Military Review

TKR "Kuznetsov". Comparison with NATO aircraft carriers. H. 6

65
In this article we will try to deal with the role of the attack rocket weapons on the domestic heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser, as well as with the capabilities provided by the connection of disparate forces to the presence of the Kuznetsov TAKR in the battle against the American "standard" aircraft carrier group.


As you know, TAKR “Admiral fleet Soviet Union Kuznetsov "at birth" was armed with a dozen anti-ship missiles "Granite". The current state of this missile system on the only aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy is not known for certain, most likely it is inoperative and, in this case, is unlikely to be repaired sometime. Therefore, our discussions today about him are probably even more theoretical than usual.



The first thing that I would like to note is, ceteris paribus (this is a very important reservation) a missile strike on a ship’s connection always loses in efficiency to a properly organized air raid. Thanks to the intelligence provided by the AWACS and EW aircraft, attackers have the opportunity to open the composition and construction, course and speed of the enemy warrant and monitor their changes in real time. And this, in turn, allows you to choose the optimal tactics for attacking squadrons and the sequence of their entry into battle. Anti-ship missiles (even taking into account the availability of equipment for mutual data exchange, target distribution algorithms, etc.) are significantly inferior to manned aviation in organizing an attack. This is the first.

The second. The air attack is organized in such a way as to first reveal (force to work) and then suppress (complicate the work) the air defense weapons of the ship's warrant - and only then inflict a decisive blow that destroys and disables enemy ships. For this purpose, a demonstration group is used, attacking the warrant and forcing the ships of the latter to turn on the fire control radar, and then the air defense suppression group enters the battle with the support of the EW group. And only after the air defense of the compound has been partially destroyed, and partially connected by a battle, is the main blow struck. At the same time, a rocket attack cannot work this way. In essence, cruise missiles are forced to deliver the main blow through a completely un-suppressed air defense, which, of course, greatly simplifies the task of the defenders and reduces the effectiveness of the attack.

All this suggests that, (the figures are conditional) the use of 10 anti-radar missiles and 20 PKR "Harpoon" in the course of an air attack will cause enemy orders much more serious losses than could be inflicted by a 30 "Harpoons", launched on a warrant to the maximum radius of action let's say from a few US destroyers.

Nevertheless, in the USSR the stake was made not on carrier-based aircraft, but on heavy missiles, that is, the missile attack was chosen as the main form of destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, domestic military thought sought to compensate for the “innate” flaws of the Soviet anti-ship missiles, giving them opportunities that were not similar to ammunition in service with deck aircraft of the United States.

The bet was made, first of all, on the speed that left the enemy air defense a minimum of time for reaction. As is known, modern manned carrier-based aircraft have a subsonic cruising flight speed, that is, its approach time with the order is sufficiently long. Of course, strike aircraft can do it covertly, “hiding” from the ship’s radar behind the radio horizon, but the problem is that you cannot hide the DRLO plane in this way - it still has to “demonstrate” itself and from that moment the commander of the attacked warrant will know that he has problems, and prepare for them. But the DRLO aircraft must also determine the parameters of the order, the aircraft must reach the lines of attack, which they usually try to carry out from different sides ... All this, of course, requires a certain time. In addition, ammunition used by carrier-based aircraft (anti-ship missiles) are of subsonic speed (although anti-radar missiles fly supersonic).

At the same time, domestic RCCs like the Granita have a cruising supersonic speed, and even very supersonic, reaching 2,5 swings at the height of 14 000 - 17 000 m. Considering the fact that the distance in 100 km such a rocket will overcome slightly less than 2,5 minutes, flight time before departure to low altitudes (of the order of 500 km) takes less than 12 minutes. At the same time, domestic RCC is not such an “obvious” goal. Granit has a diameter of only 85 cm and a wingspan of 2,6 m. If we recall the C-75 missile, then it had a diameter of at least 50 cm and a scale of 2,57 m planes, then in order to bring the ESR of this rocket to 0,75 m2 ., which was necessary when it was altered into target missiles, it had to be equipped with corner reflectors. True, the Granit anti-ship missile complex differed from the C-75 missile defense system with a nose air intake (the missile defense system had a radio transparent fairing), so their direct comparison is most likely incorrect. But let's not forget that the much more massive MiG-21, which had the same nasal air intake as our RCC, but in whose “diameter” the pilot's figure fit, and which had a wingspan of 7,15 m, had not so impressive EPR in 3 sq.m.



Based on the foregoing, it would be quite realistic to assume that the ESR "Granita" is at the level of 1 square meters, although, of course, this is just the author's guesswork.

But in any case, even to find our RCC in flight would not be so easy. But it must also be hit ... The most long-range means of destruction of the atmospheric air threat of American ships - SM-2 Extended Range and SM-6 ERAM have a range of up to 240 km. The detection range of AHSN PKR Granit is up to 80 km, thus, the Granit anti-ship missile fire zone is unlikely to exceed 160-170 km, and this time the missile can overcome in less than 4 minutes. Is it a lot or a little? If you look at the passport TTX American air defense systems, it seems like a lot. But if you recall the incident with the frigate "Stark"? The latter at 21.05 discovered that the combat Iranian aircraft, which had previously laid down a course of rapprochement with the frigate and increased speed, now also “cut in” its airborne radar, which obviously indicated readiness for the attack. And it would be fine if the frigate “overslept” —but after all, the information about the work of the radar station was transmitted by none other than the ship's operator of the radio intelligence station AN / SQL-32. However, in 21.10.05 and in 21.10.30, the ship was successively hit by two Exocset anti-ship missiles. The traps were not fired, the interference was not put on the ship "Vulcan Falans" was not used - that is, warned in advance about a possible attack, the ship, however, for 5 minutes could not realize anything from his arsenal.

It is also necessary to take into account such an aspect - usually, in amateurish modeling of the attack by the “Granites” of the American ship order, by default it is considered that the radars of ships operate in active mode. At the same time, this may not be the case - of course, radio intelligence is actively developing today, and we see that the same Americans prefer to use the passive means of RTR, observing the radio silence mode. Accordingly, it may happen that the AUG will be attacked at the moment when the escort radars do not work in active mode: in this case it’s not important how far the Granit can detect any modification of the AN / SPY-1 radar active mode, and then at what distance the missile salvo can be “opened” by means of electronic reconnaissance. And not the fact that the RTR will cope better, or, at least, as good as radar.

Having discovered an enemy order and having distributed targets, the Granit anti-ship missiles go down beyond the radio horizon and become unobservable for the ship’s radar equipment, and “emerge” because of it already at a distance hardly of a larger 25-30 km, which the rocket overcomes in 50 -60 seconds and intercept it on this leg of the flight is extremely difficult. There are doubts that the Vulkan-Falanx is generally capable of doing this, since its effective range is less than one and a half kilometers (Granit’s flight time is 2 seconds), and even in the case of direct hits on 20-mm missiles, there is a great chance that it is simply out of inertia into the ship. And to destroy the "Granite" in flight is unlikely to succeed, since its combat unit has armor protection.

Thus, the speed of domestic anti-ship missiles significantly reduces the reaction time that remains to the attacked enemy, and the ability to select and distribute targets, the exchange of data between anti-ship missiles, their own EW systems, and armor protection for warheads are designed to reduce the gap in the capabilities of missiles and manned aircraft (to completely overcome it, , impossible).

In general, the Granit PKP are an extremely formidable means of fighting at sea, but they, of course, are not invincible vundervaffe. On the high-altitude section of the trajectory, these anti-ship missiles can be shot down by deck fighters, although this is very difficult, since the time for which interception is to be carried out is extremely limited. The missiles can still be shot down by the air defense missile systems of ships when entering their zone of action and before leaving at low altitudes. During an attack at a low altitude, anti-aircraft missiles “Granit” can also be destroyed specifically targeted at the destruction of such ESSM missiles. But, probably, the most important weapon against anti-ship missiles are not fire weapons, but electronic warfare stations capable of “blinding” their homing heads, as well as false targets.

In the USSR, it was believed that a glut of 20 missiles would be enough for a glut of the AUG air defense system and for disabling the aircraft carrier, but it is impossible to say what this magnitude is in reality. Most likely dozens of anti-ship missiles carried by the Kuznetsov are still not enough for a successful attack of an enemy order, however, if there is a missile cruiser (16 anti-aircraft missile Vulkan or 20 anti-ship missile Granit) in the Russian AMG, these two ships are capable of delivering an 28 strike -32 heavy missiles. It is extremely doubtful that the AUG air defense (even made up of the latest modifications of the “Arly Berkov”) could repel a similar blow.

Thus, the Kuznetsov TAKR does have a good “joker”, which, however, can only be used in tandem with a missile cruiser, but here another problem arises, more precisely even two - the relatively short RCC flight range and targeting issues.

Targeting is a factor that very seriously limits the combat power of modern missile cruisers in the Russian Navy. The problem is that the ship itself does not have the equipment capable of delivering the command center to the maximum range of heavy anti-ship missiles and has to rely only on external sources. But today we do not have a developed network of spy satellites capable of providing real-time DD, data from over-the-horizon radars need to be clarified, and other means, like DRLO A-50U aircraft, have limited range reach, and are not included in the composition at all fleet. Thus, both the RNR project 1164 "Atlant" and TARKR "Peter the Great", having super-power rocket weapons, are in most cases unable to apply it to the maximum range. As a result, an extremely unpleasant situation developed - with extremely limited capabilities for over-the-horizon target designation (only deck helicopters), the domestic RKR or TARKR turned out to be very vulnerable even for a single enemy frigate, which is quite capable of getting closer to our Harpoons or Exosets. It is clear that domestic RCC is much more powerful, and air defense is much stronger, but ... let's say, the domestic ship group consisting of RKR (or TARKR) and several BOD or a sentry guard could theoretically be broken even by a small detachment of missile frigates and corvettes of a Third World country - of course , in the event that the latter will act skillfully and aggressively.

Another thing - TAKR "Kuznetsov." His presence in the shipboard shock group is precisely capable of “closing” the missing target designation link. Our satellite constellation is enough to detect enemy ships, even if the information about them will arrive with a certain delay. In other words, Kuznetsov’s airplanes are fully capable of searching for an enemy detachment near its location, “prompted” by satellite reconnaissance data and issuing a command center for the anti-ship missiles. In the same way, the MiG-29KR are capable of complementing the goal identified by the national ZGRLS - with the same sad consequences for it (the goals, but not the ZGRLS, of course).

Frankly speaking, such additional exploration is very difficult, if at all possible, if our enemy is a compound headed by a supercarrier. There is probably no easier target for the air battleship, which has EW and AWACS aircraft at its disposal, than enemy multi-role fighters searching for the enemy and using radar. But in all cases when we are confronted by an adversary who does not have aircraft carriers in general, the task of destroying his surface forces will not be of great complexity for the domestic AMG.

And even if the enemy has an aircraft carrier ... the question will be which one. Take, for example, the British "Queen Elizabeth" - due to the absence of DRLO and EW aircraft and a relatively short range of deck F-35В, its ability to control the sea space more than in 300-400 km from the order is relatively small. There are chances that his early warning helicopters will spot MiG-29KR reconnaissance in a timely manner, but far from absolute. That is, the domestic AMG has great chances of finding the maneuvering area of ​​the British AUG according to satellite intelligence or SGRLS, reconnoitre its position with deck aircraft, get close to it at the range of using the same anti-aircraft missile "Granit" and strike a blow from which the British warrant is unlikely to recover . There are few chances to resist such tactics in the British AUG - after all, they need not only to identify the location of the national AMG, but also to organize an effective airstrike that could stop our ships, and this requires much more time than a missile strike. Without an EW and DRLO aircraft, the British air group does not have the situational awareness that their American or French colleagues can count on, while the number of the air group of the British and Russian aircraft carriers are equal - the 24 aircraft. But the British will have to send some of their cars in the shock version, that is, if the Kuznetsov TAKR will have time to raise most of their aircraft to repel the airstrike (which is more than possible under similar conditions), then the British fighters will have to be solonied ... to improve their capabilities in air combat, the British will have to reduce the number of strike aircraft, but this is also a bad decision, because it minimizes the chances of causing serious damage to the ships of the national AMG. Taking into account the fact that due to the limited range of the F-35B, the distance at which the British batchers can organize a massive air raid slightly exceeds the range of the Granit anti-ship missiles, the chances of success of the British AUG in battle against the Northern Fleet AMG become more than doubtful .



As a matter of fact, we are now dealing with a very important aspect of the use of aircraft carriers and their carrier-based aircraft. The fact is that so far we have compared the capabilities of aircraft carriers and TAKR "head-on": who is faster able to lift into the air their own air group, whose fighters are better, etc. But the aircraft carrier (TAKR) is not a spherical horse in a vacuum, but one of the many "cogs" in the mechanism of the naval forces of the state. So it turns out that if we compare the shock capabilities of the Kuznetsov TAKR and the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth, then the latter have significantly higher levels, given that:

1. With the highest probability, the Kuznetsov today cannot use the Granit anti-ship missiles;

2. The British F-35V as attack aircraft are far superior to the MiG-29KR;

In addition, situational awareness of the state of the airspace in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft carrier (200-300 km exactly) at Queen Elizabeth is higher due to the presence of DRLO helicopters in the 4-5 air group — that is, the English ship has more chances to obtain advance information about the aircraft attack than the domestic TAKR.

If we try to predict the consequences of the confrontation of the national shipboard strike group led by TARKR “Peter the Great” against the British AUG, then the result will be just as negative for our fleet. Deck Aviation gives the British the opportunity to promptly identify the location of our AKG and destroy it during one or more air strikes. At the same time, the chances of our KUG for getting closer to the British AUG at a distance that will allow further reconnaissance of its position and issue the command center for missiles by ship’s means are much lower. Just because the MCG does not have the means for additional reconnaissance of targets at a range of 550 km - that is, the firing range of the Granit anti-ship missiles.

But everything changes if our KUG turns to AMG by adding the Kuznetsov TAKR to it. Yes, our KUG without TAKR is weaker than the British AUG, and our TAKR is weaker in terms of its shock capabilities than the British aircraft carrier, but when combined in the AMG, they turn out to be stronger than the British AUG. And this suggests that comparing the capabilities of aircraft carriers is only half the battle, it is also necessary to compare the possibilities provided by the inclusion of these aircraft carriers in their fleets. That is, in order to understand the usefulness of aircraft-carrying ships of a project, for example, the British and Russian, it is necessary to compare not only the capabilities of the Kuznetsov aircraft carrier and the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier, but also the capabilities of the CWMF headed by the British Queen and the Northern Fleet , driven by the Kuznetsov TAKR.

As we said earlier, most likely, the Kuznetsov TAKR really does not have the ability to use the Granit anti-ship missiles, but the fact that its planes will be able to carry out additional reconnaissance and delivery of command centers for missile cruisers as part of an aircraft carrier multi-purpose group is significant (you can even say multiple) enhances connectivity in general.

All of the above is also true for the comparison of Kuznetsov with the French aircraft carrier. As we said earlier, it also surpasses TAKR in shock capabilities and is generally a more dangerous enemy than Queen Elizabeth. Due to the presence of DRLO planes, Charles de Gaulle has the opportunity to better coordinate the attack on the domestic AMG order and the air battle with the aircraft protecting it than is available to the British aircraft carrier.



However, in the case of a hypothetical confrontation with the Russian AMG, the French aircraft carrier group will have very serious problems. As is known, the Russian Navy relied on heavy anti-ship missiles, while the French fleet was built according to the classical American theory of war at sea, according to which the strike function of ship-borne units was assigned to carrier-based aircraft. Accordingly, the tasks of the Kuznetsov air group will be supplementary reconnaissance of the enemy and the air defense of their own compound, while the Charles de Gaulle air group will have to also form and send a strike air group into battle, covering the latter with the necessary number of fighters.

Considering that to ensure the air defense of the French compound, at least the 6 multi-role fighters and the DRLO aircraft should be left at a minimum, the total force of forces that Charles de Gaulle can send to attack the domestic AMG is unlikely to exceed the 24 multi-role fighters (rather they will be even smaller) with 1-2 DRLO aircraft. At the same time, a couple of fighters should be left with AWACS, at least a dozen more should be used to clear the airspace and cover the strike aircraft. For obvious reasons, of the remaining 10 aircraft to form a demonstration group, an air defense suppression group and several attack groups capable of carrying out an attack from several directions will be rather difficult. Far from the fact that a dozen “Rafaley”, which will need to engage in combat at medium altitudes (and thus, when approaching our AMG, be attacked by its long-range missiles), can ensure the safety of the percussion machines. In an air battle, our order has the presence of a “flying headquarters” of airplanes - the DRLO will be leveled by the “floating headquarters” (forgive me, the sailors are such blasphemy), whose action is ensured by the most powerful ship radio stations - it is possible to hide attack aircraft at ultra low heights from the latter, but fighters in the battle for ultra low can not go and the radar of the ships will be visible. And for parrying the "low-flying" threat, you can lift the Ka-31 into the air, which, just in this case, being literally above the decks of AMG ships, will be quite useful.

This aspect is also interesting. The DRLO aircraft, without a doubt, provides excellent opportunities for controlling the air and surface situation, but at the same time it itself is a “vulnerable link”. Moving at medium or high altitude, it is very good, from a distance, visible ship radar, and the work of his radar will report on the approach of E-2С long before he “sees” the warrant ships. Of course, the E-2C "Hokai" can conduct reconnaissance in a passive mode, it has such equipment. But it can be assumed that, since today, the means of electronic reconnaissance have leaped so far ahead that on our ships there are similar devices no worse than those carried by the Hokai, which means we have every chance to “clarify” the airstrike being prepared in advance. And having only 10-15 minutes in stock, Kuznetsov will be able to lift 10-14 airplanes into the air, which, in addition to the two on-duty couples in the air, will allow 14-18 machines to go into battle. Will dozens of Rafalei cope with so many MiG-29KRs, especially if the battle takes place within the range of the missile cruiser air defense missile system as part of the Russian AMG? Can they cover their strike planes? Frankly speaking, it is highly doubtful, but an increase in the number of Rafalees involved in covering above the specified limit critically weakens the strike group, which cannot be done.

At the same time, the AUG of France’s air defense is not too well designed to repel the attack of supersonic cruise missiles. The difficulty lies in the fact that the most long-range French air defense systems Aster 30 have half the flight range than their American “colleagues” (120 km), respectively, the fire attack zone of Granite flying at high altitude (within 40 km). But French missiles demonstrated by their ability to shoot down low-flying supersonic targets - the 2012 g hit a supersonic target at an altitude of just 5 meters above sea level, so there are some chances to intercept the Granit anti-ship missile at a low-altitude segment, but overall A successful reflection of the 16-20 rocket volley can hardly be called large.

That is, we, again, see that, for example, the CUG head-to-head battle led by the same “Peter the Great” against the French AUG is very likely to provide us with another Tsushima. The presence of numerous carrier-based aviation, together with DRLO planes, allows the French to control the movements of our KUG and, at a convenient time for the French, to organize a raid of up to two dozen strike aircraft, to repel a similar attack by the forces of the ship’s air defense systems. But the French also have a good opportunity to bring several frigates with long-range modifications of the Exocset anti-ship missiles and to supplement the attack of carrier-based aircraft. The risk of detecting surface ships of France in conditions of air domination of Charles de Gaulle planes by deck helicopters of our USC tends to zero, but there are no chances for the French aircraft carrier to be detected by ship means at all.

At the same time, if the same KUG is headed by Kuznetsov, then the AMG and AUG head-to-head battle becomes extremely difficult and risky for the French - yes, they can still win, but they can lose, and everything will depend on the experience of the naval commanders, the crews and the lady Luck, of course. The AUG, led by Charles de Gaulle, may still have an advantage over the AMG from Kuznetsov, but it is already relatively small and does not guarantee victory. And even if the victory is achieved, it is only at the cost of very heavy losses of the Charles de Gaulle air group.

Let us now consider the confrontation between AMG and Kuznetsov and the United States AUG with Gerald R. Ford. It must be said that the capabilities of the American supercarrier are extremely great: it is quite capable of sending the air group to the 40-45 vehicles into battle, while continuing to provide its own air defense with at least one air patrol in the air (DRLO aircraft, EW aircraft and 4 fighter aircraft), as well as some the number of ready-to-fly fighters on deck, in full readiness for an immediate take-off.

The attack of the Russian ship group, which does not have a TAKR in its structure, but presumably capable of receiving some kind of ground aviation cover (at sea, it will be good if one or two fighters), can be carried out with the following composition:



In this case, the calculation was made as follows - due to the fact that the domestic AMG is a compound with a very powerful and echelon air defense, the forces allocated for its suppression are calculated by the “upper limit”: for example, if it is stated that the exploration group may include 1-2 of the aircraft, then 2 is taken, if the group of demonstrative actions includes the 3-4 of the aircraft, then 4 is taken, etc. - that is, everything in order to ensure the best possible opening and suppression of our radar and air defense systems. The air clearing group includes the entire 4 fighter - in combination with the four fighters covering DRLO airplanes, this is quite enough to “sort out” the domestic fighters operating on the maximum range. The size of the shock groups is calculated according to the residual principle, and it turns out that they can include up to 2-4 multi-purpose fighters that are loaded in an attack aircraft (so as not to write as many letters later, in the future we will call them just attack aircraft, and airplanes equipped for air combat - fighters), with a total troop strength of 15 and 20 machines, respectively.

Obviously, the 4-5 group of ship-based personnel with air defense systems, on which 15 aircraft were trampled down by additional reconnaissance groups, demonstrative actions, air defense and electronic warfare suppression, can hardly survive the attack aircraft 15-20, even if it is headed by such a strong ship as " Peter the Great". However, if we add “TAKR” to this KUG, the situation begins to change rapidly, and this is not in the best direction for the Americans.

The fact is that, having fixed the approach of enemy DRLO airplanes (as we said above, it is rather difficult to hide them) and taking into account modern RTR facilities on our warships, the TAKR is quite able to have time to ensure that they are in the air to 14-18 MiG-29KR the beginning of the American attack, and with luck more. What does this mean for Americans? First, great difficulty in organizing the attack itself. In this case, the American air group cannot throw into the pre-exploration, demonstration, combat, anti-aircraft and electronic warfare combat operations - a similar attack aircraft attack on 14-18 fighters will not end up with anything good for deck aircraft of the same "Gerald R. Ford." But also to throw a group of air clearing at the same fighters plus an unsuppressed air defense of the compound means to suffer the most severe losses in airplanes, and it’s not a fact that the air will be “cleared”. Accordingly, it is necessary to act simultaneously — with fighters attacking Russian aircraft, and with “demonstrators”, suppressing air defense, and so on. - ships.

But such use obviously overloads the capabilities of the electronic warfare group — it will not be able to affect our fighters and shipborne radars with equal success, if only because of the sharp increase in the number of sources that need to be suppressed. Here, it is already necessary to choose priorities - first of all jamming airplanes or ships, but no choice will be optimal.

Of course, 4 fighters clearing the air here already can not do - apart from the direct cover of DRLO aircraft, you need to allocate at least 16 fighters to this group in order to more or less reliably link Russian planes to battle and not miss them to the attack groups. But this means that in the group of 40-45-aircraft composition for the shock groups there are only 3-8 aircraft!



That is, the Kuznetsov TAKR, by the mere fact of its presence, reduces the number of attack groups of the American aircraft carrier by 60-80%. Interestingly, the result of our calculations very well overlaps with the data of the esteemed V.P. Zablotsky, who wrote that the ability to meet the deck aircraft of the American XRUMX supersonic carrier with fighters in the air, which the domestic TAKR is capable of, will weaken the rocket attack on our ships by 18%.

Of course, the defense of war is not won, and the presence of a TAKR as part of the domestic formation of surface ships still does not guarantee its invulnerability from American carrier-based aircraft. Nevertheless, the TAKR significantly increases the combat stability of the formation to which it is attached, and can be a decisive argument in a number of combat situations.

So, for example, it is well known that the combat services of the Northern Fleet often took place in the Mediterranean Sea - this was the location of the US 6 fleet, which in the event of a global war was supposed to neutralize the 5 OPESK (in essence, at the cost of its death). To strike the aircraft carriers of the 6 fleet of the Kuznetsov TAKR fleet looks absolutely indispensable, not only thanks to its aircraft, but also missiles. The Mediterranean Sea is a relatively small water area, and, being in the middle of it, the TAKR is able to sweep the water area from the European coast to the African. In other words, even despite the fact that in the oncoming battle, the domestic ship group with TAKR had no chances against AUS (that is, two AUGs), but our ships could destroy them from the tracking position, and the TAKR significantly increased their chances of doing so.

Another situation is the attack of enemy AUG by heterogeneous forces. The presence of TAKR significantly complicates the use of patrol aircraft at a long distance from the AUG, which means it reduces the chances of detecting domestic submarines, despite the fact that it can destroy enemy aircraft TAKR, being at the limit of the combat radius of deck aircraft of the supercarrier, or even beyond. If a decision is made to attack the AUG with aviation forces (for example, Tu-22М3), its capabilities will be largely limited by the combat radius of ground fighter aircraft (which loses much to long-range aircraft), but the presence of a TAKR solves this problem.

Thus, despite the fact that the Kuznetsov TAKR literally loses in all respects to the American superravianites, this does not make it a useless or unnecessary weapon system. The fleet, which has aircraft carriers of this type, has much greater capabilities than a fleet that does not have its own “sea airfield”. Even if it is as imperfect as the TAKR ... Let's call it all the same: TAVKR “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov”.

Author:
Articles from this series:
The role of aircraft carriers in the Soviet Navy
Su-33, MiG-29K and Yak-141. Battle for deck
Su-33, MiG-29K and Yak-141. Battle for the deck. H. 2
TKR "Kuznetsov". History of construction and service
TKR "Kuznetsov". History of construction and service. Syrian campaign
TKR "Kuznetsov". Comparison with NATO aircraft carriers
TKR "Kuznetsov". Comparison with NATO aircraft carriers. H. 2
TKR "Kuznetsov". Comparison with NATO aircraft carriers. CH 3. Deck tactics
TKR "Kuznetsov". Comparison with NATO aircraft carriers. H. 4
TKR "Kuznetsov". Comparison with NATO aircraft carriers. H. 5
65 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cat
    Cat 11 August 2018 07: 34
    +3
    Alas, "sadness"!
    But Andrei, thank you very much from the sofa cat sincerely that it isn’t cat-like, loving the sea, ships and aircraft carriers !!!
    Sincerely, Kitty!
  2. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 11 August 2018 07: 43
    +2
    for the first time I will not argue with Andrei, everything is true, especially that Kuzya will work in a system with coastal aviation in the Barents Sea, and therefore will receive support for coastal aviation as shock, drills and rebars
    1. kit88
      kit88 11 August 2018 23: 48
      +3
      Excuse me, what do we currently have from coastal aviation in the Barents Sea?
      After 20 years of "reforms", only Monchegorsk remained - ONE mixed regiment (MiG-31 and Su-24). He alone covers all SF bases from the air. The closest is Besovets, 800 kilometers away. If I'm not mistaken.
      This is somehow not serious! am
      1. kit88
        kit88 12 August 2018 01: 51
        +5
        I do not understand.
        The General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR considered it necessary and sufficient for the air cover of the north-western direction (Murmansk - Arkhangelsk - Novaya Zemlya) to have:
        - 10th separate air defense army
        - 76th Air Force Air Force
        - aircraft of the Northern Fleet.
        There are more than a dozen aviation regiments.
        Now we have ONE mixed aviation regiment in this direction. Of the interceptors, as I understand it, it has a maximum of 2 squadrons of Mig-31. And there is Kuzi aviation.
        And it's all.
        Since the days of the USSR, it seems that land, cities, bases in need of protection have not diminished. He is not going to surrender his aircraft carriers, cruisers, and missiles to the Chinese on needles, but quite the contrary - says that we are his first enemy and is perfecting all his weapons under this business.
        I don’t understand. Fools served at the General Staff of the USSR, they didn’t understand that a couple of dozen MiGs were enough to protect the whole North-West? Or are we fools (the modern generation) that we think so. And in all seriousness we are discussing how Kuzya will easily launch American aircraft carriers into the bottom of the Barents Sea.
        what
      2. Lucy
        Lucy 16 August 2018 10: 39
        0
        Quote: kit88
        only Monchegorsk remained - ONE mixed regiment (MiG-31 and Su-24).


        But in Kilpach already not?
        Vladimir 1155 theoretically does not imagine how to interact with coastal air defense when maintaining a database over the sea. And he doesn’t know that there is no A-50 for the database in the Barents Sea, and it’s never been planned even on maps, for objective reasons. Previously, the MiG-31 (up to its short radius, relates. Su-27) was accompanied by the Tu-22M3 to the turn. Now there is no MPA. Well, what coastal, not coastal aviation electronic warfare is written, I did not understand. Enough ship equipment for electronic warfare and electronic warfare. And the RLD ships, only theoretically can fulfill the function of guiding fighters, because even the MiG-31 radar with a separately operating SHO, will not be able to detect the VC by the data on the altitude of the VC from the OBU.

        kit88 (Alexander) so can (Vladimir 1155) reason only a person who, in practice, does not know how the elementary tasks are performed in aviation by the primary link, and even above the sea.
        Vladimir 1155 probably has no idea how to squirm during practical firing in order to intercept the 1xKR MiG-31-m, and necessarily with the participation of OBU KP (KPUNIA), i.e., with the obligatory presence of radio-illumination of illumination in, radar means (three-coordinate) of the ship, coastal payloads (where separately there is a PRV with an operator determining the height of the airborne center with an accuracy of 100-300m), and knowledge (preliminarily on assignment) OBU altitude (profile) of the flight of the Kyrgyz Republic.
  3. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 11 August 2018 07: 44
    +3
    In other words, even despite the fact that in the oncoming battle, the Russian naval group with TAKR did not have a chance against the AUS (that is, two AUGs), but our ships could destroy them from the tracking position, and the TAKR significantly increased their chances of doing it

    excellent article, directly no questions at all (!)
    But an aircraft carrier (TAKR) is not a spherical horse in a vacuum

    especially liked (!)
  4. pin_code
    pin_code 11 August 2018 08: 13
    +3
    Thanks for the cycle about "Kuznetsov", I read it with pleasure. From SW. Andrew.
  5. Rokossovsky
    Rokossovsky 11 August 2018 08: 32
    +3
    Just about complicated. Thanks for the great series of articles!
  6. tlauicol
    tlauicol 11 August 2018 09: 00
    +2
    You can also write an article on securing at sea - also a sad story
  7. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 11 August 2018 09: 23
    0
    Conclusions far-fetched from the calculation "but if we finally do something, and suddenly everything will become bad for them." Andrey, even if by magic Kuznetsov is equipped with a fully air wing, and problems with general ship systems will suddenly be solved at once, even if all pilots have a sufficient number of landings on the deck, even if all the missiles with an expired service life are suddenly replaced with new ones and they will not flop into sea ​​after launch, then in this case, Kuzi has no and never had any chances against the AUG of a potential enemy.
    1. faiver
      faiver 11 August 2018 09: 42
      +3
      you will forgive me, but in my article everything is thoroughly written about the qualitative strengthening of the strike group of ships even by such a non-super-aircraft carrier ship as Kuznetsov, who would tell me in May that our players will reach the quarter finals of the World Cup ....
      1. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher 11 August 2018 11: 12
        +7
        Quote: faiver
        excuse me, but in my article everything is thoroughly painted

        Is that all? Andrei somehow misses the conditions for the confrontation.
        1. We concentrate our forces and attack suddenly.
        2. The United States or NATO suddenly attack (for Britain and France will not be British and Great)
        3. It is happening now, it is happening in the supposed future or past.
        Andrei, citing an example with Stark, forgot to add that at that time Iraq and the United States were not opponents and the described situation with the consequences was not characteristic of a military confrontation.
        The lifting speed of the Kuzi air group is frankly sucked from the finger, you will not find official numbers anywhere because this is a secret. And the secret is because this has never been done in Kuznetsov’s history.
        There was no analysis of the load of the MiG-29 K during a sortie, fuel supply and TSA, but damn it in the air, it was a priori done and a threat to all enemies.
        The MiG-29K, according to Andrei’s assumption, is capable of not only detecting the enemy’s AOG, but also correctly identifying it without confusing it with tankers and container ships of which in the described theaters of operations should be abundant. How? And do not care, a priori capable.
        According to Andrey PKR Granit (made on the basis of technical solutions of the 70's and not undergoing any modernization, except for extending the service life that she had already experienced twice) remains relevant and poses a real threat. At the same time, the experience of using anti-ship missiles with radar detection system shows their inability to act in the conditions of radar interference and the use of false targets.
        You can continue for a long time, but what has already been said is more than enough.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          11 August 2018 11: 37
          +1
          Quote: Puncher
          Is that all? Andrei somehow misses the conditions for the confrontation.

          Andrey misses nothing of the sort - equal conditions
          Quote: Puncher
          Andrei, citing an example with Stark, forgot to add that at that time Iraq and the United States were not opponents and the described situation with consequences was not characteristic of a military confrontation

          And you are mistaken, because the situation was quite typical - the ship was on duty, there were possible troubles, therefore, combat readiness No.3
          Quote: Puncher
          The lifting speed of the Kuzi air group is frankly sucked from the finger, you will not find official numbers anywhere because this is a secret.

          But the author found a video with the rise of aircraft from Kuznetsov - it was in one of the previous articles. So if anything is sucked out of your finger, it’s definitely not the rise of Kuznetsov’s air group
          Quote: Puncher
          There was no analysis of the load of the MiG-29 K during a sortie, fuel supply and TSA, but damn it in the air, it was a priori done and a threat to all enemies.

          It was carried out, and if you overslept this aspect, do not blame the author.
          Quote: Puncher
          The MiG-29K, according to Andrei’s assumption, is capable of not only detecting the enemy’s AUG, but also correctly identifying it without confusing it with tankers and container ships in the described theaters of operations should be abundant. How? I don’t care a priori

          just like that, a priori capable, there are no special problems. Of course, anything happens in war, sometimes warships are confused with civilians, but to say that the 4 ++ aircraft is not able to identify the enemy ... this is nonsense. His avionics (including radar) is quite capable of this.
          Quote: Puncher
          According to Andrey PKR Granit (made on the basis of technical solutions of the 70's and not undergoing any modernization, except for extending the service life that she had already experienced twice) remains relevant and poses a real threat. At the same time, the experience of using anti-ship missiles with radar detection system shows their inability to act in the conditions of radar interference and the use of false targets.

          If experience is understood as the Falkland conflict and Arab-Israeli post-shootings, then this is not experience, because the GOS of Ecoset and Termite are extremely primitive
          Quote: Puncher
          You can continue for a long time, but what has already been said is more than enough.

          To conclude bias criticism? Certainly
          1. Hole puncher
            Hole puncher 11 August 2018 11: 55
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Andrey misses nothing of the sort - equal conditions

            More details please. Equal conditions imply the absence of doubts about the intentions of the enemy?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              11 August 2018 15: 14
              0
              Quote: Puncher
              More details please. Equal conditions imply the absence of doubts about the intentions of the enemy?

              Exactly
              1. Hole puncher
                Hole puncher 12 August 2018 15: 56
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Exactly

                Unfortunately I could not immediately, but suddenly you will see.
                So the conditions are equal, everyone is expecting dirty tricks from each other and are ready to embed in an adult, but without using doomsday weapons.
                Option 1.
                Kuznetsov will not be able to leave Severomorsk due to mining of the Kola Bay. The Navy of the Russian Federation does not have the strength and means to trawl from modern sea mines.
                Option 2.
                Kuznetsov, accompanied by tankers, tugboats and support ships (nuclear submarines, Petr1, etc.), reaches the Faroe Islands at a speed of 8 knots where a meeting is expected with her majesty's fleet in the form of Queen Elizabeth under the supervision of destroyers, frigates and nuclear submarines.
                The task of destroying the fleet of Her Majesty is not important for what.
                Thanks intelligence. satellites our group knows about the whereabouts of the enemy. The enemy, using reconnaissance aircraft, knows about the movement of our group.
                Bottom line: Thanks to reconnaissance aircraft, Queen Elizabeth maintains a distance exceeding the launch range of the RCC and makes attacks by ship and coastal aircraft. With superiority in aviation, the Royal Navy wins.
                Option 3.
                Kuznetsov and others like him ended up in the Mediterranean Sea. Here the alignment is generally sad. The grouping of ships in the ring of enemies with its complete superiority in aviation, no anti-ship missiles will help, the notorious inglorious death. Your hypothetical version of using the MiG-29K as a reconnaissance in the Mediterranean with its intensive shipping and the presence of a large number of enemy air bases is unpromising in advance. By the way, the RL indication of surface targets on the MiG-29K monitor will look like a thick dash and nothing more, but what this indication is, Karl Vinson or Emma Maersk ... no one will say, you can only guess.
                Now about RCC with radar seeker.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                If experience refers to the Falkland conflict and Arab-Israeli post-shootings

                No, in October 2016, the Hussites of Iranian C802 tried several times to attack American ships, launches of 2-3 anti-ship missiles, the largest at once, 6 missiles in a salvo. All anti-ship missiles were diverted to the side by the false targets of Nulk and the EW system. C802 has a radar seeker, so the attacks by them were unsuccessful. At the same time, the civilian high-speed vessel Swift C802 was successfully burned.
                Now think about why modern RCCs use optical GOS?
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  12 August 2018 17: 41
                  +1
                  Quote: Puncher
                  Kuznetsov will not be able to leave Severomorsk due to mining of the Kola Bay. The Navy of the Russian Federation does not have the strength and means to trawl from modern sea mines.

                  And the fleet of Her Majesty does not have the strength and means to mine the Kola Bay, so that they leave without problems.
                  Quote: Puncher
                  Option 2.
                  Kuznetsov, accompanied by tankers, tugboats and support ships (nuclear submarines, Petr1, etc.), reaches the Faroe Islands at a speed of 8 knots where a meeting is expected with her majesty's fleet in the form of Queen Elizabeth under the supervision of destroyers, frigates and nuclear submarines.

                  (yawning) I stipulated in the 1st article that we do not consider ships as "as now" - by the way, Kuznetsov will give 18-20 knots today without problems, but subject to all the necessary improvements that all 4 need compared AB, including British.
                  Well, if you want to compare the state "here and now", then
                  Quote: Puncher
                  Bottom line: Thanks to reconnaissance aircraft, Queen Elizabeth maintains a distance exceeding the launch range of the RCC and makes attacks by ship and coastal aircraft.

                  It looks like science fiction, because Queen Elizabeth just scoots away without looking at the edge of geography - her air group is not formed, there are only a few F-35В that are just being mastered by pilots.
                  Quote: Puncher
                  Kuznetsov and others like him ended up in the Mediterranean Sea. Here the alignment is generally sad. The grouping of ships in the ring of enemies with its complete superiority in aviation, no anti-ship missiles will help, the notorious inglorious death.

                  Nope. From the tracking position of the opponent's AUS, a blow is struck - and goodbye. This is possible even without TAVKR, but with TAVKR there are more chances - he can easily carry out round-the-clock air duty for the AUS
                  Quote: Puncher
                  By the way, the RL indication of surface targets on the MiG-29K monitor will look like a thick dash and nothing more, but what this indication is, Karl Vinson or Emma Maersk ... no one will say, you can only guess.

                  You, in my opinion, are a bit stuck in the 50 of the last century. The MiG radar has a high resolution, sufficient for mapping, as well as the detection and identification of targets such as, for example, a tank.
                  Quote: Puncher
                  No, in October 2016 the Hussites were Iranian C802

                  That is, an export Chinese missile. The worst weapon, probably laughing
                  Quote: Puncher
                  Now think about why modern RCCs use optical GOS?

                  Well, for example, LRASM uses an active-passive GOS. But the availability of optics on it is a big question. Who else?
          2. Town Hall
            Town Hall 11 August 2018 18: 32
            +4
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            GOS Ekoseta and Termita extremely primitive



            And the gsn granite is a miracle?


            By the way .. how many MIGs took off on video? ...
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              12 August 2018 01: 31
              0
              Quote: Town Hall
              And the gsn of granite is a miracle? .. How long can you add this fable. They themselves admitted that you know nothing about granite except for the "school" tales walking on the Internet.

              Well, yes, and besides some information received directly about those in whose command these missiles were.
              Quote: Town Hall
              By the way .. how many MIGs took off on video? ...

              No one. Three dryers took off from three positions in a row.
          3. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 12 August 2018 02: 32
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And you are mistaken, because the situation was quite typical - the ship was on duty, there were possible troubles, therefore, combat readiness No.3

            Ahem ... with all due respect - how typical for a military confrontation is the situation when an anti-ship missile carrier aircraft approaches the FR at a range of 15-20 miles with impunity and launches an anti-ship missile system almost point-blank? And not just to the FR, but to a specialized FR of long-range air defense - the carrier of the "Standard" air defense system.
            PMSM, in characteristic situation "Stark" would have worked on the Iraqi from 50 miles - immediately after the detection of the target, its classification and the issuance of the command control "from above" to hit the detected target with "Stark".
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              12 August 2018 11: 32
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Ahem ... with all due respect, how typical is a situation for a military confrontation when a carrier aircraft of an anti-ship missile system with impunity approaches a FR at a range of 15-20 miles and launches an anti-ship missile almost point-blank?

              It is very characteristic :)))) That is how they shot at Sheffield, the attack that destroyed the Atlantic Conveyor took place from about 26 miles, maybe less. Glamorgan was attacked by EMNIP from 10 or 18 miles. The last attack by Invinibl's Exocet came from less than 25 miles.
      2. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher 11 August 2018 11: 17
        +4
        Quote: faiver
        who would tell me in the month of May that our players will reach the quarter finals of the World Cup ....

        I completely forgot. This happened not because they learned to play, but because the enemy forgot how. Expect that US NAVY suddenly as the Spaniards turn into dull clowns is clearly not necessary.
  8. max702
    max702 11 August 2018 10: 45
    +2
    As far as it became clear from the article that the main problem of the fleet is reconnaissance and target designation, and isn’t it easier to solve it using space? Yes, and databases in the ocean far from their hometowns look fantastic .. Perhaps on the ocean expanses a full-fledged AUG due to the AWACS plane would have shown something there, but for us it is the same horse in a vacuum .. We will have 20-30 such tasks in the coming years not to squeeze either .. Consequently, investing in space, ROFAR, rocket science, we can achieve at least parity without going out of date with costly solutions, the bourgeoisie will not stand still and will also improve their technology, and we will copy them to catch up, but this as you know, the dead end path .. Therefore, we are looking for an asymmetric answer ..
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 August 2018 11: 40
      +2
      Quote: max702
      but isn’t it easier to solve using space?

      Not solved, alas.
      Quote: max702
      Yes, and databases in the ocean away from their native shores look fantastic ..

      In the Mediterranean Sea, in the Far East it does not look fantastic
      Quote: max702
      Therefore, having invested in space, ROFAR, rocket science, we can very well achieve at least parity without going out of date with expensive solutions

      The USSR also thought so, invested a dozen AUGs in asymmetric responses, and eventually came to the need to build aircraft carriers
      1. maximghost
        maximghost 11 August 2018 18: 34
        +2
        The USSR also thought so, invested a dozen AUGs in asymmetric responses, and eventually came to the need to build aircraft carriers

        I heard this point of view, in my opinion, even from Kuzin and Nikolsky. But I strongly disagree with her. Almost everything that the USSR did "against aircraft carriers" can actually be needed if they are available. In addition, all of these are fairly versatile weapons systems. Both missile carriers and anti-ship missiles can also be used against coastal targets (grenades and tomahawks are already in the mid-80s).
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 August 2018 01: 36
          0
          Quote: maximghost
          I heard this point of view, in my opinion, even from Kuzin and Nikolsky. But I strongly disagree with her. Almost everything that the USSR did "against aircraft carriers" can actually be needed and if available

          In general, no. 949A - they are definitely not needed, and these ships did not enter the fleet - on paper the power is all-great, but in fact - KOH is below low. Generally speaking, the Tu-22M3 is also ... not the best aircraft for ground combat, probably. And "Liana" ...
          Quote: maximghost
          What are missile carriers, what can be used as anti-ship missiles against coastal targets

          Well, with granites along the coast, this is from a cannon along the sparrows - painfully expensive rockets
          1. maximghost
            maximghost 12 August 2018 19: 10
            +2
            Well, with granites along the coast, this is from a cannon along the sparrows - painfully expensive rockets

            Cruise missiles like tomahawks are also not cheap (although PCRs are more expensive), but their use is justified against certain goals. With RCC on coastal targets is the same.
            Tu-22M3 generally speaking too ... not the best aircraft for ground battles, probably.

            Nevertheless, it was available not only to the fleet. Like the other types of aircraft that were in service with the missile regiments. In addition, they could strike not only at AUG. So they would have been if the USSR had its own aircraft carriers (well, they were in the presence of TAKRs).
            And "Liana" ...

            Probably the legend was meant. Again, it is not tied only to aircraft carriers and the asymmetric response to them. In addition to guiding the RCC, she also conducts reconnaissance.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 12 August 2018 02: 49
          +1
          Quote: maximghost
          That the missile carriers, that the RCC can be used against coastal targets (grenades and tomahawks this is the middle of the 80s).

          Work on coastal targets with heavy anti-ship missiles is driving nails with microscopes. Firstly, these missiles are very expensive - in fact, they are disposable aircraft (that is, most targets in modern conflicts disappears for them). Secondly, after a salvo of SSGN or RRC, you need to go to the base for reloading. And thirdly, it will no longer be possible to retarget the CR or return them back after launch.
          AB in this regard is a much more flexible and versatile ship, in addition to which carriers of weapons are reusable. To achieve the same functionality from SSGN / RRC, it is necessary, at a minimum, that after separation of warheads, their missile defense systems would fall back on course and land back in the control room for refueling and installing a new warhead. smile
          1. maximghost
            maximghost 12 August 2018 18: 51
            +2
            Work on coastal targets with heavy anti-ship missiles is driving nails with microscopes. Firstly, these missiles are very expensive - in fact, these are disposable aircraft

            Yes, that is right. But when attacking targets covered by air defense, they can prove themselves.
            Secondly, after a salvo of SSGN or RRC, you need to go to the base for reloading. And thirdly, it will no longer be possible to retarget the CR or return them back after launch.

            Well, "secondly" and "thirdly" is practically 1 point, so I will answer both at once. A salvo can be made not complete in order to preserve anti-ship capabilities. And for grenades / calibers / tomahawks, this is also true.

            AB in this regard is a much more flexible and versatile ship, in addition to which carriers of weapons are reusable.

            I agree. Here I did not compare the RKR with aircraft carriers. I wrote that RKR are necessary both in the absence of aircraft carriers, and in their presence.
      2. max702
        max702 12 August 2018 17: 08
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        but isn’t it easier to solve using space?
        Not solved, alas.

        If you invest 10% of the funds intended for the creation of combat-ready AUGs, then everything seems to be decided .. Moreover, on a completely new level.
        .
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In the Mediterranean Sea, in the Far East it does not look fantastic

        Middle-earth today is a puddle, and not the ocean open spaces of the AUG will not be lost there in any way, and therefore very vulnerable .. The Far East is stupidly freezing, and we are holding Japan under our guns, there’s nothing to do with OUR AUG .. The Chinese, the USA, yes. butting each other ..

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The USSR also thought so, invested a dozen AUGs in asymmetric responses, and eventually came to the need to build aircraft carriers

        In addition to the fact that in the USSR there was always (as elsewhere), the struggle for influence \ financing and the navy, despite common sense, desperately pulled a blanket over themselves, decades have passed since then and technology has pretty much gone ahead and if there were no solutions then today now they are, and when you take into account the time lag of 10-15 years for the construction of the AUG (at best), even more so .. The AUG is outdated, like armadillos, battleships, etc. .. Therefore, investing in them is criminal ..
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 August 2018 17: 26
          0
          Quote: max702
          If you invest 10% of the funds intended for the creation of combat-ready AUGs, then everything seems to be decided .. Moreover, on a completely new level.

          The USSR also thought so. Alas.
          Quote: max702
          Middle-earth today is a puddle

          Inaccessible to any anti-ship weapons of the Russian Federation, except for the fact that our ships located in this very puddle have at their disposal.
          Quote: max702
          Far East stupidly freezes

          Strange, but in Russian-Japanese we were whipped with the Japanese squadron in the month of January. Both in Port Arthur and in Chemulpo.
          Quote: max702
          Besides the fact that in the USSR there was always (as elsewhere), the struggle for influence \ financing and the navy, despite common sense, desperately pulled a blanket over themselves

          Since the opponents of aircraft carriers in the USSR had no arguments against them, it remains only to accuse the admirals of corruption ...
          While it is quite obvious that the Soviet Navy already mastered huge sums, for which he did not need aircraft carriers at all
  9. anzar
    anzar 11 August 2018 11: 40
    +3
    Good article, +++ to the author, finally "dot over i" is set and combat capabilities are considered in the complex of the naval group, and in typical regions, and not somewhere in the center of the ocean. Thus, many claims in the comments to the previous parts are answered.
    Nevertheless, this article cannot be taken for the end of the cycle ..))) As far as Kuznetsov is now in repair, it has not become clear as dear Andrei believes:
    1. Is it necessary to keep the anti-ship missiles on the TAVKR? (possibly a large number of Onyxes of some kind) or rely only on missile ships of the formation and coastal aviation. My opinion is the second, especially if you can use the space of mines under .... And against some "barmaley" to do with Brahmos-ohm, suspended under the Su33.
    2. To what extent does the presence of Yak-44 type AWACS at Kuznetsovo change the capabilities described above? Will it not turn out that it is superfluous for the capabilities of the Russian fleet in the Barents Sea, but insufficient for the "middle of the Atlantic"? Although for me, it should be done, it is also in demand as an "average" AWACS aircraft on land, so there will be no "series of three aircraft", even if Kuznetsov remains the only one. And for takeoff from a springboard (from position 3), you can use powder boosters, it will still be cheaper than fencing a catapult.
    3. Having said "springboard" I thought, why the angular pista does not end with a springboard too (smaller?))) After all, when landing, if the boom is not hooked, the machine turns on the afterburner and the plane is fed to go around, the springboard will be useful. Plus the ability to quickly lift the air group from new starting positions (the beginning of the landing strip) and along a different trajectory, simultaneously with the main one and not interfering with it. Tfu, it must be patented))))).
    1. Avior
      Avior 11 August 2018 16: 17
      +1
      the presence on Kuznetsovo of early warning aircraft of the Yak44 type

      And they take off without a catapult?
      1. anzar
        anzar 12 August 2018 01: 01
        0
        And they take off without a catapult?

        Since there is no such beast yet, can to make it take off from the springboard (powerful theater, blowing the wing) But it is better (for range) so that as he wrote for takeoff "to use powder boosters, it will still be cheaper than making a catapult."
        But the question remains whether this is necessary only for the Barents, where the called AWACS aircraft can be used. And in the Atlantic (one) Kuznetsov is not a warrior at sea (even with Yak44)))
      2. maximghost
        maximghost 12 August 2018 02: 09
        +2
        They do not take off. Due to the collapse of the USSR, the aircraft did not even reach the prototype stage.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 August 2018 01: 39
      0
      My regards! hi
      Quote: anzar
      Having said "springboard" I thought, why does the corner piste not end with a springboard (smaller?)))

      Do you still want to kill the air group? :)))))
      The plane goes into the second circle when it does not fall into the landing corridor, then it flies over the deck (low-low) without touching, as a rule, the landing gear landing gear and forward. If there is a springboard, then the plane will crash about him, his speed is greatly reduced before landing, he just will not have time to fly over it
      Quote: anzar
      How much does the presence of Yak44 AWACS aircraft on Kuznetsovo change the capabilities described above?

      Strong, but they can’t be put on him
  10. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 11 August 2018 14: 14
    +3
    Good article, read with passion, however, as always.)
    I also wrote here more than once that aviation in the ocean is a huge trump card that solves a lot. And if naval aviation has DRLO airplanes, then ... laughing
    But we, unfortunately, aircraft carriers - yuzles. What is really there, block all ISCs!
    Article plus! We are waiting for the final part with a summary.
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. Avior
    Avior 11 August 2018 16: 16
    +3
    Andrey misses nothing of the kind

    I like the author has a style laughing
    But Stark was a little mistaken — Stark didn’t use electronic warfare because of the negligence of his commander — it never occurred to him that an Iraqi plane could attack him, since at that time they were allies. The commander was judged, as far as I remember.
    and the rest is essentially
    1Avtor is absolutely right- an aircraft carrier dramatically enhances the capabilities of the naval group. Aviation at sea - if it is correctly selected, essno, noticeably more effective than any other types of weapons.
    2. About the capabilities of RCC - they are greatly overrated in RuNet. In none of the known cases did the anti-ship missiles show effectiveness against a combat ship prepared for battle with modern electronic warfare.
    How the first Soviet ones turned out to be completely useless against the primitive electronic warfare of the Israelis in the Yom Kippur war (and Gabrieli, formally worse than the Soviet anti-ship missiles, on the contrary, were very effective — there wasn’t normal electronic warfare among the Arabs), the Exosets in the Falklands or in the Iran-Iraq war, or failure Harpoon in Operation Mantis. In fact, in all real conflicts, the use of electronic warfare reduced the effectiveness of actually used anti-ship missiles to almost zero level against warships with effective electronic warfare. Granites, of course, have GOS and the control system is better than that of other anti-ship missiles, probably the best of the existing ones (real Granites, and not those mythical wolf packs that they like to talk about in RuNet, creating additional opportunities for them during the discussion lol ), but the EWs do not stand still - there were dipole reflectors simulating the EPR of the ship at different frequencies, fired angle reflectors, active traps such as Nulka, AFAR antennas of shipborne electronic warfare, reaction time of shipborne electronic warfare 1-2 seconds, the start of traps is automatic - none of this in the 80s of the last century there simply wasn’t, EW took a very far step to take the possibilities of the 80s of the last century very seriously.
    3. In addition to everything else, there is no experience not only in using Granites, but in general supersonic anti-ship missiles, and even just missiles with over-the-horizon launch - but there are problems with the car, from the problem of choosing a target among a group to the problem of determining a target’s defeat, it won’t immediately sink , and there are no over-the-horizon methods. And to launch rockets in the hope that at least someone from the salvo will break through, so the Arabs did so in the Doomsday War. Do not break through. In fact, I came across a textbook for military sailors, in which it was written that anti-ship missiles of the Granite type for guaranteed destruction of the AUG require more than a hundred with the known location of the ships in the order.
    4. Andrei did not take into account that when launching the Granites in one gulp, they do not fly in a straight line, but with a turn on the target, only a single missile flies in a straight line, therefore the range of the volley is much lower than the distance of the RCC itself — there was an assertion from the sailors that the range in volley is two one third of the missile range, i.e. less than 400 km.
    5. The range of SM-6 in foreign sources is 370 km, active guidance allows you to work against overseas targets according to link-16 from Hokaev or F-35.
    By the way, the SM-2 is also an over-the-horizon missile, it has a double GOS.
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 11 August 2018 17: 45
      0
      Quote: Avior
      2. About the capabilities of RCC - they are greatly overrated in RuNet. In none of the known cases did the anti-ship missiles show effectiveness against a combat ship prepared for battle with modern electronic warfare.

      The sinking of MRC Monsoon with its target missile is an example to you. They waited, prepared, but suddenly got the most reluctant ..
  13. Avior
    Avior 11 August 2018 16: 36
    +3
    Read more.
    6. The capabilities of the RCC, shown at the training grounds, are very much inferior to the real ones in battle. Undoubtedly, anti-ship missiles will effectively implement a surprise attack on an unprepared enemy, but they are ineffective against a warship with EW enabled.
    By the way, Andrey skip
    7. Regarding the ability to use the MiG-29KR for searching ships, a controversial issue.
    With a passive search, what is there for the RTR station? What are its capabilities? I haven’t found it anywhere.
    With an active — Spy-1 and RTR ship will detect the aircraft long before it detects the ship.
    Not to mention the capabilities of Hokai and F-35 in RTR intelligence.
    8. The possibilities of the Queen of England in the field of AWACS, in principle, can be significantly expanded when Osprey is used as the basis for AWACS — he is slightly inferior to Hokay in this matter and far superior to helicopters. But the British feel sorry for the money for this development. Life does not teach. smile
    The author of success in his painstaking worklove
    1. demiurg
      demiurg 11 August 2018 18: 17
      +1
      It's not about the money. Osprey will take the place of two or three f-35s; in terms of duration and speed of flight, it is still much inferior to hokai. Plus problems with the installation of the radar.
      Thanks to Andrey. It seems like obvious things, but after neatly arranging on the shelves, everything becomes clearer.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 August 2018 02: 09
      0
      Quote: Avior
      In none of the known cases did the anti-ship missiles show effectiveness against a combat ship prepared for battle with modern electronic warfare.

      Okay, Stark doesn't suit you, but what about the British Glamorgan attack?
      Quote: Avior
      Exosets in the Falklands or in the Iran-Iraq War

      You see, on the same Falklands, single missiles were often used against ship formations. Many ships for one or two missiles are unsportsmanlike :))) Generally speaking, the story is an interesting thing, the Americans successfully beat the Libyan RCA with "Harpoons", but who knows whether they used the last electronic warfare or not?
      Quote: Avior
      or Harpoon's failure in Operation Mantis.

      And what did he fail in? The Americans clearly rejected the harpoon (all the more, they knew it as flaky) and by the time they themselves were sadanuli Harpoon, the Iranian corvette was already drowning, so that the rocket passed over it.
      Quote: Avior
      Among other things, there is no experience not only in the use of Granites, but in general supersonic anti-ship missiles, and even just missiles with over-the-horizon launch, but there are problems with the car, starting from the problem of choosing a target

      (shrug) - automatic target selection
      Quote: Avior
      and to the problem of determining the destruction of the target

      There is no such problem - missiles distribute targets, attack and that’s all. They do not assess the defeat
      Quote: Avior
      I came across an assertion from sailors that the range in one gulp is two-thirds of the range of the rocket, that is, less than 400 km.

      I have never heard such a thing - from those who worked with these missiles
      Quote: Avior
      Actually, I came across a textbook for military sailors, in which it was written that RCCs of the Granite type for guaranteed defeat of AUG require more than a hundred

      Are you sure you are not confusing it with the article "Shooting with a volley of anti-ship cruise missiles at a group sea target"? :)))) And if - yes, then it's not about Granites. And so - yes, on the TAVKR next to guard 7 ships, it was necessary to spend 91 anti-ship missiles like Harpoon.
      Quote: Avior
      Range SM-6 in foreign sources - 370 km

      Are you sure? Share a link?
      Quote: Avior
      active guidance allows you to work against horizontal targets according to the link-16 from Hokaev or F-35.

      Yeah, if any of them are around
      Quote: Avior
      By the way, the SM-2 is also an over-the-horizon missile, it has a double GOS.

      No, she doesn’t have a double GOS and she’s not overseas (such work was carried out, but did not make a rocket)
      Quote: Avior
      With a passive search, what is there for the RTR station? What are its capabilities? I haven’t found it anywhere.

      This is the function of the EW station, it is capable of directing anti-radar ammunition to radiation sources. Perhaps there is something else besides her.
      Quote: Avior
      With an active — Spy-1 and RTR ship will detect the aircraft long before it detects the ship.

      What does the 1 have to do with it? We kind of talked about the British and French.
      Quote: Avior
      The Queen’s capabilities in the field of AWACS can, in principle, be significantly enhanced by the use of Osprey as the basis for AWACS

      Osprey has never been AWACS and never will be. This tomb is hardly dragging a platoon of pechtury, and then due to the critical weakening of the hull - there is not even heating there. What radars are there?
      Quote: Avior
      The author of success in his painstaking work

      Thank you! hi
      1. Avior
        Avior 12 August 2018 12: 03
        0
        Okay, Stark doesn't suit you, but what about the British Glamorgan attack?

        Glamorgan did not know that the Argentines have coastal anti-ship missile systems, so they attacked.
        Are you sure you are not confused with the article

        I am sure. I saved the book on another computer, I’ll throw it off.
        missiles distribute targets, attack and that's it. They do not assess the defeat

        That's it. and they don’t know whether other missiles sank the destroyer that they’re flying over or gone into milk.
        she doesn't have a double seeker

        RIM-66M- dual GOS, semi-active radar and infrared.
        "Designed to provide better destruction of low-flying cruise anti-ship missiles. It had an improved guidance system K 45 MOD 9, which made it possible to better distinguish targets against the surface background. The new combined semi-active / infrared seeker missile allowed better selection of false targets and for the first time provided the ability to fire at invisible beyond the radio horizon. target (the missile was sent to the calculated area of ​​the target and switched to infrared guidance). "
        This is the function of the EW station.

        Airborne electronic warfare systems are very different, there are individual ones, and there are group electronic warfare, like F-35 or Growler.
        The former are intended only for self-defense of the aircraft by jamming missiles and cannot conduct reconnaissance.
        The second can.
        So the question is, what is the moment?
        Osprey has never been AWACS and never will be.

        Grumman C-2 Greyhound - the basis of Hokai.
        Payload: 4 536 kg
        Weight empty: 15 310 kg
        Normal takeoff weight: 22 405 kg
        Maximum takeoff weight: 24 655 kg
        Practical range: 2 400 km
        Cruising speed: 465 km / h at 8 m
        for Hokai
        Combat radius: 320 km (duration of patrol - 3-4 hours)
        Bell V-22 Osprey
        the weight of the empty tiltrotor is 15 kg [000];
        maximum take-off weight - 27 kg;
        with vertical take-off - 23 859 kg;
        during take-off with a short take-off - 25 855 kg;
        payload mass - 5445 kg (with vertical take-off);
        mass of the load on the external suspension:
        when using one hook - 4536 kg;
        when using two hooks - 6147 kg.
        Range:
        combat radius - 690 km;
        the radius of action during the landing load is 722 km;
        practical range - 2627 km (without refueling);
        with vertical take-off - 2225 km;
        at takeoff with a short takeoff - 3340 km;
        Do you see a lot of difference?
        The Americans are planning to replace the transport C-2 with the Osprey.
        And for this, it will automatically become the development of the Osprey EV-22 AWACS; they already gave him a name, they will not keep two different types of aircraft, not in their trend.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 August 2018 18: 08
          +1
          Quote: Avior
          Glamorgan did not know that the Argentines have coastal anti-ship missile systems, so they attacked.

          I wonder what the surviving sailors with sunken AUG will tell.
          Quote: Avior
          I am sure. I saved the book on another computer, I’ll throw it off.

          It would be great
          Quote: Avior
          That's it. and they don’t know whether other missiles sank the destroyer that they’re flying over or gone into milk.

          They don’t fly over any esm - they saw a warrant, distributed targets, went down and attacked
          Quote: Avior
          RIM-66M- dual GOS, semi-active radar and infrared.

          It was understood that there are no active GOS.
          Quote: Avior
          The new combined semi-active / infrared seeker missile allowed better selection of false targets and for the first time provided the possibility of firing at targets invisible behind the radio horizon

          sagging, where did this fiction come from? :)))) Do you yourself at least think before you post it?
          So, in your opinion, in the distant, distant years, when the RIM-66M was made (and this modification was made so that it could be fired from the UVP) and when no one had thought about correcting missiles from AWACS aircraft, the Americans made an over-the-horizon missile - having launched it "somewhere in that direction" (radio correction is impossible due to the fact that the target is not visible on the radar), the missile in some magical way should have revealed a low-flying target with the help of a rather primitive IR sight? :))))) Seriously ? :)))))))
          In fact, the IR was there for better capture of air targets, and this missile defense could not capture any "over-the-horizon" targets. Such work was carried out later, but SM-2 remained at the prototype level.
          Quote: Avior
          Airborne electronic warfare systems are very different, there are individual ones, and there are group electronic warfare, like F-35 or Growler.

          Ooooh, and since when is the F-35 a group?
          Quote: Avior
          The former are intended only for self-defense of the aircraft by jamming missiles and cannot conduct reconnaissance.
          The second can.

          Who told you that? Such a functional is implemented both on the first and on the second without any problems.
          Quote: Avior
          So the question is, what is the moment?

          The MiG-e is equipped with an EW personal defense station, which is also used for targeting anti-radar missiles, that is, it can accurately determine the location of radiating targets.
          Quote: Avior
          Do you see a lot of difference?

          A lot, and I have already indicated it. Yes, you, in general, brought her yourself
          Hokai’s combat radius is 320 km plus 3-4 hours on patrol, even at a speed of 465 km (cruising) this gives a combat radius of 1250 km. This is already with installed radar equipment.
          Osprey's combat radius is 722 km. WITHOUT radar equipment
          Hokai practical ceiling - under 10 km, Osprey ... well, how to say :))) Theoretically - under 7,7 km, but practically, taking into account:
          1) Leaky cab
          2) Lack of any sane heating
          3) Lack of sane anti-icing system
          altitude does not exceed 3 km. It is possible and higher, of course - we dress the crew in winter fur coats and high fur boots, put on oxygen masks and go to suffer from altitude sickness.

          .
          1. Avior
            Avior 13 August 2018 11: 40
            0
            I haven’t found a book yet, I’ll find it, I’ll send it, it’s only from Kuzin, Nikolsky p.19
            From 1963-70 to 1991, the number of RCC
            in a salvo one AUG of the USA (one AB in
            each AUG) almost doubled and reached
            100 units, which according to many experts
            was enough to destroy him
            in a nuclear war or for temporary
            failure when using non-nuclear
            weapons.

            but there, of course, the talk was not only about Granites, and indeed Granites somehow didn’t stand out much, although they were included in the calculation, there is a tablet with carriers
            http://militera.lib.ru/h/0/pdf/kuzin_nikolsky01.pdf
            I wonder what the surviving sailors with sunken AUG will tell.

            Yes, there the local Argentine Kulibin tried, the ship near the shore without knowing the danger
            with AUG this will not work.
            In fact, they have been discussing how to drown an aircraft carrier for more than ten years at the Rusarmi, I myself checked in there at one time :), and there is not one branch

            back in the long, distant years when RIM-66M was made

            This is the SM-2MR currently in service. When it was done, Avaxa, Hokai, and Link-16 long existed. I have not seen reports of tests in its over-the-horizon launches, as well as tests of Granite volley fires, which, however, no one saw because of their absence, as I understand it :).
            At a minimum, it is theoretically quite capable of catching a target if the target leaves the ship’s radio horizon at the approach of the rocket to the target itself, which is typical for large anti-ship missiles. Flying on supersonic against the background of the sea, an ideal target for an infrared head.
            RIM-66M-5
            SM-2MR Block IIIB Aegis combat system, Mk41 Launcher
            In Service 1998.
            For Aegis ships with MK 41 VLS. In production.
            Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP), dual IR / SARH seeker, IR seeker mounted on side fairing.
            Ooooh, and since when is the F-35 a group?

            Initially, in any case, it is declared that he himself did not feel, with the ability, among other things, to use the airborne radar for this purpose.
            Individual electronic warfare works from STR, for it RTR is not necessary.
            Therefore, the big question is about the possibilities of an instant. I could not find the name of the station, nor the characteristics.
            And you?
            A lot, and I have already indicated it.

            Wrong look.
            Compare the possibilities of Greyhound, as the base for Hokai, and Osprey.
            They are almost identical in terms of empty weight, the Osprey is superior to Greyhound in payload, that is, the Osprey's payload is greater, the radius for the Osprey is indicated with the load - load the radar instead, it's just business, you compare the practical range, for example, and you will see that Osprey is clearly not inferior to Greyhound, which is used on aircraft carriers both as a transport and as a base for Hokai.
            As for the practical ceiling, then at s-2 it is 9144 (Hokai-9390), at Osprey 7620 (by analogy with Hokai it may well be a couple of hundred meters higher, by the way), according to Wikipedia
            At the same time, the radio horizon for S-2 is about 390 km, for Osprey about 360 km, there is, of course, a difference, but not super-principle.
            The necessary equipment will be added, there is a load carrying capacity
            1. anzar
              anzar 14 August 2018 09: 53
              0
              Avior
              The Osprey is superior to Greyhound in payload, that is, the Osprey's carrying capacity is greater, the radius for the Osprey is indicated with loading - download instead Radar station...


              Where would you like to put the radar "plate"?
              We will think about shadows from the screws and the need for a powerful power supply unit later)))
  14. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 11 August 2018 17: 51
    0
    The level of fantastic assumptions in this article is just off scale.

    In the same way, the MiG-29KR are capable of further exploring the target identified by the domestic ZGRLS - with the same sad consequences for it (the target, and not the ZGRLS, of course).

    Are you sure that the MiG-29KR is really capable of issuing target designation for its AUG online? Is the type of digital battlefield completely and fully implemented?

    We won’t even discuss the fact that the MiG-29 will not return from this flight, the issue will simply disappear or at least die with some benefit ..
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 August 2018 02: 13
      +1
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Are you sure that the MiG-29KR is really capable of issuing target designation for its AUG online?

      Given the fact that Ka-25RC was able to do this in the 60's of the last century? As it were, yes :))) Generally speaking, according to some reports, our inability to exchange data is infinitely exaggerated. I heard stories about how a BOD hit an air target with a missile without turning on its own SLA and radar, which the missile cruiser issued on the basis of the data on the basis of data received from A-50 :))))) In general, I can not vouch for reliability, but ..
      Quote: Saxahorse
      We won’t even discuss the fact that the MiG-29 will not return from this flight

      Well, the Argentines were returning, but they never had a MiG-29KR :)))))
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 12 August 2018 21: 13
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Given the fact that the Ka-25RC was able to do this in the 60s of the last century?

        It’s not a topic and therefore I’m not ready to argue, but I’ve heard about big problems with target designation more than once.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well, the Argentines were returning, but they never had a MiG-29KR :)))))

        The Argentines lost a lot of their A-4 Skyhawk in battles over the Falklands, although the British did not have absolute air superiority. Harriers successfully fought back but it is impossible to compare this with the air defense zone of an American aircraft carrier. The Mig-29 is too simple a target for the F-35.

        It seems to me that there is too much optimism.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          13 August 2018 01: 30
          0
          Quote: Saxahorse
          It’s not a topic and therefore I’m not ready to argue, but I’ve heard about big problems with target designation more than once.

          Not for technical reasons. Even in the 60’s, we were able to transmit a radar image to a ship, another question, how many helicopters fly in the coverage area of ​​an enemy air wing?
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Harriers successfully fought back but it is impossible to compare this with the air defense zone of an American aircraft carrier.

          We are not talking about American AB, only about French and English. I wrote
          Frankly speaking, such additional reconnaissance is very difficult, if at all possible, if our adversary is a compound led by a super-carrier. There probably is not an easier target for an air patrol that has EW and AWACS aircraft than enemy multi-role fighters that search for the enemy using radar.

          The American AUS can be grazed, but only in peacetime, keeping it within the range of a salvo of anti-ship missiles.
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Mig-29 is too simple a target for F-35

          I don’t think :)))
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 13 August 2018 22: 35
            0
            I'm afraid that the Lightning Mig will not even be able to see. :)
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              14 August 2018 00: 45
              0
              Quote: Saxahorse
              I'm afraid that the Lightning Mig will not even be able to see. :)

              And do not be afraid, this is unworthy of a man :)))))))
  15. Senior seaman
    Senior seaman 11 August 2018 17: 53
    +1
    + + + +
    It is necessary to reread the entire series.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 11 August 2018 19: 25
    +1
    So it can be assumed that the PLA Navy, having in its composition two aircraft carriers, similar in performance characteristics of "Kuze" (but without "Granites"), can pull off 2 American AUG. And taking into account the possibility of using basic aviation (and h / s as they have with anti-ship ballistic missiles), picking them up for the Americans is quite problematic ...
  18. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 11 August 2018 22: 40
    +2
    The namesake, super, you can immediately do a training manual for enlightenment and understanding of the process. Still, you would do the same in terms of submerging, the capabilities of ASG, torpedo and missile weapons, and the boats themselves in dueling situations. This topic is very poorly covered, but I really want to, well we can add or criticize something on the forum, otherwise the brains will rust from all sorts of rubbish on the Internet. Gigantic Thank you, now I’ll print everything to the archive as well.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 August 2018 02: 14
      +1
      Quote: merkava-2bet
      Namesake, super

      Thank you, glad I liked it!
      Quote: merkava-2bet
      Still, you would have done the same in terms of submersion, the capabilities of ASGs, torpedo and rocket weapons, and the boats themselves in duel situations

      I'm afraid I'm not so good at owning the topic - everything is very complicated there
  19. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor 12 August 2018 02: 51
    +2
    Thought glitches, but no - my comments after the site upgrade began to appear a few hours after their de facto publication. The counter of comments for posts is growing, but under the post itself I do not see any new ones. Get updated site laughing
    1. Avior
      Avior 12 August 2018 11: 41
      0
      these comments are in your profile right away
  20. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 12 August 2018 03: 07
    +1
    Let us now consider the confrontation between AMG and Kuznetsov and the United States AUG with Gerald R. Ford. It must be said that the capabilities of the American supercarrier are extremely great: it is quite capable of sending the air group to the 40-45 vehicles into battle, while continuing to provide its own air defense with at least one air patrol in the air (DRLO aircraft, EW aircraft and 4 fighter aircraft), as well as some the number of ready-to-fly fighters on deck, in full readiness for an immediate take-off.

    And here is the question - how many aircraft wing to take from the American? For the current 4 squadrons / 48 "hornets" are a budget option for peacetime, suitable for killing all kinds of Zusul. Where is the guarantee that in the event of a large batch, USN admirals will not shake the old days and add at least a fifth squadron - the same Marine VMFA? Marines on the decks of large AB have long ceased to be exotic - now their squadrons of "hornets" are in at least two air wings.
    In the not so distant times, an air wing of 80 aircraft, including a dozen rather large Vikings, climbed onto the deck and into the hangar of the Nimitzes and quietly worked.
    That is, the TKR Kuznetsov, by the mere fact of its presence, reduces the number of strike groups of the American aircraft carrier by 60-80%.

    Many thanks for mentioning this fact! The AB air wing is not rubber, and the more aircraft there are in the air defense of its target, the more aircraft will have to be "pumped" from the strike group to the air supremacy groups.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 August 2018 11: 33
      +1
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And here is the question - what is the size of the wing to take from the American?

      It makes no difference - the main thing is the ship's throughput, we have already disassembled it. More than 45 aircraft to send him to battle at once. :)))
    2. Avior
      Avior 13 August 2018 11: 45
      -1
      Not so simple.
      More than an air wing Nimitsov will exhaust Kuznetsov by appearing on the radio horizon, provoking the rise of airplanes - until the resource flies out to the schedule and other things or until some sort of air finisher breaks
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        14 August 2018 00: 44
        0
        Quote: Avior
        More wing of Nimitsov will exhaust Kuznetsov by appearing on the radio horizon, provoking the rise of aircraft

        So no one does, and it’s not necessary
  21. exo
    exo 13 August 2018 11: 43
    +2
    A good series of articles. I did not know that EW aircraft were included in the air patrol. As far as I remember, this was not the case in the 80s. EW aircraft were included in attack orders when striking.
  22. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 15 August 2018 11: 18
    0
    And not to analyze yet the attack of ekranopoans. Not one of course. They’re going to build them. They’re unobtrusive, fast. Well, do not write off the presence of our ACG. Let the adversary scratch oneself.