Military Review

"Floating airfields" tipped oblivion

60
"Floating airfields" tipped oblivionSince World War II, carrier-based forces have been one of the cornerstones of the naval stronghold of the United States. Moreover, over the past decades, the US navy has remained in this field a recognized world-scale fashion trendsetter. That is why the main event of the outgoing 2017 year in the life of the US Navy carrier forces, namely the launch of the head nuclear multi-purpose aircraft carrier (AVMA) of the new generation CVN-78 "Gerald R. Ford", attracted increased attention from naval experts as in the United States and around the world.


Still would. After all, those who received the latest electromagnetic catapults and aero-finisher, low-level ammunition lifts with an automated control system, redesigned flight deck and island superstructure, as well as equipped with new nuclear reactors, giving 2,5 times more electricity than on the Nimitz type AVMA, new American floating aerodromes perhaps the only ones in their class today correspond to the title of “warship of the 21st century”.

However, in reality, not everything is so simple and rosy in America in the field of aircraft carrier forces. Moreover, gradually gaining strength, let's say, anti-aircraft lobby. No, its representatives do not urge the US fleet to completely abandon aircraft carriers, but they are actively in favor of a serious revision of the existing policy in this area and the approaches used over the past decades in relation to this segment of the shipbuilding program.

ATOMIC WAYS RIGHT BALL

Currently, the U.S. Navy carrier forces include 10 Nimitz-type nuclear multi-purpose aircraft carriers, which are fully operational, and one Ford aircraft carrier, which was put into operation in the summer of 2017, but will be actually in trial operation for several more years. . Thus, in fact, for the first time, the American admirals managed to ensure the uniformity of the military personnel fleet their aircraft carriers. Moreover, both by type of ship and by type of main power plant. This, in turn, makes it possible to significantly simplify and, possibly, reduce the cost of training specialists of various profiles for service on these ships, as well as the maintenance of ships of this class.



It should be noted here that atomic multi-purpose aircraft carriers and naval wings today are one of the most important components of the combat potential of the American fleet, capable of solving the whole range of tasks assigned to the naval forces in particular and the US military as a whole. Their main task, according to Americans, is to project power into any part of the world where there are American national interests. Moreover, if strategic submarine missile carriers are a kind of nuclear baton that destroys everything and everyone without special analysis, then aircraft carriers are a kind of sword and spear “in one bottle”, selectively destroying unwanted and inspiring fear and respect to the enemy.

Speaking once before the AVMA “Dwight Eisenhower” crew, General John Shalikashvili, at that time, the chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: “I feel calm every time my question is to the operational officer“ Where is the nearest aircraft carrier? "He can answer:" He is in that very place! "For the interests of the United States, this means everything." It is unlikely to be able to more accurately characterize the importance of carrier forces for US national security. Is that the words of US President Bill Clinton: "When Washington utters the word" crisis ", then the first on everyone's lips the question arises:" Where is the nearest aircraft carrier? "But the question is: can the American admirals with a constant reduction in the number of their carrier forces observed so far, still clearly answer the question "Where is the nearest aircraft carrier?" Let's try to figure it out.

FLEET TRUMP

As part of the previous 30-year shipbuilding program, which provided for the maintenance of the size of the US Navy’s ship composition within 308 surface ships and submarines of the main classes, it was planned to have 2022 aircraft-ready aircraft carriers in the 11 – 2022 fiscal year during the 2024 fiscal year - 12 of aircraft carriers, in the period of 2025 – 2039 of financial years - 11 of ships, and starting from 2040 of the fiscal year - only 10 of aircraft carriers. It was assumed that the fleet in the period of 2017 – 2046 fiscal years will include six new aircraft carriers - one each in the 2018, 2023, 2028, 2033, 2038 and 2043 financial years. Thus, the rate of withdrawal of the Nimitz-type aircraft carriers from the US Navy was planned at a higher level than the entry of new AVMAs into service.

A serious change in the military-political situation in the world, as well as the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House presidency, who resolutely promised to "make America great again", including by increasing military spending and modernizing the national Armed Forces, prompted the US Navy to propose a new , a more ambitious military shipbuilding plan.

According to the estimated fleet strength (2016 Force Structure Assessment), which 16 of December 2016 released to the then US Navy Secretary Ray Meibas, the US Navy will need to effectively and timely solve all the tasks assigned to it, as well as successfully parry today's and future threats. have at least 355 warships of various classes, including 12 atomic multi-purpose aircraft carriers, 66 multi-purpose and 12 strategic nuclear submarines, as well as 104 large surface ships of the main classes and 38 large landing ships. Moreover, the application even exceeded the task of increasing the number of warships to 350 pennants and 47 units or 1,5% announced by 308 pennants to 2021 year announced by US President Donald Trump during his election campaign. In fact, American admirals conceived the largest increase in the number of naval personnel since the days of Ronald Reagan's presidency.

First of all, in terms of plan, there are atomic multi-purpose aircraft carriers, for which, for the first time in recent years, growth is planned for just one ship (from 11 to 12 units), but here we must understand that an additional aircraft carrier and, accordingly, an additional aircraft carrier group will also require a significant number of additional combat ships , airplanes and helicopters, as well as support vessels, etc. Not to mention the personnel, which will need to be further recruited and trained. So in the aggregate, the intention of the US Navy command to increase in the future the number of aircraft carriers will lead to a very significant overall increase in the combat potential of the US Navy, but will require considerable time and enormous funds.

The reason for the increase in the minimum number of atomic aircraft carriers is quite understandable - in recent years, the volume of tasks solved by aircraft carrier groups and units of the US Navy has increased significantly, which has led to an increase in the operational voltage ratio. With all the ensuing consequences, including the emergence of a "vacuum of force." So, in December 2016 for the first time in many years history The Persian Gulf region was left without a US floating airfield — the AWMA Dwight Eisenhower, whose 3 shipboard wing was actively involved in launching air strikes against the terrorists, did not come to replace the departed AVMA home. Designated for this AVMA "George G.W. Bush "stayed in Norfolk, where he took another scheduled repair, unexpectedly stretching from the standard six months, first to eight, and then completely to 13 months, and forced the Strait of Hormuz only on 21 in March 2017, becoming the first US Navy aircraft carrier during the presidency of Donald Trump who arrived for combat duty in the Persian Gulf.

However, this document does not contain any more or less specific data on the marine fleet “desirable” for admirals aviation Navy and Navy personnel. Although the application for an additional aircraft carrier will require the formation of an additional naval aircraft wing as part of naval aviation, for which the budget will have to cover the costs of the purchase of up to hundreds of aircraft and helicopters for various purposes, including at least 48 aircraft of the F / A-18 family, and increase training costs and the content of additional personnel. However, American experts consider it quite reasonable to increase the staffing level of the Navy from the current 324 thousand to about 340-350 thousand. The official representative of the Navy, in a comment to reporters of the Navy Times in mid-December 2016, emphasized that “in order to determine the appropriate number of personnel, conduct additional research. ”

The same time, then US Secretary of the Navy Ray Maybas spoke about this in his 16 speech in December 2016, noting that the estimate of the desired fleet numbers is just one of a series of studies that naval experts will perform. Including taking into account the results obtained in the framework of the Future Fleet Architecture series of studies conducted under the auspices of the Congress and completed in October 2016 of the research series, the structure of the future fleet is also often translated. At the same time, according to the Minister, if necessary, the Assessment can be adjusted so as to “best suit the tasks that the Navy will solve.”

It remains to add that on February 9 of 2017, the Chief of Naval Operations (Commander) of the United States Navy presented a new working paper to the new US Secretary of Defense James Mattis entitled “United States Navy Accelerated Fleet Plan”. In this document, the name of which can be translated as "Plan for the Accelerated Development of the US Navy", the command of the US Navy proposed a significant increase in the rate of renewal of the ship and fleet fleet. As far as aircraft carriers are concerned, the plan calls for the commissioning of a second Ford AVMA not in the 2023 fiscal year, as planned in the 30-year-old shipbuilding program adopted as part of the military budget for the 2017 fiscal year, but in the 2022 fiscal year, that is, a year earlier. In this case, the number of aircraft carrier forces in 12 combat aircraft carriers saved.

WITH COMMANDING, NOT ALL AGREE

However, not all US naval experts are so determined on the need to increase the number of atomic aircraft carriers. For example, back in March 2013, the Center for New American Security (Centerfora New American Security - CNAS) released the monograph “How much will we pay for an aircraft carrier?” (Originally At At Cost Cost Carrier), the author of which is Captain Henry Hendrix, for a long time He has served in the US Naval Aviation and in various positions on the coast, and currently heads the US Naval History and Heritage Command (Director, Naval History and Heritage Command). In this monograph in sufficient detail, including even mathematical calculations, a number of important issues related to the further development of the US Navy aircraft carrier forces are considered: should America continue to build "big" aircraft carriers, considering them as the main means for projecting power and solving the most important tasks in the interests of national security; how much the continuation of such a line in naval construction can cost; are there alternatives to this approach, etc.

"The aircraft carrier is the cornerstone of the strongest military fleet that the world has ever seen, facing the threat of becoming like the battleships to support which it was originally created: huge, expensive, vulnerable, and also, which may come as a surprise, completely unresponsive to modern to the requirements of an armed confrontation, the author begins his monograph. “An aircraft carrier that has only manned strike aircraft is a constantly increasing method of projecting firepower, while aircraft carriers themselves in the era of satellite reconnaissance and long-range strike missile systems will no longer be able to approach targets so closely that they can operate effectively and remain unharmed.”

“The carrier strike group is very expensive to acquire and operate. Including the cost of the full life cycle of the ship's air wing, five surface ships and one atomic multi-purpose submarine plus the cost of 6700 people of their personnel, the use of each carrier-based combat group costs about 6,5 million per day, says the following data from the category “Cost - efficiency”. - Carriers such as "Nimitz" can carry out about 120 sorties per day. Ford-equipped aircraft carriers equipped with an electromagnetic catapult should carry out about 160 sorties a day - by 33% more. This is impressive at first glance, but just before you realize that “George G. W. Bush, the last Nimitz type aircraft carrier, cost 7 billion dollars, and Gerald R. Ford cost 13,5 billion dollars. Ultimately, the state pays about 94% more for an aircraft carrier that can do only 33 work. % more.

"Even if we take into account the reduction of costs due to reduced crew and lower operating costs, it is still not the best way to spend American taxpayers' money," he emphasizes. “If it’s true that when money is not enough, people are getting smarter, then the United States needs some smart people right now.”

At the same time, Captain Hendrix believes that the development of aircraft carrier forces and the fleet as a whole should go ahead in a number of areas, including:

- intensification of efforts in the field of creating unmanned aerial systems for various purposes (percussion, reconnaissance, support), including carrier-based, which, in his opinion, will eliminate a number of serious shortcomings inherent in manned aircraft (limitations on the loads and duration of the flight, the possibility of error due to human factors, etc.), as well as reduce the time and financial costs of training pilots and reduce combat and non-combat losses in flight personnel;

- expanding the nomenclature of ship-based attack missile systems, in particular, long-range sea-based cruise missiles of the Tomahawk family, which will allow strikes at the enemy with weapons systems that limit the ability of US naval groups to access vital areas for America’s national security ( such systems, he relates, for example, the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile DF-21D).

“After 100’s years of its history, an aircraft carrier is rapidly approaching sunset as a beneficial strategic tool,” Capten Hendrix sums up. - Achievements in areas such as observation, intelligence, global positioning, rocket weapon and high-precision weapons, show that not only the war at sea, but also all forms of conducting armed confrontation is changing. ”

MEDIUM AIRCRAPS LEAVE FOR ARENA

On the other hand, not all US naval experts are ready to support such a rather sharp assessment of the future of aircraft carriers. And in general, it must be said, the approaches to the formation of aircraft carrier forces for the long term among the existing specialists of the US Navy and the Defense Ministry are not monolithic and are quite different. Sometimes it is even suggested that it is expedient to build both “large-deck” atomic multi-purpose aircraft carriers like the AVMA of the “Nimitz” or “Ford” types, as well as some “average aircraft-carriers” that will be different in size and size of the ship’s air group, but will cost the budget much cheaper in construction and operation, and surrender to the fleet will be at a faster pace.

In particular, as a result of three analytical assessments of an alternative version of the US Navy’s shipbuilding program, performed in 2016 by specialists from a special working group, which included leading experts from various departments and departments of the Ministry of Naval Forces, as well as representatives from the Office of General Assessments of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Research Naval Problems Analysis Center (Center for Naval Analyzes - CAN), October 27, 2016, the US military-political leadership was presented with a possible shipbuilding plan flax program for the long term, according to which it is proposed to have in 2030, the carrier-based forces in the 11 "large-deck" and 3 "medium" aircraft carriers. At the same time, however, it was proposed to reduce to two units the fleet of universal amphibious ships, which have quite large air groups and are often able to solve very serious tasks on their own - without support from aircraft carriers.

The authors of the report prepared by the American Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), prepared in 2017 by the experts of the independent American Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, even more radically propose to "redraw" the strength of these forces. As part of the creation of the “Fleet of 355 Pennants”, they propose to build 12 “large-deck” and 10 “medium” aircraft carriers, but instead write off all the existing UDCs and reduce the total number of amphibious forces with the planned command of the 38 fleet of ships to 29.

There is a serious attempt to redistribute the strike tasks between the aircraft carrier and amphibious forces of the American fleet.

However, all this is not a prospect for the coming years. In the meantime, the combat strength of the US Navy has been replenished with the most modern and most powerful aircraft carrier in the history of mankind, which at least in many respects corresponds to the concept laid down during the construction of aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type, is even to a certain extent similar to them, but from a technological point of view it represents the ship of the new generation and therefore significantly exceeds them in a number of parameters.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2017-12-15/8_977_usa.html
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vard
    Vard 16 December 2017 16: 04 New
    +2
    One lighter on the take-off deck ... and the aircraft carrier is just a very large barge ... Not bad for operations against the Papuans armed with bows and arrows ... But it is completely useless against those who can give an answer ...
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 16 December 2017 17: 15 New
      +5
      The theme of "flies lingering" is therefore new here. Nothing yet
      1. Titsen
        Titsen 18 December 2017 07: 01 New
        +1
        Quote: Chertt
        The theme of "flies lingering" is therefore new here. Nothing yet


        That's for sure - all the 2013 information ...

        Interestingly - captain anti-aircraft is still alive?
  2. San Sanych
    San Sanych 16 December 2017 17: 56 New
    +1
    American aircraft carriers must be outlawed
  3. vlad007
    vlad007 16 December 2017 17: 58 New
    +2
    I would like to know in more detail what the "average" aircraft carrier means. It is clear that there will be fewer planes on it and it will be smaller in size, but is this the only difference.
    1. GAF
      GAF 16 December 2017 23: 44 New
      +4
      Quote: vlad007
      I would like to know in more detail what the "average" aircraft carrier means. It is clear that there will be fewer planes on it and it will be smaller in size, but is this the only difference.

      Actually, there are several dozen aircraft carriers in the world. Our aircraft-carrying cruisers were built on about three dozen aircraft. It is difficult to judge how justified the aircraft carriers with hundreds of aircraft are now. He served quite a while in naval aviation. The combat mission to destroy the aircraft carrier was considered completed - at the cost of the regiment (16 vehicles). A single massaging of all combat aircraft of an aircraft carrier is hardly possible over a large radius, since the line on the deck is too big for take-off and landing. The intensive use of several tens on the cruiser can also give a good result. Yes, and decent self-defense, unlike a floating airfield.
      1. Sands Careers General
        Sands Careers General 17 December 2017 23: 49 New
        +4
        The air regiment includes at least three squadrons. Where did the 16-car aviation regiment come from?
  4. Old26
    Old26 16 December 2017 17: 58 New
    +3
    Quote: Vard
    One lighter on the take-off deck ... and the aircraft carrier is just a very large barge ... Not bad for operations against the Papuans armed with bows and arrows ... But completely useless against those who can give an answer ...

    Do not make public a list of those who can give an answer, taking into account the necessary outfit
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 16 December 2017 21: 04 New
      +3
      Quote: Old26
      who can give an answer given the necessary outfit

      China. The main opponent for the US Navy.
      While they are able to seriously limit the actions of AUG near their shores. But I think their capabilities will only grow.
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 16 December 2017 22: 02 New
        0
        Quote: Spade
        Quote: Old26
        who can give an answer given the necessary outfit

        China. The main opponent for the US Navy.
        While they are able to seriously limit the actions of AUG near their shores. But I think their capabilities will only grow.



        And what facts do you know about the effectiveness of the Navy and the armed forces of China in general?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 16 December 2017 22: 34 New
          +4
          Quote: Town Hall
          And what facts do you know about the effectiveness of the Navy and the armed forces of China in general?

          What are the facts? A very hysterical appearance of the concept of A2 / AD zones, which must be overcome without fail.
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 16 December 2017 23: 47 New
            0
            Quote: Spade
            What are the facts? A very hysterical appearance of the concept of A2 / AD zones, which must be overcome without fail




            Can you develop your own meaning in more detail?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 17 December 2017 10: 09 New
              +2
              Read on this subject. "More to develop" is a couple of articles
  5. Dead duck
    Dead duck 16 December 2017 18: 40 New
    11
    Everything has its time. Sooner or later, the aviki will leave the scene.
    Otherwise, they would still have used cavalry and sailed.
  6. Nikolay R-PM
    Nikolay R-PM 16 December 2017 19: 34 New
    +2
    In my humble opinion, the title and text of the article diverge somewhat. U.S. carrier ships do not mind oblivion. Rather, on the contrary, exploratory work is underway to maintain this type of armament in the fleet, but taking into account the realities, primarily economic ones. On the face is an absolutely normal process of developing a type of armament. A similar example was in front-line aviation during a generational change (from 2nd to 3rd and from 3rd to 4th): maximum speeds have been and still are about 2 Mach (plus or minus 0,2 Mach) on high. Only specialized interceptors and scouts give out more. Customer appetites were then moderate thanks to a pragmatic analysis of the experience of using the systems that were in service. The growth of speed characteristics, however, did not give the expected increase in efficiency, and the cost of the machine significantly increased.
  7. Wolka
    Wolka 16 December 2017 19: 54 New
    +3
    with modern missile weapons, aircraft carriers are just an enviable target
  8. The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 16 December 2017 20: 03 New
    +3
    Reading the article, I caught myself thinking that the "toad" is starting to strangle))
    Even if, to “bracket” the aircraft carriers, the number of pennants is impressive.
  9. Fedya2017
    Fedya2017 16 December 2017 20: 07 New
    +3
    There are "experts" who believe that both aviation and tanks should be forgotten, not only aircraft carriers ... There was one statesman who believed that artillery was not useful for future wars, was going to fight with missiles. Even those who even saw the ship only in pictures take up the needlessness of aircraft carriers. What else can be said about such “specialists” ??! ... Here it is appropriate to recall the words of the late General Lebed that "an unwise person is not necessarily a complete lack of mind. More often, it is such a state of mind."
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 16 December 2017 21: 11 New
      +6
      Quote: Fedya2017
      There was one statesman who believed that artillery was not useful for future wars, was going to fight missiles.

      And oddly enough, he was right.
      1. Fedya2017
        Fedya2017 16 December 2017 23: 11 New
        0
        Quote: Spade
        And oddly enough, he was right.

        No.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 16 December 2017 23: 25 New
          +7
          Do you think that we could do without the Strategic Rocket Forces?
          Rugaya Khrushchev, they often forget what kind of missiles they are talking about ... He severely cut funding for the army, air force and navy in favor of deploying the missile component of nuclear deterrence forces.
          1. Fedya2017
            Fedya2017 16 December 2017 23: 30 New
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            Do you think that we could do without the Strategic Rocket Forces?

            I don’t think so.
            1. Fedya2017
              Fedya2017 17 December 2017 00: 20 New
              +1
              Quote: Fedya2017
              Do you think that we could do without the Strategic Rocket Forces?

              I do not think so. But without artillery, now and for a long time - not enough.
              1. max702
                max702 17 December 2017 00: 29 New
                +6
                [quote = Fedya2017] [quote = Fedya2017] Do you think that we could do without the Strategic Rocket Forces? [/ quot
                I do not think so. But without artillery, now and for a long time - not enough. [/ Quote]
                Paradoxically, Khrushchev was right .. And it was in a strategic direction .. It was those colossal funds (at the expense of others) that swelled into the rockets under him and allowed us to live in peace in the sky now ..
                1. Fedya2017
                  Fedya2017 17 December 2017 00: 38 New
                  +2
                  Quote: max702
                  Paradoxically, Khrushchev was right ..

                  He was wrong with regard to artillery. The reduction in general of the army and navy, and the savings due to this, of course, was necessary at that time. But it was necessary to do this in proportion to the branches of the army ... And at that time, for some reason, they decided that it was artillery as a branch of the troops - it would soon become completely unnecessary. It was artillery that suffered more than the rest of the armed forces ...
                  1. komvap
                    komvap 22 December 2017 16: 14 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Fedya2017
                    Quote: max702
                    Paradoxically, Khrushchev was right ..

                    He was wrong with regard to artillery. The reduction in general of the army and navy, and the savings due to this, of course, was necessary at that time. But it was necessary to do this in proportion to the branches of the army ... And at that time, for some reason, they decided that it was artillery as a branch of the troops - it would soon become completely unnecessary. It was artillery that suffered more than the rest of the armed forces ...

                    and how did this affect the country's security?
                    Would there be more artillery then the USSR would not break up?
                    Or would the Andropyshs drag us into Afghanistan?
                    Khrushchev is an enemy and, but with the missiles, he was right.
              2. KaPToC
                KaPToC 18 December 2017 22: 09 New
                0
                Quote: Fedya2017
                I do not think so. But without artillery, now and for a long time - not enough

                And machine guns cannot be dispensed with for a long time, but as for the war at sea, rockets rule there. Hostile fleets will exchange missile attacks, and then the winner will finish off the vanquished with guns and torpedoes.
  10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 December 2017 22: 34 New
    +8
    In fact, these stories about the anti-aircraft lobby are bearded like barmales in Syria.
    Back in the days of the USSR, when we started to master VTOL aircraft, Americans immediately burst into publications about the bright future of VTOL aircraft, as soon as we started working on Kuznetsov, publications immediately went on that atomic giants of 100 thousand tons were outdated and the future was with relatively small "control ships Sea "- non-nuclear aircraft carriers of 40 thousand tons.
    In general, not only for years, but for decades, Americans are happy to tell everyone who wants to hear about how their atomic supercarriers are out of date and ... continue to build atomic supercarriers laughing
    1. Fedya2017
      Fedya2017 16 December 2017 23: 20 New
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      In general, not only for years, but for decades, Americans are happy to tell everyone who wants to hear about how their atomic supercarriers are out of date and ... continue to build atomic supercarriers

      Right And those who do not have the AUG, console their inhabitants by reasoning about the suitability of these AUGs only for war with the Papuans. Of course, nobody in the Papuans wants to recognize themselves ...
      1. MOSKVITYANIN
        MOSKVITYANIN 17 December 2017 00: 58 New
        +2
        Quote: Fedya2017
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In general, not only for years, but for decades, Americans are happy to tell everyone who wants to hear about how their atomic supercarriers are out of date and ... continue to build atomic supercarriers

        Right And those who do not have the AUG, console their inhabitants by reasoning about the suitability of these AUGs only for war with the Papuans. Of course, nobody in the Papuans wants to recognize themselves ...

        Suppose the Russian Federation as part of the KSF and Pacific Fleet has 3 multipurpose aircraft carriers with nuclear power plants and the required number of escort fleet forces, tell me where will the Russian Navy use them?
        In the near sea zone it will not work, both Fleets are limited in application, since the water area is narrowed by ice, torrential zones and island territories, and in the distant theater of operations (in the Indian / Pacific oceans) it can also be limited, because the Russian Federation does not have a wide network of naval and military hardware in those regions .... (unlike the USSR) ....
        I'm listening to you carefully .....
        1. Fedya2017
          Fedya2017 17 December 2017 13: 21 New
          +2
          Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
          I'm listening to you carefully .....

          1. So that both fleets are not limited in the near sea zone, and their AMG are needed. “Kuzya” and his brothers of the Soviet period were conceived to cover the deployment of our submarine forces from the air during the threatened period. Although, without carrier-based AWACS aircraft, the capabilities of such AMGs are doubtful ... The reasons why they did not begin to build full-fledged aircraft carriers at once are not very clear. There are many arguments on this subject and they are different ... 2. Regarding the distant possible theater of operations, I completely agree with you. We need bases ... Something that the USSR had was the same Camran, although this, of course, is not enough. If desired, all over the world there would be “friends” willing to host the Soviet naval base. Everything rested and rests on the economy ... In the Kremlin, apparently not averse to snooping around in Sudan and Libya, maybe somewhere else ...? Present-day Russia is a young capitalist state, which path the elite will choose for the future is not yet clear. There are two types of capitalism, either developed through the exploitation of other countries, or at the expense of our own population ... Apparently we have chosen the second option, but then neither the construction of a powerful fleet, nor the naval bases abroad shine on us ...
          1. MOSKVITYANIN
            MOSKVITYANIN 17 December 2017 17: 29 New
            +1
            Fedya2017 “Kuzya” and his brothers of the Soviet period were conceived to cover the deployment of our submarine forces from the air during the threatened period.

            Of all that the USSR built for its Navy, only the Kuzyu can be called a less complete aircraft carrier and its main weapon was missile rather than aircraft, all other aircraft carriers can be attributed to either light aircraft carriers or helicopter carriers ....
            I agree with you about helping to deploy SSBNs / PLA and deploying them to patrol areas, and the Soviet aircraft carrying ships performed their task well in this regard, so now, in the context of cost savings, we need to do with small forces, for example, building the same helicopter carriers and light ( anti-submarine) aircraft carriers, in the end, Britain’s construction of once three light aircraft carriers forced economic measures rather than military necessity ....
            "Kuzya" has served its time and its modernization is not economically feasible, however, it can easily fulfill the role of a "school desk" on which pilots of carrier-based aviation will study ....
            We now need the carriers of the KR and RCC corvette frigate, as well as PLO ships .... we are unlikely to even pull multi-purpose surface ships ....
            By the way, in the periodicals I read that the USSR had projects for deck versions of AWACS and U ....
            The rest I agree .... with you ...
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 December 2017 13: 51 New
          +2
          Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
          I'm listening to you carefully .....

          Here, in my opinion, the American Navy is being discussed, not ours. But if you so want to get away from the topic - please. AB tasks could be
          1) Destruction of the 6-th fleet of the USA in the Mediterranean (modeled after the 5OPESK)
          2) The withdrawal of multi-purpose nuclear submarines in the Atlantic, by breaking through the boundary of the PLO and, probably, the oncoming naval battle against US aircraft deployed off the coast of Norway.
          3) Destruction of the AUG, trying to strike at the land objects of the Far East.
          1. MOSKVITYANIN
            MOSKVITYANIN 17 December 2017 17: 50 New
            +3
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk Here, in my opinion, the American Navy is discussed, not ours.

            I just reply to the comment
            Fedya2017 Yesterday, 23: 20

            Please allow me to communicate with members of the forum without your consent, "Mr. General L-NT" or tell me through whom the report to apply for this permission fool
            And now about your comments:
            AB tasks could be
            1) Destruction of the 6-th fleet of the USA in the Mediterranean (modeled after the 5OPESK)

            Is it true, what about the Navy of the NATO countries in the Mediterranean Sea, the presence of NATO countries in this theater of superiority in carrier-based and base aircraft, and the lack of full-fledged naval forces there. What forces and means are you going to pass the Dardanelles, the Bosphorus and the Strait of Gibraltar? Even the Soviet 5-I squadron could not have been able to .... including incorporating an aircraft carrier on a rotational basis and tactical nuclear weapons on board ... (she had limited goals and objectives) ....
            In fairness, I must say that until recently (until our sea-based missile defense systems were deployed), NATO was planning to deal with our ships in the Mediterranean Sea with the forces of the Italian fleet alone ....
            2) The withdrawal of multi-purpose nuclear submarines in the Atlantic, by breaking through the boundary of the PLO and, probably, the oncoming naval battle against US aircraft deployed off the coast of Norway.

            I agree with this paragraph and answered it
            Fedya2017
            forget about the oncoming battle, like a nightmare, in this case, after our SSBNs / PLA are withdrawn to the North Atlantic, you can forget about our AUGs as about combat units ....
            3) Destruction of the AUG, trying to strike at the land objects of the Far East.

            This is a task for the Coastal Forces and Pacific Fleet aviation (Tu-22М3), any of our aircraft carrier will be destroyed even in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk about its entry into the operational expanses of the Pacific Ocean ....
            Yes, and we do not have a full-fledged combat order for guarding aircraft carriers; we will collect a maximum of 4-5 frigate cruiser ships for one aircraft carrier ....
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 December 2017 23: 11 New
              +2
              Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
              I just reply to the comment

              Well, as if my comment also got into the quote, so I understood that the question was addressed to me as well.
              Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
              Please allow me to communicate with members of the forum without your consent, "Mr. General L-NT" or tell me through whom the report to apply for this permission

              Specify the place of my comment in which I forbade you to do this?
              Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
              Is it true, what about the Navy of the NATO countries in the Mediterranean Sea, the presence of NATO countries in this theater of superiority in carrier-based and base aircraft, and the lack of full-fledged naval forces there.

              Like 5OPESK. By the way, I don’t know about Tartus, like there were ideas to expand there
              Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
              forget about the oncoming battle, like a nightmare, in this case, after our SSBNs / PLA are withdrawn to the North Atlantic, you can forget about our AUGs as about combat units ....

              And according to your ACG, will the United States doze peacefully while you break the anti-submarine barrier? You are a great optimist.
              Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
              This is a task for the Coastal Forces and Pacific Fleet aviation (Tu-22M3

              And how many of them are in the Pacific Fleet? No one. And how many of them in our country are going to modernize under the X-32? Already 30 pieces. Do we have many airdromes there that can take on at least three aviation regiments with which it is still possible to try to ditch the AUG (but not the AUS)? EMNIP is the only one such place in the whole Far East.
              Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
              any of our aircraft carrier will be destroyed even in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk about its access to the operational expanses of the Pacific Ocean ....

              What?
              Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
              Yes, and we do not have a full-fledged combat order for the protection of aircraft carriers

              Well, you yourself set the task
              Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
              Suppose that the Russian Federation in the KSF and Pacific Fleet has 3 multipurpose aircraft carriers with nuclear power plants and the required number of escort fleet forces

              I followed your conditions
              1. MOSKVITYANIN
                MOSKVITYANIN 17 December 2017 23: 59 New
                +1
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk I followed your conditions

                In addition to the Tu-22M3 basing system, I did not learn anything from you, the rest is a set of characters ...
    2. max702
      max702 17 December 2017 00: 33 New
      +3
      All this is fine .. But you somehow forget about the growth of technology .. They have already nullified the battleships and battleships .. the aircraft carriers are also outdated ..
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 17 December 2017 13: 04 New
        +3
        Quote: max702
        They have already nullified the battleships and battleships .. the aircraft carriers are also outdated ..

        The term "out of date" cannot be used here. Rather, "they cannot carry out the tasks assigned to them in full." Recall Lebanon. The battleship there acted very, very efficiently. In its "niche."
        It's just that for aircraft carriers this is not very pronounced. Off the coast of Libya, an aircraft carrier-wunderwaffe, off the Chinese coast is an excellent target.
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 17 December 2017 13: 47 New
      +3
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Americans are happy to tell everyone who wants to hear about how their atomic supercarriers are outdated and ... continue to build atomic supercarriers

      Andrew, hello! hi
      You're right. We, too, if we could, built the 4 of the one hundred thousandth for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, but so far we cannot (for various reasons). But the fact that the AVM with the advent of GZO becomes significantly more vulnerable is beyond dispute. It remains to expand this bottleneck with tactics and methods of their combat use. And here - the scope for creativity is unlimited!
      I can say one thing: without air cover, the High Seas Fleet (DMZ) cannot fulfill its tasks. Therefore, objectively, we need an umbrella. By the way, Bursukov already let slip about the development of new VTOL aircraft for future aircraft-carrying ships. So much for the 60 thousandths in a new package! So, nobody is going to write off the aircraft carriers as a type of NK. China is building and not a drop does not bother with the question: necessary, unnecessary. Hindus are also not far behind. Small shavers of the 2 springboard AVU built on the remains of the budget ...
      The same is waiting for us. We will build, the question is WHAT will it be !?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 December 2017 13: 54 New
        +1
        Quote: BoA KAA
        Andrew, hello!

        And good day to you!
        Quote: BoA KAA
        We, too, if we could, built 4 hundred thousandths for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, but so far we can’t

        This is exactly
        Quote: BoA KAA
        But the fact that the AVM with the advent of GZO becomes significantly more vulnerable is beyond dispute. It remains to expand this bottleneck with tactics and methods of their combat use. And here - the scope for creativity is unlimited!

        I’m sorry, but GZO is what? :) I won’t figure out how to decipher it :)
        Quote: BoA KAA
        By the way, Bursukov already let slip about the development of new VTOL aircraft for future aircraft-carrying ships.

        I hope this is some kind of mistake, because if not ...
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 17 December 2017 14: 02 New
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          and GZO - is that what? :) I can’t figure out how it stands for :)

          Andrew!!! GZO - the generally accepted abbreviation of "hypersonic weapons", however!
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I hope this is some kind of mistake, because if not ...
          I myself was surprised. But we must pay tribute: it flashed once and did not repeat any more ... And the fact that the Krylovites continue to pick their blueprints is encouraging. We are waiting for the power of the stars in the Far East to ripen. Or in Kronstadt they will open and equip a new dry dock ... Sevmash can, but he has a strategic underwater task. And I must admit - it is more important than AVM for SF ...
          Something like that, however.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 December 2017 16: 42 New
            +2
            Quote: BoA KAA
            Andrew!!! GZO - the generally accepted abbreviation of "hypersonic weapons", however!

            Ahh, thank you, we will know :) And yes, the GZO is a very curious thing, including and against AUG. If we could still solve the issue of long-range target designation ... then the AUG could really come a fur-bearing animal
  11. MOSKVITYANIN
    MOSKVITYANIN 16 December 2017 22: 59 New
    +1
    Interesting article....
    Sometimes it is even suggested that it is advisable to build both “large-deck” nuclear multipurpose aircraft carriers such as Nimitz or Ford AVMAs, and some “medium-sized aircraft carriers” that will differ in size and size of the ship's air group, but will cost the budget substantially cheaper in construction and operation, and surrender to the fleet will be at a faster pace.

    There is a rational kernel. However, first you need to think about their combat use, for operations on the European theater of operations where there is an extensive airfield network and for the organization of an air defense in the North Atlantic, the use of medium-sized multi-purpose aircraft carriers in the Asia-Pacific region, where far from the main bases will have to fight the PRC fleet, will need large aircraft carriers. ...
    Also, large (traditional) aircraft carriers are needed on non-equipped theater of operations ... and for war with an opponent having strong Coastal units .... and large mobile forces on the coastal direction ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
  12. Old26
    Old26 16 December 2017 23: 13 New
    +4
    Quote: Deadush
    Everything has its time. Sooner or later, the aviki will leave the scene.
    Otherwise, they would still have used cavalry and sailed.

    I’m unlikely to be mistaken if I say that since the end of World War II they only said that a little more, a year or two more and the aircraft carriers will leave the stage. However don't go

    Quote: Volka
    with modern missile weapons, aircraft carriers are just an enviable target

    Yah? Are they becoming a target? And you know a lot of countries that can at least try to strike at an aircraft carrier strike group. Of course, if you do not take into account the use of special ammunition.
    China, as comrade Lopatov writes?
    China is really developing by leaps and bounds, building a large number of destroyer class ships, but alas, the air defense system and strike weapons do not correspond to modern realities. Near their shores, they really can try to create difficulties for the American fleet, but hardly for the AUG
    Even the creation of ballistic anti-ship missiles is not yet a panacea. At least due to the fact that for a real target (target ships) they did not shoot back.
    Heavy anti-ship missiles such as "Granite" and X-22, which we have no one else has. And the defeat of the carrier group, which has a long-range defense zone of 800 km and a close, dense of 400-500 km, is not an easy task. According to experts, you need a salvo of at least 30-40 Granites or X-22, so that an aircraft carrier would hit 8-10 Granites or 11-12 X-22. And some experts say that the outfit should be of the order of 70-100 KR in order to “break through” the air defense of the AUG. So this is a very, very difficult goal, if there is no nuclear charge on missiles.
    Other countries do not have such opportunities. So this weapon is not "only against the Papuans." Or all should be enrolled in the Papuans
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 16 December 2017 23: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      China is really developing by leaps and bounds, building a large number of destroyer class ships, but alas, the air defense system and strike weapons do not correspond to modern realities. Near their shores, they really can try to create difficulties for the American fleet, but hardly for the AUG

      Why then are the Americans so nervous about this “they can try”? Maybe they’re just more realistically evaluating their own capabilities, having more information than you?
    2. Fedya2017
      Fedya2017 17 December 2017 00: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Yah? Are they becoming a target? And you know a lot of countries that can at least try to strike at an aircraft carrier strike group.

      Judging by his comment, he doesn’t know anything on the topic, and he doesn’t want to know. And there are a lot of people like him ... They memorize memorized phrases, not paying attention to anyone and not having their own understanding. These are paid "patriots" or free id ... stupid people (censorship). To ensure the destruction of the AUG requires a simultaneous combined attack of surface and submarine forces and aviation. It is almost impossible to organize such an attack without space satellites. And satellites with the start of hostilities will be necessarily neutralized - mutually, on both sides of the opponents. The Chinese allegations of ballistic anti-ship missiles are doubtful ... the USSR tried to create this, but they abandoned this idea. In general, "there is no method against scrap - besides another scrap" ...
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 17 December 2017 13: 08 New
        +3
        Quote: Fedya2017
        Judging by his comment, he doesn’t know anything on the topic, and he doesn’t want to know. And there are a lot of people like him ... They memorize memorized phrases, not paying attention to anyone and not having their own understanding. These are paid "patriots" or free id ... stupid people (censorship). To ensure the destruction of the AUG requires a simultaneous combined attack of surface and submarine forces and aviation.

        Or several ballistic anti-ship missiles of the DF-21D type, which received target designation from sea drones and over-the-coast coastal radars

        Honestly, you yourself don’t really want to know something ...
  13. Old26
    Old26 16 December 2017 23: 50 New
    +2
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Old26
    China is really developing by leaps and bounds, building a large number of destroyer class ships, but alas, the air defense system and strike weapons do not correspond to modern realities. Near their shores, they really can try to create difficulties for the American fleet, but hardly for the AUG

    Why then are the Americans so nervous about this “they can try”? Maybe they’re just more realistically evaluating their own capabilities, having more information than you?

    I do not pretend to be the ultimate truth, and of course they know for sure more. The question is that it is one thing when the fleet really becomes a serious counterbalance, it is another when they just talk about it. And you yourself know what they can say. Sometimes nonsense
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 December 2017 10: 11 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      The issue is that it’s one thing when the fleet really becomes a serious counterweight.

      Well, you can’t say that the Chinese fleet “didn’t become a serious counterweight,” can you?
  14. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 17 December 2017 03: 19 New
    +1
    no less than 355 warships of various classes, including 12 nuclear multipurpose aircraft carriers, 66 multipurpose and 12 strategic nuclear submarines, as well as 104 large main surface combat ships and 38 large landing ships

    on submarines we have parity, but on large ships 24 against 104, on UDC 2 against 38 (if 2 Grana)
    “Medium-sized aircraft carriers”, which will differ in the smaller size and number of naval air group, but will cost the budget significantly less to build and operate, and surrender to the fleet at a faster pace.

    similar to our concept for the future construction of aircraft-carrying cruisers of the Admiral Kuznetsov type. But (!) In the format "and One in the field warrior" saturated with strike weapons and layered air defense. The counterweight, for not having large ships in larger numbers, is offset by quality.
    As part of the creation of the “Fleet of 355 Pennants”, they propose building 12 “large-deck” and 10 “medium” aircraft carriers, but then write off all the UDCs available today and reduce the total number of amphibious forces from the planned fleet command 38 ships to 29.

    well, even with such a cutback in UDC, we definitely cannot catch them
    1. MOSKVITYANIN
      MOSKVITYANIN 17 December 2017 03: 28 New
      +1
      Romario_Argo by UDC 2 vs 38 (if 2 Grena)

      It’s sinful to laugh .....
      Currently, Huntington Ingalls Industries shipyard is building the second America-class amphibious assault ship Tripoli. 1 May this year, he was launched. The transfer of the UDC to the customer - the United States Marine Corps - is expected in 2018.


      or can you compare with the old UDC of the USA?
      A striking example of the modern UDC are in the ranks of the US Navy ships of the type "Tarawa" and "Wasp." Their displacement ranges from 34 thousand tons ("Tarawa") to 40 with odd thousand tons ("Wasp"). In size and appearance, they roughly correspond to the heavy aircraft carriers of the Second World War. These UDCs can carry a fully equipped marine infantry battalion (up to 1900 people, actually a regiment), up to 40 aircraft, including heavy Chinook or C Steel helicopters, Supercogra rotorcraft, vertical take-off and C-class fighters Harrier. In addition, the UDC has dock cameras in which there are from two to eight (depending on size) amphibious air cushion vehicles with a carrying capacity from 30 to 200 tons or a greater number of smaller landing craft with a carrying capacity of several tons.

      https://topwar.ru/1484-mistral-i-ego-sobratya.htm
      l
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 17 December 2017 14: 29 New
      +3
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      on submarines we have parity, but on large ships

      Blessed is he who believes, for their kingdom of heaven is ... (c)
      As of February 2017, the United States Navy included: - 14 SSB t. "Ohio",
      - 58 (!) Multipurpose nuclear submarines with missile-torpedo armament: 4 type "Ohio", 3 type "Sea Wolf", 33 type "Los Angeles", 18 type "Virginia" ...
      Find the composition of the submarine forces of the Russian Federation yourself ... for fun, of course.
  15. shuravi
    shuravi 17 December 2017 12: 47 New
    +3
    In principle, the way it is. The aircraft carriers significantly strengthened the fleet at a time when artillery was the longest-range weapon of that. That is why the finest hour of floating airfields occurred during WWII.
    But with the advent of missile and, first of all, guided missile weapons, both strike and air defense, as well as the improvement of reconnaissance and air defense systems, the role of convenient carriers and large mass graves in the global conflict is for aircraft carriers.
    But in the war against third countries, they are quite convenient for themselves.
  16. shinobi
    shinobi 17 December 2017 16: 23 New
    +3
    No one has managed to repel a group strike of 12 anti-ship missiles with active radio suppression of the detection means, the Achilles' heel of all the AUGs. An aircraft carrier only needs 3 to take off and 2 to board, and you can forget about it for up to two years. This is a non-nuclear equipment option.
  17. Old26
    Old26 17 December 2017 17: 41 New
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Old26
    The issue is that it’s one thing when the fleet really becomes a serious counterweight.

    Well, you can’t say that the Chinese fleet “didn’t become a serious counterweight,” can you?

    I can say with a greater degree of probability that I have not yet. The presence of even a large number of destroyers but with weapons that are inferior to the enemy in their characteristics is still not a serious counterweight. Yes, such an enemy fleet gives rise to a certain reaction, but this is understandable. But not more.

    Quote: Romario_Argo
    on submarines we have parity, but on large ships 24 against 104, on UDC 2 against 38 (if 2 Grana)

    Submarine Parity? Which one? According to the strategists? I agree. In quantitative terms, 12 to 12. Only they have all the boats of the same type, and we have three different projects with three types of missiles. I’m not talking about their performance characteristics and quantity. We have 192 missiles versus 240
    The number of all boats we have - diesel and nuclear - may be close to the number of American ones, but you still don’t need to compare, for example, a boat of project 877 of the same "Elk" or "Virginia"
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 18 December 2017 22: 56 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      for example, a boat of project 877 and the same "Elk" or "Virginia" is still not worth it

      That's right, it is definitely not worth comparing the nuclear submarine carrier with a diesel-electric submarine in terms of noise level.
  18. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 18 December 2017 10: 52 New
    0
    Already from the First World Submarine, the main warships of the fleet and they have decided and are still deciding the outcome of the battle at sea. it is so obvious that there is nothing to discuss.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 18 December 2017 13: 30 New
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      Already from the First World Submarine, the main warships of the fleet and they have decided and are still deciding the outcome of the battle at sea

      What battles at sea did the submarines decide?
      Jutland? Matapan? The hunt for the Bismarck? New Year's fight? Midway? Sirte Bay? The battles of the Solomon Islands? Leyte and Surigao?
      In all major battles of the fleet, except perhaps the Philippine Sea, submarines were used to the maximum for finishing. And then, under Midway, the Nautilus could not finish off the Kag AB - the torpedo traditionally for the USN did not explode (the torpedo scandal and the torpedo crisis lasted until 1944 - the record was failure, EMNIP, 10 torpedoes in a row fired by one of the submarines on the Japanese tanker )
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 19 December 2017 08: 27 New
        0
        Submarines did not decide the outcome of the battles, they decided the course of wars. And millions of tons of sunken ships are far more important than the same few cruisers that sunk under Jutland.
  19. EvilLion
    EvilLion 19 December 2017 08: 24 New
    0
    There is an 2 class of warships: submarines and targets.
  20. Nemesis
    Nemesis 19 December 2017 18: 24 New
    0
    I don’t think that the United States will abandon aircraft carriers and large landing ships, because it is with their help that the United States likes to attack some Grenada, which does not have the ability to launch missiles across Washington ...