Russian submarine aircraft carrier. "Peter the Great" will become "Varyag" if it attacks the "Nimitz. You shouldn’t engage in hat-throwing
An aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant may soon enter service with the Russian Navy. It will complement the combat fleet of the fleet, which currently only has the aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov on its balance sheet. According to experts, the prototype for the ship could be the aircraft carrier Storm. “360” found out what the combat “new product” will look like and whether it will be able to compete with the American fleet.
The head of the shipbuilding department of the Russian Navy, Vladimir Tryapichnikov, said that the fleet is working on a project for a new generation aircraft carrier. According to the rear admiral, domestic enterprises are now preparing a nuclear power plant for the new ship.
Tryapichnikov noted that specialists from the design bureaus of the United shipbuilding corporation and representatives of the largest shipyards are working on a project that will require significant production capacity. IN this program Navy research centers are also involved. According to the rear admiral, one of these institutes is already developing a nuclear engine for the future aircraft carrier. In the near future, representatives of the fleet will decide on the concept of a promising power plant.
The military man stressed that the ship will meet everyone latest requirements construction of ships of this class. “Yes, it is expensive, but the ship must be modern and perform the appropriate tasks,” he said in an interview with the Zvezda TV channel.
"Storm" in the ocean
Representatives of the Russian Navy have not yet disclosed on the basis of which aircraft carrier the ship with a nuclear engine on board will be created. Military experts interviewed by 360 are inclined to believe that the Storm project could serve as a prototype. It is being developed by scientists from the Krylov State scientific center together with engineers from the Nevsky Design Bureau.
According to the project plan, the length of the new ship will be 330 meters, width - 40 meters, and immersion depth - 11 meters. The aircraft carrier's speed will reach 30 knots. The ship will be propelled by a mixed-type power plant, consisting of nuclear and gas turbine units.
Photo source: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation It will be able to “carry” up to 90 aircraft and helicopters, as well as receive long-range radar patrol aircraft. The Russian fifth-generation fighter Su-57 will be able to be based on board the aircraft carrier, say the designers.
The ship's capacity will allow it to transport up to six thousand tons of fuel and transport up to four thousand command personnel. At the same time, the Russian aircraft carrier will be equipped with the latest weapons. Thus, for “Storm” they plan to develop shipborne versions of the promising S-500 anti-aircraft missile systems. They are designed to detect aerodynamic and ballistic targets at a range of up to 800 kilometers and at speeds of up to seven thousand meters per second.
Russia has access to two oceans, so the issue of creating a full-fledged fleet of aircraft carriers is quite relevant for the country, military expert, captain 1st rank Vasily Dandykin noted in a conversation with 360.
Objectively, without a sufficient number of aircraft carriers, Russia cannot be considered a great maritime power. The fleet needs them to cover nuclear submarines during operations in different areas of the World Ocean. Now the Americans are leading in this segment, so following their path and creating an extensive group of destroyers is unwise, and it makes sense to equip the destroyer with nuclear reactors
Vasily Dandykincaptain 1st rank.
However, for him effective use The Russian Navy will have to assemble or rebuild a full-fledged aircraft carrier group. It must include at least two missile cruisers, three destroyers, two nuclear submarines and several supply ships. Also, the aircraft carrier group will require the construction of all the infrastructure necessary for it, military expert Alexey Leonkov noted in an interview with 360.
“The main problem in the construction of aircraft carriers now is the lack of a full-fledged site for its construction. We have a slipway in the Far East - “Zvezda”, but so far it is not loaded with ships of this size. In addition, you need to have appropriate training for carrier-based aircraft that can take off from an aircraft carrier. Plus, building even one aircraft carrier costs billions of dollars. Therefore, the military needs to set tasks with extreme precision in order to develop the optimal version of a new aircraft carrier,” the military expert emphasized.
Currently, only one aircraft carrier is on combat duty - Admiral Kuznetsov. It was built on the Black Sea shipyard in Nikolaev and launched back in 1991. In February last year, the ship made the longest voyage in its history - to the Mediterranean Sea to participate in a military operation in Syria. After the mission, the aircraft carrier was sent for renovation by decision of the Ministry of Defense.
Global competitors
Photo source: RIA Novosti/Pavel Kanonov Although the Russian navy is now expanding its combat fleet, its forces in terms of aircraft carriers are unequal with the United States. There are 11 ships of this class on combat duty in the American army. The last of them, Gerald R. Ford, was launched in 2017. Its construction cost the American treasury $13 billion. Another aircraft carrier should appear in the United States by 2023.
In addition to the Americans, the Chinese are also actively building aircraft carriers. Moreover, in March of this year, China announced the creation of the first in its park warship with a nuclear power plant. Engineers promise to build an aircraft carrier by 2025. Currently, the Chinese Navy has only one aircraft carrier - or rather, the aircraft-carrying cruiser Liaoning. This ship was built on the basis of the unfinished Soviet aircraft-carrying cruiser Varyag, purchased from Ukraine in 1998.
The UK is constantly modernizing its fleet. For example, in 2014, the largest aircraft carrier in the history of the English fleet was built Queen Elizabeth. The country spent about three billion pounds on its construction. The ship will make its first voyage this Saturday.
people shared the article
The Ministry of Defense called the new British aircraft carrier a “convenient large-sized naval target,” hinting at its defenselessness against Russian strike weapons. Russia actually has missiles designed specifically to destroy such ships. But the Ministry of Defense should have known why they are all powerless against aircraft carriers - both American and even British.
The official representative of the Ministry of Defense, Major General Igor Konashenkov, could not ignore the statement of the head of the British Defense Department, Michael Fallon, that Russia would look at the new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth with envy. The words of the Briton Konashenkov were exalted, and also accused him of ignorance of naval science.
“With aircraft carriers and in general with maritime affairs I need to address you as "you"
Of course, Fallon cannot be denied his impudence, and it is logical that his caustic statements caused irritation in the Russian Ministry of Defense. In his desire to show off his newest ship, the Briton allowed himself to speak not only about the envy of Russia, but also about the dilapidation of the aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov.
Probably, the Russian military department really shouldn’t have left such insolence without a reaction at all. Konashenkov logically hinted to Fallon that external beauty is far from the main characteristic of a warship, and also reproached him for not understanding the differences between an “aviation mother,” which is essentially the “Queen Elizabeth,” and an aircraft-carrying cruiser like the “Admiral Kuznetsov.”
At the same time, having entered into a polemic with the British, the representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense also went too far. He stated that the British aircraft carrier was a “comfortable large-size maritime target.” And this is where Konashenkov is not entirely right. It is aircraft carrier strike groups that have long caused and still cause the greatest headache for military specialists not only in the USSR and Russia, but throughout the world.
Don't underestimate Queen Elizabeth
“Any aircraft carrier is the most protected part of a group of ships at sea,” the head of the All-Russian Fleet Support Movement, Captain First Rank Mikhail Nenashev, told the VZGLYAD newspaper. An aircraft carrier can be a springboard for attacks not only on sea and ocean targets, but also on entire countries; this is a serious type of weapon, the interlocutor explained.
“Any aircraft carrier has a whole range of air defense, anti-missile, anti-submarine defense, electronic warfare, and cyber defense,” the expert added.
“The strongest thing at sea is the unity of aviation and direct naval power,” former commander of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Komoyedov, told the VZGLYAD newspaper.
Aircraft carriers are always surrounded by escort ships, which also provide it with reliable protection. The main striking power of such a ship is its air wing. Due to this, the radius of destruction of such ships is very large. For example, for modern American models it can reach up to 1.2 thousand km, but they want to increase this figure to 2–2.5 thousand km through the use of refueling drones.
The British, of course, are not Americans, and the Queen Elizabeth is not the most modern aircraft carrier of the US Navy, the Gerald Ford. However, an aircraft carrier of the United Kingdom has a destruction radius of no less than 700–1000 km. This means that in order to disable such a target, it is necessary to strike from a greater distance, because to come closer means to be immediately destroyed. In this regard, Konashenkov’s words that it is better for a British ship not to demonstrate its “beauty” closer than a few hundred miles from a “distant relative” look, to put it mildly, strange.Russia lacks long-range anti-ship weapons
“Any aircraft carrier – take, for example, the 11 US nuclear-powered aircraft carriers – if it goes out in battle formation, then its defense depth is 1.5 thousand km. Let him (Konashenkov - approx. VIEW) study the performance characteristics of our missiles and see that they will be in the active defense zone,” said Vladimir Komoyedov.
Indeed, striking an aircraft carrier from distances exceeding its engagement radius faces serious difficulties. Russia has high-precision Kalibr missiles with a range of more than 2 thousand km and Kh-101 with a range of more than 4 thousand km, but they are designed for firing at stationary ground targets and are not suitable for combating extremely mobile AUGs. The main anti-ship missile remains the Granit, which was put into service back in the 1980s. The Admiral Kuznetsov is also armed with these missiles, as Igor Konashenkov also spoke about.
Here are just 12 launchers missile complex“Granit” is unlikely to be enough to disable an entire aircraft carrier. In addition, the range of this missile is slightly more than 600 km.
As for other anti-ship weapons, Russia has more than 60 supersonic long-range missile carriers Tu-22M3, which can be equipped with anti-ship missiles. However, if in the USSR some of them were at the disposal naval aviation Navy, then by 2011 they were all transferred to the Air Force. Do not forget about such a tool for fighting aircraft carriers as submarines. The Russian Federation has at its disposal six SSGNs (nuclear submarine with cruise missiles) of the Antey project, which are also equipped with Granites.
The missile must first be aimed at the target
But here another – and extremely important – nuance emerges. It's not enough to just launch a rocket. It must first be aimed at a target, which, in turn, must be detected. And this should be done before entering the aircraft carrier’s kill zone. In other words, the military requires not only “kulak” (strike weapons) - that is, missiles. “Eyes” are also necessary - means of guidance and target designation, without which a “fist” of any power is nothing more than an expensive toy.
To combat aircraft carrier groups in the USSR, in the 1960s, the Tu-95RTs reconnaissance and target designator aircraft with the “Success” aviation complex (now long decommissioned) was developed. However, it was not enough to combat the AUG. In this regard, in the 1980s, the naval space system reconnaissance and target designation (MCRTS) “Legend” (more than 40 satellites), which made it possible to detect and direct strike weapons at surface targets anywhere in the World Ocean. However, it finally ceased to exist in 2007.
Yes, recently a number of steps have been taken in Russia to correct this situation. In particular, the new Ka-35 radar patrol helicopter has recently been put into service, the detection range of which has increased significantly compared to its predecessor, the Ka-31.
However, the problem of long-range helicopters radar detection(AWACS) is that their height ceiling is very limited, which reduces visibility and increases vulnerability. In addition, last year a new Russian Tu-214R AWACS aircraft, capable of detecting targets at a distance of more than 400 km, was spotted over Syria. But it is designed to work against ground, not surface targets. Accordingly, neither the Ka-35 nor the Tu-214R can be opposed, for example, to the E-2D Hawkeye AWACS aircraft, which are based on US aircraft carriers.
More encouraging is the information that the newest ICRC “Liana” is being developed in Russia to replace the “Legend”. There is still very little information about it, and most of it is classified. However, it is known that compared to its predecessor, it has increased resolution, detection efficiency, service life, and also has the ability to catch information transmitted by the enemy through various channels (including closed ones). The Ministry of Defense says that "Liana" is planned for adoption in next year, however, only four satellites have been launched so far.
You shouldn’t engage in hat-throwing
Thus, the Russian armed forces simply do not have (or only have rudimentary) systems capable of targeting targets such as aircraft carriers. Not to mention the need to update and increase the range of the anti-ship missiles themselves. Taking into account all this, the statements of the official representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense about what an easy target the British aircraft carrier is look, to put it mildly, unconvincing.
And this is even though the Queen Elizabeth can hardly be called a model of aircraft carrier power. Here it rather resembles our good old “Admiral Kuznetsov”. It is not equipped with a catapult for launching aircraft and a nuclear power plant, and also does not have a very large air wing - 40 aircraft (24 F-35B fighters) and helicopters. If we talk about modern US nuclear aircraft carriers with an air wing of about 70–90 units, then Russia has practically nothing to fight them with.
“The Atlantic, where Great Britain stands and not far from the USA, is their zone of dominance, both in the air, on the water, and under water. Unfortunately, we don’t even have anything to grab onto there. Therefore, we need to somehow be calmer,” emphasized Vladimir Komoyedov.
Mikhail Nenashev, on the contrary, believes that in general Russia has something to oppose to the British fleet. However, this does not mean that you need to engage in hat-throwing. “Our country has no reason to take part in competitions based on ridiculous statements. We must respond to provocations and the stupidity of the English minister with dignity or ignore them,” the interlocutor emphasized. “All these competitions from the press services - it all only serves to escalate tension, and among professionals it doesn’t even cause an ironic grin, but just a shrug of the shoulders,” he added.
Vladimir Komoyedov pointed out that such questions need to be handled very carefully. “We need to treat aircraft carriers and maritime affairs in general on a first-name basis. You need to have a deep knowledge of naval affairs in order to make any statement,” he said.
The first underwater nuclear aircraft carrier of Project 941-bis will be built in Russia, according to Internet rumors...
The point is not in rumors - whether an underwater aircraft carrier will be built or not, but in an idea that could only be born in Russia. For the Anglo-Saxons, the very idea of taking off and landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier that floats underwater contradicts the logic of the English language.
ATAVKRP project 941bis was created under the leadership of a group of senior officers of the fleet and the KGB of the USSR. In 1991, they did not want to break the oath, given country, which ceased to exist. They, like many thinking people, hoped that this was temporary madness and the country would be restored.
However, it was clear that the oligarchy would not simply give up its positions and, moreover, would certainly call on its Western friends for help. Based on this, it was necessary to create an armed formation that, at the right time, could act on the side of the supporters of the reconstruction of the country. It would be good to have some kind of general reserve reserve consisting of a division of destroyers and a couple of SSBNs.
The unheard-of level of corruption and betrayal in the highest echelons of power and the leadership of the Navy left no hope that at least one ship would not go under the knife or be stolen. Besides, total control on the part of NATO, as part of observations under the joint threat reduction program, it was not possible to “hide” or mothball a single combat-ready ship, not to mention the formation.
The only solution was to create something new. The main problem with such construction was money and secrecy. Moreover, secrecy had to be taken to a new level - the construction had to be hidden not only from strangers, but also from our own.
The idea of the possibility of building an underwater aircraft carrier was based on the Rubinovsky project of transport submarines based on Project 941. The main customer of the TPL was Norilsk Nickel.
To finance the 941bis project, new Russian customers were found who liked the idea of transporting used cars from Japan to Europe. part of the country year-round via the Northern Sea Route.
A small group of designers from Rubin finalized the TPL project, using the developments of projects 621 (landing transport submarine cruiser), 717 (transport landing submarine, minelayer), 748 and 664. The designers worked in two groups: one thought that they were creating an underwater ro-ro cruiser for the new Russians, and only the second, very small in number, knew about the real purpose of the project.
The basis was taken from the hull structures of the TK-210, which were supposedly previously dismantled. Upon completion of the construction of the civilian part of the cruiser, it moved under the ice to the Far East, as part of “sea trials”. Even in the middle of the transition, the customer was told that there were serious omissions in the project and that the boat could not be operated as is. Long-term repairs and reconstruction are needed. Due to the fact that the life expectancy of new Russians at that time was short, there was simply no one to make claims to.
The Americans seemed to be sluggishly watching the Zvezda at that time, and the cruiser was placed there for armament and the installation of a flight deck. A steam throwing device, or, more simply, a catapult, was brought there disassembled at low speed under the guise of color-metal from the Crimea.
By 1995, the cruiser was ready. The air wing was selected from the Far East squadrons, and the dryers were simply purchased.
The construction attracted attention. And no means of disguise or disinformation could prevent the leak of information. The only salvation for secrecy was going to sea. The crew was selected entirely from volunteers, and the vast majority of them did not know about the existence of the “Soviet Union” until they boarded.
November 18, 1995 at 00:00 local time heavy aircraft-carrying submarine cruiser “ Soviet Union“gave up the mooring lines and went on combat duty, the length of which, as is now clear, is life….
-----------------
As always, the model is made according to authentic drawings, all millimeters are adjusted, and all rivets are counted.
It’s been a long time since you and I discussed that there is and. Probably five years have passed since then, and a lot has changed. Today, for example, the Russian submarines "Veliky Novgorod" and "Kolpino" of project 636.3 fired seven cruise missiles Sea-based "Caliber"
Let's discuss the current state of affairs in the process of confrontation between the Russian Navy and the enemy's AUG.
Articles and opinions on this topic appear with enviable regularity in the Russian media when some major events occur in the activities of the Russian Navy (for example, voyages of Russian large surface ships to the shores of Syria), or the navies of other countries.
For example, the recent completion of the construction of the newest British aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth (the largest aircraft carrier and warship in the history of the British fleet) and its launch into the sea on sea trials June 26, 2017 again attracted media attention to the topic of the Russian Navy’s capabilities to counter AUG. Especially considering the peculiar correspondence “squabble” between the British Secretary of Defense Michael Fallon and the official representative Russian Ministry Defense, Major General Igor Konashenkov. The first said that Russia would “look with envy” at the new British aircraft carrier, to which the official representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense said that the newest British aircraft carrier is only a “convenient large-sized naval target.” Let's try to figure out how effective it is in modern conditions Can the Russian Navy counteract carrier strike groups and is this even possible?
In most articles concerning the possibilities of combating the AUG of a potential enemy, the thesis is actually put forward (or at least “traced” with a refrain) about the complete impossibility of countering the AUG with conventional weapons - the strike radius of carrier-based aircraft and the “line of defense” do not even allow surface ships, submarines boats and aircraft to the line of launching anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM), and even in case of great luck and the launch of an anti-ship missile at an aircraft carrier, cover ships, according to the authors of numerous articles, will easily destroy all attacking anti-ship missiles.
As a rule, absolutely enormous values are given for the “line of defense” of an aircraft carrier - 600-700, 1000 and even 1500 kilometers. No less enormous values are indicated for the strike radius of carrier-based aircraft and the anti-submarine defense line. The “line of defense” figures usually correspond to the maximum detection range of air targets by an aircraft carrier formation, provided by carrier-based long-range radar detection aircraft. Thus, the capabilities of detecting air targets by E-2 Hawk Eye AWACS aircraft are estimated to be up to 700 kilometers, for a bomber class target that has an effective scattering surface (RCS) of at least 25 square meters and flying at an altitude of 10 kilometers, when the AWACS aircraft is at comparable altitude (the patrol altitude of the American carrier-based AWACS E-2 Hawk Eye aircraft is 9.5-10 km). Patrolling of AWACS aircraft is carried out at a distance of up to 300 kilometers from the aircraft carrier. Thus, an aerial target of the “bomber” class at high altitude can indeed be detected at a distance of up to 1000 kilometers from the aircraft carrier, which provides a certain margin of time for the fighters to rise from the deck of the aircraft carrier - however, by the time of detection they must already be on the flight deck, refueled and equipped with ammunition.
Accordingly, on the deck of an aircraft carrier, fighters must be in maximum readiness for take-off in advance in the number required to fend off a possible threat. However, the range of fighters is highly dependent on the speed limit. For example, the American carrier-based fighter-interceptor F-14 "Tomket" (removed from service in 2007, to the great displeasure of American admirals), which still remains the unsurpassed fighter-interceptor of the US Navy in terms of range and duration of combat patrols, had The range of action in “normal” flight mode is over 920 kilometers. However, when intercepted exclusively at supersonic speed (which is very necessary when intercepting enemy aircraft attacking an aircraft carrier), its range of action was reduced to about 320 and 250 kilometers, depending on the speed limit. Thus, the gigantic values of the AUG “line of defense” cited in many articles do little to reflect the actual position and relate only to the maximum distance from the aircraft carrier at which a large air target at high altitudes can be detected.
Perhaps the most correct “popular” argument regarding the capabilities of combating AUG is the extremely low probability for large surface ships of approaching an aircraft carrier to the range of using their anti-ship missiles. Indeed, even the longest-range anti-ship missiles in service with Russian Navy ships, such as "Granit" and "Vulcan" (maximum flight range along a combined trajectory is about 500 and 700 kilometers, respectively). While the practically achievable maximum strike radius of the air wing of an American aircraft carrier during a massive attack is approximately 700 kilometers, taking into account the time required to lift a group of 30-35 aircraft (the number of aircraft that, with timely preparation in advance, are capable of lifting an aircraft carrier for a strike to the maximum radius actions), flight to the target, direct strike and landing of the entire group (which takes quite a long time).
Taking into account the flight range of modern aviation anti-ship missiles, this distance increases. By the beginning of the next decade, this distance is expected to increase even more, because In 2019, the US Navy should begin deploying new long-range aircraft anti-ship cruise missiles LRASM. However, this applies to a situation where the opponents are initially separated by a huge distance. The main “scenario” for an anti-ship missile attack by large surface ships is a strike from a “direct tracking” position in the event of a conflict escalation, when the opponents are initially separated by no more than a few hundred kilometers and both sides maintain “contact” with each other by various means.
Such “direct tracking,” for example, is constantly carried out during the operation of Russian warships in the Mediterranean Sea, when formations of Russian and NATO ships maneuver at a short distance from each other. In the years Cold War for large surface ships of the USSR Navy, such a strike from a “direct tracking” position was the main way to combat use. Especially considering the fact that the squadrons of the USSR and the USA are practically all year round carried out patrols in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea and constantly kept each other under "close surveillance".
In other situations, the most “effective” means of combating aircraft carrier strike groups of a potential enemy in the Russian Navy have been and remain submarines with cruise missiles - at the moment these are Project 949A Antey submarines and the latest 4th generation multi-purpose submarine "Severodvinsk" 885 "Yasen" (in the near future the Russian Navy will receive submarines of the improved project 885M. The first submarine of this project, "Kazan", was launched at the end of March 2017). In many articles concerning the assessment of the capabilities of countering the AUG of a potential enemy, statements are made about the almost complete impossibility of submarines to reach the line of launching their anti-ship missiles at an aircraft carrier. There are two main arguments - the impossibility of obtaining target designation for anti-ship missiles when firing at long ranges and the anti-submarine defense line of an aircraft carrier, which submarines practically cannot overcome. Let us consider these statements in detail.
To ensure the ability to fire anti-ship missiles at a long range, it is necessary to provide them with target designation, i.e. obtain information about the area where the enemy’s AUG is located, so that the anti-ship missiles, having flown to a given area and turning on their homing heads, can find the target and aim at it. To solve this problem, the Soviet Union deployed the Legend naval space reconnaissance and target designation system (MCRTS). This system consisted of an orbital constellation consisting of two types of satellites - "US-A" for conducting radar reconnaissance and "US-P" for conducting electronic reconnaissance. Due to the technology of the 1970s, US-A radar reconnaissance satellites operated in very low orbits and therefore, due to the impossibility of obtaining sufficient energy from solar panels equipped with nuclear power batteries. These satellites could only be reliably detected by large group ships, but this is exactly what was required of them - to detect the AUG of a potential enemy. Using this system, for example, effective tracking of the expeditionary force of the British fleet was carried out during the Falklands War.
The Legend satellites examined most of the world's oceans and, when they detected an enemy AUG, immediately transmitted information about its location to the coastal command posts of the fleet and carriers of heavy anti-ship missiles, for which it was actually intended this information. Due to the exhaustion of the resource of the Legend satellites, they were removed from orbit. In 2006, the last radio intelligence satellite, US-P, was decommissioned. However, at the moment, a new, much more advanced and effective system ICRC "Liana". With fewer satellites, it is capable of “covering” an area of the World Ocean comparable to the former “Legend” and detecting any objects in the ocean with the highest accuracy, which allows for reliable target designation for anti-ship missiles.
In most articles devoted to the possibilities of combating the AUG of a potential enemy, the possibility of obtaining submarines with anti-ship target designation missiles using its sonar system. Perhaps this is due to the widespread assertion that a submarine is practically unable to overcome the AUG anti-submarine defense line. At the same time, the numbers for the radius of this PLO “frontier” are usually called very different - from 400 to 700 or more kilometers. The “anti-submarine defense line” itself is presented as a kind of circular zone, entering which a submarine is almost immediately detected by anti-submarine aircraft and helicopters.
As a rule, these figures are based on the capabilities of American AUGs during the Cold War, when aircraft carrier wings had a squadron of S-3 Viking carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft. But these aircraft were withdrawn from service in 2009, as a result of which the ASW capabilities of even American AUGs were significantly reduced. The often cited figures for the “anti-submarine defense line” reflect only the range of action of these aircraft - the distance at which the Vikings could conduct anti-submarine search. However, it is worth noting that anti-submarine search is an extremely difficult operation. You need to search for a submarine over a vast area, which is very difficult, even if it is quite noisy. The PLO aircraft, being in a designated area, drops into the sea (or, as they call it, “exposes”) passive and active sonar buoys, which descend to a certain depth, after which it receives and analyzes the information received from them via radio channel. If one of the buoys detects the noise of a submarine (passive) or receives a reflection of an audio echo signal (active buoy), additional, very labor-intensive actions are required to “localize” the location of the submarine.
The PLO aircraft places sonar buoys in a much smaller area around the point of “contact” with the submarine, and waits for several buoys to provide information about the submarine. Then the PLO aircraft, using a magnetometer, finally establishes the position of the submarine and releases torpedoes. However, the problem is that the area in which it is necessary to search for a submarine is gigantic, even in the presence of preliminary intelligence data or the estimated area where the submarine is located, determined by analytical methods. Most importantly, NATO’s ASW capabilities have decreased significantly since the Cold War. Because Since the S-3 Viking anti-submarine aircraft were withdrawn from service in 2009, the AUG anti-submarine warfare aircraft is provided only by deck-based helicopters and hydroacoustic means of security ships.
And the capabilities of PLO helicopters are much more “modest” than those of airplanes - they have several times less speed, several times fewer sonar buoys and a very short range of action. It is possible to more or less effectively provide an anti-aircraft defense line with helicopters only at a distance of about 100 kilometers. The capabilities of the AUG PLO increase with the support of anti-submarine aircraft of the base patrol aircraft. However, their number has also decreased significantly since the Cold War, which is largely compensated for by the new P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft, which are being used to rearm the base patrol aircraft squadrons of the United States and its allies. For example, Great Britain, in the “area of responsibility” of whose fleet is a significant part of the North Atlantic, does not have anti-submarine aircraft - the last Nimrod anti-submarine aircraft were withdrawn from service in 2011.
But the main thing is that the noise of modern submarines is extremely low and makes their detection extremely difficult. In addition, the range and efficiency of submarine detection is extremely dependent on hydrological conditions, which, as a rule, change dynamically and are rarely optimal for the operation of hydroacoustic means. At the same time, the noise of surface ships exceeds the noise of modern submarines by hundreds and thousands of times, which makes it possible to detect them by hydroacoustic means of submarines at a great distance. For example, the detection range of large surface ships by the hydroacoustic complex of the newest Russian submarine Project 885 Severodvinsk, according to open sources, is up to 240 kilometers. Probably, the new hydroacoustic system installed on Project 949A cruise missile submarines during the ongoing overhaul and modernization.
Thus, a submarine has the ability to detect a large enemy naval formation at a great distance, while detecting it for the enemy is a very non-trivial task. Currently, for all developed fleets of the world, the issue of protecting naval formations from torpedo attacks by enemy submarines, not to mention the detection of modern submarines at more distant borders, is very relevant. Taking into account all of the above, Russian submarines with cruise missiles have every chance of approaching the AUG of a potential enemy at a range from which it is possible to obtain “autonomous” target designation for anti-ship missiles using their own hydroacoustic complex and launch a salvo of anti-ship missiles at enemy ships.
A separate topic causing the most heated debate is the question of how many supersonic anti-ship missiles attacking an aircraft carrier force can be shot down by its escort ships, mainly cruisers and destroyers equipped with the Aegis multifunctional weapon control system. IN this issue the opinions of the authors of various articles on this topic, as a rule, radically diverge - from the complete impossibility of hitting heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles with ship-based air defense systems, to, on the contrary, the colossal effectiveness of the ship-based air defense systems of a potential enemy and the impossibility of “piercing” the air defense of an aircraft carrier group with any adequate number of anti-ship missiles . However, it is hardly possible to put an end to this discussion in the absence of “practical experience”.
On the one hand, the air defense capabilities of modern large ships, such as, for example, ships equipped with the Aegis system, British Daring-class destroyers and modern frigates and destroyers of NATO countries are enormous and are constantly being improved. For example, in recent years, the active proliferation of anti-aircraft missiles with active radar homing heads and the improvement of tactical information exchange systems (for example, the introduction of the Cooperative Engagement Capability system in the US Navy, which allows the exchange of data on targets between all ships and aircraft of a ship’s formation) has already in the very near future, it will be possible to intercept low-flying air attack weapons, including anti-ship missiles, beyond the radio horizon. In combination with a very large number of target channels of modern shipborne air defense systems, this makes it possible to repel even massive missile and air strikes.
On the other hand, supersonic anti-ship missiles, which are the main weapon of the Russian fleet, continue to remain extremely difficult targets for air defense systems. Enormous flight speed (for the Granit anti-ship missile system 750 m/s at high altitude and about 500-550 m/s at low altitude and 850 and 650 m/s respectively for the Onyx anti-ship missile system; almost 1000 m/s at the final stage of the flight, with a length of 25-40 km for the 3M54 anti-ship missiles - one of the anti-ship missiles that is part of the Caliber complex), the ability to maneuver (for the Granit anti-ship missiles at high altitudes), and “intelligent” guidance systems that ensure the exchange of information between the anti-ship missiles in flight , lining up missiles in front, searching for targets using radar radiation sources, aiming at the source of interference, as well as jamming stations that create deflective interference make it extremely difficult to combat them.
In general, one of the problems in discussions on the possibility of confronting the Russian Navy with aircraft carrier groups of a potential enemy is that for Russian weapons, in particular anti-ship missiles, all the “non-advertising” characteristics and nuances of their combat use are pedantically listed, while the capabilities of the weapons of a potential enemy are evaluated solely on the basis of "advertising" characteristics. For example, the probability and zone of destruction of naval air defense systems of a potential enemy are assumed to be the same for both subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missiles, and the conclusion is made that it is necessary to use a gigantic amount of anti-ship missiles to break through the air defense of the AUG, which often exceeds any reasonable limits and accordingly the conclusion is made that almost total invulnerability.
However, it is worth noting that published in open sources the characteristics of air defense systems and anti-aircraft missiles (as well as any other types of weapons) are rather “estimated” and are given for “range” targets - as a rule, this is a “fighter” class target flying at a speed of 300-350 m/s at high altitude , with a zero parameter (i.e. flying directly at the air defense system) and not maneuvering. Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles have enormous flight speed, especially at high altitudes, which in itself significantly “cuts” the affected area of the air defense system. The possibility of intensive maneuvering, coupled with the installation of deflection jammers, significantly reduces the likelihood of being hit by a single anti-aircraft missile. Actually, in Western sources, the number of anti-aircraft missiles of the "Standard" family, which form the basis of the ammunition load of "Aegis" ships, required to guarantee the destruction of subsonic anti-ship missiles is estimated at 3, and for the destruction of supersonic ones - at least 4-5. The only available case of real combat use of the Aegis system in October 2016 (the destroyer Mason, located off the coast of Yemen, repelled 3 attacks of single anti-ship missiles launched from the shore by Yemeni rebels within a week) partially confirms these figures - according to available data, for subsonic anti-ship missiles , attacking the ship, 3 anti-aircraft missiles were fired, although their target was extremely easy to intercept - it did not maneuver and moved at subsonic speed.
In general, any war often demonstrates a discrepancy between the “advertising” characteristics of a particular weapon and the real ones. So, for example, during the Falklands War, the best British naval air defense system at that time, the Sea Wolf, had a probability of hitting “range” targets of 0.85, and during testing it even intercepted artillery shells, but during combat operations its effectiveness turned out to be almost 2 times below. From a theoretical point of view, if we consider the given characteristics of British air defense systems, the very approach of Argentine aviation to British ships was absolutely impossible. However, the Argentine attack aircraft not only bombed British ships with unguided bombs, but also inflicted extremely serious losses on the British fleet, putting it very close to the brink of defeat.
There are also many factors that are hardly possible to assess, in particular the impact of electronic countermeasures on both sides.
With a high degree of confidence, it can be argued that the capabilities of the modern Russian Navy make it possible to confidently fight one aircraft carrier strike group of a potential enemy and inflict damage on its aircraft carrier, ensuring its incapacitation or at least a significant reduction in its combat effectiveness. Effective opposition to an aircraft carrier force consisting of 2-3 AUGs is possible only under very favorable circumstances.
At the same time, the qualitative increase in combat capabilities and the emergence of new AUGs of a potential enemy in the near future do not go unnoticed by the Russian Ministry of Defense. The creation of new reconnaissance and target designation means, new submarines and large surface ships equipped with supersonic anti-ship missiles "Oniks" and "Caliber", the actively ongoing modernization of Project 949A submarines (during which the ammunition load of anti-ship missiles will be increased by 3 times - instead of the existing 24 anti-ship missiles "Granit" ", on the modernized submarines there will be 72 anti-ship missiles "Onyx" and cruise missiles of the "Caliber" family), as well as the ongoing tests of the fundamentally new hypersonic anti-ship missile "Zircon" will make it possible in the foreseeable future not only to maintain the existing "status quo", but also to increase it by an order of magnitude The capabilities of the Russian Navy to combat the AUG are to ensure not only the disabling of an enemy aircraft carrier, but also the defeat of the entire AUG, as well as the ability to resist an entire aircraft carrier formation much more “confidently.”
To counter an aircraft carrier group is a very difficult task that requires the involvement of huge amount a wide variety of forces and means, which only the most powerful powers can do. The active development and improvement of the Russian “anti-aircraft” forces clearly demonstrates that despite all the difficulties, the Russian Navy still remains an extremely difficult adversary and is one of the most advanced fleets in the world.
As mentioned above, it is hardly possible to answer the question “how effectively the Russian fleet can resist the AUG of a potential enemy” due to the lack of any practical experience. Improving the “anti-aircraft” forces of the Russian Navy will most likely guarantee in the future that this question will remain unanswered.
magazine "New Defense Order"
The United States is called the hegemon of the World Ocean - this status is ensured by aircraft carrier strike groups. All great powers are developing a system to counter them, but counteraction is not the same as an alternative, much less a challenge. However, such a challenge could be a Russian nuclear submarine aircraft carrier. And this idea is not as paradoxical as it seems at first glance.
At the General Staff of the Russian Navy, portraits of great Russian naval commanders are hung on the walls. These people opened for our country such territories as the Cook Islands, Marshall Islands, French Polynesia, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Hawaii, Truk and much more. Now these resorts belong to the USA, France or the British Commonwealth, but they could and even wanted to become part of Russia.
But Alexander I refused to accept him as a subject. Alexander II. Alexander III did not want to borrow. Russian emperors avoided getting involved with such territories for one simple reason: Russia did not have and still does not have a truly powerful navy, which could, if necessary, blockade any country in the world in any corner of the globe, as the Americans can do.
The experience of the world wars has shown that the Black Sea and Baltic fleets are easily blocked not even by cruisers or battleships, but by ordinary boats. that without a powerful fleet it is extremely difficult to help overseas allies. However, Russia still mainly builds frigates, corvettes, combat boats, landing assault boats, and auxiliary vessels, that is, ships for sailing in shallow waters. The output is .
To dominate the world, you need space. It is necessary to have at least one classic aircraft carrier strike group on a combat campaign in each sea-ocean - or something that could replace it. One of the most ambitious and breakthrough projects in this sense can be considered the idea of an underwater nuclear aircraft carrier.
Rodents for Uncle Sam
The first people to think about underwater aircraft carriers were in samurai Japan. In 1932, the I-2 submarine of the J-1M project was launched from the stocks, inside which there was a sealed hangar for the Caspar U-1 reconnaissance aircraft.
Despite a number of failures and difficulties associated with this know-how, Japanese sailors came to the conclusion that an underwater aircraft carrier was not such an absurd idea. By 1935, the improved submarine I-6 was built. However, the military did not like the fact that the plane always had to be lowered into the water by a special crane.
Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese naval forces immediately received three improved reconnaissance boats on board - I-9, I-10 and I-11. It was the I-9 submarine that eventually launched a plane into the sky to film the results of the attack on the American base. And on September 9, 1942, an even more advanced Project B1 submarine struck the first blow directly on the United States: a Yokosuka E14Y aircraft dropped several incendiary bombs on a forest in Oregon, but the Americans were saved by luck and rainy weather - the fire did not break out.
British submarine HMS M2, 1933 (photo: The Air and Sea Co) |
The crown of Japanese thought was the boat I-400, about 120 meters long. The submarine carried 20 torpedoes and four aircraft, which were armed with two 250-kilogram bombs. The Japanese even wanted to dump special containers with rodents infected with cholera and anthrax into the United States. It didn't work out. But the I-400 series submarines became the largest submarines in the world.
At the end of the war, the sea samurai owned dozens of aircraft-carrying submarines different classes and modifications. This submarine fleet could deliver over fifty aircraft with biological or chemical weapons to the shores of the United States. And then history would have taken a completely different path.
The American military was shocked when they realized what kind of trouble had passed their prosperous continent. And the conclusions drawn were comprehensive.
In March 1946, in full accordance with previously reached agreements, Moscow demanded that Soviet specialists be given access to Japanese submarine aircraft carriers. After that, the Americans simply sank all the Japanese submarines. This is another fateful turn of history that never happened: if the Soviet Union had received samurai technology in those years, the hegemony of the United States and Britain in the World Ocean would have come to an end sooner or later.
Germany, England and France also tried to create underwater aircraft carriers, but did not advance further than experimental models with a small reconnaissance aircraft. After a series of failures, the Europeans gave up on the ambitious project and turned to the surface fleet.
Deadly Russian"Pheasant"
Today, rumors are actively circulating on the Internet that Russia is also creating a nuclear submarine aircraft carrier. At the same time, the messages are illustrated with a picture of a huge submarine with an airfield on its back, where modern fighters are preparing to take off.
This project has already received a ton of criticism - every single Kingston of a nuclear submarine has been ridiculed. But the question is, where does the information come from that an underwater aircraft carrier will look exactly like this? It is clear that a backbone airfield simply will not allow the submarine to either swim underwater or surface. This is just an artist's fantasy.
The airfield should be streamlined, under the hull of the boat itself. Instead of the designer's take-off fighters, sailors will most likely use attack drones vertical take-off type tailsitter, that is aircraft, capable of taking off and landing in a vertical position. It is reliably known that such a device is already for the Russian Ministry of Defense, and its name is “Pheasant”.
After lifting off from the launch pad, this machine gains altitude, speed and then switches to the usual horizontal flight mode. At the same time, the Pheasant can carry on board not only reconnaissance equipment, but also strike systems. Its estimated speed is 350–400 kilometers per hour, and its flight range is two thousand kilometers.
A nuclear submarine can have several dozen such machines on board - a lot of them can fit upright. The same applies to ammunition for the Pheasant weapons.
By firing these machines from missile silos or launching a flock from the surface, the nuclear submarine aircraft carrier quickly retreats to the intended assembly site. Meanwhile, a swarm of drones unexpectedly attacks an American group of ships, a naval base, or rushes to strike 500 kilometers deep into the continent. After this, the remnants of the detachment can return to the gathering place for repairs, maintenance and replenishment of ammunition.
The Russian military will not have to spend money on expensive training and equally expensive maintenance for naval aviation pilots. Moreover, the cost of the Pheasant is much less than a modern fighter, and the loss of a drone will not be perceived by anyone as a tragedy.
But the main advantages of a nuclear submarine aircraft carrier are its stealth and the sudden appearance of combat drones over the enemy. Any American aircraft carrier with a group of ships is like a cemetery orchestra, heard a mile away. And tracking a nuclear submarine is almost impossible. It could appear almost anywhere off the US coast and strike.
From the East Coast to the West Coast of the United States, the average distance is about 4,500 kilometers. Two submarine aircraft carriers will be able to attack the continent from different sides to its entire depth. That is, in fact, there will be no place left where the American population would feel completely safe.
If such a project can be implemented, Russia will become the most powerful maritime power.
And here are the classic aircraft carriers.
There are many known cases when, in a training battle, such ships were hit with impunity by submarines of various classes. The Americans were successfully “drowned” by the Swedes, Canadians, French, British and even the Czechs and Chileans.
According to experts, in a modern war any aircraft carrier will survive for no more than two hours, and pilots, taking off from their floating airfield, can look for an alternate landing site in advance.
And the day is not far when US aircraft carriers will remind us not of formidable and deadly weapons, but of the elusive Joe from the joke - who needs him?
