Ship-arsenal against aircraft carrier
Bloody oil
14 January 1991, the Red Sea includes a strike force of the US Navy, which includes the 2 of the newest warships of the Arsenal type. The grouping takes a position on the beam of the village. El-Wajh (Saudi Arabia) 1000 km from the border with Iraq. 17 January, at midnight GMT (at 3 hours of the night Baghdad time), the military machine of multinational forces is activated - the operation "Desert Storm" begins.
... System Status Indicators weapons blood-red lights were lit. The commander and the senior officer of the ship turned the start keys - the missiles stood on a combat platoon. The Tomahawks' 500 guidance systems woke up, the starting point coordinates flowed to their onboard computers (target coordinates and digital “pictures” of previously filmed areas of the area along the flight route are entered into the memory of the Togmagawks in advance).
- Start! - hundreds of rockets, one after another, soar upwards, the flashes of the torches of their engines are hellishly reflected on the surface of the Red Sea. Starting accelerators raise the "Tomahawks" to a three-hundred-meter height. There, on the descending branch of the launch site with a length of 4 km, wing consoles open up, air intakes are advanced, cruise engines are activated. Cruise missiles, guided by a semi-inertial guidance system, fall on a given course.
Here is the coast of Saudi Arabia. At an altitude of 20 meters at a speed of 880 km/h, Tomahawks enter the first correction area. Airborne radars come alive Robots-kamikazes compare the received data with the satellite "pictures" of the underlying relief stored in their memory.
... Packs of "Battle axes" rumble over deserted stone wastelands of the Great Nefud desert. Saudi air defense periodically sees flashes on radar screens, but it is not possible to establish steady contact with low-flying targets. The Saudis warned of the impending attack and graciously opened their airspace for the passage of cruise missiles.
... 40 flight minutes, under the wing of the territory of Iraq. The fuel tanks are half empty - the speed of the order of the better “Tomahawks” passes for 1000 km / h. The rocket packs are divided, and the Tomahawks, invulnerable to Iraqi HPE, are pursuing their goals one by one.
The main danger to the Coalition is represented by the Iraqi air defense radar stations, air defense missile launchers, nuclear and chemical weapons production centers; airfields and military bases, fuel depots, launching positions of Scud tactical missiles. Rocket attacks on command centers and communications hubs destroyed the control system of the Iraqi army. Saddam Hussein and his generals lost control of the situation.
Subsequent waves of the Tomahawks struck important Iraqi industrial facilities, demolished power plants and set fire to oil wells ... After a week of missile blitzkrieg, Iraq agreed to comply with all the requirements of the UN resolution, Saddam Hussein’s troops left Kuwaiti territory ...
Of course, all this is just a parody of the “War in the Gulf”, nothing like this in reality could not and could not happen in the winter of the year 1991. Warships of the Arsenal type do not exist. Nonetheless, it was Operation Desert Storm that once again inspired dreams of such a missile system.
Arsenal-ship project
It is reliably known that work in this direction has been conducted in the USSR since the beginning of the 70s. On the dusty shelves of the Nevsky PKB archive, drawings of the 1080 Ave. missile cruiser were discovered - a kind of attempt to create an analogue of American aircraft carrier strike groups as a means of solving political problems in local conflict zones.
On the Soviet cruiser, the 200 tactical missiles Elbrus-M were supposed to be placed in four 50-charging vertical launchers (it is important not to get confused - the famous Elbrus R-17 liquid-propellant missile, the GRAU 8K14 index has no relation to 1080. ). As a result, the ship had an unusual architecture with two superstructures spaced to the bow and stern and a smooth deck in the middle. The 1080 X-NUMX armament complex included X-NUMX X-NUMX artillery systems X-NUMX caliber mm, Dagger anti-aircraft missile defense system and two AK-2 battery-cutter batteries. In the stern part they planned to place a helicopter hangar and a runway. With a full displacement of 726 76 tons, the travel speed reached 630 nodes. The only catch is that there was no operational tactical complex Elbrus-M with a range of 16 km. It was just a dream.
In the middle of the 90s, the heads of the American admirals suddenly came up with the idea of creating a cheap ship with monstrous strike power. When creating "ships-arsenals", the Americans went even further than Soviet designers: "To hell with all unnecessary systems! The only combat task is to launch rocket attacks on the shore. ”
According to the Jesuit plan of its creators, the most important and expensive element of the “ship-arsenal” is its rocket weapon. As soon as the ship shoots all its Tomahawks' ammunition, it loses its combat value, turning into a self-propelled barge, which makes its subsequent destruction senseless for the enemy. Is ingenious? Assessing the prospects of this approach, engineers began to develop the idea:
First, it was decided not to equip the “arsenal ship” with the most complex combat information and control system “Aegis” - the target designation of the ship was to be received from external sources - DRLO planes and space satellites. In addition to a radical reduction in the cost of the entire system, this made it possible to abandon the developed superstructure with cumbersome antenna devices, which made the hull of the “ship-arsenal” extremely low and flat.
Secondly, on the basis of paragraph 1, when designing, a bet was made on stealth. Stealth technologies, which are based on elementary technical solutions (after all, everything ingenious is simple) made it possible to create an “invisible” ship. “Smooth” deck, on which only the most necessary equipment remains, a wide and low superstructure “from side to side”, gaps having a “saw-like” shape, parallelism of most surfaces and hull lines, radio absorbing coatings, known since 50's long time ago until the stealth program.
Some of the developers went even further by proposing such truly original ideas as the nose- “breakwater” (which allowed the “ship-arsenal” not to climb the crests of the waves), piled up “inside” of the board (as a result, the radio waves reflected in the sky, but not on the water surface, which under normal conditions gives a complicated interference pattern unmasking the ship). All this, in theory, made the "ship-arsenal" virtually indistinguishable at the border of two environments.
Third, in accordance with the concept of radical cost reduction, the “arsenal ship” was armed with exclusively cruise missiles (there were 500 “Tomahawks” in vertical launchers). Placement of any other weapon was not supposed!
Thanks to the “simplifications” and the high automation of all systems, the crew of the “ship-arsenal”, according to calculations, did not exceed 20 people.
The total cost of this offshore launch platform was within 1,5 billion dollars, and the cost of the ship itself did not exceed 800 million, the remaining 700 ... 800 million fell on Tomahawk missiles.
So what is the result? The US Navy received a unique ship, which has no equal in firepower? And the creators of the “ship-arsenal” were awarded the Medal of Congress for their outstanding contribution to the country's defense capability?
October 24 1997, when planning the budget for the 1998 fiscal year, the Arsenal project was denied funding. The development team was dispersed, and the results of their research, which cost the 35 budget millions of dollars (not a very large amount by the Pentagon standards), were transferred to the Bath Iron Works and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding corporations, which are developing the new generation destroyer of the project DD-21 (" Zumwalt ”).
So what is the reason for such an inglorious collapse of a brilliant project? Underestimated? Or did Arsenal become the victim of undercover intrigues in the Pentagon? What were the developers wrong? We will try to answer these questions today.
Bloody oil. Reality
14 January 1991 of the Red Sea includes the US Navy carrier strike system, consisting of 2 AUG: CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt and CV-66 America. The grouping takes a position on the beam of the village. El-Wajh (Saudi Arabia) 1000 km from the border with Iraq. 17 January, at midnight GMT (at 3 hours of the night Baghdad time), the military machine of multinational forces is activated - the operation "Desert Storm" begins.
On the first day of the war aviation multinational forces performed 1300 sorties; the number of Tomahawks issued on the first day is 114 units.
In total, for the period of the 30-day campaign, aviation performed more than 70 000 sorties (of which 12 000 sorties fell on deck-based aircraft). At the same time, the number of launches of "Tomahawks" according to different data ranges from 700 to 1000 pieces. (total 1% from aviation actions)!
Here are other amazing numbers: the mass of the Tomahawk warhead is 450 kg. Those. in 30 days, cruise missiles delivered to targets 0,45 x 1000 = 450 tons of ammunition. At the same time, the deck aircraft wing of one aircraft carrier, on average, unloaded 1700 tons of bombs and precision weapons on the heads of Iraqis a day!
In other words, the participation of “smart and scary” cruise missiles in Operation Desert Storm was almost symbolic. Complicated and expensive "Tomahawks" can be used for strikes on key air defense posts, as well as on the most important military installations, well protected from air strikes. To impose on them all the tasks of aviation is too expensive, inefficient and unreliable.
Key errors of the "ship-arsenal" developers
Attentive readers have probably already guessed what I am talking about: the cost of a “cheap” arsenal ship, on closer inspection, becomes simply enormous.
The cost of the Tomahawk cruise missile is 1 500 000 dollars. Yes, it is 1,5 million. Warhead - 450 kg, can be presented in semi-slaughter, high-explosive, cassette or even nuclear.
At the same time, the cost of one hour of flight of the deck attack aircraft, depending on the type of vehicle, ranges from 10 to 15 thousand dollars. And the cost of an hour’s flight of a small F-16 Block 52 is even less — about 7000 dollars.
We have not considered something? The cost of the aircraft itself is sometimes very high - 55 million dollars for the F / A-18 SuperHornet. But the F / A-18 is designed for 2000 landings on deck. Hence, it is easy to calculate that the depreciation for each attack aircraft flight is 55 million / 2000 = 27500 dollars. It is a decent amount.
Below are the cost of the most common ammunition:
- Here is a 227 kg laser-guided GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bombshell. Baby worth 19 000 dollars.
- Much more serious ammunition - heavy 900 kg guided bomb GBU-24 - cost 55 000 dollars.
- One of the most expensive aviation ammunition for “local wars” is the tactical planning bomb AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon. A stealth 700 kg, dropped from a great height, can fly 60 miles. Warhead contains 450 kg of explosives. The cost of gizmos ranges from 280 000 to 700 000 dollars, depending on the "stuffing". But! It is still several times less than the cost of "Tomahawk."
Of course, our calculations are very approximate, but the general tendency is easy to guess - the use of cruise missiles like the Tomahawk is justified only in exceptional cases. Rocket launching is much more expensive than the combat departure of the aircraft.
Someone may add that expensive planes tend to fall and crash, and pilots sometimes miss targets. Well, the rocket "Tomahawk" is also no different mind and ingenuity.
The next important point is that aviation has much greater flexibility of application; there are hundreds of combat load combinations for combat aircraft. Finally, aviation can strike from the “airborne alert” position, which is absolutely impossible for a one-time cruise missile.
Finally, the objective shortcomings of "ships-arsenals":
- 500 cruise missiles - too little for "local war"
- The “arsenal ship” is defenseless against any means of destruction, and an attempt to equip it with powerful self-defense systems leads to the loss of the “arsenal ship” meaning, turning it into an expensive heavy missile cruiser
- extremely low survivability, 500 huge rockets are not protected by anything, and the crew’s 20 are unlikely to be able to cope with an emergency on their own
Having considered all the pros and cons, the American admirals with horror and disgust recoiled from the project of the ship-arsenal: a monstrously expensive, not effective and extremely vulnerable means of striking the coast.
Nevertheless, currently there are several types of warships, which with a stretch can be called "arsenal ship". For example, the Russian heavy nuclear missile cruiser Peter the Great. Alas, it implements a completely different concept - a gigantic cruiser “to the eyeballs” is saturated with fire weapons and electronic systems, equipped with atomic reactors and has a crew of hundreds in 6. Instead of single-type cruise missiles, the entire range of weapons of our Navy is concentrated on the decks of the Peter.
Another similar case is the upgraded Ohio-type submarines. 22 rocket mines instead of SLBMs are occupied by the Tomahawk 154. Anyway, this is not at all like an “arsenal ship” with 500 missiles on board, especially the upgraded “Ohio” positioned as multifunctional submarines: with a torpedo weapon and a module for combat swimmers. Such a modernization of the "Ohio" - a necessary measure, 4 strategic submarine missile "did not fit" in the START Treaty.
Something reminiscent of the ship-arsenal Aegis-cruisers "Taykonderoga" and Aegis-destroyers "Orly Burk." Alas, on closer inspection, they have more differences than similarities. Of the 90 destroyer launch cells, only 7 eight-charge modules can be charged with Tomahawks (no more than 56 cruise missiles). Moreover, the priority task of these ships is air defense, hence the standard ammunition set of destroyers looks like this: 74 SAM “Standard”, 8 anti-submarine torpedoes and the whole 8 “Tomahawks”.
Simple answers to tough questions.
Probably, I tired the readers with my numbers, so I’ll allow some lyrics now. The very name of the AUG - carrier-based strike force - the fruit of imagination of Soviet translators. The original name of this structure is carrier battle group (combat group with an aircraft carrier) without placing any accents - “shock” or “defensive”. Indeed, AUG is multifunctional, it has a huge impact and defensive potential, has high mobility and is capable of controlling the sea and air situation hundreds of miles from its warrant.
The only unique component of the AOG is an aircraft-carrying ship, and all its destroyers, cruisers and submarines are standard components of any naval fleet, so the question "How much does AUG cost?" - incorrect. It’s more correct to talk about an increase in the costs of the Navy when aircraft carriers are included in its composition.
The AUG is just a tactic, the result of the close interaction of the ships in it. The AUG summarizes the capabilities of all its surface and submarine ships, while all the components of the AUG receive new properties and multiply their fighting qualities. Ships and deck aircraft cover each other, creating a deeply echeloned defense in all directions.
This also gives an answer to another question - why do numerous escorts go everywhere along with the “invincible” aircraft carrier (4-5 destroyers and URO cruisers, as well as several multi-purpose submarines). Weakness aircraft carrier?
By no means. The US Navy only works in a bundle, and really - why should the ships go alone, if you can form a decent squadron? Everyone benefits from this. The aircraft carrier receives an increase in air defense and anti-aircraft defense in the near zone, and escort ships provide cover for deck aircraft. As the Russian proverb says: “There is no warrior alone in the field.”
Perhaps with the development of air defense systems in the near future it will be too risky to appear over the battlefield in the cockpit. Does this imply a reduction in the role of aviation?
The trend is well traced now - increasingly, the tasks of manned aircraft duplicate unmanned aerial vehicles. Primitive RQ-1 Predator 10 has been involved in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for years. The Predator began his career with unpretentious reconnaissance missions, but now the new MQ-1 modifications are already mercilessly beating the Taliban with Hellfire.
2 July 2011 F / A-18 Hornet fighter-bomber landed on the deck of the Eisenhower aircraft in unmanned mode.
Finally, do not forget that 70% of the world's population lives no further than 500 km from the coastline.
Russian way
If Russia wants to become the "mistress of the sea", controlling the situation in all 5 oceans. If Russia wants to become a “world policeman,” projecting its power to anywhere in the world.
If the need arises to continuously monitor US Navy aircraft carrier groups in the oceans (as was the case during the Soviet years), in all these cases it will be necessary to build an ocean fleet, the backbone of which will be aircraft carriers. All other options and "asymmetric answers" are obviously losing. Soviet P-700 Granit missiles were good, but ... they need a Marine Space Intelligence and Targeting System, the operation of which requires half a billion dollars a year (ideally), in reality could well exceed 1 billion!
More information about this issue - http://topwar.ru/12712-sravnenie-stoimosti-avianoscev-i-raketno-kosmicheskih-sistem-protivodeystviya.html
If Russia is ready to limit itself to its “defensive” concept of development of the Armed Forces, then the reader will forgive me for a seditious thought, but maybe the Russian Navy does not need such a powerful tool as an aircraft carrier? The construction of 1-2 aircraft carriers is meaningless, America has 12 units, disproportionately more. Moreover, in this case, the whole meaning of the ocean fleet is lost; without an aircraft carrier, this is pure profanation. There is no need to build cruisers and other large ships. To demonstrate the flag and support the world community in the fight against piracy, a few ships of the frigate and destroyer classes are enough, and to ensure strategic nuclear deterrence - dozens of submarines of the Borey type.
After all, do Russians want war? The answer has always been loud - "No!"
Information