Translated by Eugenia
Recently, the American journal The National Interest published an article with a telling title: “5 Reasons Russia and China Might Not Be Able to Sink a U.S. Aircraft Carrier”(http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/5-reasons-russia-china-might-not-be-able-sink-us-aircraft-22471?page=2). The author of the article discusses these reasons in detail. All of them are, by the way, pretty self-evident.
The first one turned out to be (do you believe this?) that “the American aircraft carrier is big and fast . . . “ The second one – “it has many weapons . . . “ The third reason – “it is well defended . . .”. The fourth reason – “it acts prudently . . . “ And, finally, the fifth – “the American military technologies are the best in the world . . .”.
Such is a collection of simplistic propagandist clichés that the American propaganda machine is pounding into the head of the Western common man. It is important to understand that the National interest in not some “yellow” paper; this in an analytical journal that is expected to offer responsible and professional publications.
A Large And Fast Coffin With A Propeller
Let us take a closer look at the way the author of the article – an expert and political analyst – explains to his readers why the American aircraft carriers are invulnerable and unsinkable . . .
OK, the first thesis. The American aircraft carries is indeed large and fast. It has 25 decks; its maximal height is 80 meters; it displaces 100,000 tons of water and can carry 70, or even up to 90, aircraft of different types.
Unfortunately, one small detail spoils this lovely picture: a large target is easier to hit! But the Americans simply cannot make their aircraft carriers smaller. The reason is simple: they are insanely expensive. The carries have to be made in such enormous size, simply because if they are made smaller, more of them will be needed. Flexibility of the American aircraft carrier fleet would in such case increase, but the price would skyrocket.
Judge by yourself: a modern aircraft carrier costs the US approximately $13 billions (that is how much the newest “Gerald Ford” cost), and the carrier air wing (the Navy version of F-35) based of the carrier costs additional $7 billions.
Plus, there are the ships of the “carrier strike group” – multiple guided missile warships, destroyers equipped with Aegis combat system, and stealthy attack submarines. Thus, one such groups costs the Americans around $50 billions! And, by the way, these $50 billions are never able to move as quickly as the “expert” in the National Interest asserts . . .
By in America nobody is concerned with such details.
The author does not shy away from stating: “The aircraft carriers are constantly moving when deployed at up to 35 miles per hour – fast enough to outrun submarines – finding and tracking them is difficult.
Within 30 minutes after a sighting by enemies, the area within which a carrier might be operating has grown to 700 square miles; after 90 minutes, it has expanded to 6,000 square miles”.
It sound great but in reality not one American aircraft carrier can reach this speed. The maximal speed that it can maintain – for a limited time – is 30 knots. The key word here is LIMITED time.
If anyone thinks that an aircraft carrier can immediately upon entering the open sea accelerate to 30 knots (almost 56 km per hour) and keep racing on the waives, he is very much mistaken.
This is impossible. In reality, 95% of their time American aircraft carriers move in an economy mode at the speed no faster than 14 knots (about 26 km/hour). When airplanes take off or land on the carrier, the carrier is seriously limited in its ability to change speed or course. An aircraft carrier is not a bike. If this floating airdrome turned from side to side all the time, pilots would not be able to make landings.
Another small detail: who would give to an aircraft carrier 30 min so it could escape from the battle zone? Even the old Soviet missile “Granit” (note that the American still do not have anything like it), which our nuclear submarine cruisers of 949-project “Antey” type are armed with, fired from its maximal distance would reach its target in just slightly more than 500 second.
This means that when a missile is fired, an American aircraft carrier would have time to get away from the point of its detection at its maximal speed to no more than 7.5 km. Such distance is definitely within the range covered by the self-targeting mechanism of “Granit”. Thus, the missile will reach its target and, if not neutralize by the air defense systems (which is not very probable), destroy the target.
Furthermore, as the American “expert” should know, no one will fire at an aircraft carrier group just one missile! Every our “Antey” submarine is equipped with 24 such missiles. Additionally, I believe, if the Chief of Staff of our Navy plans an operations to destroy an American aircraft carrier, such operation will involve more than one “Antey”.
If all 24 “Granit” missiles are fired simultaneously, it will be all but impossible to intercept them. Most of them fly at a very low altitude: they creep just above the surface of the ocean. Just one missile flies above – it guides the whole pack to the target. If the adversary destroys the guiding missile, it is immediately substituted by one of the remaining missiles flying below.
When the Soviet engineers designed these missiles, they incorporated elements of the artificial intelligence in their design: the missiles communicate with each other selecting their targets in such a way, so that two missiles accidentally do not hit the same small target.
For example, our missiles know how to select the main target, and if that target is an aircraft carrier, the “Granits” would not self-target the accompanying warships – they will target specifically the carrier.
In addition, the missiles know other little tricks that certainly will come as a “pleasant” surprise for the Americans, such as the ability to interact with the Naval Space System of Intelligence and Guidance (NSIG).
It seems, however, that the author of this American article has not idea that NSIG exists. However, such a system existed back in the Soviet Union – named “Legend”. It Russian descendant is “Liana” that has broad capabilities to detect and follow American aircraft carrier groups in the ocean. This system is capable of guiding missiles to targets even after their have been launched.
Obviously, no matter how good the weapons are or how sophisticated the detection system is – there is no 100% guarantee that an aircraft carrier will be destroyed by the first missile launch. However, the probability that by using all means at our disposal we will sink it is pretty high.
Armed To The Teeth And Very Careful
Let us find out who provides serious American journals with such analytical trash. Who is this fantastic American “expert” that has no problem misleading his readers? He is Loren Thompson, Chief Operating Officer of the Lexington Institute, a well-known organization, by the way. He is also a Deputy Director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University where he taught strategy to graduate students and lectured at the Harvard University’s School of Government.
We can only guess what kind of strategy this expert in strategic thinking taught his students. I think we can appreciate the quality of the government officials trained on the lecture of this illustrious “expert”.
But let us return to the reasons why we, supposedly, will never be able to sink an American aircraft carrier.
The second and third reasons, according to Thompson, is that an American aircraft carrier “has lots of weapons and can defend itself . . .” Who could have thought? Really, one immediately senses that he is dealing with a true professional looking into the heart of the matter
An aircraft carrier is indeed loaded with weapons. Thompson, however, does not seem to understand that these are offensive and not defensive weapons. A carrier is completely incapable of defending itself! The air defense and defense against submarines are expected to be provided by the accompanying ships.
Loren Thompson says that these ships are numerous and well armed, and that is why a carries will never be sunk. I am almost afraid to remind that an attack on the carrier will not be conducted singlehandedly, either!
In the Soviet time, a whole regiment of missile-armed Ty-22 aircrafts was designated for the destruction of one American aircraft carrier. This means a few dozens of airplanes. Plus submarines armed with cruise missiles. Plus other means of attack and destruction at our Navy’s disposal.
As history teaches us: 70 years ago during the World War II the presence of a large number of accompanying ships did not prevent the Japanese from sinking many an American aircraft carrier. In two years from 1942 to 1944 they successfully sunk as many as 11 of them! We should think the offensive weapons advanced significantly since those times.
For example, the fighter-interceptor Tu-22 M3 (long distance supersonic missile-armed bomber – editor note). These Soviet-time airplanes are being thoroughly modernized, and the equipment of these newly modernized machines Tu-22 M3M will include, in particular, anti-ship new generation missiles X-32. For some reason, they are rarely mentioned in press, but these are fantastic missiles. After launch, the come up to 40 km and fly at the speed almost 5 time faster than the sound. After coming upon the target, they descend on it almost vertically.
Today, the United States Navy does not possess any weapon even remotely close in its characteristics to our X-32. The Americans also do not have any air defense system capable of intercepting this missile . . .
That is why the fourth reason that, as The National Interest asserts, makes the enemy incapable of destroying American aircraft carriers is particularly important. What is this reason? Oh yes – they “do not take chances”. When, perhaps, it would be better not to leave the base and go into the open ocean at all? It is so much safer . . .
But if you are out there . . . Take chances or not, but on the way to the area of conflict with our Navy (in the North Atlantic, for example) the American aircraft carries would have to pass through straits, narrow channels, where, naturally, our submarines and other forces would be waiting for them and, according to the Russian customs, welcome them with the “bread-and-salt” of cruise missiles seasoned with torpedoes, mines, and bombs . . . In any case, the traditional Russian welcome for the aircraft carriers will be assured!
Whether you are careful or not, but you cannot arrive from Jacksonville, an American Navy base on the US East coast, to our shores (for example, to the area of responsibility of the Northern Navy with its mane bases on the Kolsky peninsula) bypassing several well-known narrow channels and straits.
The Americans themselves during the Cold War constructed anti-submarine barriers in those places with the goal of preventing our subs from getting into the Atlantic. The best-known examples – the barrier along the line the North Cape – Medvezhyi (Bear) island and between Iceland and Faroe islands . . .
The last, fifth, reason of the invincibility of the American aircraft carriers, according to Loren Thompson, is the greatest achievement of his expert-analytical approach. The reason is a fact self-evident for every American that the Americans are generally the best in the world and they possess the best technologies, including the military ones. However, this is not exactly a fact. For example, the Russian technologies of the anti-ship cruise missiles are definitely better than their American counterparts. Everyone who knows anything and learned anything knows that. In particular, the military experts are paying close attention to the Russian hypersonic missiles of the new generation.
The American do not appear to be amenable to reason but some of their allies are more or less adequate. Thus, recently the media in the Great Britain created a veritable hysteria on the subject of the new Russian missile “Zircon”.
The first to raise alarm was the British newspaper The Independent. It stated: “It is impossible to stop “Zircon”. Even the newest air defense systems are yet to come to the British Navy will only be able to destroy target at the maximum speed of 3700 km/hour, whereas “Zircon” can reach 6000 or even 7400 km/hour”.
The Daily Star offered further development of the theme about the scary Russians:
“Russia produces deadly missiles capable of destroying the entire Royal Navy in one hit. A representative of the British Foreign Ministry believes that the Russian “Zircon”, which cant carry a nuclear warhead, completely changes the rules of war at sea. Our aircraft carriers simply could not be deployed where the Russians have these missiles . . .”
Another British newspaper, The Mirror, carried on in the same alarmist tone. It wrote: “The Russian missile moves with the speed twice as fast as the speed of the sniper bullet. It can send the most advanced ships to the bottom of the sea. The experts say that out Navy today has no defense against this terrible weapon. The appearance of “Zircon” in the Russian arsenal make both our aircraft carriers costing $7 billion each useless”.
The Daily Mail added the final accord to this panicky choir:
“Russia created an invincible cruise missile that travels at 4600 miles per hour and is capable of destroying a British aircraft carries with one hit. This deadly missile “Zircon” can be launched from the land, sea, or air carriers.
It covers 155 miles in 2.5 minutes. Its appearance make the very idea of the aircraft carrier groups meaningless, and we simply do not have anything to counter it with”.
The Americans might, of course, hope that our “Zircon” is a threat exclusively to the British aircraft carriers. Regardless of what they think, the facts say differently: any attempt by the American Navy to test in the real battle conditions whether or not the Russians can sink their aircraft carrier will most likely end quite badly for the US of A.
Thanks for all the info. Great news.
Let’s hope it will never be proven right or wrong.
One sunken nuclear-powered carrier will mean incredible destruction of the local environment.
Great point, they can just sink the support craft and disable the carrier.
You say that like you think it would be easy.
lol… he sounds like an angry Russian. And rightly so. Enough with this bullying baloney. Sink the satanic pentagram aircraft carriers! Bring down the Great Whore of Babylon!
Till yesterday I used to believe that the other naval vessels in the USA’s carrier battle group would take care of any missile threat directed towards their carrier, today I think they are just floating ducks for the Russians.
Sitting ducks, you mean. Also floating coffins.
The Chinese have similar ship-killing missiles.
Not just the Russians,the Chinese and even the Iranians have misiles that can turn those carriers into a pile of junkwith thousands of incinerated ships company,an Uncle of mine was a Gunner on a WW2 aircraft Carrier,HMS Victorious,it took three strikes from Kamikazi off Okinawa,i think Carriers have been obsolete since then,they are ok for intimidating small Countries that can’t fight back but not against a force like Russia or china.
Carriers are precisely as their name says – they are carriers of aircrafts. As such they are offensive weapon carriers. Generally offensive weapons and weapons systems are not designed to be particularly “defensible” as that would ruin their offensive capabilities. like duh…
therefore is fact that weapon carrier ships are essentially BFT
Big F kin Target.
This is unchanged from 1940…only gadgets make carrier a joke now, total joke. a coffin. In 1940 they were not quite as deadly for their crews…
Anybody who has been in any navy knows what “casualties” are expected in first day of combat…depending on the breaks it’s more than 50%…just fyi The first day. That would be just about 100% of the carriers…the ones at sea anyway. But do not hold breath, Comrade. Survivors would be in minor ships and subs…and they’d be next…
This accounts for any navy…and the varying spread sheet data would be determined mostly by design and strategy. Ru material seems very good, Murka not so modern, but vast amounts…
Let us pray that all that stuff gets turned into stuff that promotes life…
When Peace comes, eh?
Not important, but here goes: a chief petty officer, retired from the U.S. Navy, told me that, during WWII, carriers had thick hulls to protect against torpedoes. (Of course, some aircraft carriers were sunk by torpedoes anyway.) He said the post-WWII carriers have been built with thin hulls, for speed (perhaps because the thick hulls of WWII weren’t all that effective against torpedoes). Hence the protective escort. Assuming these Russian missiles often strike at just above the level of the waves, they’ll hit a thin hull, yes? I’m thinking of the damage just one missile did to the U.S.S. Stark, back when: had it not been tied up in port, it might well have sunk. And remember the Eilat and the Ardshield. One missile each, and they were sunk. Okay, neither of those was a carrier. But even so.
Further, last I heard, the US Navy only has two or three minesweepers. Clearing mines takes time, and the ships to be protected against mines must hold back until all the mines are cleared. That seems to mean heightened vulnerability, especially if the protected ships wait outside choke points. Granted, the U.S. ships might attack from well outside the choke points anyway. But can’t mines also be released on the open sea, in places likely to be traversed by U.S. carrier groups? Just wondering.
Modern torpedoes do not seek to hit the hull of the target ship. They are designed to explode in the water underneath it. The shock of the explosion causes a swift upwelling of water which brutally lifts the ship upwards. Then an expanding gas bubble deprives the ship of buoyancy allowing it to suddenly fall. The effect is to introduce severe bending along the keel, first one way and then in the opposite direction. This inevitably breaks the keel, ripping the ship apart. Usually the ship immediately separates into two portions and sinks. Even if it does not, the shock wrecks machinery and equipment throughout the ship, everything gets de-aligned, not to mention what happens to the crew. It matters not how thick the hull is. The game is over. You aint a fighting unit no more and you aint a-limping home either.
It is recommended that persons interested in this topic start by reviewing the damage wrought to the Tirpitz in WW2 by charges placed nearby. Although not appreciated by the Allies at the time, the underwater shock destroyed that ship’s ability to function as a sea-going warship. Even though it stayed afloat (and was repaired enough to be slowly moved to a new location where it was fated to be sunk later during an air-raid), it was wrecked structurally. Under-water explosives are far better in these times, as is the understanding of how to best deploy them in order to direct hugely destructive forces into ships. Today direct hits by torpedoes against the hull are not sought. A detonation under the target is the plan. Nothing is going to remain very active after that, even if it somehow manages to remain afloat.
Classc video example of your explanation:
also relates to Barn Wallace and the dam-buster tactics used by UK on Germany…wrecking ship much like wrecking a dam…make bubble and use water inrush to ruin object. nothing can stand against this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise
most failures in rotating machine stem from mis-alignment. steel is elastic. ships “work” and distort and, if they are stressed enough, acquire permanent bends (stressed past elastic limit) ships mount thousands of rotating machines. the larger the ship the more alignment problems…including everything from gun mounts, radars, resolvers in feedback loops, and weapons systems to main shafts and propulsion – and everything in between. Technical persons aboard are engaged in alignments (with tolerances, for example, of 0.001 inch per foot – or less in some examples) every day when under-way and in port. LZ knows of examples of navy captain deliberately choosing to ignore dirty drug tests in order to keep machine competent sailors in his ship, because they were the only persons who could keep ship running properly.
Ru choice of corvette size missile ships and mix of subs is most logical…after even one near miss things are at least shaken – big ship is big target. all ships are targets…
LZ, meeting submariner types doing atomic power station work, asked about these obvious vulnerabilities of Murkin navy – in 1985…
There was no logical response
Now USN fubar
Mighty fall far, fast. Pity… Right…
LZ adds that warships are necessarily of the lightest possible construction in order to make them meet specification speed and weapon loads…they bend really easy. Modern navy ships of some navy get bent beyond repair all the time…and this makes alignment of systems impossible – the ship has become too flexible…and is useless. goes to mothball or scrap and the admirl gets a new shotgun from luckup corp.
The warships design that I had a chance to be part of in naval architecture planning, were built for cheapness, to comply essentially with civilian specifications. Why? Bean counters took the lead, ‘efficiency’. Yet… the Mistrals built for the Russian Navy apparently had some civilian specs, so much so they couldn’t be sold to a NATO. What a paradox.
A classic modern example of this is when the Russians sunk the Mol Comfort on June 17, 2013 when they/we were transporting stolen Libyan weapons to the njew born US/ISIS in Syria. The pictures show an fiery explosion underneath the ship lifting it up and breaking it in half.
In the Falklands War, HMS Sheffield was sunk by a French-made Exocet missile launched by an Argentine fighter-bomber.
Afterwards, it was discovered that the Exocet’s warhead had failed to explode. Yet Sheffield was so lightly constructed, and so highly flammable, that it burned uncontrollably.
Although in general WW2-style warships would be easy to sink with modern weapons, had a WW2-era heavy cruiser, for example, been hit by an Exocet that failed to explode, it would perhaps not have been badly harmed.
Aircraft carriers are perhaps the most vulnerable of all warships. This was exemplified at the battle of Midway, for Japan’s four most powerful carriers were all set on fire and sunk within minutes. The British carriers of the “Illustrious” class were somewhat safer, because they had a heavily armoured flight deck. This enabled some of them to take savage punishment and yet survive. The price paid was a heavy one, though, as they could carry very few aircraft compared to the big American carriers.
The Argentinina Falklands war, destroyed for ever, the idea of building war ships with aluminium.
Despite knowing for many years, that Aluminium could catch fire and BURN, the Brits built their ships from this stuff, thinking they were very clever. That is until the Falklands war, when their ships simply caught fire and could not be extinguished, thus total loss.
Ask yourself this question ; How many Brit warships today, are built from aluminium ???????? Seems they might have learnt a valuable lesson.
also remember the UK Ships during the Falklands War… the Argentinians doesn’t had much exocets, but they were quite effective. Also they sunk some ships with gravity bombs on strafing runs attacks. Ships were Fubar!
see here: http://historylists.org/other/list-of-6-british-ships-sunk-during-the-falklands-war.html
or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Casualties
There was a stretch of time in WW2 when they tried to make valuable ships with enough waterline armor to take torpedo hits. Not just the carriers, but the big battleships as well. The Yamato was supposed to be invulnerable to the torpedos of the day.
But, since then, the torpedos have gotten much more powerful. Presumably to the point where they’d go through any armor. So, might as well save the weight and go for a bit more speed.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the story is that a Russia sub captain was going to fire a ‘nuclear torpedo’ at a US CV blockading Cuba. A brave political officer on the sub countermanded the order and prevented a world-wide nuclear holocaust. But the relevancy to this comment is that in a world where there is such a thing as a ‘nuclear torpedo’, no amount of armor on a CV is going to save it.
About that soviet sub – if i remember correctly, crazy americans started to drop depth charges in order for this sub to not reach Cuba – to get the sub surface…
The American ships were dropping “Signaling Charges”. I assume that they sounded like depth charges at a distance to the Soviet sub. Why the American naval commanders would assume the Soviets would know this is beyond my comprehension. It seems to me they could have just blasted it with active sonar and just herd it away from Cuba. That 3rd Soviet officer deserved a lifetime Hero award for his actions. Also, makes me wonder if the US subs have such a system in place and if it would keep a Commander from firing a nuke under questionable circumstances.
I can offer you an Australian colloquialism to keep in mind when discussing opinions of these so-called “experts”:
Expert – a word comprised of two words, “ex” meaning “former” and “spurt” meaning “drip under pressure”.
Sounds like something straight from Devil’s Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce ;)
A has been with a briefcase from more than twenty five miles away dripping under pressure.
Oh i hope i live long enough to see the actual destruction of the great whore of babylon….what an exhilarating site,…beautiful fireball araising from zicon’s victim….now beautiful explosion from fighterjets,fuel,..armo and even cooking oil from within her,..this bitch whore of babylon,the unsinkable….,bytheway have they been able to subdue the taliban,..with theire state of the art apaches,..and the latter with decades old Kalashnikovs,?…
As an aside, that reminds me of the etymology of the word “politics”: From the Greek “poly”, “many or of great number” and “ticks”, “disgusting, blood-sucking parasites.”
The U.S. military may be aware of these issues, despite Thompson’s goofy article. I vaguely recall seeing them raised somewhere. At any rate, some would say the purpose of the U.S. military is to spend money, and these carriers are well suited for that mission.
The USN certainly were aware of such issues. At one time it had a very obscure office, staffed by 10-20 middle-ranking land-lubbers, but who had enormous power out of proportion to their rank. Essentially, they had stop-go control over Navy procurement projects. Their job was to look at proposals that entailed significant expense, and to ask the question: in the last analysis, given an enemies capabilities, is this sane?
When the Russians revealed their Sunburn anti-ship missile over a decade ago, the news arrived at this office. The USN then approached the Russians with a very polite enquiry as to whether they could buy a few to perform a technical appraisal. The Russians, not unexpectedly, declined. Subsequently, I noted, USN aircraft carrier procurement was put on hold. That this is no longer the case demonstrates the power of the U$$A military-industrial complex.
LZ has faint memory of this office…probably from chats with USN fellas many years ago, or maybe at army base… Anyway small confirm Tor Q-D…
The future of naval warfare may be submarine drones. That is the view of Col. Lawrence Wilkerson.
Before launching Zircons, or Oniks (the latter is actually in service today), it’s probably prudent to send a couple cargo ships toward the CBG and see how many hit them.
… On second thought, the cargo ships probably cost way more than the missiles…
Any major Empire class ship lasts only as long as the time taken for the first missile from the opposing Empire power to reach it. In a WW3 scenario, that’s less than two hours for the majority of all the surface fleets.
‘Deep space’ satellites are more interesting. Russia expects to eliminate all major US satellites within 12 hours. American strikes on Russian satellites will be far less successful, and Russia will launch new ones within a day. Russia expects to decisively win the ‘space’ war.
The American missile defence system is junk, but worse escalates the nuclear exchange significantly. Without the missile defence, Russia could afford to approach the escalation of WW3 with caution- hoping the USA would stand down before the really bad nukes fly. The defence system forces Russia to hit far harder far earlier. The whole reason the USA and Russia banned missile defence in the first place was this issue.
Deep Earth command and control centres are the most interesting of all. All major powers have replaced their cold war ‘shelters’ with new complexes built so deep you wouldn’t believe. Surface nukes of any power cannot take them out. These ultra deep complexes communicate with the rest of the forces using unblockable radio tech (wide spectrum ‘white noise’ communication algorithms). It is impossible for an enemy to even recognise when such a radio transmission is even made. The plus side is that central government control lasts far longer, so in theory nuclear war ending choices can be made sometime into the war. But if either side makes an apparent effort to end government control of the other side, maximum escalation is automatically triggered.
Highly mobile ground forces, for all they are worth, are meant to be hit with battlefield nukes- but modern tech being what it always is, nuclear overkill is certain to be used here as well.
In other words once Russia and the USA begin a war with each other, it is all over. Russia might as well use its big nukes straight away, as gaming theory states as optimal in this case. America knows this, so likewise the American strategy is to hit Russia from the first second with all the nukes America has.
So why the new carriers for the USA? It’s like the bling the biggest drug dealers wear on the street. Dress the part, and those around you may treat you as you desire. But the downside is that America comes closer and closer to the day when a small power takes out a carrier- and then the USA faces the need to destroy that nation in vengeance. Unlike, say the UK during the Falklands War, when the UK took so many set-backs on the chin, America’s only response to being dissed is to slaughter as many Humans as possible.
The Deep State Demons rely on America’s psychopathic craziness. Like the gangster Joe Pesci plays in Goodfellas (“are you laughing at me?”). The coming Iran war, for instance, will be justified by most Americans as ‘revenge’ for the US Embassy ‘situation’ after the Iran revolution.
PS ‘glad’ to see Putin rolled over like a bitch, and agreed to allow the USA to force RT personnel to register as ‘foreign agents’ in the USA. Apparently the staff of RT was at risk of ‘arrest’- a legal move that would have ruined America’s reputation for supporting a ‘free press’. So rather than have America humiliate itself on the world stage, and act like a banana republic ruled by an african class dictator, Putin chose to kneel down and lick Trump’s boots.
American celebs allow themselves to be arrested all the time when they attend ‘illegal’ protests in the USA. In other words they take a stand, and stand up for their principles. Now every neo-liberal site is mocking the pathetic supine Putin, and stating that Putin’s insistance that RT sign off as foreign agents proves that RT was always nothing but a ‘lie factory’ for Russia.
Bet you those zionist trolls here that love to throw around the word ‘defeatist’ won’t say a word in criticism about Putin’s capitulation to the US government, and will praise Putin allowing the USA to put its boot on the neck of RT.
And next week we have to watch Putin’s pathetic and hopeless attempt to reciprocate in Russia. Like any West news agency in Russia has anything to lose whatsoever. Each one is useless, and each will turn any move made against them by Russia into more russia demonising propaganda.
No-one with a brain believes the BBC, or CNN, or Voice of America. They cannot be hurt by any Russian action. But they can spin Russian action against them to their ***brainless*** viewers as an example of Putin’s tyranny. And by doing so, Putin loses yet again.
Why on Earth didn’t Putin simply dare Trump to do his worst against RT? How can Putin be this stupid? It literally makes me want to scream!
I read the original article from National Interest and thought it was a joke at first. It wasn’t.
I think you have screamed, and more than once on this blog. Whilst your comments are appreciated as anyone’s are, in reality you are denigrating a man who is the envy of most of the world with his popularity amongst his constituents and the diplomacy of the teams he has put together.
If you think you can do better, then by all means, come to Russia, get your citizenship and run for president.
Russia does not want war and VVP is doing his best to prevent war. However, he has publicly said more than once that one thing he learned on the streets of Leningrad growing up was if he felt he could not get out of a situation without a fight, he would get in the first and very telling blow. Methinks you should remember that and you should also understand that Russia is working mightily, and quietly, to rebuild and modernize her armed forces. Just comparing what she has today as compared to but five years ago, the difference is as night is to day.
Never The Last One http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZGCY8KK A Deep Look In To Russia, Her Culture And Her Armed Forces
An Incident On Simonka https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ERKH3IU NATO Is Invited To Leave Sevastopol, One Way Or The Other.
LZ agrees! Listen to Aus…
LZ would remark: sure it;s propaganda when we see, for example this: http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/11/watch-russia-prepares-to-annihilate.html
Sure, but it also an attempt to stop the war, and to be fair about it too… Because the Ru propaganda is true.
The imperial propaganda is bs, as Auslander says, he thought it was a joke…so did LZ. Possibly the originator of fairy-tale physics of a “survivable carrier” is using dope. Non compos mentis…alas! Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad…as we see.
There are aspects of the Ru Strategy implied by Ru actions over time that seem to parallel the UK/US/USSR strategy of the late 1930’s – ie cope in retreat while creating a modern force… Naturally these sorts of strategies are left out, generally, of the childish comic-book fairy-tales the Empire “teaches” it’s serfs.
The US has forced Zionist agents of MI6 Tavistock conceived and controlled Russia Today to register as foreign agents, which they are — of the British Zionist Mafia based in the City of London, and neither Putin nor Trump are perturbed because both men are targets of British run Zionism the whole world over, whether they be Neocons in the United States and EU, or Atlanticists in Russia.
The Islamist coalition which the British have been trying so hard to create, including Turkey, Iran, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood, appears dead on arrival as the US-Pentagon coup against Zionists in Saudi Arabia sweeps away the last vestiges of City of London money power in that country.
And it all happened because Russia and Putin chose to side with Trump and his generals. The Russian leader cast the deciding vote, and now we move closer to the decisive moment when the Chinese must decide whether to attempt to axe the US petrodollar in favour of a Petro-Yuan in a major crisis, in concert with the Zionists, or else sit down with the Russians and Americans to work out a smooth transition to a new global SDR currency, even as Israel threatens to flatten Lebanon to rescue Zionist fortunes. Those US carriers in the South China Sea and the threats against North Korea, which were primarily threats against China in any case, to irradiate the whole region for 100 years, did not come from nowhere.
It’s complicated, I know, but the game is being lost by the Zionists and their Perfidious masters in London, and it was Putin with Trump who forced these so-called ‘Venetians’ to heel, and who are now finalizing the details of a New NWO in Vietnam.
“—we have to watch Putin’s pathetic and hopeless attempt to reciprocate in Russia. bla bla bla ”
Your verbal assault on Putin is totally stupid & unjustified. He, compared to ANY USA President over the past 50 years is a breath of fresh air. He was /is placed in an unwinnable position & I’m sure his response was well thought through given the circumstances. Trump is a F — Idiot in going along with the desires of the Neocons & tit for tat was about the ONLY option for Putin. IF he had of resited & allowed RT Staff to be arrested & humiliated WHO in the Western Press would care?
If the 70-80 % of brainwashed US citizens believe the crap that BBC, or CNN, or Voice of America spew daily then there’s not much anyone can do about it. Let the dice roll – Fuck the USA !
BTW I’m Australian & hate very much our Govt support for all things American.
James, I too am Australian and support your views ref the U.S. 100%.
Think of what would happen to the vaunted, and arrogant, congress and the feelings of the All the 2-4 hundred ultrarich of the above, is moot in the case of nuclear war. If only two nations expended together 50 megatons of bombs, the example was Pakistan and India, (over cities – that subsequently burned, this would start a nuclear winter (think no crops, leading to no food) The nuclear winter would kill the majority of the people on the planet during the 1-1.5 years that it would last. Also remember that now the style for deploying nuclear involves MIRVed warheads of about 300-400 in size (also partly filled with Chaff, so any “antimissile defense” borders on the whimsical. For those who don’t remember, this means “pattern bombing” targets, not just one nuke at a time as shown on TV. Also, the old Trident subs could unload carry 16 SSBMs, MIRVED with 10-12 warheads – likely enough to to the job on the earth.
Also remember for whom we fight…not the people of the USA, but for a few hundred 0.01%ers who make their money as military industrialists. In my opinion they are not worth it and should meet a soon end. Occupy the MIC, the 0.1%…do it now. Occupy the Hamptons! as well as the politician puppets that do their bidding.
This is not my speculation (Carl Sagan on Nuclear Winter – short and easy to read.
“The making of the atomic bomb: R. Rhodes: https://www.amazon.com/Making-Atomic-Bomb-Richard-Rhodes/dp/0671441337/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1510514256&sr=8-1
The particular article published in The National Interest, which has been cited by this writer, is not the only shoddy piece of “analysis” that has been published by that magazine. I stopped visiting their website quite a while ago.
The US Navy is very concerned about the vulnerability of its aircraft carriers, should it have to face a “near peer” in warfare. Not only are more and more resources are being committed to the detection and tracking of such missile threats, the navy is experimenting with ways to mix their anti-missiles and air defense batteries to create cones of fire.
Evidently, the navy is not confident that it has developed a solution to this threat. These days, every carrier is goes to sea multiple aerial refueling tankers on board, indicating that the navy recognizes that it must operate its carriers at a distance greater than 600 miles offshore. From this distance the threat from enemy surface ships and aircraft should be manageable; but it does not reduce the threat from submarines.
I suspect that the opening phase of naval warfare against a near peer will be devoted towards destroying the air and naval bases, the satellite and ground-based control systems, the aircraft and surface ships and submarines that are deployed to sink the carriers and their support. The US Navy’s own fleet of submarines, surface ships and aircraft will have to engage and defeat them before the carriers can operate closer to shore.
Coral Sea and Midway were battles fought with airplanes and carriers. I imagine the great naval battles of the future will be fought with missiles and submarines.
So, this 600 miles,,,,assume that target has no radar? Obviously if 600 miles to the beach the beach will know aircraft incoming…and make tea to serve guests…right?
And 600 miles is radius, no? 1200 mile circle…how find 100% of opposing submarines in circle “disk” of sea 1,130,400 cubic miles in volume? Must find 100% in less that flight time of antishiprocket….ie seconds…and do this continually under way…with escorts…
not possible. not even close to possible, probably ever.
600 miles makes carrier nearly 100% target ship and mostly nothing else except coffin for boys and children,,,fodder units, as Bush 41 says…
add this for the 600 miles…(from wiki) “…In October 2006, Kitty Hawk and her escort warships were undergoing exercises near Okinawa, and a Chinese Song-class submarine shadowed the group then surfaced within 5 mi (8.0 km) of the group on 26 October 2006….. Reports claim that the submarine had been undetected until it surfaced….” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kitty_Hawk_%28CV-63%29 )
a half mile is far less than 600… ergo no carrier and probably no offensive surface ship survives except by luck or the choices of the opposing force., which may in fact desire to capture and not to sink. Incredibly, Skipper later said they would not have permitted the sub to get so close except they were in a very relaxed mode—while doing exercise at sea…right….is total bs…no carrier skipper would willingly permit any sub so close – that’s paintscrape close. Sub was obviously in propwash “baffles” where acoustic noise makes sub invisible…but MAD from chopper would have detected… Obvious they were indeed “relaxed” Some exercise…past the joints around sailor!
It’s is terrible history.
Maybe some know the story…”Unpleasant Profession of Johnathon Hoag” We, Comrades and Friends, are much as that character – we witness the beauty and the evil in our time…and suffer what we must… JH is a supernatural construct that seems human…in fact he is art critic sent from “upstairs” (so to say) to examine an art work…Earth…and suggest appropriate artistic changes…which then take place…is modeled on crist/antichrist…sorta…good story…look it up, cause it’s you/us…and “them” You will find stuff in the story…
The U.S. carriers’ vulnerability increased manyfold when (1) their nuclear powered escorts were retired and replaced by gas-turbine powered, short-range DDGs; and (2) the carrier air wings dropped their long range attack squadrons and replaced everything with short-legged Hornets, all which resulted in very predictable attack vectors.
> The Mirror: “The Russian missile moves with the speed twice as fast as the speed of the sniper bullet. It can send the most advanced ships to the bottom of the sea. The experts say that out Navy today has no defense against this terrible weapon. The appearance of “Zircon” in the Russian arsenal make both our aircraft carriers costing $7 billion each useless””
Perhaps, to allay the fears of the righteous west, Russia should promise not to deploy this unfair weapon.
but how do they plan to protect against the single greatest threat to the Carrier Group? .. the drunken, corrupt, poorly trained Commander of that Carrier Group.
Excellent and highly instructive article.
But to my mind there is an even simpler way of putting the matter. If John McCain could nearly sink his own aircraft carrier, isn’t it reasonably to think that the Russian armed forces might do a little better and actually sink it?
first set fire to carrier, then bomb hospital, then spew like songbird…his POW nickname…and give NVA target data, made radio confession of criminal nature, then run for election and get job even though blank eyes reveal senile mind is almost gone… Wonderful Fella!
What a navy hero!
10 points to name this man…
quiz on friday
According to the magazine The Shipbuilder in 1911 was the Titanic “practically unsinkable”.
all ships of that class were unsafe and in basic ways…like coal internal bunkering hatches were left open underway because stokers (with shovels!) propped them open. Brit navy at Jutland exploded gun turrets for similar reason – hatches to powder and bags all about…one spark…no ship. Titanic class brittle steel – a engineering attempt that ought not to have been built…like modern carriers…past it. high speed in fog/ice with brittle steel, what could go wrong?
With heat stress on the hull due to coal fire.
no. at low temperature of sea. eg 0 or -0 C the steel was brittle. when ship hit ice steel ripped like paper across very many bulkheads, then, as water rise, internal opening, “hatches” permit shit to lose buoyancy, ie sink. As ships of Titanic class sink the water generally floods in through the coal bunker scuttles, which are outboard the boilers, look for schematic…wiki? Is beat to death in marine examiners science.
they forgot some very important points in their invencibility…
point 5. Us Sailors are more pretty and handsome.
point 6. My great great oncle says so… and he is quite an expert in the matter. He survived the sinking of the Yorktown
Point 7. and off course because God Bless America.
now… seriously… the problem with this Propagandist Mouthpiece is that they haven’t understand that Propaganda is TOXIC. If you are with it all the Time, at the end of the Day you start to believe your own Sh*t.
I am really sorry for them were they to fight a real enemy, because they are gonna die in a horrible manner.
LZ knew one of the guys that went back aboard…he worked with him in the 70’s for awhile. Wish I wrote down the stories. Get the stories and record them, Friend.
I recall reading a long time ago that during the Cold War an American carrier group was being shadowed by a Russian sub so they went to flank speed. After a while they thought they had lost the sub but it reappeared and surfaced in front of the carrier group. Not sure if it’s true but I would not be surprised as nuclear powered subs are fast when submerged.
A King’s Point graduate licensed captain for any tonnage any sea…retired now…once told me that using the bridge-wing dumb-compass (essentially a sort of gun-sight with degree markings aligned to the ship center-line) he tracked a “periscope” at 65 miles per hour. To track other ships visually and gain numeric data, and do the trig and subtract your own speed and course changes can be complex. Able bridge crew practices doing this. (repeat “able”)…and they do it under pressure too, ie in their heads…no calculators allowed. Standards have fallen, evidently.
Anyway he assumed there was a sub under that “periscope”. This observation occurred about 1970 in the Atlantic.
LZ asked himself if this is possible?
Steam turbines take overload pretty well. Nukesub has plenty of extra steam, if designers desire emergency power is an asset. They do. Limit is coupling this power to the water at the prop. Limit has to do with vapor pressure of seawater. This gets very low at depth. Go deep enough and prop transmits far more power than it can at near the surface… Periscope put “sub” (if it was) near surface…. LZ does not buy 65 mph. He will accept 45-50…as the depth of prop is maybe 35 feet, eg about 1/3 to1/2 surface vp…ergo probably able to couple turbine max power…hullspeed is obviously less than that…would be Big Bow Wave seen as a “hump” on surface…
” Limit is coupling this power to the water at the prop.”
Are hypersonic torpedos propellor driven and do they exceed this limit?
not prop driven, uses chemical reaction in a bombe a rocket thrust is mix of seawater and gas MV sq = MV sq jet is heavy and very fast…some gas from reaction bombe is diverted to nose, thus the torp does not contact (much) the side of a bubble…and can go really fast. USN experimented in 1950’s…read science news letter circa 1959 in the stacks…or Soviet handbooks…
Thanks– it didn’t sound like such torpedos and the above statement could both be true.
During the history of warfare and football we have focused same conclusions: defense overcomes offensive. Defense weapons like panzerschrecks, panzerfausts, mines and artillery shells overcame panzers while Zircons overcome sitting ducks like aircraft carriers. And even whenb football fans are worshiping brilliant forwards the truth is that the key for victory is disciplined and solid defense, midfield and counter attacks.
It’s the same old story.
Let’s go back to history of WW2 warfare. Unlike mainstream military historians have claimed combat armor was not so crucial element. Why? Because after first shock of early stages AT-weapons overcame combat armor. What books are clearly ignoring and dowplaying is field artillery. I checked e.g statistics of British combat armor losses. In fact only 12-14% of combat losses were caused by enemy combat armor while mines destroyed twice more likely. AT-guns were top danger for tank crews. The irony here is that the most cheapest weapons (bazookas, tank mines) were remarkable cost effective. German Tiger very very seldom destroyed any allied tank. They caused more harm than gave anything special.
To sea warfare it might surprise even Americans to know that their U-boats at Pacific actually sunk much more Japanese battle and merchant ships than Navy aircraft. What about Kriegsmarine in Atlantic? Their surface vessels were rather poor while U-boats took terrible toll on Allied tons especially in 1942. During just 6 months from Dec 1942 to June 1942 just 10-15 German U-boats in US east coast and Caribbean sunk 1/4 of US bauxite reducing heavily US aircraft production results during that year.
To air war. Nowadays when reducing wartime propaganda it’s pretty clear that ground-attack aircraft were very poor destroying enemy armor with their backward clumsy inaccurate limited armament and ammunition. Hardly more than 2-5% of all combat armor were decimated by any aircraft. Results against soft targets were more successful but claiming that “air power gave victory to allies” is highly questionable or at least wildly exaggeration. Strategic bombing campaign was partly successful and partly having poor or very limited results. Perhaps it’s role was pulling more Luftwaffe day fighters from east and south to defend Reich. Anyway they managed to heavily reduce German munition production when Germans had totally been mauled in all fronts. Even destroying synthetic aviation fuel production didn’t play crucial role when Luftwaffe pilot training system anyway had already been in free fall since late 1942.
It was much likely question of decision makers, natural resources, will and resilience. Military history is so much full of wartime propaganda and myth makers that we should be very careful when fall in love with those fantastic stories. Saker not long time ago mentioned how only USA, China and Russia have capacity to produce what ever IF THEY WANT. They have resources and knowledge to do things. Germans and Japanese are smart people and can to some brilliant things but they are totally lacking resources.
You have to take into acount that the Enigma was openend. So all the german uboats were giving away their positions and the tanker u-boats were destroyed.
radio direction finding locate nazi subs by radio transmission…not easy in 1940’s, but was done. decrypt unnecessary to locate sub. only RDF necessary. when decrypt is made location is in code, not lat/long. In time coordinate decrypts with RDF data and code is readable. then subs change code… nazi sub used special enigma…vastly more difficult to decrypt. Donetz twigged to the enigma being compromised and thus the fancy machine in uboots.
primary UK strategy anti uboot was to liquidate 100% of experienced crews. This worked well, also is criminal.
I think you need to revisit your source on Tigers, which also brings in to question your other historical assertions. Were you speaking of E or B models? Early, mid or late E models? Early or late evolution of B model?
The problem the Germans faced, Slava Bogu, was they did not have the industrial capacity to either build the numbers of medium and heavy tanks they needed nor could they defend their transit networks to facilitate construction and delivery of same once someone told Bomber Harris to stop destroying cities and go for the transport system.
Russia built over 50,000 T34’s of various marks, 76 and 85, plus some T34/50’s, in just over 4 years. Never heard of the ’50’, did you? Toss in the various KV and IS models and you’re looking at in excess of 65,000 good and modern tanks, notwithstanding the fact that the first models of KV 76 came from the factory with a 5 kilo maul to pound the transmission in to reverse.
US built over 50,000 Shermans and a not small number of Pershings.
Germany produced under 500 Tiger B and a little over 1600 Tiger E. Panther D, A and G production was, depending on source, just over 5,000. Panzer 4 with a viable antitank gun (originally the P4 was an infantry support weapon system) is roughly 10,000. You can do the numbers. Toss in another 10,000 or so Stug 3, 2 JP’s, JT, Elefant and Hetzers as antitank AFV’s and what do you have?
The landscape from Stroxhano near Moscow and the beaches of Normandy to both sides of the Elbe was littered with destroyed armor of both sides. In the end it was a numbers game.
Did you know that the T34 was an evolution, to an extent, of the Soviet BT series which was based on the Christie tank and suspension system developed in USA? US Army turned Christie down. The Soviets didn’t.
Never The Last One http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZGCY8KK A Deep Look In To Russia, Her Culture And Her Armed Forces
An Incident On Simonka https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ERKH3IU NATO Is Invited To Leave Sevastopol, One Way Or The Other.
“plus some T34/50’s, in just over 4 years. Never heard of the ’50’, did you?”
I have not see that designation before, as far as I recall. Would you mind providing some more info on the type? A cursory search yielded nothing.
Rare, as in less than 20, T 34 with long barrel high velocity 5 cm main gun. Don’t know if it was squeeze bore or not. Certainly saw combat during the first year of the war, there’s several photos of them on my thick Russian book on T34’s. Basically a T34/76 with a different main gun and the weapon is very long.
I think you are talking about the T-34 being adapted to use the Russian’s 57mm AT gun, a very formidable gun for its caliber even without special tungsten AT ammunition, then, since the Russians didn’t have a 50mm weapon.
It’s possible, it’s been a long time since I looked through the tome and 5 cm stuck in my mind. Any way you look at it, it was an interesting piece with that long tube hanging out of the turret. The book is huge and lists just about every variant of T34, planned or put in effect in addition to tons of info about the actual design and construction of same. I’ll look the weapon up just for curiosity.
Here you go:
Soviet 57 mm Guns
Describes the adaptations used on the T-34, among other things.
I wonder if you have read ‘IceBreaker’ by Suvorov and if so what comments you have.
If it comes to a WW the Western world will be in for a shock. Moral + judicial bankruptcy is so great that many countries are so fed up with it they rather give each other a hand to get rid of it than fight amongst each other.
The Western world is so full of itself thinking the Marvell heroes are real and standing ready to protect their great civilization. Divide and conquer works indeed for a long time until hubris overtakes all reason and reality steps back in.
Problem is with all those lovely toys will humanity survive?
This ‘essay’ and ‘analysis’ is a perfect example of the perils of believing your own bs.
Not anywhere near as much as your post is.
Experience in WW II, the last time the US cofronted a peer, showed that while carriers were diificult to sink (Midwat excepted), they were easily put out of action. A single 500 lb bomb on the flight deck generally sufficed.
DAMASCUS, Syria. The Russian Coordination Center in Hmeimim confirmed that a US P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft, which is capable of detecting military submarines at various depths, took off from a Naval Air Station Sigonella in the Italian island of Sicily and flew close to the Russian bases on the Syrian coast, was detected by Russian radars.
Hours later, Russian radars detected another US aircraft, a strategic and a long-range bomb carrier flying at low altitudes, only miles away from the Russia-operated air base in Hmeimim, located in the northwestern Syrian province of Lattakia.
“These provocative acts are not the first of their kind, and they reflect the cowardice of the American side”, said Alexander Ivanov, a spokesman for Hmeimim air base, in a warning statement to the US forces.’
The Russian defense industry has embraced a new trend in manufacturing torpedoes – the development of a mini-torpedo with artificial intelligence.
A mini-torpedo is expected to have a weight of up to 40 kilograms and its main combat advantages is that such weapons are silent running and wakeless, Shamil Aliyev, one of Russia’s leading specialist in the field, said in an interview with the RIA Novosti news agency.
“The trend that is now emerging is switching from heavy to light torpedoes. In terms of weight, this means moving from two ton weapons to 35-40 kg ones. That’s fantastic and it is an essentially different conception,” Aliyev pointed out.
Commenting on the core principle of this new approach, the engineer explained: “Size and mass are important. But the most important thing is that such a torpedo is noiseless and wakeless.”
One of the main goals in the development of mini-torpedoes is to equip them with artificial intelligence (AI), so that a torpedo is capable of imitating the behavior of fish and sea animals.
Aliyev said that it is important to develop a torpedo that would be detected and recognized not as a torpedo, “but as a big fish,” Aliyev said.
READ MORE: ‘Who Shoots First Wins’: Russian Submarines Receive Advanced ‘Duel’ Torpedoes
“When there is only one large enemy target, neutralizing it is difficult but possible. But if there are thousands of ‘combat turtles’ and you don’t know which are real and which are just an imitation, it is a much more difficult task,” he said.
According to the specialist, the creation of a turtle-type torpedo in Russia is currently at the research and development (R&D) stage.
A Turtle-type torpedo moves at very low speeds (2-3 miles per hour), but generates almost no noise and wake.”
A Czechoslovakian acquaintance and his wife – once neighbors of LZ, explained that the Stasi used small remote-control “torpedoes” to stop people from going to “the west” in cases of “escape” via small boat. They themselves has a motorboat and used to cruise the canals in the Warsaw Pack States…and decided that the Stasi was too tough…and they had a child too… So they burned their boat out of spite and went West another way. Now they think maybe not so smart…but they’re happy, and old, like LZ
Similar gadget was written about in the late 1930’s…
Then it was not very useful – because of control problems and battery power density and mass.
Now, with modern motors, control (AI controls, ie autonomous) and batteries that have lots of power…is now time to build “mirco-drone-torp”
Now they would really sink ships…
This is awful – think of the kids…and the waste. Maybe “progress” not so great…
I dont know anything about NSIG mentioned in this article and when I googled it couldn´t find anything so can anyone point me to some information about it? Just curious.
the russians, unlike the u.s., didn’t de-commission their neutron bomb stockpiles. there is no need to sink a u.s. carrier when you can kill everyone aboard without actually having to hit your target. the fact that you’ll likely kill the vast majority of those in the carrier group with the same strike is a bonus of monumental significance.
“Not even God Himself could sink this ship.”
— Employee of the White Star Line, at the launch of the Titanic, May 31, 1911
There is no need to sink an Aircraft Carrier to render it useless. Use a flock (and I use that word deliberately) of missiles to damage the Flight Deck. Damage it’s bow (limit forward speed). Damage it’s stern (steering or propulsion). Advise it’s sailing into a minefield (may or not be there).
The national interest article used as the base for response for the rusvesna article here looks very childish and silly to people here reading it who are from outside the usa, but it really is not anything unusual of what pindos get fed about military related news and information. This reliance of propaganda in american sources is why I learned more than 4 decades ago to dismiss any american source unless it was collaborated by non-american sources known not to be pindo echoes.
The rusvesna author debunked the pindo toss ok, there were some errors, perhaps due to translation problems. But they really didn’t need to jump to Zircons or mysterious X-32 weapons to describe how usn carriers are sitting ducks. The weapons the Russians fielded during the 1980s were more than adequate to see off the the u.s. carrier, and surface ship fleet. Nno need to posit in development weaponry, currently deployed Russian weaponry will have zero trouble overcoming the feeble and pathetic defenses usn ship’s can currently put up. These latter are not much better than they were during the 1980s, against missiles, while current Russian missiles are much improved since those days.
Carrier vulnerability was well known back in the 1980s, 70s, as well. It was a much discussed subject back then. The usa stuck with carriers not because they were a credible attack vector against Russia, which those with functioning gray matter had realised they were not, but because they were to be used to enforce hegemony among the zpc/nwo colonies, who had little or no ability to strike against carrier task forces. And because they made capitalist oligarch sludge lots of profit.
All this Russian technological might sounds great but all that the Anglozionists needs to is wait for the fifth column to take over and do the job for them without waging a war. The Russian Central bank is already owned by them and media is also partially covered. They are just waiting for an appropriate moment to take over. Then Zircons will stay in their silos and gather dust.
Don’t underestimate the Anglozionists. They have survived and ruled over the centuries. They are crafty and wily and have no ethics and no inhibitions.
Russia has only one chance and that is to weed out the fifth column and nationalize the central bank and change the Constitution. Otherwise it is a gone case.
Hope Russians understand
Russians do understand. The Russian Central Bank is not under Rothschild’s control any more.
The Ray-gun is radioactive from Fuki spew…and so are the fodder units…what a way to run a navy!
weep for the innocent…
Consider that they were there running search and rescue missions trying to help the Japanese after a 9+ earthquake, I would tend to think of them as heroes of the nuclear age.
The ships themselves would just have needed a good cleaning afterwards.
The US always proved it’s “superiority” over the USSR, and now against Russia, by pointing out how many aircraft carriers they had, as opposed to the single Russian carrier. However, the Russians never had any technical problems building aircraft carriers. To them they were an incredible waste of money. For the price of one aircraft carrier you can build numerous corvettes, frigates and destroyers. The Russians also knew that an aircraft carrier can easily be destroyed, as it is a huge target. For example, years ago they built the Sunburn missile, which can either cripple, or sink an aircraft carrier, due mainly to kinetic energy. The explosive component of the missile comes second in importance. The Sunburn has been updated by newer missiles. Since I live in Europe, I have this unfortunate impression that Americans cannot tell the difference between reality and wishful thinking. I sincerely hope that the US military does not make decisions based on wishful thinking.
I find The National Interest to be of mixed quality. There are some authors there I respect and who inform me. But the editors do often seem to hand out writing assignments of ‘make a list of 5 things’ about some current topic to hack writers. I tend to ignore any article there that the headline says is a list of 5 things.
Wonderful, clear, 1000% believable information on Russian methods of self defence. Must read!
Thanks Saker. The sad thing of course is the constant emphasis on weapons and attacks, which the USA, had it cared about peace and cooperation could have welcomed and enjoyed when the Cold War ended and the Warsaw pact was dissolved, as NATO should have been.
The success rate of US adventurism this century does not hold out much hope for either peace or full spectrum dominance, despite the rosy picture give by the arms traders.
This article is amazingly educational – and should be read by those in the US government whose
delusional view of their military, especially their Navy as captioned here, is taking their country into shark infested waters in which they will be quite defenseless over a period of time in a ‘skirmish’…
I have heard that the Untied Snakes have had trouble finding recruits lately. Perhaps this is why… BOOM!
Not enough stupid Americans left willing to die for the Weinstein Company and pedophiles like the BillHillies.
Not to forget the Shkval supercavitating torpedo and its most recent successor, the Khishchnik!
Special Report:New High-Tech Russian Torpedo
May I go into fantasy here? My military training is simply that of a private in a motor Platoon for 5 years, so I have no real education in this sphere, but I feel there is a military advancement that very few of us are aware of; Electro-magnetic weapons systems.
America has been parading around the world with her ‘battle fleets’, the biggest and the best, but in about 1964 when the USS Enterprise visited Melbourne, the talk among us schoolboys was the life expectancy of the USS Enterprise at the outcome of the ‘next war’; about five minutes as the Enterprise was such a large target, it couldn’t be missed. I don’t think much as changed since then. So perhaps the real value of these ‘battle fleets’ is in the propaganda arena.
In the 1600’s Spain had the biggest and the best navel fleet in the world. It took on England and lost when Francis Drake used small ‘fire boats to defeat the Spanish Navy. Again the old adage, ‘The bigger they are, the harder they fall’, Is there another ‘weapons system out there that is not talked about? I believe there is.
From about 1989, there were apparently tests run in the outback of Western Australia of weapon systems called ‘Electro-Magnetic Scalar weapons’ and Harry Mason wrote an article about those tests. There were several nations involved including the French who announced that they were reopening their ‘Nuclear testing’ in the Pacific. The Australian Foreign Minister, Gareth Evens informed the Australian general public that these tests would be going ahead, and that France would be sharing the results of these tests, and there was nothing Australia could do to stop it.
Regardless of the Australian’s ‘Anti-nuclear’ activists reactions, those tests did go ahead, but it is my belief that those ‘French nuclear tests were in fact the finalisation of the ‘Electro-Magnetic scalar weapons systems tests in Western Australia. Now here is where those tests become really interesting. Japan was one of those countries included in monitoring those tests.
In 1995 there were some disagreements between Japan and America, including Japan’s refusal to accept certain American imports.
Shoko Asahara, in a Tokyo radio broadcast on the 8th of January 1995 predicted that a major earthquake would soon hit Kobe and that this earthquake would be initiated by a foreign power using an ‘Electro-magnetic’ weapons system. 9 days later on the 17th of January 1995, the Hanshin earthquake struck Kobe.
Hideo Murai r stated at the Foreign Press Correspondent’s Club in Tokyo on 7 April 1995 that, “There is a possibility that the great Hanshin [Kobe] earthquake was activated by electromagnetic power or some device that exerts energy into the ground.” On the 23rd April 1995, Hideo Murai was murdered in front of ten police officers and about 100 reporters, recording the event and broadcasting them live. (Wikipedia)
The next possible ‘Electro-magnetic’ weapon systems attack was at Bali outside the Sari Club, on the 12th of October 2002, and featured the Australian Army Captain Rodney Damon Cocks. Then on the 26th of November 2004 there was the Aceh earthquake/tsunami that travelled to Thailand and Sri Lanka.
There is the possibility that the Tsunami that struck the Solomon Islands on the 2nd of April 2007, after the incursion of the Australian Federal police in 2003 was another such incident, but I lack supportive evidence.
However, the Fukoshima Nuclear Power Station incident does qualify as two ‘Electro-magnetic’ weapons attacks, one to create the tsunami and the other upon the nuclear facility itself. There was also another possibility that occurred in China just prior to their holding the Olympic Games, and featured a telltale sign of the multi-coloured lights in the sky just prior to the earthquake.
Now if the US and allied countries have these types of weapons based on Tesla’s electrical studies, then so does Russia and other countries, including the possibility of North Korea. What would such weapons do to an American Battle Fleet? Big is not always better.
I think rusvena has done a good debunking job for the National Interest article, but that rag is basically a neocon fraud, with zero credibility among men who have to actually prepare for war.
There are voices in the wilderness calling for some sanity in the dysfunctional US Military, though. For example Jerry Hendrix, who has served as a real naval captain, has written an article for the National Review detail exactly why aircraft carriers have no use in the light of how warfare and weapons are evolving today:
He will be completely ignored, of course. Nobody gets promotions or defense contracts by pointing out that the emperor has no clothes . . .
I really think you have nailed this topic. Eugenia , well done.
Don’t think too toy-centric! And even not detecting, fixing, targeting! The major problem during Soviet times, and I guess not much has changed, was that sinking a U.S. carrier, or carrier groups, since in a real war the USN would have used two or three carriers to go against Kola peninsula installations, was a one-shot affair. When committing a whole regiment of Tu-22 plus supporting ISR assets, plus long range fighters (a one way mission!), and submarines and surface units there is only a single chance to do that. And timing is essential. Once committed there is no turning back because if you did you’d be impotent for about a week, getting your units mission ready again. And in a, let’s call it DEFCON 2 situation, that would be deadly. Also keeping all these complex assets ready for immediate action can only be done 24 maybe 36 hours (lots of tablets for everyone involved!), so the window of potential action is very narrow. Then when committed the whole shebang is just one button away from strategic thermonuclear war. Because make no mistake, for both sides an attack on a carrier strike group, or on major installation leads to all-out war within minutes. And these are much more serious considerations than technical-tactical questions.
Perhaps it would help Americans to think if Russia demonstrated by sinking an aircraft carrier?
Preferably an American – but face it – a British one would be fun too. Just imagine all the bemoaning and bewailing AND this time it would at least be real.
the sooner aircraft carriers are neutralized and stealth bombers able to be detected and shot down, the sooner we will have a chance for world peace!