How to treat the Soviet military as a living coffin?

When mankind enters the missile age, especially after the appearance of nuclear missiles, the huge killing effect is daunting. Therefore, the military thought of "the aircraft carrier is a living coffin" represented by Khrushchev, the leader of the Soviet Union11960s, once had a great market. Is this idea right or wrong?

Title number starts

When mankind enters the missile age, especially after the appearance of nuclear missiles, the huge killing effect is daunting. Therefore, the military thought of "the aircraft carrier is a living coffin" represented by Khrushchev, the leader of the Soviet Union11960s, once had a great market. Is this idea right or wrong?

With all due respect, the idea that "the aircraft carrier is a living coffin" is more like the idea that a group of online heroes in China feel that they have mastered the seven inches of the world, but it is not the military idea of the Soviet Union. As an important military power in World War II, the Soviet Union, no matter how deceptive the grass-roots political commissar is, I have no doubt about their advanced military ideological level, which is absolutely pragmatic and will not be misled by this absurd view. Unfortunately, after the collapse of red empire in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union was shot while lying down. The so-called military thought was pinned on the Soviet Union by China's cyber heroes.

It was only in the 1960s that the then Soviet leader Khrushchev made similar remarks. In fact, this does not represent the Soviet military thinking, but is used to intimidate the West or the world. But based on these words, it has actually become a kind of "military thought", which is really the result of post-modern interpretation and reorganization of domestic heroes.

In fact, the Soviet Union never regarded the aircraft carrier as an iron coffin. On the contrary, the Soviet Union was one of the countries that built the largest number of aircraft carriers after World War II. After the Soviet Union built the 1 123 (Moscow class) helicopter carrier in the 1960s, it built 1 143. 1 (the "cardinal number") and11one after another.

If Sourine thinks aircraft carriers are living coffins, why did he build so many aircraft carriers himself?

Although the Soviet Union called its aircraft carrier "Carrier Cruiser" or "Heavy Carrier Cruiser", the name had its special military thought and international background, mainly to avoid the restrictions imposed by the Black Sea Treaty on the entry and exit of aircraft carriers in the Turkish Strait. It doesn't matter what name the Soviet Union gives its aircraft carrier. All we know is that it is an aircraft carrier. Isn't renaming an aircraft carrier?

1 143.7 "Ulyanovsk" is equipped with two steam catapults, both of which are arranged on the inclined deck. The take-off deck at the bow of the ship is sliding, which integrates two take-off modes, which are mutually backup, and is also convenient for ejecting larger aircraft. "Ulyanovsk" has a displacement of 75,000 tons and can carry more than 60 carrier-based aircraft, including 48 Su -33 carrier-based fighters and 4 Jacques -44 early warning aircraft. Although the "granite" anti-ship missile vertical launcher unique to cruisers is retained, who can say that such warships are not aircraft carriers?

1 143.5 "Kuznetsov" and 1 143.6 "Varyag" sister ships, with a displacement of over 60,000 tons, can be regarded as entering the ranks of large aircraft carriers, and can carry 24 Su -33 carrier aircraft and Ka -3 1. Like "Ulyanovsk", the vertical launcher of 12 unit granite anti-ship missile has also been retained, but they are already complete aircraft carriers, and their aviation combat capability and combat effectiveness are much stronger than the aircraft carrier "De Gaulle" of the French Navy.

As for the Kiev class of 1 143 series, it is the Soviet aircraft carrier closest to the concept of aircraft carrier cruiser. It uses a straight deck, but it is equipped with weapon platforms such as naval guns, air defense missiles and anti-ship missiles at the bow. It can carry more than 20 Jacques -38 VTOL aircraft and more than 20 helicopters of various types. As an aircraft carrier cruiser with vertical/short take-off and landing fighters, its aviation combat capability is even stronger than that of the British Navy's "Competitive God" light aircraft carrier at the same time. If it is not an aircraft carrier, then Britain's three invincible classes cannot be regarded as aircraft carriers. After all, the invincible class was originally built as a cruiser.

Having said that, it is easy to judge that these Soviet warships are actually aircraft carriers. Let's start with 1 123 helicopter carrier, 1/23 Moscow-class * * 2 ship,1ship "Moscow", No.2 ship "Leningrad" and the Soviet Union itself. It can carry less than 20 helicopters, but its flight deck is very wide. Although it is not a straight deck, it can be equipped with 2 vertical elevators and 3-4 helicopter takeoff points.

1 123 Moscow class has carried out the vertical takeoff and landing test of Jacques -38 fixed-wing fighter, which proves that it can be equipped with vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, even without modification, which proves that it has the potential to become an aircraft carrier. This is similar to the cloud level in Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. He can also carry a modified F-35B vertical take-off and landing aircraft, which is called an aircraft carrier by many media. Then 1 123 model can also be equipped with vertical take-off and landing aircraft, which is naturally an aircraft carrier. However, the Izumo class is also equipped with landing craft, so it should be amphibious assault ship, and the Moscow class is closer to the aircraft carrier.

The Soviet Union never regarded the aircraft carrier as an iron coffin, but the problem was that the US Navy did not successfully develop anti-ship missiles launched by carrier-based aircraft in the 1960s and 1980s. Before the air-launched harpoon anti-ship missile came into service in the 1980s, the US Navy always relied on fighter planes to carry laser-guided ammunition for anti-ship operations. Even with harpoon missiles, the range of air-launched missiles is only 120 kilometers. However, as the Soviet Union, since carrier-based aircraft can't attack with full load or heavy load, it is necessary to consider how to anti-ship.

The Soviet Union has a heavy supersonic anti-ship missile with a range of up to 500 kilometers, which can penetrate at a supersonic speed of Mach 2. The us navy is basically unable to intercept. Aegis destroyers and cruisers were also equipped after the 1980s. Prior to this, the United States used a large number of Spruance-class destroyers equipped with dual-arm air defense missile launchers in the Cold War. The Soviet navy can completely overwhelm the American navy by relying on the range, speed and power advantages of anti-ship missiles. Why rely entirely on air strikes like the United States?

After the United States developed the Aegis warship, the Soviet Union immediately changed its strategy, developed the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk", and promptly activated catapults and other equipment to ensure that the carrier-based aircraft can take off quickly under heavy loads, carrying KH-3 1 supersonic air-launched anti-ship missiles, and also has air attack capability. The Soviet Union can flexibly adjust itself according to the enemy's situation and adopt the tactics that are most beneficial to it. Of course, this is a kind of wisdom. The Soviet Union finally disintegrated, but it was not the fault of the Soviet navy. The evaluation of the Soviet navy still needs to have a voice different from that of the mainstream western media. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, it was naturally impossible to organize a counterattack against the Western media. However, as an army fan, we should be aware of it.

Now that we have equipped the aircraft carrier, its importance, its function and its weakness have been publicly determined. Under the nuclear war, the aircraft carrier is a living coffin. To say this is simply ignorance or hooliganism. From a big perspective, if it is directly attacked by nuclear weapons, let alone aircraft carriers, what manned military equipment is not a living coffin? ! Specifically, if it is a little far from the explosion center of nuclear weapons, which military manned equipment has stronger nuclear defense capability than the aircraft carrier?

In conventional warfare, when we don't have an aircraft carrier, there is a popular saying that the aircraft carrier is a bomb magnet. Even in a military magazine, a sketch map of multi-dimensional joint attack on aircraft carriers by land, air, sea and deep dive was solemnly published in color pages. This thing is actually playing with Tai Sen. In theory, Tai Sen also has weaknesses that ordinary people can hurt, such as eyes and yin qi. But ordinary people play with Tai Sen. When you cover your head with your arms and can't stand Tai Sen's heavy punches, you don't even have the qualification to attack, so don't think about a more demanding and precise attack.

And the aircraft carrier was dispatched in the form of an aircraft carrier formation. At that time, a cowhide said that we had the strength to destroy three aircraft carrier battle groups in the United States. What's the point? If the United States has only one or two aircraft carrier battle groups, the ability to destroy three aircraft carrier battle groups is of course very strong, but people have eleven aircraft carrier battle groups! Not to mention that there are several retired aircraft carriers that are sealed but can be unsealed at any time, and several aircraft carrier battle formations can be assembled.

The last cry of cyber hooligans must be not to use nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction with the enemy. This is taking oneself1400 million people to accompany more than 300 million people in the United States, and brazenly saying that you love your country, your people and the Chinese nation, regardless of the quality or quantity of nuclear weapons in the United States. They have passed the test of the cold war for decades and are the ultimate winners! We are much more advanced than us in nuclear weapons.

Have you considered the American civil air defense project under the pressure of Soviet nuclear weapons? Those who don't understand this might as well visit the high-level civil air defense projects built by ourselves in the 1960s and 1970s, and then think that we were a real third world, and the United States was the only superpower with advantages. At that time, the civil air defense project had considered that once a nuclear war broke out, not to mention people, all species in the zoo should be preserved, and elephants and giraffes could be transported to national defense nuclear facilities during the exercise! You scared him with nuclear weapons in this country. Do you have Khrushchev's Ivan the Great? Can Khrushchev scare the United States with a cruiser towing Ivan the Great? Those who firmly believe that the nuclear threat is invincible might as well put themselves in other people's shoes. If India threatens us with evil, will we be afraid from top to bottom? ! Do you think this is a threat or a joke? !

Yes, the United States has the kind of white leftist who is nervous when he hears "nuclear", but it is definitely not the mainstream of the United States. In fact, its niche is not as good as those rude Texas red necks who have long been ready to exchange nuclear rods with the Soviet Union! The fighting capacity of American society is even worse than fart! Therefore, in international competition, to compete with countries like the United States, we must first be more pragmatic than him. Blow your own horn, self-expansion, nothing but killing yourself.