The future of the US Navy: nuclear "supery" or light aircraft carriers?

87
Recently it became known that they think about the Russian deck aviation in USA. In short, we are advised to hand over our only Admiral Tavkr fleet Soviet Union Kuznetsov ”in the wake of goodbye and forever say goodbye to aircraft carrier ambitions, using the freed up funds for the construction of nuclear submarines of the“ Ash ”type or several small missile ships. Moreover, these recommendations do not come from analytical analysts of a publication that no one has heard of in the United States, but from highly respected professionals: US Naval Institute expert Richard Moss and US Navy Commander Ryan West.


The aircraft carrier Midway. Today, only a museum, but once ...




Well, the position is clear. But it is interesting for a change to see what America thinks about the prospects for the development of its own carrier-based forces. Moreover, there has been a certain revival in recent years in terms of the concept of aircraft construction.

A bit of history


For a long time in the American fleet everything was more or less simple and clear. The experience of the Second World War led the Americans to the idea of ​​a super-large aircraft carrier of the largest possible size, since it was such a ship that created the best conditions for the actions of its own wing. This is how Midway appeared, laid out on October 27 1943 and having a standard displacement - 47219 t.

The new aircraft carrier was only slightly smaller than the most modern at the time of American battleships of the Iowa type and was one of the largest warships in the world. Of course, in the US, small aircraft carriers were also built, the purpose of which is well understood from their very name: “escort.” These ships were not intended for sea battles, but for escorting caravans of transport or amphibious ships, anti-submarine defense and solving other, of course, important, but secondary in terms of gaining dominance at sea.

Then, after the end of the war and the start of mass production of atomic weapons, the idea arose that aircraft carriers as a means of war were completely outdated. The American admirals strongly disagreed with this, and therefore the US aircraft carriers increased in size: firstly, in order to ensure the basing of jet aircraft, for its era had come, and secondly, to carry aircraft capable of using atomic weapons . As a result, the first serial aircraft carriers of the post-war type “Forrestol” already had over 61 thousand tons of standard displacement, and it only grew in the future. And there already arrived, and nuclear power. Of course, the use of the latter on ships and ships has caused up to now even known controversies, but, by and large, for the three classes of ships: aircraft carriers, submarines and icebreakers, their usefulness has never been seriously disputed. In addition, combat aircraft increased in size by leaps and bounds, and it is not surprising that the displacement of American aircraft carriers eventually exceeded 100 000 tons.



However, it did not bother the Americans at all. In their post-war concepts, the Air Force always played first fiddle, a special role, air superiority was revered by them as an absolutely necessary prerequisite for winning the war. It is not surprising that with such an approach, and even having the richest experience of aircraft carrier war in the Pacific, the American admirals are absolutely sure that it is aviation that is the priority in armed struggle at sea. It is precisely aviation, in their opinion, that should win air supremacy, destroy enemy enemy ship groups, play an essential role in antisubmarine defense of formations, strike the coast, etc. and so on

Thus, the growth of the size and cost of aircraft carriers could not embarrass the command of the Navy - it is obvious that they thought it would be criminal to save on the key naval armaments system. And besides, may this banality be forgiven to the author, America is a rich country, and could afford a lot.

But then the inevitable happened. There is one very interesting economic law, commonly known as the "Pareto Rule", which says: "20% effort gives 80% result, and the remaining 80% effort - only 20% result." In other words, upon reaching a certain level, it becomes more and more expensive to increase the combat qualities of an aircraft carrier, and at some stage, simply speaking, the game is no longer worth the candle. According to the personal opinion of the author of this article, the Americans either reached the ideal, or were extremely close to him in a project of aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type - very expensive, but at the same time extremely efficient aircraft carriers. But as time went on, this project gradually became obsolete morally, new technologies appeared, and the US Navy wanted to get an aircraft carrier of a new project. This was the start of the development of a ship of the type “Gerald. R. Ford.

In essence, this ship was viewed as the “improved Nimitz”, and there were three main areas for improvement:

1. The transition from steam to electromagnetic catapults, the latter is much more comfortable, and better preserve both the health of the pilots and the life of the aircraft.
2. The increase in the average number of sorties per day from 140 to 160 while maintaining the same size of the air group.
3. Reduction in crew size due to automation: it was assumed that this would reduce the operating costs of the ship.

Besides, naturally, “Gerald. R. Ford had to get the most advanced technologies: such, for example, as new reactors that do not require recharging of the core for the entire service life of the aircraft carrier, the use of stealth technology, etc. etc.



And how are you doing?


What did the Americans do as a result? It is still premature to judge, because “Gerald R. Ford” turned out to be very “raw” and cannot cope with numerous “childhood diseases”, including in such important systems as electromagnetic catapults. Whether he will cope with them, or the disadvantages will become chronic, the future will show. But this is absolutely impossible to deny - the aircraft carrier turned out to be expensive. Very expensive.

Of course, the US military budget is titanic; in 2018, Uncle Sam’s military expenditures accounted for 36% of world military spending. But you need to understand that the costs of the Americans are also huge - their military-industrial complex has long been no different moderate appetites. And because the price tag of atomic aircraft carriers of the newest project is capable of driving even the senators of the United States of America into depression.

Initially, it was planned to meet the 10,5 billion dollars, and only for the lead ship, which the US has traditionally spent on its development costs, while the serial cost was supposed to be at the level of 8 billion dollars. However, in fact the costs for the creation of "Gerald R. Ford" passed for 13 billion, dollars, and a number of systems still do not want to work as it should. Of course, in these conditions, someone had to offer to build aircraft carriers "in sizes smaller, cheaper prices," and this happened. For some time now, both in the US Congress and in the US Department of Defense, the LAC concept has been discussed in one way or another, that is, Light Aircraft Carrier, which means “Light Aircraft Carrier” in Russian. As far as the author knows, the word "light" Americans understand aircraft carriers less than 70 000 tons of standard displacement.

In 2017, the notorious, terribly odious and now deceased US Senator John McCain succumbed to the heat: he suggested that in the period before 2022 r, the programs of building amphibious assault ships should be curtailed in favor of light aircraft carriers that should complement the existing heavy ones. Besides him, the Research Institute for Budget and Strategic Analysis Center (Center for Budgetary and Strategic Analysis) spoke in favor of light aircraft carriers in his report Restoring American Seapower, made in January of 2017. The latter proposed to build aircraft carriers with a displacement of 40-60 thousand tons with a conventional, non-nuclear power plant, whose air group will be approximately 40 airplanes and helicopters, that is, roughly, half of the wing of the supercarrier.

Why do the US Navy light aircraft carriers?


The logic of the supporters of light aircraft carriers is as follows: there are a number of tasks for carriers of carrier-based aircraft for which the capabilities of atomic superavian carriers are excessive. Among these tasks are mentioned:

1. Participation in low-intensity combat operations.
2. Direct protection of amphibious and shock ship groups.
3. Escort convoys.
4. The projection of force and the demonstration of the flag.

Accordingly, it is possible to solve them with light aircraft carriers, using heavy ones only where it is really needed.

I must say that what is happening in 2017 and now is not new in stories US Navy. At the turn of 70, the notorious Admiral E. Zamvolt, after whom the newest American destroyer was later named, also drew attention to the high cost of atomic aircraft carriers and, accordingly, a relatively small number of them in the fleet, which did not allow control of the ocean spaces. His proposals gave life to the concept of Sea Control Ship (SCS), I mean the ship control of the sea. In the original version, it was a small aircraft carrying ship with a displacement of only 13 000 t, speed 26 kt., Crew 700 person and air group of 17 aircraft including 11 anti helicopters, 3 helicopters AEW and 3 fighters vertical and short takeoff and landing. It was assumed that by abandoning one atomic "super" it would be possible to build eight SCS with the money saved.


American vertical / short takeoff aircraft XFV-12, which could become a prototype of the American VTOL aircraft, but did not


The concept of SCS seemed interesting, so the Americans even converted one of their landing helicopter carriers (“Guam”) into the carrier of “Harriers” and anti-submarine helicopters. Subsequently, the idea evolved into a ship about 30 thousand tons. at a speed of 30 units and an air group of 26 aircraft including the 4 of the VTOL aircraft, but it seemed to be non-optimal by the criterion of “cost-effectiveness”. As a result, the concept gradually came to naught, although for a long time articles appeared on the American press that SCS with a displacement of up to 40 KT, a non-nuclear power plant and with VTOL aircraft are the future of aircraft carriers. However, there is a persistent feeling that this was being done with one sole purpose - to convince the USSR, which was then just engaged in the construction of the Kiev-type TAVKR, which, they say, “go the right way, comrades!”

And in the US Navy it all boiled down only to the fact that the universal landing ships were able to carry VTOL and antisubmarine helicopters. Usually in online publications this fact is presented as recognition of the SCS concept, but the author of this article has big doubts about this. The fact is that such innovations increase the SAR of amphibious ship groups and enable the American marines to better use the VTOL aircraft at their disposal. That is, such steps only increase the capabilities of amphibious compounds and do not claim any “control over the sea”.

In other words, some real step towards the concept of light aircraft carriers in the United States was made a very long time ago, and that was all. However, in June, the Congressional Budget Office 2017 amended to allocate 2018 million to 30 for the development of the initial light aircraft carrier concept. In other words, from idle talk the Americans are moving to business.

New concepts


What awaits the US carrier fleet in the future? Experts of the notorious RAND corporation tried to answer this question. They compiled and published the Future Aircraft Carrier Options report, in which they considered possible directions for the development of carrier-based carrier aircraft in the event of the abandonment of serial construction of aircraft carriers of the Gerald R. Ford type.

The authors of the report, B. Martin and M. McMahon, presented the following variants to 4:

In the first case, we are talking about almost the same "Gerald R. Ford", but with a number of activities that allow to reduce the cost of the ship with a minimum drop in the combat capability of the latter. In the report, this version of the aircraft carrier is designated CVN 8X, while the aircraft carrier of the Gerald R.Ford type is the CVN 80.

The second project is the most funny and unusual concept of a modern aircraft carrier that the author of this article has ever come across (the horrors of the Krylovsky KGNTS, that is, the 23000 Storm project and other catamarans do not offer - they are trembling). It is all about the combined power plant of the latter. No, the combined power plants have been known for a very long time and are used everywhere, but here, at least, to recall our frigates of the 22350 project - there is used diesel for the economic course, and for the full version - a gas turbine. But gentlemen from RAND proposed to combine gas turbines with a nuclear engine ...

The essence of the proposal is as follows: “Gerald R. Ford” has two A1В reactors, which provide all the needs of an aircraft carrier, but, of course, are very expensive. So, the proposed concept with a displacement in 70 000 t. Should do with only one such reactor, and since its power is not enough for the needs of such a giant, it is proposed to “finish” it with gas turbines. The option of a full transition to "fossil" fuel by American experts was considered, but was rejected, as obviously wrong, to go the way of the British with their "Queen Elizabeth" in the United States do not want. It is very significant that, it would seem, the most logical option is to create a new reactor for the needs of an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 70 KT. “Randowers” ​​are not considered either. And this is probably logical, because in today's realities of the US military-industrial complex such development will not even be gold, but diamond, but the RAND task, in general, to reduce the cost of US aircraft carrier programs, rather than increase it. This concept B. Martin and M. McMahon was designated as CVN LX.

With the third concept, everything is very simple. In essence, this is a light aircraft carrier with a displacement of 40 000 t., Carrying only VTOL aircraft, that is, today, F-35B. Naturally, no nuclear reactor is not provided. The concept is named CV LX.

And finally, the fourth ship, which received the CV EX designation, is downright a renaissance of the ideas of E. Zamvolta, since we are talking about an “aircraft carrier” displacement within 20 000 tons or a bit more. Of course, his air group is also limited to VTOL and helicopters.

B. Martin and M. McMahon rated the possible performance characteristics of all four concepts, they are tabulated in the report, and for people who do not speak English, the author will try to give the necessary explanations below.



The flight deck area (Flight-deck maximum size) of the CVN 8X concept remains the same as that of Gerald R. Ford, while for the 70-thousandth CVN LX it is slightly (by 3,8%) smaller. And the same applies to the size of the air group (Embarked aircraft): on the CVN 8X it counts, as on the Ford 80 aircraft, and on the CVN LX it can be a little less than their number - 70-80. But the reduction in size led to a significant drop in the “fire performance” of the aircraft carrier. If Gerald R. Ford is expected to provide 160 sorties per day (SGR sustained per day), and from its simplified analogue CVN 8X - 140-160, then from 70 thousandth CVN LX - no more than 80 aircraft sorties per day. Strictly speaking, B. Martin and M. McMahon stipulated that this is a conservative estimate, that is, the number of sorties may turn out to be higher, but in any case, the backlog from the supercarrier will be more than significant. In addition, according to American analysts, the aircraft carrier in 70 000 t. Will be heavily lost to the aircraft carrier in 100 000 t. In terms of aviation fuel stocks, ammunition and the level of structural protection. The reduction in speed from 30 + to 28 knots also attracts attention.

Naturally, the forty-eight-ton CV LX is much more modest - the area of ​​the flight deck will be slightly more than 35% from Gerald R. Ford, the air group - 25-35 aircraft and 50-55 sorties a day maximum. CVN LX also has the lowest speed - 22 node.

But on a small CV EX, the authors of the report did not find an opportunity to place on it more 10 aircraft with the ability to provide flights per day up to 15-20. The speed of the ship will be 28 knots.

And how much will that cost?


As for the relative value of concepts, here, alas, the author brings poor knowledge of English. Apparently, the term “Total recurring ship cost” B. Martin and M. McMahon understand something intermediate between the cost of building a serial ship and the cost of its life cycle. In any case, this “Total recurring ship cost” for ships of the “Gerald R. Ford” type in 2018 g prices is defined in the report as 18 460 million dollars.

As you can see, CVN 8X is almost as good as Gerald R. Ford in terms of its combat potential, but alas, it is also almost as good as the cost - it is defined by the authors of the report in 17 540 million and just 920 million. dollars (less than 5%) below "Ford". Another thing is the seventieth CVN LX - here the savings will be 4 895 million or a little more than 26,5%. However, it should not be forgotten that it will be achieved due to a significant drop in the aircraft carrier’s combat capability, approximately twice as many sorties, as well as a significant reduction in combat reserves and weakening of the structural protection.

But CV LX is a very attractive option from a financial point of view, because its “Total recurring ship cost” is only 4 200 million dollars or less 23% of the cost of an atomic supercarrier. But here B. Martin and M. McMahon remind that in order to compensate for the absence of one Gerald R. Ford, at least two ships of the CV LX type will be required, and most importantly, it is impossible to base DRLO and EW aircraft on them, without which modern air combat is completely unthinkable. Thus, ships of the CV LX type can only be used where they can be adequately supported either by supercarriers or land-based aircraft, that is, their combat potential is significantly limited.

As for CV EX, the verdict of RAND specialists is unequivocal - maybe in some specific cases such ships will be useful, but they cannot replace, or at least act as, a useful addition to supercarriers. But the CVN LX and CV LX with certain reservations can be considered as a direction for further work on a light aircraft carrier.

And what does the US Navy command think about this?


It is, to put it mildly, not happy. The idea of ​​giving up combat potential for the price, for obvious reasons, does not attract admirals at all, but fears that in order to implement the light aircraft carrier construction program will have to reduce the number of heavy ones, they exist and express themselves.

Strictly speaking, given the current state of the US military budget, it is possible to build light aircraft carriers only at the expense of atomic "supers", or at the expense of universal landing ships. Obviously, the first option is not to the sailors' liking, and the second to the marine corps, which has repeatedly raised the issue of the lack of airborne assault vehicles for the scale of amphibious operations expected from them.

And finally


We can only wish the Americans every success in promoting the LAC program and building light aircraft carriers. According to the experience of a number of US military programs, it can be expected that as a result of an attempt to reduce the cost of the US Navy aircraft carrier fleet, ships will receive one and a half times less, two times worse and three times more expensive than existing ones. The author, of course, exaggerates, but in every joke there is some joke, and everything else is true.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

87 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    10 July 2019 04: 49
    The United States now has a full line of aviation technology to equip both heavy and light aircraft carriers. So, I don't see any particular problem for them. And the fact that they talked about "lungs", in my opinion, means one thing. They are thinking about protecting their convoys, which they will need to guard, in the event of a war in Europe. So, for us this is another "wake-up call"
    1. +4
      10 July 2019 07: 57
      Light aircraft carriers they already have. In the form of UDC.
      UDC America" ​​- air group 12 MV-22, 6 F-35B, 4 ΑH-1Z, 4 ΜΗ-53, 3 UH-1 or 22 F-35B. Or its predecessor "UOSP" - aviation group 30-32 helicopters CH- 46, 6-8 AV-8B aircraft or up to 46 CH-46 helicopters or 20 AV-8B aircraft.
      This is in addition to landing with means of amplification.
      1. +1
        10 July 2019 14: 29
        Quote: YOUR
        Light aircraft carriers they already have. In the form of UDC.

        UDC is a "three-in-one" floating airfield + command post + vehicle for the landing, so I think what they are talking about will be more "sharpened" for solving a specific task - providing air cover, which means it will be cheaper.
    2. -6
      10 July 2019 08: 04
      The United States does not have a promising carrier-based aircraft. "Super Hornet" will finally become obsolete in 5-7-10 years, and there is no replacement. For Penguin 35 did not work out.
      Well, the US is concerned not so much with "Convoys to Europe" (tm), as with domination and control over the entire world ocean in its key zones. For example, they need to allocate ships for the fundamental strengthening of the Pacific straits leading to the Indian Ocean and the Indian Ocean itself. The reason is the strengthening of the Chinese fleet that is already happening and promising in the near future; who, just, is interested in this very thing. And "this is the most" vital for China because it provides a stable and safe "sea silk road" to Europe and Bl. East (one!), Stable and safe oil supply traffic from the Near East (two!), And access to the recolonization of Africa (three!).
      1. +9
        10 July 2019 09: 19
        Quote: Private-K
        The United States does not have a promising carrier-based aircraft. "Super Hornet" will finally become obsolete in 5-7-10 years, and there is no replacement.

        There is. Here one of two things - or they will finish the F-35S, and if they don't finish it, they will make Silent Hornet - by the way, a very good plane, in the logic of our generation 4 ++ - an old glider is taken, modified with a file so that the EPR is smaller, a bunch is put modern equipment, etc ... in general, you can fight on this. It's like with us - the Su-35 is also not the 5th generation, but it will serve for a long time and successfully.
        1. -7
          10 July 2019 09: 53
          Ф35С is not subject to doping. Vicious construction in principle. Mistake at the concept level.
          Well, as a prospect, considering the analogue of Su-35 for the United States will be foolish. Yes, and there the military science / analysts will not allow this.
          For the United States, now, the most rational thing is to immediately end the torment with the entire F35 family and begin urgent development of a new MFI, taking F22 as a conceptual basis but at a new technological level and using proven solutions on F35, extreme upgrades of F18, F15 and F16. If you don’t work out, then in 3-5 years they will fit into a practical device - that is, technologies. The question is in management decisions, which they saved for F35.
          And do not strive to unify so much the Air Force and Navy options.
          1. 0
            10 July 2019 16: 16
            Quote: Private-K
            Ф35С is not subject to doping. Vicious construction in principle. Mistake at the concept level.

            It does not follow that this plane will not fly.
            Quote: Private-K
            Well, as a prospect, considering the analogue of Su-35 for the United States will be foolish. Yes, and there the military science / analysts will not allow this.

            The fleet may not allow itself such a thing, it is in a special position
            1. 0
              10 July 2019 20: 49
              It flies then it flies ... It was not enough that he didn’t fly at all. Only here is the sum of critical problems - rolls over.

              Neither the Air Force nor the US Navy will buy past generation aircraft. This is 146%.
        2. 0
          31 July 2019 14: 47
          The smaller the number of fighters present 5 pok.
          The longer the full transfer of the Air Force to 5 pok airplanes will be delayed.
          The longer fighters of Pok. 4 ++ and even 4+ will be full fighters.
          Judging by the pace of commissioning 5 pok., I gave the front number too low. Perhaps we should talk about starting from 7-8 years, and then we'll see.
          No matter how it turns out, the gene-4 ++ aircraft will coexist perfectly with the gene-5 aircraft for a couple of decades. request
      2. +4
        10 July 2019 11: 48
        Quote: Private-K
        The United States does not have a promising carrier-based aircraft. "Super Hornet" will finally become obsolete in 5-7-10 years, and there is no replacement.

        I ask you to decipher the thesis "obsolete" ...
        in 5-7-10 years, what tasks cannot be performed by the CX?
        1. -5
          10 July 2019 12: 12
          Out of date, here, it means it has no perspective. Its value will fall against the background of saturation of new generations of fighters. And if the Su-35s already exist and are riveted in numbers and will serve and serve, then accept amers now their "analogue" of the Su-35 in the form of a "megasuperHornet" ... and start doing what the "backward" RF is already doing 10 years ... well, not at all decent.
          1. +3
            10 July 2019 12: 58
            Quote: Private-K
            Su-35

            is it a deck
            1. -3
              10 July 2019 13: 33
              But what, read the whole branch is not fate? Why ask a stupid question? It's about plane level. And, not me, I cited the example of the Su-35 as one of the most powerful aircraft of the generation with many advantages.
              1. +5
                10 July 2019 13: 53
                Quote: Private-K
                Why ask a stupid question?

                Yes, because the SU35 is not a deck! why compare them?
                CX, today, is the only combat deck aircraft, how can it become obsolete if it has no competitors at sea?
                1. 0
                  10 July 2019 20: 39
                  We look above and see that it was not I who gave an example with the Su-35. We think.
                  Yes, he is not a decker. And I did not say that he was a decker. We think.
                  I incomprehensibly explained that when I say Su-35, I mean not himself, but his level? Apparently not everyone can understand ...
                  Superhorn will act in the clear sea-ocean? Will it be at war with albatrosses? After 5 years, China will have a pair of aircraft carriers with their decks. So let's see.
                  1. 0
                    11 July 2019 10: 28
                    Quote: Private-K
                    After 5 years, China will have a pair of aircraft carriers with their decks. So let's see.

                    and what is there to watch? on a copy of SU33? But what about the aircraft AWACS on deck?
                    SU33 may exceed SC, but the overwhelming superiority of the United States in quantity and experience is so great that China will catch up with 50 years.
                    1. 0
                      11 July 2019 11: 09
                      1. Is there any confidence that the Chinese will stagnate while continuing to use the Su-33 in 5-10 years? In my opinion, the Chinese have long made it clear that they are not going to stagnate. Not with anything.
                      2. The United States also claims to dominate the littoral, i.e. close to the coast, sea area. And in the pouring areas. This means that in the event of a conflict, the American decks will have to face "normal" air force fighters of the same China anyway.

                      In both cases, Americans have no obvious advantage accustomed to reverse US command unacceptably.
                      Those. they desperately need a truly new multi-purpose aircraft for deck and aviation MarinsCorps. And this aircraft is obliged to surpass in its characteristics any probable enemy aircraft.
                      Obviously, MegaSuperPuperNewKhornet will not be able to do this.
                      It is already obvious that penguin35 will not be such an aircraft either.
                      Conclusion - the US naval aviation has bad prospects. If you don’t change your mind right now and start accelerated development of the new marine IFIs on the accelerated procedures.
                      1. 0
                        11 July 2019 11: 30
                        Quote: Private-K
                        Is there any confidence that the Chinese will stagnate while continuing to use the Su-33 in 5-10 years?

                        there is...
                        Quote: Private-K
                        In my opinion, the Chinese have long made it clear that they are not going to stagnate. Not with anything.

                        going to do something and make it are two big differences!
                        Quote: Private-K
                        This means that in the event of a conflict, the American deck ships will have to face "normal" air force fighters anyway

                        absolutely does not mean !!!!
                        the decks have always been inferior and inferior to airfield airplanes.
                        Quote: Private-K
                        And this aircraft is obliged to surpass in its characteristics any probable enemy aircraft.

                        never the decks surpassed the aircraft of the probable enemy, never! (well, maybe only F14 ...)
                        Quote: Private-K
                        Conclusion - the US naval aviation has bad prospects.

                        the fact is that they have no competitors at sea !!! in this connection it cannot be argued that they have bad prospects.
                      2. 0
                        11 July 2019 11: 35
                        The harsh Chinese reality is very contrary to your views.
                        The belief in the inviolability of the naval power of the United States is akin to the old belief in the inviolability of the naval power of Great Britain, and before that - of Spain ...

                        PS (by the way, where did the British go, do not tell me?) ...
                      3. 0
                        11 July 2019 11: 50
                        Quote: Private-K
                        The harsh Chinese reality is very contrary to your views.

                        give the facts.
                        Quote: Private-K
                        Belief in the inviolability of US naval power

                        This belief is based on an analysis of the (divan) Navy and the United States ILC
                      4. 0
                        11 July 2019 11: 58
                        Compare the Chinese aircraft 20 years ago - 10 years - and today. In fact, these are different suns. Starting with the quality of uniforms and ending with brand new weapons to hi-tech.
                        100 years ago, everyone, too, was greatly respected and feared by the British fleet. Dumb of that fleet.
                        Over the past few years we have seen a number of shameful accidents for "cruising" ones - there is a drop in the level of professionalism and, in general, a mess.
                        We are watching a film about aircraft carriers. We carefully look at the type of personnel 30-50 years ago and the present. And we understand - now this is rabble.
                        The absence of supersonic anti-ship missiles - ay-yay.
                      5. 0
                        11 July 2019 12: 02
                        Quote: Private-K
                        Compare the Chinese aircraft 20 years ago - 10 years - and today.

                        this is the effect of a low starting base.
                      6. +1
                        11 July 2019 13: 16
                        It was not in vain that I wrote the lines of 20 and 10 years. 10 years ago, the level was no longer low. Now, apparently, it is already European-level troops. Like South Korea or Japan. And by the presence of operational-tactical weapons, they are approaching the major league, and in some ways they are superior to the United States - supersonic anti-ship missiles and generally anti-ship missiles. Even their version of Aegis for naval air defense was patched up. And they are not going to stop - new weapons and equipment every year.
      3. mvg
        +5
        10 July 2019 19: 52
        For Penguin 35 did not work

        Is that how you decided? And what, if not a secret, did you come out in the "face of the face"? Is there better?
        Well, at least in something? All over the world .. And so everyone wants to buy it. Not even ATF members. Orders for 3k ++. Well, this is a fix .. We have Su-35S sold like sunflower seeds .. 24 to China (for evaluation), 11 to Indonesia (but not a fact) and the rest are in line, though it’s not. And so, a full zakazoff portfolio ... the truth is only sandwiches and coffee.
        1. -1
          10 July 2019 20: 44
          I did not exit because it does not work as usual. Generally.
          Orders - due to US pressure and the lack of alternatives.
          Canadians refused to spit in the amer’s soul by buying from the Australoids the well-worn Hornets, incl. for cannibalization.
          I’m sure you haven’t read anything about him. Just watched the enthusiastic videos.

          And why are you about the Su-35 began to crucify? Did I really scold him? Or are you thinking of me? Or are you unable to understand the simplest logical chain?
          1. mvg
            +5
            10 July 2019 21: 51
            I bet you haven’t read anything about him.

            I would have such confidence .. usually, answering an unfamiliar opponent, you look at his last comments, and, well, as far as the brain allows, you draw conclusions about him (the interlocutor) .. and then confidence.
            that it does not work normally

            What is the "normal mode" then? Hits and hammers, with impunity, the Syrians .. All performance characteristics are confirmed, constantly modernized ..
            PS: And who, in fact, are Canadians afraid of? One of the highest standards of living, a powerful ally at hand .. Why do they need Lightning?
            simplest logical circuit

            It's not for you to talk about logic ... sorry. It would be better if the lessons were done more accurately. Well, they read something there, except for "Captain Grant"
            1. 0
              11 July 2019 06: 57
              Is penguin35 confirmed by TTZ? ;))) Well, this is finally a scribe ... Yes there is a bummer after a bummer. Fatal flaws. Robbery with qualification of critical problems. And all this is rampart.
              Of course, I can put links under your nose ... But you stupidly omit them and continue to admire the penguin35. And you have not read anything about it - it is confirmed.
              You do not even know that modern children do not read a wonderful book about Captain Grant ...;))))
              1. +2
                11 July 2019 07: 18
                Quote: Private-K
                Of course, I can put links under your nose ...

                I would read, interesting. Because, despite the dislike of the penguin, I have not heard about the critical and fatal flaws of the F-35C.
      4. 0
        31 July 2019 12: 59
        I think if the Americans want to build a reliable marine squirrel - replacing the f-18, without unnecessary penguin ambitions, focusing on LTH and upgrading equipment, they will do it well
  2. +5
    10 July 2019 05: 45
    An interesting, conceptual article, the author has done a great analytical job!
    I fully subscribe to the last paragraph, I always admired the simple American shipbuilders who bring to life the most ambitious, albeit ambiguous, projects!
  3. +1
    10 July 2019 06: 13
    The aircraft carrier is the cornerstone of American politics. Considering that the appetites of the US military-industrial complex are always growing, green candy wrappers are provided only with military power and its confirmation in the form of what thread by the next war against "world evil" or the country assigned to the role of a victim (preferably, where there are some thread of resources), then a sweet life is provided for an aircraft carrier smile
    1. -10
      10 July 2019 06: 24
      classic carbon copy Ren TV
      1. +1
        10 July 2019 18: 32
        Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
        classic carbon copy Ren TV

        belay what request
        1. 0
          10 July 2019 19: 10
          I'm talking about the words "provided only by military power" is just ridiculous to hear
          1. -1
            10 July 2019 19: 39
            Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
            just funny to hear

            Well then, try to exchange your "dalyars" for gold wink All the stability of the dollar will live on the imaginary agreement of the holders of this money. Over time, the printing mass will accelerate inflation within the United States itself, therefore, periodically the paper is thrown into the world in exchange for the resources of the countries conquered by democracy, thus paying for the growth of the military-industrial complex (GDP) within the country itself. You print paper, build everything you need, do war, plunder resources. That is, with the help of wars you wash candy wrappers. The cycle is repeated every 10-15 years.
            For reference - you can check this if you carefully watch the news, where you can already hear the head about the US default, the endlessly growing foreign debt ... So, soon, within 2-3 years, there will be another war under a plausible pretext with one of the "enemies" of democracy ... If you don’t believe about providing the dollar with military power, then ask the Chinese or the Germans - are they giving them their "exceptional" gold in exchange for dollars? wink smile
            PS Libya tried to abandon the dollar in favor of the golden dinar. Where is she? And with the growth of countries, which will gradually move into mutual settlements in national currencies, the number of "enemies of democracy" will also grow. Yes
            1. -3
              10 July 2019 20: 09
              God, I don’t even want to comment on this, only a person who fiercely hates the United States will write this, or someone who does not understand the economy at all, by the way google "the same years and different weather"
    2. 0
      10 July 2019 07: 07
      Quote: Rurikovich
      US military appetites are always growing, green candy wrappers are provided only by military power

      I'll add it myself. The Navy (and all the US Armed Forces) will curb their appetites only if they are confronted with the fact of the lack of financial capabilities for their "wants". And since the redistribution of the global resource does not see an end and an edge, light aircraft carriers for the United States will remain in the form of concepts. If we see them "in hardware", and the supers will be dragging by the ears until they survive, it means that "the king is really naked" and the US economy, together with the military-industrial complex and the Armed Forces, is being rebuilt for life "within our means" without fanaticism with supers and other show off ...
      1. 0
        10 July 2019 09: 56
        For example, I like the project of the French aircraft carrier DEAC (DCNS Evolved Aircraft Carrier).
        Displacement: 52000 tons (PROJECT: 40 ... 60)
        - Cruising range: from 5000 to 9000 nautical miles
        - Stock autonomy: 35 days
        - Speed: 27 knots
        Aviation group from 30 to (as in the PROJECT) 40 aircraft, such as Rafale, Hawkeye, NH90 or analogues): during operational deployment with an aircraft wing of 38 aircraft, 75 sorties per day are provided for a long time.
        - Flight deck area of ​​13700 m2
        - 2 x 90 m steam catapults
        - Three-way aerofinisher
        - Area of ​​the hangar 4800 m2
        - 2 aircraft lifts.
        But the "cut" will not allow the money to go to France ...
        Until there is a global conflict, there is enough of such a ship, and the "heavy" ones will conserve the resource.
        1. 0
          10 July 2019 10: 22
          About an aircraft carrier for the Russian Federation? With foreign orders, the Mistrals were enough. Even with China, not everything is so simple. Therefore, there are only two options: to rely only on yourself (to puff or refuse), because on the rest - no hope at all. And their hypertrophied "exclusivity" will not allow the Americans to import and take bread from their military-industrial complex (one-time purchases that happened from NATO partners are more likely a bone tossed by them).
      2. +1
        10 July 2019 12: 38
        Quote: g1washntwn
        The Navy (and all the US Armed Forces) will curb their appetites only if they are confronted with the fact of the lack of financial capabilities for their "wants".

        They won't die. In this case, the Navy will start trying to cut off a piece of the "foreign" budget in its favor. Fortunately, that already happened - after the war, when the fleet fought for the budget with the Air Force.
        1. -1
          10 July 2019 13: 59
          This does not mean interspecific squabbles, but national restrictions. The end of the Bretton Woods Accords / a fallen asteroid in the San Andreas Fault / Godzilla / a mutant virus from Mars / _______________ (underline the option you like or add your own) and the general "fun" is provided, including the defense budget. From growth and in general from GDP, there will be only bandages and iodine on coupons.
  4. 0
    10 July 2019 10: 19
    do not offer other catamarans
    - this is how perspective lines are closed. But the best fighting aircraft carrier fleet in the states was at the end of World War II, when conventional (read cheap) barges and bulk carriers were rebuilt into aircraft carriers. It was cheap and cheerful. And then the "sailors", read the admirals, did not give a damn about "cheap". As an example, why is there a tower on an aircraft carrier? To interfere with the planes sits down. Keeping on one ship a supply of fuel, ammunition, airplanes, PUP and V / P lane is another technical solution. But keeping a flexible coupling of vessels of the type: in the middle a tanker, a dry cargo ship with planes, and a dry cargo ship with ammunition, and on the sides tankers of the V / P strip, separately MCC, will be cheap and cheerful, because a tanker and a dry cargo ship cost 2-200 million $, and the capacity, stability, productivity will be many times greater, you just have to stop trembling, and start counting. And do not shout about the wave and so on, all the same, with great excitement, they do not fly, but under normal conditions, the coupling is more stable. And there is no need to worry about tankers, aircraft carriers do not go alone - just the concept of an aircraft carrier needs to be split up, and the concept of an order should be expanded. Two take-off decks, each 300-400 meters long, 600 meters wide (only two coupled tankers each) - will allow such a round dance in the sky to be arranged - not a single supercarrier, and an order of magnitude more expensive, will dream. All technical problems (hitching, cargo movement, control, etc.) can be solved, and in an easier mode than on modern aircraft carriers, since we are avoiding crowding. And yes, you can use the SU-60 on a 600-meter runway.
    1. +5
      10 July 2019 12: 51
      Quote: srha
      But the best belligerent carrier carrier fleet among the states was at the end of the 2nd World War when ordinary (read cheap) barges and bulk carriers were rebuilt into aircraft carriers. It was cheap and cheerful.

      Uh-huh ... only these ships fought only where there were no enemy warships. Even in maintenance operations, the escort AV was entrusted with the tasks of covering the landing force and rear services, transferring aircraft and supporting ground forces. Tuffy Sprague's fight with Kurita's forces stands out because he was something out of the ordinary.
      And supremacy in the air and at sea in the landing area was provided just by the large AB. Which the US built 17 units during the war (plus 7 more were completed after the war, plus 3 Midway that did not have time for the war).
      Quote: srha
      As an example, why is a tower on an aircraft carrier standing? To interfere with the planes sits down.

      Several times AV tried to do without the "island". Then I had to attach it. smile
      Quote: srha
      And do not shout about the wave and so on, all the same, they don’t fly with great excitement, but with a normal hitch it’s more stable.

      Large AVs provide the air group with an excitement of up to 6 points.
      1. 0
        11 July 2019 12: 21
        And I do not call such aircraft carriers to close all the holes of the Russian fleet. But certain ones are quite possible, and at a relatively low cost (compared to super-carriers). Why do you, on the pretext of different performance characteristics of a supercarrier and a composite aircraft carrier, refuse a composite one, and knowing that there is no money for the super, and the terms, like that of a donkey with a sultan? As for the tower, for some reason the land can have a mobile, but there are no sailors ... Why?
        1. +2
          12 July 2019 14: 29
          Quote: srha
          Why do you, on the pretext of different performance characteristics of a supercarrier and a composite aircraft carrier, refuse a composite one, and knowing that there is no money for the super, and the terms, like that of a donkey with a sultan?

          Because we already went through all this - and asymmetric cheap solutions as a result, it turned out to be more costly for the budget than direct answers (for the cost of our fleet, PLARK, TARKR, TAVKR, RKR + the cost of naval naval units could be built, built and contain 7 AUGs).
          We have already tried to build a helicopter carrier based on a civilian roller. After the preliminary design of such alterations were imposed the minimum the requirements of the Navy for the survivability and security of the ship, the resulting ship could only be built on the "slipway 0".
    2. +2
      10 July 2019 13: 38
      Dear colleague, before discussing the mechanical strength of the hitch, I tactfully hint: google the task of calculating the strength of a beam
      1. 0
        11 July 2019 12: 12
        Why tough? Why are you restricting yourself to unnecessary restrictions? Have you read about the landing strip of ice, of small pontoons? Such a strip due to the deflection under the landing aircraft provides better landing conditions than a rigid one.
        1. +1
          11 July 2019 19: 19
          Such a band due to deflection under a boarding plane it provides better landing conditions than a rigid one.


          But is there anything in the ocean that has waves? - such a strip can only work on the lake

          if you don’t want a rigid one, then how exactly will a flexible one look like that? :



          wassat
    3. +4
      10 July 2019 17: 12
      Quote: srha
      But the best belligerent carrier carrier fleet among the states was at the end of the 2 world when ordinary (read cheap) barges and bulk carriers were converted into aircraft carriers. It was cheap and cheerful

      Yeah. Only now this was not at the end of the war, because the massively built ships of Casablanca and Commencement Bay were built just like aircraft carriers from scratch, and were not rebuilt from transporters. Although there was a bulk carrier hull in one case, and a tanker in another, there were a lot of design changes.
      Quote: srha
      But keep the flexible hitch

      Absolutely impossible. Technically, the deck of an aircraft carrier should be flat and smooth, like the chest of a modern model laughing No hitch is possible here
      Quote: srha
      because the tanker and the dry cargo ship cost 200-300 million $, and the capacity, stability, productivity will be many times more, you just have to stop shaking, and start to count.

      Well, you didn’t start. Because when you start, it SUDDENLY turns out that in order for this to work, you need feed systems, refueling systems, powerful air defense, aircraft hangars, cabins for flight crews and an increased crew, and the speed of tankers / bulk carriers does not allow them to operate in the composition of ship groups, it is necessary to strengthen the EU ... In general, after correcting all the above disadvantages, get the same Essex or Midway at the exit
      1. -1
        11 July 2019 12: 36
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The deck of the aircraft carrier should be flat and smooth.
        Why did you get this? Better read about the experience of Soviet pilots landing on ice floes. Or the Japanese in the flowing lanes.
        And yes, did you check the speed of the tankers? And the composition of the ship groups? There are no tankers or what? As I read: "March 26, 2012" Enterprise "as part of the US Navy aircraft carrier group (missile cruiser, three destroyers, nuclear attack submarine, and tanker) entered the Mediterranean Sea, then to head to the Persian Gulf. In addition, the race for super speed at an aircraft carrier in modern conditions of global surveillance is practically useless, and it’s eating up resources - do not worry about the homeland ...
        By the way, maybe you can look at it yourself and compare the speed of Admiral Kuznetsov, Queen Elizabeth, Emma Mersk, Queen Mary 2 - therefore, in terms of speed, I consider the remark not worth discussing - you just need to see the real numbers.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Suddenly it turns out that in order for all this to work,
        Hee, doesn’t this need on a classic aircraft carrier? Not at all sudden, in a previous post I wrote that some devices can be omitted altogether - such as a catapult (in view of 600 m of lanes), while others will come out cheaper, because there will be no restrictions inherent in the classic aircraft carrier in terms of size - you probably did not carefully read or were looking for reasons not to do better, but to do as they used to ...
        1. +3
          11 July 2019 15: 10
          Quote: srha
          Why did you get this? Better read about the experience of Soviet pilots landing on ice floes.

          I read something. You, if you think that they are bending under the plane - no.
          Quote: srha
          And yes, did you watch tanker speeds? And the composition of the ship groups? Are there tankers or something?

          Firstly, we are not talking about 2012 g, but about WWII times. Secondly, you are elementarily illiterate in matters of the composition of the US Navy
          Quote: srha
          "On March 26, 2012" Enterprise "as part of the US Navy aircraft carrier group (missile cruiser, three destroyers, nuclear attack submarine, and a tanker) entered the Mediterranean Sea

          The fact is that the US Navy has its own SPECIAL-built tankers, such as, for example, tankers such as Henry J. Kaiser, which have high cruising speed (up to 20 knots) that were SPECIALLY built to accompany ship groups. And I assure you, these tankers cost MUCH more expensive than ordinary ships of this class.
          Quote: srha
          In addition, the race for super speed at an aircraft carrier in modern conditions of global surveillance is practically useless in general

          As a matter of fact, you signed with one phrase that you do not know either why an aircraft carrier needs high speed, or about the capabilities of modern "global" surveillance systems. Hint - these are not related things at all.
          Quote: srha
          therefore, I consider the remark speed not worth discussing

          You would have to learn the materiel, after all.
          Quote: srha
          Hee, doesn’t you need this on a classic aircraft carrier?

          Naturally, it is necessary, therefore, the cost in the end will be comparable.
          Quote: srha
          Not at all unexpectedly, in a previous post I wrote that some devices can be omitted altogether - such as a catapult (due to 600 m bands),

          And I explained to you that the plane can neither land nor take off on the "breathing" deck, which, in fact, is an axiom - your references to ice and so on prove only how inattentive you are when working with sources
          1. -1
            11 July 2019 18: 46
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I read something. You, if you think that they are bending under the plane - no.
            You did not indicate what you read - maybe "Dunno on the Moon"? Try reading, for example, "Sea Collection" p. 83. And it looks like you are a sofa expert - you yourself have never walked on young ice, otherwise you would have known about ice deflection. By the way, a question for an expert - if a 40-ton machine is standing on an ice floe - how much water is displaced from under the ice floe (Archimedes' law says that about 40 cubic meters) and how much cm is the ice floe bent? By the way, do seaplanes sit on diverging water or on a "spherical horse in vacuum" with a "flat and smooth" strip?

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I explained to you that the plane can neither land nor take off on the "breathing" deck,
            You didn’t explain anything - not a word of explanation - your one opinion. Yes, you contradict yourself - can you really say that with 6 points of excitement the deck is motionless? And as for your opinion, I have immunity, since there is a neighbor that has the opinion that the moon is only a little more than 50 km, so everything is clear with the opinion.

            And if such a material as ice holds, then steel will be able to.

            About the special. tankers for the Americans - but you didn’t notice such a container ship (Emma Mersk) on the list, for business transportation, with the indicated speed - 25,6 knots? And it’s not super-expensive, apparently, since it pays off even in business.

            Summary. You can easily come up with a thousand excuses to not do something. And it’s very difficult to do something really new, especially when they blow into your ears - so low ...
            1. +3
              11 July 2019 19: 12
              Quote: srha
              You did not indicate what you read - maybe "Dunno on the Moon"? Try reading, for example, "Marine collection" page 83

              laughing
              You are charming! "As at the age of 4 he took a book in his hands, he still does not publish it" - this is said about you. "Morskoy Sbornik" is a magazine that was published even before the revolution (and the officers of the Bizert squadron published it abroad) and is published to this day. And offer to open it on page 83 can only ... you
              Quote: srha
              And it looks like you are from couch experts - you yourself haven’t ever gone on young ice, otherwise you would have known about the ice deflection

              Try to walk on the foil - generally tear. Open the drawer in the kitchen, take a stainless steel knife, check. Bends, unsurprised expert!
              But here's the thing - both young ice and foil and a knife have nothing to do with the landing strip.
              Quote: srha
              By the way, the question for the expert is - if the 40 ton machine is on the ice - how much water has been squeezed out from under the ice (the law of Archimedes says that there are about 40 cubic meters) and how many cm is the ice bent then?

              Listen, the expert is not unsurprising, even you should understand that the deflection will depend on the thickness of the ice, its composition and even a bunch of parameters. But in general, the deflection is unlikely to be measured even in millimeters, because ice of many meters thickness is used as an ice airfield, and the size of the ice is gigantic.
              However, it all depends on the mass of the aircraft. For AN-2 there will be enough ice centimeters in 40. A modern tank will be held centimeters on the 50-80.
              However, none of this has the slightest significance. The fact is that deflection exists absolutely everywhere, and in metal too. When a force is applied to the material, it deforms, but then, if the strength limits are not exceeded, it returns to its original position. So, sagging during landing is one thing, but the undulating motion of interlocking vessels is completely different. That is, these are two completely different physical processes, of which the first does not create problems during landing (up to certain limits, of course), but the second creates, and huge ones. As for me, this should be clear to a child of elementary grades, because vessels on a soft hitch essentially stand up as a "house", that is, they form a small analogue of a springboard that throws an airplane when it has not yet picked up enough speed, and vice versa, with a reverse deflection, creating unforeseen loads on the chassis. But in addition to pitching, there is also a lateral pitch ... That is why the requirements for the surface of even a ground runway are EXTREMELY high.
              Quote: srha
              Yes, you contradict yourself - can you really say that at 6 balls of excitement the deck is motionless?

              That is, you are not even able to comprehend the difference between a straight surface at an angle and a "broken line" going up and down
              Quote: srha
              You can easily come up with a thousand excuses to not do something. And it’s very difficult to do something really new, especially when they blow into your ears - so low ...

              but why? Do it. For such "non-sofa experts" like you, who do not even know the basics, but climb somewhere, even the Darwin Prize was invented, for motivation, so to speak
              1. -2
                12 July 2019 06: 46
                Well, with a deflection, you still have to agree and abandon your: "they bend under the plane - no."
                You should also refuse demagogic methods. For example, do not fantasize about the opponent's topic like: "As at the age of 4 he took a book in his hands, he still does not release it." Can you?
                You should also make friends with logic and facts. We check: "the requirements for the surface of even a ground runway are EXTREMELY high" - but what about landing on highways and dirt roads? Say this for ... So what prevents the requirements for aircraft to be somewhat tougher - is it really easier to make special aircraft for aircraft carriers in general? And yes, will you find deflection conditions in "your" requirements? A reference, please, otherwise your unfounded opinions are not perceived.
                We forgot about the speed of the tankers, after double-pointing you to Emma Mersk. This is good, Another alleged problem is removed.
                And yes, if you cannot find in the Marine Journal about ice deflection, then I will give a direct link: https://books.google.kz/books?id=AnZAAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA84&lpg=RA2-PA84&dq=deep + ice + at+ planting + aircraft + on + ice & source = bl & ots = WR3fhxY3lI & sig = ACfU3U0FIrk68IcqMR5kuVLcEg7HpcQXHw & hl = ru & sa = X & ved = 2ahUKEwjT6Ozolq3jAhVGZlAKHSIPBZ4Q6AEwC3oECAgQAQ # v = onepage & q = deflection% 20lda% 20pri% 20posadke% 20samoleta% 20na% 20led & f = false

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                deflection during landing is one thing, and the wave-like motion of coupled vessels is completely different
                Yes not really? But smart people defend dissertations by the deflections of ice and the wave movement associated with it, but you don’t know, don’t look, but excuse yourself.

                And the logic of the examples is somehow strange: with foil for example. Do we not discuss the topic of landing on a flexible floating surface on the water? I repeat - on the water, and not in isolation from it. Do you know how to break a leg about a newspaper? Lay it on the water, and then jump on it from the 6 meter high tower. I mean, the behavior of materials is highly dependent on the environment.

                And again, that you are slipping some of your ideas, such as "courts on a soft hitch" as my arguments - now it is clear why it turns out that nothing will work out - you would have suggested a hitch on rubber bands (although this an eccentric appeared) - that was the scope for criticism. The hitch should be flexible enough, but not soft, no excess.
                1. +2
                  12 July 2019 07: 54
                  Quote: srha
                  Well, with a deflection, you still have to agree and abandon your: "they bend under the plane - no."

                  Do not smack nonsense, it hurts.
                  Quote: srha
                  You still have to abandon the demagogic tricks.

                  To me?:)))). You, and not I, quite demagogically, have tried to replace the subject of discussion.
                  It was about the impossibility of landing the aircraft on a structure consisting of several ships in a non-rigid coupling. You have given an example of landing on ice as confirmation of this possibility. This was pointed out to you by the obvious - the ice DOES NOT KNOW under the plane as it does in the case of a soft hitch.
                  This is quite obvious, because even at low waves, the angle formed by two decks of softly coupled vessels will fluctuate from the reference 180 degrees by several degrees, with strong waves - at 10 degrees or more. Moreover, due to the lateral pitching, these decks will also not form a single plane.
                  In response, you do ... what? Substitute concepts, remembering the deflection of the ice. "Forgetting" at the same time that the conditions of landing on ice, ice thickness, etc. they are precisely set such that the effect of the specified deflection on the runway surface is a vanishingly small value, not even several times, but many orders of magnitude less than the changes in the plane of ships on soft coupling.
                  That is, you proudly demonstrate the presence of a factor, "forgetting" to indicate the influence of this factor. And the same goes for
                  Quote: srha
                  But smart people dissertations defend on the deflection of ice and the associated wave motion

                  Theoretically, a storm can happen in the Arctic, which will shake the multi-meter ice so that it begins to "breathe", making undulating movements. It happens. But no one will ever land a plane on such ice - the use of ice airfields in such waves is completely impossible.
                  Quote: srha
                  And yes, if you can’t find in the Marine Journal about ice deflection, then I will give a direct link

                  Did you read the link yourself, or did you find the familiar words and were delighted? :))) It says that the ice deflection during landing is less than with long-term dynamic load :)))) That is, the ice deflection at the time of landing is less than if the plane just stands on the ice :))) You could not even read a direct indication that the thickness of the ice should be sufficient to withstand static and dynamic loads when landing / parking aircraft, although this is the first paragraph of the article.
                  Quote: srha
                  But about landing on the highway and primers, how is it?

                  Please find a primer or highway consisting of several fragments that are in constant motion relative to each other and form a single plane. And then - a pilot who agrees to sit there :))))))
                  Primer, highway - it’s just a perfectly flat surface compared to the hitch of several ships that you offer
                  Quote: srha
                  And yes, will you find deflection conditions in "your" requirements? A reference, please, otherwise your unfounded opinions are not perceived.

                  No need to shift from a sick head to a healthy one. It was you who managed to say that the deflection in its dimensions would be comparable to a change in the surface of the vessels in a soft hitch - you should prove it.
                  Quote: srha
                  We forgot about the speed of the tankers, after double-pointing you to Emma Mersk. This is good, Another alleged problem is removed.

                  This is bad, because it didn’t reach you that a high-speed tanker / cargo ship would cost much more than a slow-moving one. And the fact that under certain conditions such costs can be justified does not cancel this.
                  Sorry, but what to talk to you about? You are not able to build an elementary logical chain. You are told that cheap tankers are slow-moving, you say - no, they say AUG accompany. You are told that AUG is accompanied by high-speed tankers of special construction, which are more expensive than slow-speed ones. You say - "well, it's more expensive, so what if the costs are being fought back" - and you feel like the winner of the discussion, not noticing that you just LOST it, agreeing that a fast tanker is more expensive :)))
                  Quote: srha
                  The hitch should be flexible enough, but not soft, no frills.

                  Complete nonsense. The hitch should provide a flat surface :)))) Soft, flexible - for AV there is no difference. In fact, what you offer is many times worse than a soft hitch
                  1. -2
                    12 July 2019 12: 50
                    Yeah. That just not pile up, if only everything is the old fashioned way. About the problems with logic, culture, perversion (for example, I did not give the idea of ​​"soft" coupling - this is your idea and only yours) of the opponent and demagoguery I will not write - I will just mark you in the blacklist.
                    Yes, by the way, floating airfields on pontoons (hitches) were built, tested, planes took off and landed, see for example Mega-Float Airport: http://www.mlit.go.jp/english/maritime/mega_float.html
                    . There were others. But since they are not possible for you, live in your virtuality ... Without you, we will build a wonderful world.

                    And yes, it’s ridiculous to talk “logically” about the economic loss of the project due to the increased cost of the tanker (yes, let it be 50% - 0,3 billion) compared to the aircraft carrier (5-13 billion (Ford)) - which you constantly trumpet. I'm tired of it. Farewell.
                    1. +2
                      12 July 2019 15: 59
                      Quote: srha
                      Yeah. That just not pile up, if only everything is the old fashioned way. About the problems with logic, culture, perversion (for example, I did not give the idea of ​​"soft" coupling - this is your idea and only yours) of the opponent and demagoguery I will not write - I will just mark you in the blacklist.

                      I just don’t even know how I’m going to live after that :))))) By the way, they wrote to you in Russian in white that a rigid coupling is unrealistic. The rest does not matter anymore "soft, flexible, elastic, pliable" and so on, what can give birth to your inquiring mind will not work
                      Quote: srha
                      Yes, by the way, floating airfields on pontoons (couplers) were built, tested, planes took off and landed

                      Yes, by the way, the design of Megaflot is fundamentally different from the hitch you invented :))))
                      Quote: srha
                      And yes, it's ridiculous to talk "logically" about the economic loss of the project due to the increased cost of the tanker (yes, let it be 50% - 0,3 billion) compared to the aircraft carrier (5-13 billion (Ford)) - what do you always trump

                      Sure. Because speed is not the only problem. Because you are not even able to understand that a tanker is unsuitable for an aircraft carrier, that for an aircraft carrier based on several tankers you will need the SAME aggregates and devices that are on a conventional aircraft carrier - all these fuel supply, storage and weapon supply systems are completely different structural landing requirements for heavy aircraft, flight control systems, a bunch of units for before and after flight service, and so on. And all this will bring the cost just to the carrier.
                      Quote: srha
                      Without you, we will build a wonderful world.

                      Fortunately for the world, the maximum that you will be trusted is children's blocks
                      Quote: srha
                      Tired of it. Farewell.

                      I will miss you. And - with joy
        2. +2
          12 July 2019 15: 32
          Quote: srha
          In addition, the race for super speed at an aircraft carrier in modern conditions of global surveillance is practically useless, and it’s eating up resources - do not worry about the homeland ...

          Each speed knot of an aircraft carrier is an additional kilogram or pounds of take-off weight of airborne aircraft that can be lifted into the air. And the days saved during the inter-theater maneuver (atomic AB can walk "long distances" at speeds up to 30 knots).
  5. +5
    10 July 2019 10: 32
    Good morning Andrey!

    According to the experience of a number of US military programs, it is quite possible to expect that as a result of an attempt to reduce the cost of a carrier fleet, the US Navy will receive ships one and a half times less, two times worse and three times more expensive than existing ones.


    Yes sir! Simple formulas of the exact sciences suggest that relative to the increase in the size of the ship, the return on useful properties from one ton of displacement is growing at a faster pace.

    However, there is a nuance:

    F-35, IMHO, is expensive (taking into account the repetition of development costs and complicating the content) and poorly relative to the potential capabilities compared to the F-22, but the Americans relied on the F-35, since they expect to force all allies to buy it (F -22 they will not sell them). Why not now to gash light aircraft carriers to make them buy all allies... ("Ford" none of them will ever pull, even if they really want to). Americans are great if it's for export.

    Shl. realizing how many "experts" we have on F-22 and F-35, I will not argue about them, even if someone writes to me a hundred times in response that all F-22s on one "Ilya Muromets" knock down)

    hi
    1. +4
      10 July 2019 13: 15
      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
      Simple formulas of the exact sciences suggest that relative to the increase in the size of the ship, the return on useful properties from one ton of displacement is growing at a faster pace.

      As an argument "for large AB", their supporters also pointed out that it is easier to modernize the air group at the large AB - and cited the evolution of the Midway air group as an example.
      "Midway", built for piston engines, after 40 years carried 2 squadrons of "Phantoms", 2 squadrons of "Corsairs", and one squadron of tankers, AWACS and electronic warfare. And at the end of the service - even three squadrons of "Hornets".
      1. +2
        10 July 2019 13: 20
        So precisely, it was the large sizes of aircraft carriers that made it possible to base them on increasingly sophisticated and heavy vehicles
    2. +3
      10 July 2019 17: 13
      Quote: Andrey Shmelev
      Why not wash down light aircraft carriers now to make them buy all allies.

      It is theoretically possible, but practically unlikely - even the United States is perhaps incapable of such a feat :)))))))) Purely politically. But the idea is very interesting, I agree :)))
  6. +5
    10 July 2019 12: 36
    We can only wish the Americans all the best in promoting the LAC program and building light aircraft carriers. According to the experience of a number of US military programs, it is quite possible to expect that as a result of an attempt to reduce the cost of a carrier fleet, the US Navy will receive ships one and a half times less, two times worse and three times more expensive than existing ones.

    Well, yes ... if you recall that the past construction program small cheap coastal ships eventually gave birth to "littoralniki".
    1. +2
      10 July 2019 17: 14
      Quote: Alexey RA
      if you remember that the past program of building small, cheap coastal ships eventually gave birth to "littoralniki".

      That's right, I remembered about them :)))))
  7. -1
    10 July 2019 14: 38
    another question is curious - will the US have enough money to maintain AUG, taking into account the fashion for abandoning the dollar in the world? hi
    but without money you can discuss any concepts ...
    1. +1
      10 July 2019 17: 14
      Quote: ser56
      another question is curious - will the US have enough money to maintain AUG, taking into account the fashion for abandoning the dollar in the world?

      I would not call it fashion, the dollar is still very stable
      1. 0
        10 July 2019 17: 30
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I would not call it fashion, the dollar is still very stable

        Who argues - formally - yes. but in addition to 20 trillion of public debt and 60 trillion of debt in bucks:
        1) There is an agreement between the Russian Federation and China on settlements in national currencies.
        2) There is a withdrawal of the Russian Federation from payments in dollars for weapons.
        3) There are negotiations between the EU and the Russian Federation on the transfer of oil payments to euros.
        4) There is the fact of creating a separate payment system of the EU (naturally in euros hi ) etc.
        So far, these are flowers, but five years ago, the Russian Federation was almost alone in this matter, and now? feel .
        1. +2
          10 July 2019 17: 54
          Quote: ser56
          There is an agreement between the Russian Federation and China on settlements in national currencies.
          2) There is a withdrawal of the Russian Federation from payments in dollars for weapons.
          3) There are negotiations between the EU and the Russian Federation on the transition of oil payments to euros

          And there is a fact - the share of the Russian Federation in world exports is less than 3%, and we don’t want to completely refuse the dollar. That is, our decisions for the global stability of the dollar are negligible
          Quote: ser56
          There is a fact of creating a separate EU payment system

          Which, alas, also did not shake the position of the dollar (which is a pity). The EU is with 1993, but the dollar somehow doesn’t care ...
          1. +1
            10 July 2019 17: 59
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And there is a fact - the share of the Russian Federation in world exports is less than 3%

            even a small pebble causes a collapse, especially if the slope (USA) is prepared ...
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            and we don’t want to give up the dollar completely.

            why all the eggs in one basket of euros or yuan? bully However, we intensively buy gold, which, as it were, hints ...
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Which, alas, also did not shake the position of the dollar (which is a pity). The EU is with 1993, but the dollar somehow doesn’t care ...

            1) you are wrong, the euro almost took away the turnover from the dollar - it was 60, it became 40% ...
            2) The EU did not have a separate payment system - let's see how it goes, maybe it doesn’t ...
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            That is, our decisions for the global stability of the dollar are negligible

            Trade wars force China to act ... hi
            1. 0
              10 July 2019 18: 03
              Quote: ser56
              was 60, it became 40%.

              "According to Bloomberg, in the interbank turnover in the SWIFT system in the period from May 2013 to May 2014, the share of the euro was 32%. At the same time, the share of the US dollar (over the same period of time) - 42%, the yuan - 1,47%, Russian ruble - 0,35% [1]. "
              I haven’t seen any more recent ones ...
              1. +1
                10 July 2019 18: 39
                So yes, but the bottom line is that you still need to compare in dynamics, and most importantly - despite the impressive position of the euro, the dollar remains the world currency. And its share in foreign exchange reserves is 62%, the euro is only 20. That is, the euro has squeezed (although one should look at the old years) the dollar in foreign trade, but the crown has not been removed from it, which means there is no reason to assume the opposite in the foreseeable future
                1. 0
                  11 July 2019 11: 04
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  squeezed

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  then there is no reason

                  you are very logical! bully
                  1. 0
                    11 July 2019 14: 59
                    Quote: ser56
                    you are very logical!

                    Yes, but very forgetful. All the time I forget who I'm talking to laughing
                    1. 0
                      11 July 2019 15: 04
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      who am I talking to

                      and immediately on the person .... request
                      I recommend...
                      https://vpk-news.ru/articles/51358
                      1. +1
                        11 July 2019 15: 15
                        Quote: ser56
                        and immediately on the person ....

                        How else? It is written in white to you in Russian that the appearance of the euro did not affect the hegemony of the dollar, it remained the basis of the foundations of the world currency. You may agree or disagree - your right. But instead, with a merry giggle, you rip my words out of context and, replacing their contents, try to accuse me of the lack of logic.
                        Quote: ser56
                        I recommend...

                        I have seen similar articles since the beginning of the euro. How many? And nothing has changed
                      2. 0
                        11 July 2019 15: 43
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        It’s written in Russian to you in white that the appearance of the euro did not affect the hegemony of the dollar,

                        then you yourself do not understand what to write ... bully Euro took away at least 20% - is it not enough? But this is more than nothing ... still the yuan is expanding its zone ...
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        You may agree or disagree - your right.

                        I gave you arguments ...
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        rip my words out of context

                        Seriously? hi and who wrote "That is, the euro pushed back"
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        trying to blame me for the lack of logic.

                        I'm not a prosecutor - I just made a resume ... bully if you are illogical - what do I have to do with it?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And nothing has changed

                        everyone sees what can ... the trend I showed you, do not agree - your right ... bully
                        not so long ago it was denied that China would catch up with the United States, and if it did, it would be blown away ... hi
  8. +1
    10 July 2019 15: 38
    We should not rush with aircraft carriers, including because the further the more weight the drones acquire. And they may not even need a flight deck
  9. +1
    10 July 2019 15: 42
    Thanks for the article, Andrew!
    I think that aircraft carriers, like manned aircraft in the future, FSO (as once battleships).
    No, they will make some noise and fight a little, but will inevitably leave the stage, unable to compete with hypersonic drones and space strike systems.
    If we look at the three main components of an aircraft carrier as an weapon system in the next twenty years:
    1) The completeness of the combat information system in terms of finding targets and deciding on the use of offensive weapons.
    2) The effectiveness of the use of offensive weapons.
    3) Stability under the influence of promising enemy weapons.
    ... then the result will be "unsatisfactory" on all three components. And in terms of specific indicators (referred to the value in monetary terms and the share of damage to national security in the event of a fatal loss) - "catastrophically unsatisfactory."
    In my amateurish opinion, strategic surface forces with the development of the aerospace forces will inevitably sink into oblivion. I’m not sure about the fate of traditional submarines and SSBNs either. Obviously, dominance in the sea (ocean) will be determined by dominance in space, and the fleet will remain transport component, local fire support and sabotage work. And in peacetime - the border guard. But to perform these tasks, small escort ships and mobilized ships are enough.
    1. +1
      10 July 2019 17: 32
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      I’m not sure about the fate of traditional submarines and SSBNs either.

      And motivated - their main trump card is stealth, but here submarine detection systems have made significant progress ... request
    2. +1
      10 July 2019 20: 44
      unable to compete with hypersonic drones and space strike systems


      Good evening, Victor!

      In the war between Russia and the United States, of course, aircraft carriers are not that outdated, not even out of place. But to export democracy to conditional Libya - that’s it.

      "There is no abstract truth, truth is always concrete."
      1. +1
        11 July 2019 12: 32
        Absolutely agree with you.
        Only a little expensive "gunner" barmaleev to drive. It's another matter if they got it "by inheritance".
        1. 0
          11 July 2019 19: 13
          expensive "gunboat"


          who would argue, but I think that its effectiveness is much higher than if cruisers with axes fit
          - the carrier carries reconnaissance and electronic warfare aircraft, where else can they be taken wherever needed
          -Avian carrier provides constant dominance in the air with a wide radius
          -Avanian-bearer has a very broad potential range of ammunition
          -controlled aircraft weapons are cheaper than missiles of a similar radius

          missile cruisers and submarines won't even scare the barmaley so close
  10. +2
    10 July 2019 15: 57
    And why the naval UDC Marine Corps do not like?
    Several convertiplanes, several helicopters, a dozen F-35B ...
    What else do you need?
  11. +1
    10 July 2019 21: 10
    Andrei from Chelyabinskwhy by 23000 Storm - ,, horror ,,?
    1. +3
      11 July 2019 07: 19
      Because this concept was made by people who clearly did not understand the basics of using carrier-based aircraft. One springboard on the corner deck wassat
  12. +1
    11 July 2019 18: 56
    Andrey, a good article. Indeed, they have enough carriers for the F-35.
    I am for the third version of an aircraft carrier under 50 thousand tons. With their developed basing system, it’s quite, but this is the prospect of 30 years. You did not note that they have a choice — what, how and why to build. And there are means and technolonies. And some people have only two options, to repair it, or to needles. But to discuss someone else's is our everything :-)
  13. 0
    12 July 2019 22: 08
    With the third concept, everything is very simple. In essence, this is a light aircraft carrier with a displacement of 40 000 t., Carrying only VTOL aircraft, that is, today, F-35B. Naturally, no nuclear reactor is not provided. The concept is named CV LX.

    And finally, the fourth ship, which received the CV EX designation, is downright a renaissance of the ideas of E. Zamvolta, since we are talking about an “aircraft carrier” displacement within 20 000 tons or a bit more. Of course, his air group is also limited to VTOL and helicopters.


    In the Cold War, it was approximately the same with the amendment that the US allies built light aircraft carriers. Probably, "Invisibles" and "Prince of Asturias" with the beginning of the war with the USSR turned into an anti-submarine escort with a purely helicopter group on board. "Garibaldi" - anti-submarine somewhere in the rear region of the Mediterranean. "Foch" and "Clemenceau" let's say somewhere in the rear of Dogger banks as a second line or guard the Baltic Fleet.

    Now there are "Elizabeth", "Cavour", "Foch", all as an escort PLO are large.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"