В этом году обещается быть забавный день ВМФ Опции

[АнтонА]

Вроде как приняли решение в питер пригнать последнюю акулу - дмитрия донского... а еще петра великого... Типа нехилая парочка, которая в балтийское море ни разу не заходила... оба с ядреными реакторами... и большими ракетами... будет на что посмотреть... но в неву вряттли зайдут, скорее всего в кронштадт надо будет сгонять...

[Yar]

вот, американцы тоже волнуются:
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/milita...0606-story.html

The USS Ford costs nearly $13 billion so far. In a few years, she will likely carry at least 50 F-35C fighters. Conservatively, each aircraft will have a real cost of $185 million.

That’s a total of $9.25 billion worth of strike aircraft concentrated on one ship. That means this one ship when underway will be worth at least $22.25 billion, to say nothing of the 4,297 sailors on board.

That is putting a great deal of proverbial eggs in a single basket.

Today the Navy’s carriers are almost constantly in the news as presidents use them as a symbol of strength anytime there is a potential hotspot around the world. They have become, in effect, a very expensive version of gunboat diplomacy.

Potential adversaries have been developing weapons to keep U.S. aircraft carriers from getting close enough to bomb their territory.

Most potential adversaries have large fleets of diesel-electric subs: North Korea has approximately 70; China has approximately 50; Russia has 18 (plus 22 nuclear attack submarines); and even Iran has 20.

Clearly, they decided years ago that subs would be their best bet for neutralizing or sinking American carriers. Thirty years of Navy fleet exercise results bear them out.

An Australian Collins-class submarine penetrated a U.S. carrier battlegroup and was in a position to sink an aircraft carrier during exercises off Hawaii in May 2000, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

There have been many such exercise “sinkings” since then, including aircraft carriers Reagan and Lincoln.

A possibly greater carrier threat is the sea-skimming anti-ship missile. Essentially every potential U.S. adversary has substantial quantities of these in versions launched from patrol boats, warships, jet fighters, truck launchers, subs and even merchant ships.

No matter what kind of missile is being used, it makes much more economic sense to defend against an aircraft carrier than to build one.

Since missiles and torpedoes cost significantly less than the carrier and its planes, a determined foe would likely do everything in its power to launch a saturation attack.

Sinking $22.25 billion with $1 million—or even with $20 million—is a good return on investment.