the United States itself will be covered with an economic copper basin in the near future.
    In general, these creatures are afraid of Us, because the radar in the ass senses who will beat them up in the end.
  21. Turkish Granite Rank
    Turkish Granite
    +1
    21 January 2013 16: 23
    Of course, I would really like to believe that the valiant 6th Fleet is so afraid of our sailors, but I’m afraid the author greatly underestimates our probable friends. Personally, it seems to me that the amers did not plan a direct confrontation with our fleet, and the presence of the AUG in the same water area with our ships allowed our engineers to remove the physical fields of the ships. And a complete portrait of the ship’s fields is a 100% guarantee of its defeat (according to this data, the anti-ship missile system selects a target among many others). So they got out of harm’s way, otherwise the “granites” of “Moscow” knew for sure where to fly in the event of a conflict.
  22. Veteran Rank
    Veteran
    +4
    21 January 2013 18: 37
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The missile launcher and its carrier (Hornet) will themselves appear at a distance of several tens of kilometers. Previously, they still could not be detected with NK

    I meant ships on which the 64N6E radar is installed, capable of detecting aerodynamic targets at a range of up to 300 km, and the corresponding 48N6E missiles will be able to hit the carrier (for example, Hornet) at a range of up to 150 km, before it releases Kharmy , having a range of up to 100 km. The harpoons of these missiles will be able to hit from a range of about 30 km.
    1. Santa Fe Rank
      Santa Fe
      0
      22 January 2013 03: 19
      Quote: Veteran
      I meant ships on which the 64N6E radar is installed, capable of detecting aerodynamic targets at a range of up to 300 km, and the corresponding 48N6E missile defense system will be able to hit a carrier (for example, Hornet) at a range of up to 150 km


      At a distance of 150 km, the radio horizon is already 1300 m. Airplanes can descend to a couple of hundred meters and fearlessly fly even closer, while remaining undetected up to a distance of 30-40 km (still the same Sheffield)

      Quote: Veteran
      how will he release Harms with a range of up to 100 km

      It's hardly worth launching them from such a distance.
  23. raisgareev
    raisgareev
    +2
    21 January 2013 19: 12
    For some reason, not a single ship left the Persian Gulf, and the entire sixth fleet disappeared from the Mediterranean. It’s clear that if something happens, strategic nuclear weapons will decide everything and no one will want to cross this line. So this line had to be drawn in the form of the RUSSIAN fleet, albeit frail. Touch me, you’ll pick up such crap and remember it for the rest of your life. Russia rises from its knees. Thanks to Putin!!!
  24. Strategy Rank
    Strategy
    +1
    21 January 2013 21: 01
    It's enough to rave about nuclear war! This requires a very significant reason, and even then, nuclear weapons will serve more to intimidate and deter. You yourself understand that in the event of an attack on the United States and others, Russia also has no future, or even the whole world.
  25. raisgareev
    raisgareev
    0
    21 January 2013 23: 41
    Having the same club as a bully who offends the weak. No need to piss. You need to stand between them and say - Fuck off. And the bully pisses with his tail between his legs and runs home, coming up with an excuse about sequestration.
  26. morsikoff
    morsikoff
    0
    22 January 2013 00: 46
    Zadornov about the American aircraft carrier smile
    [media=http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=w0c4ScQ_c
    X0]
  27. amigo4471
    amigo4471
    +1
    22 January 2013 11: 42
    The article is too patriotic, to be honest, our fleet is much inferior to the American one, but this is offset by the presence of the same anti-ship missiles.... There is another aspect - the aircraft carrier is the largest ship, and also with nuclear power, if it sinks, then the Mediterranean Sea will turn into a radioactive puddle and NATO partners will raise such a squeal, all the resorts will have to be closed.... Here even a child understands that if a conflict occurs, the aircraft carrier will become the main target, to miss such a colossus, and even in the Mediterranean Sea will become difficult... A few accurate hits and this colossus will turn into a pile of radioactive rubbish, which will then need to be disposed of somehow, but there is another aspect, I don’t know for sure, but it seems like nuclear facilities are protected by some kind of international conventions... .and the very first missile against a ship with a nuclear power plant will mean the beginning of a nuclear war....and no one needs this....
    1. Strategy Rank
      Strategy
      0
      22 January 2013 16: 49
      First you need to get there: do you have any idea about air defense-missile defense and PLO AUG?
  28. amigo4471
    amigo4471
    0
    22 January 2013 12: 14
    It was said here that the American fleet has participated in maritime conflicts and has experience....by and large it has not participated anywhere, or rather in what can be considered a maritime conflict.....Vietnam does not count, just like the Persian Gulf there there was no opposition aimed specifically at the fleet....
    1. Santa Fe Rank
      Santa Fe
      +2
      22 January 2013 14: 11
      Quote: amigo4471
      by and large, he did not participate anywhere, more precisely in what can be considered a naval conflict


      Aircraft carrier battles: Coral Sea, Midway, battle off the island. Samar

      Night artillery battles: o. Savo (the Americans were sorry that time), the Sugario Strait (the Americans burned two battleships for the Japanese)

      Night torpedo battles: Vela Bay, Sugario Strait

      The defeat of the convoys: the battle in the Java Sea (the Americans and their allies screwed up), the defeat of the Japanese convoy Take Ichi (the Americans won)

      Strike operations: bombing of Kwajalein Atoll, raid on Truk

      Submarines: sinking of three heavy Japanese aircraft carriers in/and from 30 to 000 tons (for comparison - the largest victory of the USSR Navy - Wilhelm Gustloff - 70 thousand tons)

      Naval landing operations: 78 landings

      4 years of war on the Great Ocean. Enemy - in 1941, the Imperial Japanese Navy was the best and strongest fleet in the world; a born nation of sailors, which 40 years earlier staged the Tsushima pogrom (the defeat of the Russian squadron with a score of 30:0)
      In total, over the years of WWII, the Americans lost 700 warships, the Japanese - many times more. The Pacific Ocean amazes with its incredible size, a huge theater of military operations that has no equal in history
  29. pinkrabbit
    pinkrabbit
    +3
    22 January 2013 18: 31
    we were scared, hahaha)) yes, they will smash our shit into pieces in a couple of minutes. gone means it’s necessary, they are far from stupid. and this blind patriotism is already annoying, if the USSR were at its height, then yes.
    1. dark
      dark
      +1
      22 January 2013 19: 16
      It is not technology that fights, but people. And when you shit your pants, it’s difficult to fight even with an advantage. (met them once, pissed off)
  30. VP123
    VP123
    0
    22 January 2013 18: 38
    So many victories Apparently America actually won WWII And in the end they erased 2 peaceful cities Sweetie Your patriotism is protected
  31. RUS-36
    RUS-36
    +1
    22 January 2013 19: 31
    Not everything is as simple as described in the article...
  32. Veteran Rank
    Veteran
    +4
    22 January 2013 20: 52
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    At a distance of 150 km, the radio horizon is already 1300 m. Airplanes can descend to a couple of hundred meters and fearlessly fly even closer, while remaining undetected up to a distance of 30-40 km (still the same Sheffield)

    With a radar antenna height of 30 m and a Hornet flight altitude of 200 m, the range of the radar radar will be approximately 80 km. At this range they will be detected by the S-300FM (the lower limit of detection height is 10-25 m), but the ship’s command post will need time to classify and make a decision to kill. Hornets, on the other hand, will have a time advantage due to receiving the AWACS control center and can immediately release Kharmas. Therefore, there is an urgent need for an over-the-horizon external control center. They are pinning their hopes on the Liana satellite system (the Lotuses and Peonies satellites). The launch of the satellites is scheduled for the end of 2013. Upon receipt of the over-the-horizon control center, it will be possible to destroy carrier aircraft of the Kyrgyz Republic with 48N6E2 missiles at a range of up to 200 km. The CD itself can be shot down at a distance of no more than 40 km.
  33. bombowoz Rank
    bombowoz
    0
    23 January 2013 07: 34
    I'd venture a guess. Or maybe they actually had nothing of all the above-mentioned stuffing on these ships. Well, just walking boxes, show-offs. Otherwise, I don't understand the maneuver. All the same, until politicians say “fas” nothing will happen. And here, either speak or not...
  34. krisostomus
    krisostomus
    +3
    23 January 2013 17: 42
    The author’s desire to pass off wishful thinking as reality is generally understandable, but, alas, it has not the slightest relation to reality, since in the event of a real conflict, the Russian squadron will have to deal not only with the US fleet, but also with NATO countries. And these are far from the frail naval forces of France, Italy, and Turkey in the Mediterranean. Moreover, if anyone remembers, in the early 80s, the American fleet and the battleship New Jersey, in particular, very calmly shelled Beirut in the presence of USSR ships, and US Navy aircraft bombed the positions of the USSR’s “ally” - the Syrian army. But the USSR is not Russia, just as the current Russian fleet is not the USSR fleet.
    Well, if we remember the Second World War, then there is nothing special to say about any special role of the USSR Navy. The Baltic Fleet was locked in Kronstadt, allowing the Germans to freely transport strategic cargo from Finland and Sweden. The Black Sea Fleet suffered huge losses in the confrontation with the weaker fleets of Germany's allies and allowed the Germans to evacuate their forces from the Crimea. In general, it must be said that encouraging such mischievous sentiments is very harmful, and therefore in the navy it is often necessary to make up for the stupidity of the authorities with the heroism of the ship’s personnel.
  35. Skair1
    Skair1
    0
    23 January 2013 18: 59
    “American sailors are seriously afraid of the Russian Navy - they have long understood that when the shells run out, our ships will break their side, as happened in the Black Sea.” - Tell me, what kind of story is this, huh? Who broke their head and when?
  36. FIMUK
    FIMUK
    0
    23 January 2013 19: 43
    so what is the article about? about the fact that SS20 rules? so it's clear *))
  37. Veteran Rank
    Veteran
    +5
    23 January 2013 20: 10
    Quote: krisostomus
    The Baltic Fleet was locked in Kronstadt, allowing the Germans to freely transport strategic cargo from Finland and Sweden. The Black Sea Fleet suffered huge losses in the confrontation with the weaker fleets of Germany's allies and allowed the Germans to evacuate their forces from the Crimea.

    Too one-sided and inaccurate. BF: yes, from 1943 it was locked until the fall of 1944, but before that, in the summer of 1942, the BF submarines did a good job on enemy communications - they sank more than 40 transports. This is what forced the Germans to carry out a large-scale operation to block the bay. In the winter of 1943/44, the Baltic Fleet ensured the transfer of forces of the entire 2nd Shock Army to the Oranienbaum bridgehead, hidden from the enemy, which played a key role in the liberation of Leningrad from the blockade and contributed to the development of a further offensive to the west. In 1944, the Baltic Fleet conducted 299 convoys with 1514 transports, but could not act on enemy communications - there were few forces and a huge mine danger. In 1945, first the Marinesko submarine sank the Gustlov (25 thousand tons) and the Steuben (15 thousand tons), then the Konovalov submarine sank the Goya (7 thousand people) - the largest maritime disaster at sea (Gustlov in 3rd place). The strongest psychological impact was the bombing of Berlin by the MA Baltic Fleet in August 1941. In the Black Sea Fleet, this fleet suffered the greatest losses not in confrontation with the fleets of Germany's allies, but from German aviation, which dominated the Black Sea. As for the evacuation of German-Romanian forces from Crimea in 1944, on the night of May 11, instead of the intended evacuation of troops, only the command and headquarters of the 17th Army were able to be evacuated, and only on May 3-13, during the sea crossing, the enemy lost 42 thousand soldiers and officers. In total, during the sea crossing over the entire period of the operation, losses reached 70 thousand people. (at the same time, on land the enemy lost 20 thousand killed and 24 thousand prisoners). This is a disaster!
    We must not forget that the enemy delivered the main and decisive blows only on land, therefore both the Baltic Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet were aimed at and acted mainly in the interests of the ground forces. 390 thousand people The Navy l/s transferred the spacecraft to the ground fronts.
    But SF is a different story, why didn’t you remember about it?
    1. krisostomus
      krisostomus
      0
      24 January 2013 02: 37
      Well, let's be more specific. As of June 22.06.1941, 2, the Baltic Fleet included 2 battleships, 21 cruisers, 65 destroyers and 33 submarines, not counting sea hunters (7), patrol ships (48) and torpedo boats (656), as well as 2 aircraft. The enemy had: Finland - 3 coast guard battleships, 14 submarines, 10 gunboats and minelayers, 5 patrol ships. Germany - 2 submarines, 10 minelayers, 6 minesweepers, 1941 torpedo boats. Only in September 10, when the Baltic Fleet was already locked in the throat of the Gulf of Finland, the battleship Tirpitz, the heavy cruiser Admiral Scheer, the light cruisers Cologne, Emden, Leipzig, Nuremberg and 1400 destroyers. In general, at the beginning of the war, Germany had fewer submarines than just one Baltic Fleet. The naval aviation of the Baltic Fleet, Black Sea Fleet, and Northern Fleet had approximately XNUMX aircraft of various types, or approximately a third of the number of German aircraft on the Eastern Front. But the “dominance” of both the German aviation and navy in the initial period of the war was precisely the result of the bosses’ mischief, for which they had to pay with thousands of lives of sailors and soldiers.
  38. KAZAK67 Rank
    KAZAK67
    +1
    24 January 2013 08: 24
    Strange article.
  39. Stiletto Rank
    Stiletto
    0
    24 January 2013 10: 21
    In my opinion, there are two points. Moment one: Our people gave a very good hint to the amers: “move over, you are not alone here.” And you can’t argue with that - they gritted their teeth and walked away - there’s really no way to fight with the insolent people.
    Second point: yes, the Americans have cool ships, but where is the guarantee that our Marines won’t simply take them away?! )))))
  40. krisostomus
    krisostomus
    +1
    24 January 2013 12: 32
    Yes, there is no “moment” - simply the areas of the exercises outside the territorial waters are closed to navigation, of which all sailors are notified in advance.
    As for the second point, according to this logic, it turns out that a military fleet is not needed at all and it is enough to have only transport ships with marines that will destroy the “supotat” fleet.
  41. fedora
    fedora
    +1
    24 January 2013 12: 40
    I'm embarrassed to even comment on this stupid article.
  42. wolf1945 Rank
    wolf1945
    0
    24 January 2013 13: 38
    GLORY TO THE Navy OF RUSSIA! soldier
  43. vot-te-raz Rank
    vot-te-raz
    +1
    24 January 2013 14: 39
    Our animators predicted this situation 30-35 years ago (I don’t know exactly the year of release). Do you remember the Soviet cartoon “The Adventures of Captain Vrungel?” There, in one of the episodes, the yacht “Trouble” ends up in the area of ​​military exercises and Captain Vrungel, turning the yacht over, climbed to the bottom and put his pipe on display. And he’s all like a NATO admiral with many awards and medals (in my opinion he even had a medal on his pants) shouted into the megaphone of his fleet, armed to the teeth: “Nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand devils, a submarine of an unknown design was discovered in the exercise area. Fully back!!!!" And he personally pulled the control levers of the ship.))
    1. Santa Fe Rank
      Santa Fe
      +1
      24 January 2013 23: 19
      Quote: vot-te-raz
      NATO admiral with many awards and medals ( I think he even had a medal on his pants) shouted into the megaphone of his fleet, armed to the teeth: “Nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand devils, a submarine of an unknown design was discovered in the exercise area. Full back!!!!” And he personally pulled the control levers of the ship.))


      Foresail mainsail in his left ear! laughing
      I remember this moment from childhood))))))))))
  44. Veteran Rank
    Veteran
    +4
    24 January 2013 14: 59
    Quote: krisostomus
    Let's clarify. Member of the BF...

    Clarifications were required based on the results of the database, and not on the arithmetic transfer of fleet forces. The Baltic Fleet was locked in the eastern part of the FZ not in September 1941, but as a result of a large-scale barrage operation carried out by the Germans in the spring of 1943. And the German operational groups NK and TK arrived in Libau on 23.09.41/24.09.41/29.09.41 and in the Aland Islands region on 1942/XNUMX/XNUMX ( including Tirpitz) in order to prevent the Baltic Fleet from breaking through into the Baltic Sea (assuming the internment of ships in Sweden after the capture of Leningrad). But the ships of the Baltic Fleet joined in the direct defense of Leningrad, providing significant support to the ground forces with their artillery, without which the city would not have survived, and with artillery they managed to defend the Oranienbaum bridgehead, which in the future played a key role in the liberation of Leningrad from the blockade. Having understood the intentions of the Baltic Fleet, already on September XNUMX, XNUMX, the enemy ships returned to their bases. And in the summer of XNUMX, the Germans at first could not understand who was sinking their transports, but, having figured it out, they decided to carry out a barrage operation in the spring.
    As for the pre-war composition of the Navy, quantity is not always the determining factor for the results of the database. In addition, the naval forces were dispersed between 4 fleets, not connected by convenient and short communications, in contrast, for example, to the connection between the North Sea and the Baltic through the Kiel Canal. This is our military-geographical feature. There were also mistakes in the pre-war distribution of forces among the fleets. So, for example, the concentration of 71 submarines in the Baltic theater was wrong; it would be rational to have a larger number of submarines in the North (where there were only 15 submarines), where later during the war the boats had to be redirected. In pre-war times, it was not expected that the enemy would be able to capture the southern bank of the Federal Zone so quickly, and that communications in the North would become of great importance.
    The result of the database is influenced to a greater extent by the decisions made on the use of forces than by their simple arithmetic calculation. Having the most powerful naval forces, the British, due to an incorrect decision, allowed the defeat of the large convoy PQ-17.
    And the example of the evacuation of Crimea is completely wrong; it would be better if they cited the Tallinn crossing.
    1. krisostomus
      krisostomus
      0
      24 January 2013 18: 57
      The bottom line, dear one, is that in the Baltic the German fleet and the Baltic fleet were approximately equal, and only the Baltic Fleet’s submarine forces outnumbered the entire German submarine fleet. It seems to me that the Baltic Fleet did not fulfill its task and what it was intended for, just as the fleet aviation did not cope with its task, since the Tallinn transition took place in the complete absence of air cover.
      I read with great interest Vice Admiral Ryazantsev’s book “In the Wake of Death.” Everything is repeating itself, in the navy, as during my military service in the early 70s, the chaos continues, with the only difference that then the guilty were appointed, and now no one is even looking for them.
      Fraud is flourishing, triumphant reports are heard, and we will once again throw our hats at the “adversary.” It’s just a pity that in peacetime it’s not the “parquet admirals” who pay for this, but the submariners with their lives.
  45. Natalia
    Natalia
    +2
    24 January 2013 16: 31
    The huge group of US Navy ships also could not feel completely safe, and it is not without reason that the missile cruiser Moscow is armed with the Vulcan anti-ship missile system for a reason.

    It’s not for nothing that such ships are called Aircraft Carrier Killers
    1. Cynic Rank
      Cynic
      +2
      24 January 2013 20: 08
      Quote: Natalia
      The US Navy also could not feel completely safe

      Dear please clarify, when did the war actually begin between Russia and the USA?
      Without this fact, any assumptions are complete nonsense. The author joked, and the readers debated with a smart look!
      Well, funny and sinful!
      lol
  46. SHAKED
    SHAKED
    +1
    24 January 2013 17: 24
    The article smiled. Of course it’s a long way from Vanya’s pearls, but that’s okay too))
    Hello to old friends! ;)
  47. Sergey AL
    Sergey AL
    +2
    24 January 2013 19: 34
    Yes, a squadron of the newest ships was afraid of a bunch of outdated vessels collected from around the world! Be realistic, what threat could this pose to the AUG?
    1. Cynic Rank
      Cynic
      0
      24 January 2013 20: 00
      Quote: Sergey AL
      Be realistic, what threat could this pose to the AUG?

      Yes for once They agreed to give Kuzma's mother a lift! !
      1. Sergey AL
        Sergey AL
        +3
        24 January 2013 20: 37
        At least these self-propelled guns would not sink, of course the crews must be desperate guys.
        The ships are 30 years apart in era. Like battleships and dreadnoughts
  48. Veteran Rank
    Veteran
    +5
    24 January 2013 20: 03
    Quote: krisostomus
    in the Baltic, the German fleet and the Baltic fleet were approximately equal, and only the Baltic Fleet's submarine forces outnumbered the entire German submarine fleet

    It’s not a matter of the number of submarines; at that time, boats did not fight against boats, except for rare accidental incidents. Hitler, remembering World War 1, was not going to send his fleet to the Baltic theater of war to fight the Baltic Fleet; he needed it for a naval war with England. The Fuhrer made his main bet on a land strike, which, by capturing the naval base from land, would deprive the very existence of the Baltic Fleet, while Leningrad became the final goal of the Germans in this land direction. If they managed to take the city, then the issue with the Baltic Fleet would be completely closed, regardless of any of its naval forces. “Only he has a fleet who has its bases.” But things did not go so quickly; submarines of the Baltic Fleet managed to enter the Baltic Sea in 1942 and operate successfully there. Then the idea of ​​a grandiose “blockage” of the bay was born and realized. The blockaded fleet, naturally, was unable to enter the operational sea space, and the magnitude of its power potential no longer had any significance for purely naval operations. But for the defense of Leningrad and the approaches to it, its artillery was very significant. In that first period of the war, the Baltic Fleet aviation was all redirected to solving problems in the interests of the ground forces, which is why it was not present over the ships of the Tallinn crossing. Do you think the bombing of Berlin (a land target) by naval bombers is specific to them? The sea direction was not then the main one in repelling a massive invasion by land. Is it really the fault of the fleet and its command that the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland was quickly ceded to the enemy? Or did it shout about the stability of the fleet in the defense of the entire northwestern territory? Absurdity. They underestimated the mine danger in the bay - yes, they built few minesweepers before the war. But no one knew Germany’s plans. Although it was possible to take into account the experience of the 1st World War.
    In the early 70s, I served as an officer on a diesel-electric submarine from the Black Squadron, and we didn’t have any mischief. Equipped with atomic torpedoes, we perfectly assessed our role as “kamikazes” in possible combat missions, but the Motherland demanded this of us, and we were ready to carry out the tasks.
    1. krisostomus
      krisostomus
      -1
      25 January 2013 11: 50
      It seems to me, dear one, that any state must first of all have clearly and clearly formulated political goals and a program for achieving them, and the role of the armed forces in achieving these goals is determined by the military doctrine of the state and the program for the development of the armed forces. Military construction is a job for highly qualified professionals, and the larger and larger the stars on the shoulder straps, the higher the level of professionalism should be. Therefore, the task of a professional military man is not to die like a kamikaze, but to defeat the enemy. Otherwise, this professional military man turns into an ordinary “martyr” with explosives on his belt, whose entire “professionalism” comes down to pressing a button or pulling a cord.
  49. Veteran Rank
    Veteran
    +4
    25 January 2013 17: 49
    Quote: krisostomus
    in the Baltic, the German fleet and the Baltic fleet were approximately equal, and only the Baltic Fleet's submarine forces outnumbered the entire German submarine fleet.

    Well, let's clarify here too. As of 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX:
    LK: BF - 2 (old); the Germans - in the Baltic 1, did not allocate against the USSR;
    Cr: BF - 2 Crl; the Germans - in the Baltic 3 Krt + 4 Krl, against the USSR they allocated 2 Krt + 3 Krl, against the Baltic Fleet - no;
    EM: BF - 21 EM and leader; Germans - in the Baltic 34, against the USSR - 15, against the Baltic Fleet - 8;
    Sub: BF - 71; Germans - total xnumx, in the Baltic 85, against the USSR - 23, against the Baltic Fleet - 11;
    Tka, Tsch, BrKa, SKR, Ska, etc.: BF - 144; Germans - 307 in the Baltic, against the USSR - 283, against the Baltic Fleet - 173.
    Taking into account the fact that at any moment all the Baltic Navy of the Reich could be directed against the Baltic Fleet (as, for example, it was in September 1941, for light forces - in the spring of 1943), where do you see at least equality of forces?

    Quote: krisostomus
    any state must first of all have clearly and clearly formulated political goals and a program for achieving them, and the role of the armed forces in achieving these goals is determined by the military doctrine of the state and the program for the development of the armed forces. Military construction is a job for highly qualified professionals, and the larger and larger the stars on the shoulder straps, the higher the level of professionalism should be.

    No one objects.
    Quote: krisostomus
    Otherwise, this professional military man turns into an ordinary “martyr” with explosives on his belt, whose entire “professionalism” comes down to pressing a button or pulling a cord.

    This is where it is necessary to separate the functions of operational task planners and plans from their executors. If the first are not on the ship, then they cannot turn into any “martyrs,” but if they are on a ship participating in the execution of the plan, then the fate of all the other participants awaits them. The execution of a complex plan requires the performers to have appropriate, highly professional training at their own performing level. In the Battle of Athos, D.N. Senyavin’s magnificent, but very difficult to execute, battle plan could only be realized if there were such performers, and since they were, this ultimately led to the victory of the Russian squadron. But during the battle, an unforeseen situation may arise with individual performers (no one is ever immune from this), and then he will be required to make his own extraordinary decision associated with a difficult choice - to risk his life in the name of completing and not disrupting the operation itself (maybe , you will have to commit suicide) or become cowardly and jeopardize the success of the database result. Not quite out of place, but the adm. Nebogatov had a worthy choice in the Battle of Tsushima when surrounded by the Japanese, but he chose to surrender.
    As for the “martyrdom” of diesel-electric submarines when meeting with an American SSBN in combat service in the early 70s in the event of the start of a database, then at that time the Soviet Navy did not have a large number of nuclear submarines “hunters for SSBNs”, moreover, the ones that were available were quite noisy , much more expensive, and diesel-electric submarines on an economical ship were not noticed by SSBNs, and it was possible to carry out search, intermittent tracking, and thereby create obstacles to the activities of SSBNs with a large number of available diesel-electric submarines: disrupt preparations for the launch and the launch itself of the ballistic missile on our territory. And the threat was serious, quite real. But, with the beginning of the database, the life of the diesel-electric submarine crew was given for the life of the enemy SSBN with 16 ballistic missiles and, accordingly, for preserving the lives of the population of 16 cities of the USSR. Whether this is “shahidism” - I don’t know.
    1. krisostomus
      krisostomus
      0
      26 January 2013 06: 03
      I don’t presume to judge what it was like in the navy during Senyavin’s time, but if we judge by the tragedy with the Kursk nuclear submarine, as retired Vice Admiral Ryazantsev describes it, and he was an expert in the relevant commission, then the operational planners of these exercises should have simply been seated in prison If you believe the admiral, the commander of the warhead-3 arrived on the ship two weeks before the exercise, did not serve on ships of this project, had not fired with such torpedoes before, and did not pass the exam for independent control of the warhead by the unit’s flagship specialist. How could a nuclear submarine be released into the sea?
      It is completely incomprehensible to me how a dozen support ships could not detect the presence of foreign nuclear submarines at the test site and their torpedo attack on the Kursk, as the Comflot tried to convince everyone? Why, after the emergency ascent signal was given at 14.40 and when the boat did not surface, no measures were taken and the emergency alarm was announced only at 23.30, after which the search for the boat began? Why were Norwegian divers able to do in two days what the so-called Northern Fleet rescue service could not do in a week? Where is the Navy's diving service and why weren't Epron enclosures used for ventilation and air supply to the compartments? Do you really think that it was the Motherland that needed such sacrifices?
      Can you, as a submarine officer, believe that the Kursk nuclear submarine, having passed the Strait of Gibraltar with a fairway depth of 360 m, could have gone unnoticed by NATO ships and, moreover, in the conditions of hostilities against Yugoslavia, unexpectedly surfaced among the AUG? Well, who needed such articles soothing the “electorate”? Now another one about the “timidity” of the 6th Fleet. You, as a naval officer, understand perfectly well that this group of ships simply cannot solve any combat missions there, which, it seems to me, the admiral fathers should clearly understand if they are professionals.
      1. Cynic Rank
        Cynic
        0
        26 January 2013 16: 14
        Quote: krisostomus
        this group of ships simply cannot solve any combat missions there,

        And along with this you can claim
        Quote: krisostomus
        Well, who needed such articles soothing the “electorate”?

        Is this really a clear manifestation of unprofessionalism or bias?
        I think it's still the second one. Even in the reasoning of a layman there is common sense, but here?
  50. Veteran Rank
    Veteran
    +5
    25 January 2013 20: 17
    On the topic of "martyrdom" in the navy. On May 14, 1829, the 18-gun brig "Mercury" of Kazarsky suddenly met with two LKs of the Turkish fleet with 180 guns. The choice: to engage in an insane battle or surrender the ship and its crew as prisoners? Kazarsky and his crew chose the former, putting the pistol in the crew chamber for the last living person. Having demonstrated the highest professionalism in maneuvering and firing, the crew of the brig immobilized the battleships and returned safely to base. He had no idea then that on one of the ships of this Turkish squadron there was a captured Russian crew of the 44-gun frigate "Raphael", whose commander was 2nd r. Stroynikov surrendered the ship on May 11 without a fight, being surrounded by the Turkish squadron. Some people say that Stroynikov saved the lives of 200 crew members (however, only 70 returned from captivity alive). So who were the sailors from the Mercury - “shihadists” demanding condemnation, or national heroes worthy of imitation and corresponding to the inscription on the monument to the brig - “For posterity as an example”?
  51. Veteran Rank
    Veteran
    +5
    26 January 2013 14: 36
    The death of the Kursk does not relate to the maintenance of the database; the boat was not even in combat service. This case is one of a series of man-made disasters that occurred during the “dying” of the USSR and in “new democratic” Russia. Senyavin's times are more researched and understandable than this 15-year period of our country, and of new states. We had to turn a blind eye to many factors in combat training, otherwise we would have to stop all combat training altogether. It would take a long time to list, but there was also a catastrophic shortage of qualified personnel; in order to send the ship to sea, people who were listed as specialists were collected from all over the formation; lack of both combat and practical serviceable weapons - after the disaster in Okolnaya, only 70 torpedoes were stored at the fleet base for the entire Northern Fleet! The list can be endless, but one thing is clear: the country was unable to maintain and exploit the naval potential inherited from the USSR, as well as much else.
    As for the reasons for the death of the Kursk, the version of the torpedo attack on it is absolutely groundless. All studies have shown that the first explosion is the explosion of the Kal's own torpedo. 650 mm, located in TA No. 4 with the TA cover open or closed, but with the ratchet removed, and it did not result from external influence, but from a technical malfunction of the torpedo itself. You can find more details in I. Spassky’s book “Kursk. After August 12, 2000.”
  52. Veteran Rank
    Veteran
    +5
    26 January 2013 15: 04
    As for the presence of a fleet of foreign submarines near exercises, this is a common practice for fleets. The two “Americans” stayed at a distance of about 50 km from the “Kursk”, which is much greater than the range of American torpedoes, and that’s not the point. Detection of submarines by GA means of NK at a distance of more than 50 km is an impossible task if the submarine moves at low noise speed. But even if they found it, then what? Stoke? Two nuclear submarines at once and at the same time an “English”? What about the consequences? And chasing after them is quite pointless, and does not fit into the framework of planned exercises at the training ground.
    Regarding the rise of the Kursk with the main participation of foreign firms, I will quote Spassky’s words: “By this time, we have no ships left capable of providing such an operation, having on board diving bells, decompression chambers, deep-sea diving suits that meet modern requirements. And We simply did not have such mastered technologies as cutting with water under pressure. A number of deep-sea divers who participated in the recovery operation remained in the Navy. ...Where did the rest go... It turned out that about a hundred of these unique specialists work abroad under contracts with foreign companies."
  53. DeamonFIre
    DeamonFIre
    0
    2 February 2013 15: 29
    And for me, the American model of managing fleets and areas of responsibility is much better than the Russian one. It’s enough just to see which of them fulfill their tasks of influence, and which are simply sailing on rusty boats.
  54. Alikovo
    Alikovo
    0
    11 February 2013 13: 03
    Americans were afraid of Soviet-built Russian ships with modern anti-ship missiles
  55. buzz
    buzz
    0
    April 1 2013 03: 15
    It’s easy!
  56. Marconi41 Rank
    Marconi41
    0
    26 June 2013 03: 23
    The firing range of Granit (RKr Moscow) is quite high. So the Americans got out of harm’s way, who knows where and what the Russians will fly during exercises. The article certainly made me smile, but it’s hard to believe in the “fear” of the American fleet. We were also butting heads with the Soviet fleet, and then suddenly we were taken aback. But what the author points out is quite funny wassat
  57. Zulu_S Rank
    Zulu_S
    +1
    9 November 2016 18: 23
    I read to the middle and realized: the story is from the series “Russia is the homeland of all the elephants in the world.” Not otherwise, the author considers us, readers, to be unreasonable children. Trickstering has never brought anyone any good. Aren't you ashamed, Mr. Kaptsov?
  58. akribos Rank
    akribos
    +1
    10 November 2016 23: 26
    Stupid article. Sincerely.
  59. Hort Rank
    Hort
    +1
    16 November 2016 10: 03
    And so, noticing the Russian squadron on the horizon, most of the American ships hastened to leave the area of ​​​​responsibility of the Sixth Fleet,
    again, mischief and “has no analogue”?
    Despite all the recent positive developments in the restoration of combat power and the advantages of weapons, we cannot yet compete with the American fleets.
  60. Alexey-74 Rank
    Alexey-74
    +1
    16 November 2016 10: 08
    Our sailors are of course strength!!! But I would not advise the author to distance himself from reality. The US Navy is of course very, very powerful.........our Navy still needs to grow and grow
  61. shinobi Rank
    shinobi
    0
    19 November 2016 11: 10
    The Yankee military doctrine contains the so-called 10% threshold for one-time personnel losses. If in the operation being developed there is a possibility of exceeding it, the operation simply will not be carried out. Again, the advantage over the enemy in an offensive operation must be at least sixfold. This is approximately 100 kilograms a professional MMA fighter against a novice amateur boxer weighing 40 kilos.
  62. the same doctor Rank
    the same doctor
    0
    April 14 2017 08: 55
    I wonder what you are happy about. If the United States removed its ships from under our attack, it means that they consider this attack probable. We won’t attack ourselves, which means the bastards are waiting for a retaliatory strike. So we have to wait for this blow! It would be good if it was the notorious salvo of cruise missiles. But having tested us in small ways, they can hit us even harder.
    .
    It is time to carry out endangered events in the country. Do we have the resources for this, or has everything already been stolen?
  63. Umnichka Rank
    Umnichka
    +1
    April 15 2017 22: 40
    A beautiful set of phrases for the younger group of kindergarten. While reading this opus you feel like an idiot. I’m ashamed of the author and those who give pluses to this work. Admins, when will you return the minuses???
  64. ALLxANDr Rank
    ALLxANDr
    +1
    23 May 2017 21: 04
    I enjoyed reading it, thank you! )
  65. 1536 Rank
    1536
    0
    30 June 2017 18: 37
    "...severance orders..." The word "outfits" when applied to American sailors sounds somewhat ambiguous. In general, no one doubts that the Americans are our enemies.
  66. Alex Xorkam Rank
    Alex Xorkam
    +1
    5 July 2017 21: 48
    So why this article now? What is she talking about now? US aircraft carrier in Haifa. Some kind of game.
  67. Commander Andrey Rank
    Commander Andrey
    +1
    8 July 2017 21: 40
    The article is a complete scam. The author has no idea that the Russian squadron in the Mediterranean does not even have one permanent ship or vessel. And the basing of the squadron headquarters has been a disgrace since the days of the Soviet Navy; the conditions are simply terrible. Imagine a cruiser, fully staffed, and then 50-60 squadron headquarters personnel are transferred to it. How does it feel for both the headquarters and the crew?
    Those who served on the 5th Mediterranean squadron of the USSR Navy remember what the crews of the ships were taught, what they were prepared for in the event of hostilities - to hold out from several hours to one day.
    Just as today NATO ships in the Black Sea are in full view of coastal missile batteries and coastal aviation, so NATO is in full view of our ships in the Mediterranean Sea. We are in Syria and the Mediterranean, surrounded by many naval and air bases of both NATO members and their allies.
    No, of course, you can present all this so beautifully and bravura to civilians and military personnel, but this has nothing to do with reality.
    It’s a pity if experts at the state level think in politics at the same level.
  68. The comment was deleted.
  69. bakhshiyan rachik Rank
    bakhshiyan rachik
    0
    9 July 2017 19: 43
    we still need modern ships that are well armed and armored
  70. realist Rank
    realist
    +1
    25 December 2017 14: 47
    It’s nice to read, the Americans got cold feet and ran away. but there is a suspicion that not everything is so simple and straightforward, there is some kind of catch. We must prepare for the worst case scenario.
  71. The comment was deleted.
  72. Don Analyst Rank
    Don Analyst
    0
    15 January 2018 13: 58
    Well, I poured honey on everything - they sang along!
    Or maybe everything is different: the United States did not stop us from getting into a second Afghanistan!
    "Let the cool Russians interfere with the caliphate, and we will throw wood on it"
    Need to work...
  73. Victor Peter Rank
    Victor Peter
    0
    20 January 2018 08: 55
    Quote: alex-defensor
    Quote: BigRiver
    Not fighters are Americans. Oh, not the fighters :(

    Yes it is, BUT !!!!!

    I am sure that the United States did not withdraw its ships because it was scared ... such maneuvers without a "high-level conversation" are not carried out at all.

    At most, if they were taken away so as not to provoke a conflict.

    VERY complex processes are going on in the USA, many people don’t understand why their country (USA) is climbing into Syria ... at that moment, starting a war there in the face of active opposition from Russia and China’s strong disagreement is risky ... This is where the current indecision.

    Yeah! Of course we agreed at the “highest level”! And of course, it’s only a coincidence that as soon as the Calibers flew from Buyanov in the Caspian Sea to the bearded men in Syria, the Russian floating airfield flew out of the Mediterranean Sea like a bullet.
  74. Valery Saitov Rank
    Valery Saitov
    0
    16 February 2018 09: 06
    What should the US fleet do near the coast of Syria? And how to divide and develop the loot? And so they came, stood and... drove further across the seas and oceans, quickly ruin the ship and... get a new one, shipyards should not stand idle.
  75. polite people Rank
    polite people
    0
    19 March 2018 09: 09
    What. We are waiting for you. Ready for guests.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs0KyIBf2kg
  76. Denis001
    Denis001
    0
    23 March 2018 16: 57
    what nonsense? who believes such articles?
  77. Alexander Russian Rank
    Alexander Russian
    0
    29 March 2018 19: 38
    "The invincible and legendary Sixth Fleet of the US Navy." Like that joke about the elusive Joe. “Dad, why is he elusive? Because no one fucking needs him.” So is this one invincible and elusive.
  78. The comment was deleted.
  79. Chaldon48 Rank
    Chaldon48
    0
    22 March 2020 11: 49
    Here’s the truth: “It’s not the car itself that runs, it’s the person who drives it.” The Spartans said that the city is protected not by walls, but by people.