Military Review

On the need to recreate the naval missile aviation

57
In the course of the military-political crisis inspired by the Americans around Syria, all observers were severely hurt by the inconsistency between the threats of the Russian Defense Ministry to the United States and the capabilities that the armed forces actually possess. Namely, the fact that the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation cannot realize the threat of the NGSH of General V. Gerasimov about the defeat of American carriers of cruise missiles without unacceptably high losses in airplanes and pilots. There is also no possibility of striking multiple blows at the enemy. The fact is that the main carriers of cruise missiles in the United States are surface ships that have very powerful air defense systems. And they must be attacked.


The Black Sea Fleet today has only three relatively modern ships. These are frigates of project 11356. The missile cruiser “Moscow” would be a serious danger to the US Navy, but it is not operational and it is not known when it will be repaired. The remaining surface ships are either missile boats or small ships capable of operating only off their coast, under the powerful aviation cover. There are three more museum exhibits in fact: “Inquisitive”, “Shrewd”, “Okay”, but their value in the war with the USA is zero. There are also several combat-ready diesel-electric submarines, two of which are located in the Mediterranean Sea. All these ships and submarines are capable of releasing about thirty Caliber-NK anti-ship missiles. This is enough to destroy a single ship of the U.S. Navy, this is enough to partially destroy, partially damage an order from a pair of ships, but this is no longer enough for anything. Aircraft from the Khmeimim air base can only be armed with X-35 missiles. Very good missiles, but with a relatively short launch range, which will make the aircraft "substitute" under the fire of American naval anti-aircraft missile systems. Of course, a coordinated attack by submarines (not necessarily missiles), aircraft and surface ships could lead to the defeat of the forces that the Americans had at sea at the time of the Syrian attack, even if the US Navy ships gathered in a single warrant. With losses, of course. But the deployment of more or less substantial aviation forces at NATO airbases will make such an attack difficult to implement, and when the aircraft carrier attack group with the Harry Truman aircraft carrier enters the Mediterranean in early May, you will have to forget about any attacks on cruise missile carriers: “ Truman ”may be twice as many planes as Russia has at the Khmeimim airbase, but in general this connection is comparable in strength to the entire Russian Navy.

Begin a full-scale war in Syria, the VKS and Russian Navy could attack American forces only once, and with an unpredictable result. It is possible that to no avail. Then both the airplanes and the missiles in the launchers of the ships will end, and after the Truman wing of the wing following the events of the military departure - and the ships themselves. Knowing the Americans, it is easy to predict that they will continue to put pressure further, and clashing with them in the near future is absolutely inevitable, and it is good if they arrange a fight over Syria, and not over Kamchatka. Where our ability to fight them is not much better.

At the same time, until we bleed them, they will not stop.

Is there a solution to the American problem that Russia could “pull” economically?

There is. But to understand it, you need to look back and look at our recent past.

During the Cold War, American aircraft carrier groups posed a serious danger to the USSR. At the same time, the Soviet Union for economic reasons could not get comparable in strength fleet, and the irrational expenditure of funds for naval construction limited the possibilities for creating an effective military response to the AUG.

Nevertheless, such an answer was given. They became the naval rocket-carrying aircraft (MRA) of the USSR Navy, the armament of which consisted of long-range bombers armed with anti-ship cruise missiles (ASM).

Even during the tests of the very first Soviet serial cruise missile, the KS-1, launched from Tu-4 piston bombers (a copy of the American Boeing B-29 "Superfortress", the same one from which the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan), it became clear that Aircraft cruise missiles pose a great danger to surface ships.

And after a series of training attacks by Tu-16 bombers on American AUG in the mid-sixties, it became clear that with the help of a bunch of aircraft + a cruise missile, a carrier-based attack group could also be crushed. Not without a loss from the Soviet side, of course, with large ones, but they would not be comparable with the American losses. Several hundred pilots against thousands of sailors.

The race has begun. The Americans appeared incredibly perfect carrier-based fighter-interceptor F-14 "Tomcat", grew the order of duty forces in the air (up to a stable eight interceptors in the air in the early eighties), improved air defense systems, airborne early warning aircraft, tactics of defense of the compound. In the USSR, the subsonic Tu-16 came first with the Tu-22, and then the Tu-22M (a completely different aircraft, despite the index). Changed and rocket. Subsonic DACs with different numbers changed to X-22 - a very high-speed (3,5 “sound”) and survivable rocket with a huge range at that time - 350 kilometers. Tactical schemes became more and more difficult, the attack by large bomber forces turned into an attack of the entire fleet — surface ships, submarines, and MRA airplanes, and the MRA’s launch start-up turn into an incredibly sophisticated, complex and dangerous maneuver, so much so that one description would require an article . But the surprise attack was provided. There were missiles, false targets, supersonic jammers.

For strikes on ships far in the world ocean, a strategic missile carrier Tu-95K-22 with the same missile appeared. Being able to detect the included shipborne radar from a distance of 1300 kilometers or more, this aircraft posed a serious danger to any single warship.

At a certain moment, the USSR won this race, but soon the first ships with universal vertical missile launch systems Mk.41, powerful radars, and, most importantly, the combat management information system of collective defense AEGIS, which allowed a group of ships to fight as a single combat, entered the sea. the car, with dozens of radar antennas, and hundreds of anti-aircraft missiles, launched with 1 rocket fire performance in 2 seconds, from each of the ships.

Now the USSR has already lost. At the first stage, it was decided to “jam” the enemy’s radar with nuclear strikes, not at the ships themselves, but at a safe distance from them, but close enough to prevent interference from using radars. At the same time, the requirements for a new generation of anti-ship missiles, which appeared after the collapse of the USSR, were clarified. The solution, apparently, would have been found, but ...

In 1991, it's over. Russia has at its disposal hundreds of bombers. In 1992, subsonic Tu-16 were removed from service. A little later, the withdrawal from the combat units and the further utilization of the Tu-95K-22 began. However, in the nineties, naval missile-carrying aircraft still represented a significant force. If in the Air Force in 1993, there were about a hundred Tu-22M bombers, then there were one hundred and sixty-five of them in the naval missile launcher.

But the blow that the country received was too strong. The number of bombers was rapidly declining every year, and the industry devastated by liberal reforms simply could not produce components to repair them, even when there was money for it.

By the year 2010 in Russia there are only a few dozen Tu-22М3 bombers capable of taking off. In such conditions, the Ministry of Defense eliminated the MRA as a class, and transferred all airplanes and crews into the Aerospace Forces created from several branches of troops. According to the VKS plans, up to thirty modernized aircraft of this type can remain in service by the 2030 year. Less than in 1985, the year would have flown to a single attack by a US carrier strike group ...

Thus, there is a solution to the problem of American naval groups - it is necessary to recreate naval rocket-carrying aircraft, powerful enough to defeat a pair of aircraft-carrier strike formations of the US Navy without nuclear weapons. That was the answer given at the time to the aggressiveness of the US Navy, and there is no reason to believe that it was bad. As well as there is no reason to think that we will not succeed now.

Sea-launched missile aviation is a cheaper response than building a fleet of surface ships capable of handling the US Navy, and, most importantly, a quicker response. Because Russia has all the necessary components for success.

Firstly, there is already a carrier aircraft. It's about Su-30. This aircraft has a higher bomb load than the Tu-16 long-range bomber. The Indians have already tested their Su-30MKI with the anti-ship missile "Bramos", which was developed on the basis of the Russian anti-ship missile complex "Onyx". Both the Su-30 in the CM and M2 versions, and the Onyx rocket are already being mass-produced.

On the need to recreate the naval missile aviation


The photo shows the launch of the Brahmos anti-ship missiles from the Su-30MKI aircraft of the Indian Air Force


Thus, the reconstruction of the MRA at the first stage becomes only an organizational issue.

Secondly, in Russia there is a mass of abandoned or almost abandoned airfields, on which new aviation connections can be based.

Thirdly, the Su-30 is more than good in aerial combat, and he does not need a fighter escort; airplanes can take off, having air-to-air missiles under their wings.

Fourthly, their cost of operation is incomparable with heavy bombers, and they are much more versatile, they can be used both as strike aircraft and as interceptors.

Fifth, the Navy already has such planes, is able to exploit them, and the unification of the already existing aircraft fleet with new machines will also reduce the cost of new aircraft connections.

At the first stage it is necessary to do the following.

1. Upgrade the Su-30 in service with the Navy so that they can use Onyx missiles. For starters one by one on the plane.

2. Start the process of deploying the assault air regiments of the Northern and Pacific fleets in the division. At the first stage, the Su-24 bombers (now they are being changed to Su-30) are not to be withdrawn from service, but to create new aviation units at the expense of existing and new aircraft. Su-24 needs to be repaired and modernized for the use of X-35 missiles, and personnel must be trained on them. Bringing the number of aircraft divisions to the state, begin replacing the Su-24 on the aircraft of the Su-30 family. In the future, Su-24, those who will have a significant resource, must be converted into machines of auxiliary classes - jammers, air tankers with the unit UPAZ, etc.

3. To start the production of Onyx missiles in the aviation version.

As is quite obvious, these measures alone will significantly increase the ability of the Navy to protect our shores and our allies. And as you can see, they are incomparable in complexity and price, neither with the construction of a fleet, nor with the reconstruction of an armada of bombers. Obviously, the presence of such troops, with reserves of missiles and good preparation, could cool some hotheads in Washington.

The Onyx missile has a range that allows it to be launched without entering the defeat zone of the naval defense of the US Navy. At the same time it is quite difficult to shoot down. And a large mass of rockets in the salvo will make it possible to “break through” the American defense, regardless of its density.

One aircraft division of such aircraft, which has an adequate supply of missiles, will be able to inflict unacceptably high losses on the US Navy ship group over the course of several combat missions and deprive it of the ability to conduct combat operations against the Russian Federation or its allies. And if the number of the combat group is too large, then you can connect the VKS and transfer the Su-30 from other theaters. And, of course, if these forces can cope with the US Navy, then any other fleet will be a very "easy" opponent for them.

The first stage, however, is exactly the first stage. At the next stage, it is necessary to create a new modification of the Su-30 aircraft, which would differ from the Su-30CM aircraft by the presence of the 036 Squirrel radar, similar to that installed on the Su-57 fighter, by the powerful central pylon for hanging the weapon, which would allow aircraft use a hypersonic rocket complex "Dagger". The airframe must be modified to reduce radar visibility, the aiming-navigation complex must give the ability to detect and hit small surface targets, air targets flying low over water, helicopters in hovering mode over water. The aircraft should be able to make long flights over water at ultra-low altitudes (20-50 meters). The new Su-30 will be a serious threat not only for ships, but also for fifth-generation American carrier-based fighters, and will not depend critically on the presence of long-range radar detection (DRLO) aircraft in the Navy.

Such a plane at a price comparable to the serial Su-30CM, will be at times a more dangerous enemy for enemy ships and aircraft. Such a machine in the future should be the main striking force of the fleet at a distance of 1500-1600 kilometers from the coast.

Another advantage of the powerful naval strike aircraft is that it is very powerful to quickly maneuver from one theater of war to another, thus compensating for the impossibility of quickly transferring ships from fleet to fleet.

In the future, the Navy will have to receive a certain number of DRLO planes to support the actions of the MRA, and a sufficient number of tanker aircraft for it. Moreover, since the range of the MRA will not be so long, the tankers can be made on the basis of promising twin-engine transport aircraft, and not use IL-78. This will also save on costs. Combinations of tankers and DRLO aircraft can be subordinated to the Main Marine Headquarters and attached to fleets if necessary, this will allow you to form fewer connections and buy fewer aircraft.

It is also necessary to develop new, more effective, anti-ship missiles, both hypersonic and low-profile low-altitude anti-ship missiles, preferably with the ability to independently search for targets, similar to the American LRASM rocket. It is necessary to strive to ensure that the weight of the new missiles would allow the aircraft to carry them in large quantities.

The last question: is it necessary to create such aircraft in the framework of the Navy, and not VKS?

The answer is unequivocal: yes. Fighting over the sea and against fleets has its own specifics, for example, the need for many hours of flying over an unoriented terrain, the need to search for and attack targets over it, including in adverse weather conditions, the need to attack compact and mobile targets protected by air defense and EW of such power , with which the pilot VKS is unlikely to meet somewhere. All this requires specific combat training, and she - time pilots. In addition, it is clear that the naval formations commanders will sometimes find it very difficult to solicit “their” aircraft from the VCS, especially if the VKS themselves find themselves in difficult circumstances. For these reasons, sea-launched missile aircraft should be part of the fleet, not the VKS. Of course, it will be necessary to train naval commanders in the combat use of aviation, to make them competent in its tactics, in order to rule out incompetent decisions of commanders who have left the crew. But in general, the need for naval subordination of this kind of troops is not in doubt.

We must not be deceived and complacent. The revival of Russia's military power, lost in the post-Soviet chaos, is far from over. There are catastrophic gaps in our defenses, especially in terms of repelling a strike from the sea. Unfortunately, the voices of the supporters of "ground thinking" are heard more and more, demanding to limit the development of the Navy by sending most of the resources to the land army. However Tanks cannot sink ships. And our enemy is superior to us precisely in naval power; on land, the US army will in any case "wash itself with blood" in the fight against the Russian army. And the Anglo-Saxons will not come to the ground war. The restoration of naval missile-carrying aviation will be a powerful defense against attacks from the sea for both our country and its allies. Taking into account the fact that Russia has all the components necessary for its creation, it is necessary to begin its creation immediately. Otherwise, crises like the Syrian will continue again and again. Our weakness provokes the enemy to attack. It is necessary to return the power that protected us in the past.
Author:
Photos used:
Air Force of India
57 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx April 17 2018 06: 02
    +14
    The revival of Russia's military power, lost in the post-Soviet chaos, is far from over. There are catastrophic gaps in our defenses ...

    What an interesting thought. Is there any certainty that the post-Soviet chaos is over? This was suggested by the report to the deputies of the State Duma of the RF Prime Minister Medvedev? Well, objective reality. To raise industry in the USSR in the early period, that state whose power and potential suddenly became the basis for the nowhere-occupied states of the Russian oligarchs, Joseph Stalin forged swords and screamed at industrial sites. What can be reforged now? Mordashov’s yachts, yachts, usman on missile cruisers? Private planes on the Su-57?
    Dream, dream ... repeat
  2. Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 April 17 2018 07: 13
    +2
    But the Tu-22m is not suitable for these purposes, can it take 6 Onyxes by weight?
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri April 17 2018 08: 58
      +2
      Tu-22M3 has only three suspension points and they are very specific.
      MPU is in the belly - it is under the X-15 sharpened, and the Onyx is longer. Upgrade required.
    2. timokhin-aa
      April 17 2018 10: 06
      +1
      They are not produced in series, and there is no money in the country. And so it was possible to use the Tu-160, it would be able to release 12 "Onyxes".
      But it is necessary to stretch the legs on clothes.
      1. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri April 24 2018 23: 39
        0
        The MPU of the Tu-95MS and Tu-160, again, under the Onyx, are not suitable. Only for the X-55 / 555/101 line
      2. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri April 24 2018 23: 40
        0
        Tu-22M3 modernize, by the way, with the replacement of avionics and other things. in Tu-22M3M
    3. Bratkov Oleg
      Bratkov Oleg April 24 2018 20: 58
      -1
      The author of the article does not take into account that the Anglo-Saxons are excellent liars, and the world's first liars. The United States never flew into space until 1971, but they prove with foam at the mouth that they were on the moon ... An exceptionally deceitful and vile race. Therefore, the unsinkability must be treated as the statements of false Americans, and no more.
  3. meandr51
    meandr51 April 17 2018 08: 32
    +8
    Very reasonable article. But without a mobilization economy, it is unlikely that it will succeed. Why shouldn't the military take the trouble of rebuilding the USSR? It is in their interest. Liberal politics will lead to the elimination of the state and the army.
    1. Victor N
      Victor N April 17 2018 08: 57
      +7
      What is the point of restoring that which itself has collapsed? There are still no serious studies on the economic history of the degradation of the USSR. NO!
      Even journalism is embarrassed to describe how the "valiant" enterprises of the military-industrial complex with the most advanced technological equipment went bankrupt, were unable to survive, that the leaders, engineers, labor collectives were helpless and stupid.
      So do not recreate, you need to build a new Russia!
      1. meandr51
        meandr51 April 17 2018 09: 16
        +7
        There is no evidence that "collapsed itself." Precisely because there are no well-known studies. There is research, but they are silent. For example, the voluminous work of S. Kara-Murza "Soviet Civilization". But it is full of predominantly unfounded allegations of a propaganda nature, discrediting socialism and communist ideology. In the same 1989, the same processes of "perestroika" took place simultaneously in the PRC as in the USSR. Then the Chinese military helped the CCP get rid of the traitors and the paths of our countries diverged. Don't want to compare the results? What do you think would be in China now with a multi-party "democratic" system?
        As for the helplessness of the defense industry enterprises, the Mercedes without a steering wheel and gasoline will also not be far away ...
      2. Vlad Petrov
        Vlad Petrov April 17 2018 16: 08
        +4
        The military-industrial complex really were high-class enterprises before EBN, the pinnacle of technological progress! Leaders, engineers, labor collectives were excellent, highly skilled workers. They simply stopped paying salaries, destroyed the state plan, the social economy. It was a planned CIA operation in the Central Committee of the CPSU. Rotted head and all.
      3. uskrabut
        uskrabut April 17 2018 16: 47
        +3
        Quote: Victor N
        how the "valiant" defense industry enterprises with the most advanced technological equipment went bankrupt

        One well-known character by the name of Anatoly can tell about this in detail (not to be confused with Serdyukov - this is from a different fairy tale), he then made every effort to “reform” the Soviet military-industrial complex.
      4. Flyer_64
        Flyer_64 April 17 2018 21: 31
        0
        Quote: Victor N
        What is the point of restoring that which itself has collapsed?

        If the design is capital and high-quality, it can stand for centuries if it is not destroyed. And if you destroy it, then it can’t stand it for a year.
  4. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri April 17 2018 08: 56
    0
    Su-34 would have come too. Especially if you recall the long-standing modification of the Su-32FN
    1. timokhin-aa
      April 17 2018 10: 08
      +1
      What for? It is worse than Su-30, even as a drummer, its only plus is 4 tons of armor, but they will not save from an anti-aircraft missile. The rest is bare minus, the bomb load is less, the ability to conduct air combat after the start of the missile defense is worse.
      1. ZVO
        ZVO April 17 2018 13: 20
        +4
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        What for? It is worse than Su-30, even as a drummer, its only plus is 4 tons of armor, but they will not save from an anti-aircraft missile. The rest is bare minus, the bomb load is less, the ability to conduct air combat after the start of the missile defense is worse.


        Although I put you a plus, but I disagree.
        Air battle for the plane. whose main combat mission is to launch an anti-ship missile - nonsense.
        Moreover, the launch of missiles should be massive, at least 3-5 dozen at a time. To at least somehow have hope for the "redemption" of the aug order.
        In such a situation, conducting air combat before launching missiles is unrealistic due to the suspension of a heavy anti-ship missile.

        Or do you think that they launched rockets and, well, let's drive the Hornets and Penguins?
        No, that doesn't happen.
        Or flies or cutlets.
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 17 2018 15: 06
          +3
          What's the problem? In the USA, the Hokai radio horizon from 9000 meters is 600 km. At this point they will spot ours. But deck "Hornet" to meet with them to fly there about ten minutes in the most ideal version. And if the duty four is far away, then fly longer. In such conditions, our time to launch the missiles first. The capacity of the Su-30 to the maximum is 10 tons. That is, you can carry Onyx, two PTB, and on the remaining suspension nodes of the air-to-air missile. The problem is only pilots to train both as drummers and fighters. But since they are in the Navy, they will only be engaged in the exercises, accordingly, everything will work out.
        2. Bratkov Oleg
          Bratkov Oleg April 24 2018 21: 02
          -1
          Do not dozens of missiles there! The unsinkability of an aircraft carrier is US propaganda. Thirsty, deceitful Americans praise their way of life, and on the example of politically isolated countries show how they will be cracked down and punished. Libya, yes, punished. Iraq was isolated, punished. But they were never on the moon, and finally flew into space for the first time in 1971! They took you to a show off, and you believed these show-offs.
  5. konstantin68
    konstantin68 April 17 2018 09: 04
    +5
    In my opinion, the article is very realistic. Especially regarding the modern real combat capabilities of the Navy. I think that the concept of installing anti-ship missiles on high-speed and low-cost media is currently being implemented ("Dagger" as an example). It’s up to the small one to stop plundering the military (and not only) budget and to really engage in increasing the combat capabilities of the Navy. And we will succeed! At the very least, create an instrument to counter the enemy’s AHG to cover at least their own shores and release our carriers to strike positions in the threatened period.
    1. meandr51
      meandr51 April 17 2018 09: 18
      +2
      Well, how can one not steal under the official ideology of individualism and egoism? Honest people are considered fools.
    2. Bratkov Oleg
      Bratkov Oleg April 24 2018 21: 04
      -1
      And you directly saw yourself, with your own eyes, how they steal? Or the white bellies whispered in your ear, and now you run around and shout: "Putin is a thief! Putin is a thief!" ?
  6. avia12005
    avia12005 April 17 2018 09: 10
    +3
    Here it is necessary to create the Air Army of the High Command. 1-2 carrier divisions RCC, 1 division of the AI ​​for their cover, part of the ZRV to cover airfields. But worth the candle worth it.
    1. Waterfowl
      Waterfowl April 17 2018 12: 44
      +3
      Quote: avia12005
      Here it is necessary to create the Air Army of the High Command. 1-2 carrier divisions RCC, 1 division of the AI ​​for their cover, part of the ZRV to cover airfields. But worth the candle worth it.

      Fighters should be in hangars, and not wing to wing, as we have.
  7. alex aircraft
    alex aircraft April 17 2018 09: 44
    +2
    What prevents to restore at least the Tu-22m3 to the flight condition that are listed on the storage bases? Or is it not realistic anymore ??
    1. timokhin-aa
      April 17 2018 10: 09
      +1
      Already unreal, and even if it were real, it would be inconceivably expensive. And Su-30 is a budget solution.
  8. Salomet
    Salomet April 17 2018 10: 03
    +6
    The topic is correct and convincingly stated.
    There are true cons:
    1. Creating a new type of troops is counterproductive. The Russian Federation is following the path of combined arms combat and any division is likely to lead to confusion and bureaucracy. An example of WWII when neighboring fronts did not share aviation. The second example of NATO and multinational forces. Forgive me, but this is a general trend in the improvement of the interaction of all branches of the armed forces, and you must agree that it has a basis, especially with an eye on a network-centric war. Eradicate "I will not give !!! Mine !!!" it’s easier than later to coordinate the supply and grids of service and merit (sorry, but not yet a war and you don’t attract people and pilots it is not known where and on what conditions).
    2. I do not agree that support is being conducted because the carrier cannot fight back.
    Su-30 in the version of the author should not be distracted from the attack of the target. Ideally, escorts bind patrols in battle, and carriers attack the target and either quickly leave the zone or “help” the escort, depending on the result.
    3. I dare to suggest that the modular design of ships, platforms based on "Almaty" is a general trend in the military-industrial complex and the platform for the RCC will be chosen correctly. To modify a plane, it’s not necessary to rewind it with a wire and stick it on scotch tape; at the initial stage, military equipment is already fully compressed.
    4. As a platform, I would rather look towards the Su-57 and MiG-31.
    the ability to fly at supersonic sound in the first (without afterburner), and the speed of approach with the goal in the second, I think the pluses. hi
    1. Shopping Mall
      Shopping Mall April 17 2018 16: 36
      0
      From the suspended CRP, the supersonic speed is not a fact that will remain. MIG-31 has a smaller radius of action, for Dagger missiles, with a declared range of 2000 km this is not critical, but for the range 300-500 km already matters.
      1. Salomet
        Salomet April 17 2018 16: 44
        +3
        I agree 50 \ 50 Mig carried at least 2 V-B missiles with non-acid resistance in the state, I think the container will pull.
        I do not pretend to be true, You can consider the Su-34, electronic warfare systems are not superfluous. Even so, I think that the anti-ship missiles will be carried close to the water. The author is right here, and I think the launches will be from 200-250 km. Everyone relies on AWACS, but even against the background of the waves, he does not see everything well, plus air patrols do not fly 1000 km from the carrier. It would be wiser to hear the opinion of people.
        As an example, the Falklands were remembered there, most of the effective attacks were from a shaver. Exosets were also launched from a height of about 50m. hi
      2. timokhin-aa
        April 17 2018 20: 24
        -1
        So the Tu-22M with two missiles already have no supersonic sound.

        Yes, he did not need much.
  9. Stalnov I.P.
    Stalnov I.P. April 17 2018 10: 16
    +1
    A good article, one question arises, and our industry will be able to solve it when the Soviet Union did it, due to the planned conduct of the national economy, strict centralization, severe discipline in the military-industrial complex, with the current mess and professionalism, honesty, discipline, corruption in all branches of government it is simply not possible, we need a new economy, we need a new socially just state, when POWER is for the PEOPLE, and not for a handful close to the body. Then the creation of such forces will be quick and efficient.
  10. Operator
    Operator April 17 2018 10: 37
    +2
    The author overslept everything in the world: naval missile-carrying aircraft - FSO.

    It was replaced by the universal ARC "Dagger", which has the modernization potential in terms of increasing the range to 3000 km (when using the two-stage Iskander of the Volga type).

    For comparison: the flight range "Tomahawk" - 1600 km, JASSM-ER - 980 km.

    And at a distance from 3000 to 20000 km along the AUG, Vanguard works.
  11. Al Capone
    Al Capone April 17 2018 11: 17
    +5
    the first stage is to put shuvalov nabiulins and other bastard against the wall of the chubais of curly grefof shuvalov nabiulin ... and then you can already dream what to do next
  12. NordUral
    NordUral April 17 2018 12: 23
    +3
    It is necessary to return socialism and the red flag with a sickle and a hammer. Then everything will be simply decided, even if it will be difficult to get out of the liberal trash.
    1. Lock36
      Lock36 April 17 2018 23: 08
      +2
      Yes, Grudinin and Zyuganov will definitely lead us to victory under the banner of Khrushchev-Gorbachev!
  13. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 17 2018 13: 00
    +5
    Front-line (tactical) fighters in the "marine" version? You can try! If you have the "suitable" weapons! Question: where to get the "sea" pilots? Answer: if the proposal for the "revival of naval missile-carrying aviation" acquires the status of the naval doctrine of the Russian Federation, training centers for retraining pilots are created under this doctrine. Legislative acts in the field of military jurisprudence are also adopted. Under these acts, air force and air defense pilots "regularly-periodically" pass training, gain experience in the relevant training centers for initial training and advanced training of "sea" pilots. Thus, without a significant increase in the number of flight personnel of the Navy, in Russia Real estate Rent reserve "sea" pilots ... if not aces, but a "reserve wartime" is quite suitable ...
    PS I think that the development of “specialized”, “airborne” PC missiles is not put forward to the 2 place and not to the 1 place “solely.” Anti-ship missile weapons should share (!) The 1 place along with the preparation reserve of "sea" pilots ... that is, it is all equally important!
  14. Radikal
    Radikal April 17 2018 14: 42
    +3
    meandr51 (Andrey) Today, 09:16 ↑ New
    There is no evidence that "collapsed itself."
    More precisely, on the contrary - there is evidence that it was not collapsed .... winked
  15. Alex_59
    Alex_59 April 17 2018 16: 05
    +6
    I put a plus. For a long time already obvious things. Moreover, in the near sea zone, aviation should become the main tool of the Navy (as it would not be offensive to navigators and amateurs of naval personnel). In the near sea zone, aviation solves any problems faster and more efficiently than ships, with the exception of a number of special tasks, such as mine action or landing with heavy equipment. Partially still PLO, but PLO is again more effectively solved in the near zone by a stationary system similar to the NATO SOSUS. More border patrol functions. Air defense, strike capabilities, mobility, the ability to maneuver between DB theaters, reaction speed - all is better with aviation. Even during the Second World War, aviation became the main striking force of the Navy, only after the Second World War for some reason, these lessons were forgotten.
    The only “but” - ideally, the aircraft prepared for deck based, i.e. having design improvements allowing to land on an aircraft carrier in case such a need arises. They may not carry the means of landing, but their quick installation should be provided by the design of the aircraft. Then there will be complete unification. If we once have aircraft carriers, the fleet will already have ready-made planes and crews. And in the event of hostilities and losses of the aircraft carrier’s wing, if necessary, it can be replenished with any Navy aircraft from the coast.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 17 2018 18: 42
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      The only “but” - ideally, the aircraft prepared for deck based, i.e. having design improvements allowing to land on an aircraft carrier in case such a need arises.

      To do this, you first need to decide on the pony chain of the future AB. smile
      If we make the traditional AB CATOBAR - then yes, the Navy's MRA can be equipped with deck vehicles - because in this case there will be full-fledged heavy multi-purpose aircraft on the decks.
      If we once again let's go the other way and we’ll build another TAVKR with blackjack ... uh, that is, with a springboard and light cars - then such aircraft are not needed in MRA. They either will not reach the launch range, or they will not be able to bear the load sufficient to break through the AUG air defense.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 April 17 2018 20: 24
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        To do this, you first need to decide on the pony chain of the future AB.

        OMG! Why did I even mention Avik))))
        Quote: Alexey RA
        If once again we go the other way and build another TAVKR with blackjack ... uh, that is, with a springboard and light cars - then such aircraft are not needed in MRA. They either will not reach the launch range, or they will not be able to bear the load sufficient to break through the AUG air defense.

        I proceed from the principle of gradual satisfaction of needs by analogy with the Maslow pyramid. In any case, we need coastal aviation. She needs strong and in conditioned quantities. Because if we do not dominate in the coastal strip and in the Baltic-Black Sea puddles, then there is no point in climbing further from such a staggering stool. Hence the conclusion - at first the coastal MPA, and therefore already whistles, farts, blackjack and opera singers. Therefore, Avik must be built so that the MPA can land and take off. Conclusion - if we do avik then do it normal, albeit a smaller number but so that avik so avik.
  16. NF68
    NF68 April 17 2018 16: 43
    +1
    Catching up with those that have gone far ahead is always not easy. And it costs a lot and a lot. But at least something to do is still necessary.
  17. Flyer_64
    Flyer_64 April 17 2018 21: 49
    +1
    Question to the author, why are you considering Su-30SM, M2 to restore MPA. If you know the tactics of MRA, then at least two divisions with Su-30 planes will be needed to deal with ship strike groups. Well, on the ships of the Black Sea Fleet there are other means of destruction for the fight against the Kugs, and not just Caliber.
    The question of the revival of the MRA, is a question of the revival of the whole AI of the Navy in those subspecies that were at the time of the collapse of the Union. The experience of the Second World War showed that most of the sunk ships were in the MA account. Unfortunately, after Gorshkov there are no admirals who understand the importance of AI Navy. Therefore, the revival of the MPA will not be, and maybe not at all.
    1. timokhin-aa
      April 18 2018 18: 48
      -1
      Quote: Letun_64
      If you know the MRA's tactics, then at least two divisions with Su-30 aircraft will be necessary to fight ship attack forces.


      Not necessarily two divisions. If there is a joint attack by the forces of the submarine, the warships, and of the planes, then it is not a fact that there are two divisions. Still looking at what states these divisions will have.
      Well and as a last resort, we will have these two divisions.

      Quote: Letun_64
      Well, on the ships of the Black Sea Fleet to fight against the KUGs there are other means of destruction, and not just Caliber.


      Well, what? Cannons what?

      Quote: Letun_64

      The question of the revival of the MRA, is a question of the revival of the whole AI of the Navy in those subspecies that were at the time of the collapse of the Union. The experience of the Second World War showed that most of the sunk ships were in the MA account. Unfortunately, after Gorshkov there are no admirals who understand the importance of AI Navy. Therefore, the revival of the MPA will not be, and maybe not at all.


      Here, unfortunately, I agree. The admirals really don't understand. Naval aviation is now a frankly pitiful sight, missile-carrying is not at all, assault is obviously unable to perform the tasks for which it is intended, the anti-submarine is already on its knees.
      Worse than her only deck.

      But at least we can shout it at all angles. Maybe someone will hear.
      1. Flyer_64
        Flyer_64 April 18 2018 19: 31
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well, on the ships of the Black Sea Fleet there are other means of destruction for fighting the Kugs, and not just Caliber ..... Well, what? Guns or what?

        I don’t know how competent you are in this topic, so I won’t tell you the basics of building various ship groupings. I’ll inform you that the Kugs of the Black Sea Fleet include ships armed with Malachites and Mosquitoes. Of course, the firing range is not the same as that of Caliber, ships armed with them are effective and not such a simple target for the enemy. The effectiveness of RTOs, and the rest of the ships increases if they receive target designation. The Navy has so far been armed with the Ka-31, although according to the research firing of the MRK pr1239, when targeting with a Ka-27ps helicopter (the radar is more powerful than the sub), the probability of hitting the target with the first missile is close to 1. Similarly with pr. 1234 with only two missiles. But the fleet also had TsU planes. I do not agree with the assessment of MA. At the moment, the attack and fighter aircraft of the MA are more or less consistent with the mission in tactical terms. Everything else as you described.
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 20 2018 20: 37
          -1
          Quote: Letun_64
          I do not know how competent you are in this subject, so I will not tell you the basics of building various ship groupings. I bring you that the structure of the Kugov BSF includes ships armed with Malachite and Mosquitoes

          The Black Sea Fleet is: RKR Moscow (not capable), frigates 11356 (8 on Calibres on each), three rarities - TFR "Pytlivy", TFR "Ladny" (both do not carry RCC), TFR "Sharp" , instead of PKR dummy PU "Uranus").
          Everything, dear. No on the Black Sea Fleet ships with these missiles.
          There are no more ships of the far sea zone on the Black Sea Fleet.
          There are missile boats, but during the battle in the Sirte Bay the Americans dealt with such boats, and there is no reason why they could not repeat it.
          In addition, the excitement of the sea can easily deprive them of the ability to use weapons. And yes, this is the last reserve of coastal defense, no one will be able to withdraw them at once - even in order to sink one destroyer more. So, your ideas about bringing small rocket ships to the Mediterranean and sending them to attack against AUG, to put it mildly, are far from reality.
          We lose in the Mediterranean, than to defend in the Black?

          Quote: Letun_64
          But the fleet still had planes for the control center. I do not agree with the assessment of AI. At the moment, MA assault and fighter aircraft more or less correspond to their mission in tactical terms. Everything else as you described.


          There are no airplanes for the headquarters in the Black Sea Fleet. This Tu-142, use them in such puddles is too much.
          Fighter aviation is a hodgepodge of Su-27 and MiG-31, as a rule, not modernized, few new aircraft.
          The assault regiments in the modern war mean something only to those who re-equipped the Su-30 - and only when they are given bombs "drill" and small cruise missiles, not earlier.
          Everything is bad with us naval aviation.
  18. nikoliski
    nikoliski April 19 2018 03: 49
    0
    The author, in all seriousness, believes that we can recreate the lost hundreds of cars cut into scrap metal under Yeltsin? Kazan plant annually produces one Tu-160! one carl! industry killed completely, and tanks? they shouted about 2200 armatures, then cautious numbers of 100-200 vehicles appeared, and now it turns out that the t-90s were again being produced (under Gorbachev in 1988, the Soviet military-industrial complex issued record-breaking 3500 tanks "on the mountain" and this is in one year!) while the industry they will not restore, they will not return all Siberian Aluminum and Norilsk Nickels to the hands of the state, we will continue to weave behind the caravan like a dying donkey. The plant producing Almaty turned out to be a pre-bankrupt, because some bank demanded some money from it, can you imagine the scale of all the manipulations there? This should not be a priori, what debts ?: In a normal state (China, for example), these bankers would be shot right there (who by the way turned out to be Jews born in Ukraine, maybe they wanted to bankrupt a specialist) In general, now we need Stalin, who will shoot and shoot and shoot all these Judas again, yesterday’s example- the turbine that Rusnano made to replace turbines Siemens crumbled in tests, now they don’t know what to do, in Russia they can’t make a super-powerful gas turbine, Chubais would have been shot for wrecking a hundred times under Stalin, and under Putin, he only changes his warm posts — is he a freemason of such a high degree of dedication that Putin does not dare even touch him? or if not, then the conclusion suggests itself that there is one gang-watering can ... Serdyukov under Stalin would not have been shot even for theft, but simply because he allowed such a thing in his department ...
    1. Lock36
      Lock36 April 19 2018 12: 42
      0
      Quote: nikoliski
      under Gorbachev in 1988, the Soviet military-industrial complex issued a record 3500 tanks "on the mountain" and this is in one year!

      Why do we need 3500 tanks a year now? What will we do with them? To put on d / x?
      Hand out for free?
      What's the point?
      1. nikoliski
        nikoliski April 19 2018 21: 02
        -1
        I wrote it just as an example of the power of the military-industrial complex of the USSR, and now we can’t even release a hundred valves per year, do you understand the difference?
        1. Lock36
          Lock36 April 19 2018 22: 12
          +1
          I understand that military spending should be reasonable.
          IMHO, the current leadership of the Russian Federation is an order of magnitude more adequate than the entire post-Stalin leadership of the USSR combined.
    2. timokhin-aa
      April 20 2018 20: 38
      -1
      You missed medication, don't do it anymore, please.
  19. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 April 20 2018 13: 14
    0
    Or maybe you just need to revive the fleet?
    1. timokhin-aa
      April 20 2018 20: 39
      -1
      No money left. And aviation is stronger than ships.
      1. Lock36
        Lock36 April 21 2018 11: 31
        0
        What the war in the Pacific showed.
        1. timokhin-aa
          April 22 2018 11: 00
          -1
          And not only she.
  20. Sergey Freeman
    Sergey Freeman April 22 2018 09: 13
    +1
    not being a specialist in this field, I can only say that the voiced thoughts that planes are cheaper than ships are 100% correct. Therefore, the task is simple:
    1. Modernization of aircraft carriers
    2. The increase in the range of missiles and the modernization of their characteristics in terms of missile defense and intelligence
    3. Improving command and control of the troops and restoring aviation infrastructure on the shore (base)
    It is hoped that these questions have long been dealt with, but specialists must answer this.
    Well, if the big and the main thing, then you need a lot of modern submarines of a fundamentally new type. Together, this would be the most effective response to the Americans.
    1. timokhin-aa
      April 22 2018 11: 01
      -1
      Quote: Sergey Freeman
      It is hoped that these questions have long been dealt with, but specialists must answer this.


      So far there are not many signs of this.
  21. Protos
    Protos 7 October 2019 13: 36
    0
    The article is rotten by the end of 2018 ... hi
  22. Protos
    Protos 7 October 2019 14: 33
    0
    Quote: Protos
    The article is rotten by the end of 2018 ... hi

    In Crimea, in 2018, there were enough CD carriers in our country!