Military Review

The concept of an aircraft-carrying cruiser with a sixth generation UAV

102
The concept of an aircraft-carrying cruiser with a sixth generation UAV



1. Introduction


В third article series, the point of view was substantiated, according to which our aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, is already so outdated that instead of repairing it, it is better to build any newest ship. When laying two UDC pr. 23900 Ivan Rogov, it was announced that the cost of the order for each of them would amount to 50 billion rubles, which is less than the cost of repairing Kuznetsov. Further, suppose that if you order an aircraft-carrying cruiser (AK) based on the UDC hull, then the AK hull will cost no more than the UDC hull.

In the last 15 years, we periodically present projects of the Storm aircraft carrier, which in terms of mass and dimensions is close to the American Nimitz. Storm's $ 10 billion valuation kills the whole idea. Indeed, in addition to the Storm, it is necessary to build for it an AUG, and Yak-44 long-range radar detection aircraft (AWACS), and a training complex for air wing pilots. Such expenses are the budget of our underfunded fleet clearly will not work.

2. Basic parameters of the AK concept


The author is not an expert in shipbuilding or aircraft construction. The technical characteristics given in the article are approximate and obtained by comparison with known samples. If specialists want to correct them, then this will significantly improve the quality of the proposal, and the Ministry of Defense cannot ignore it.

2.1 The main tasks of the AK


<br>• aviation support for ground operations, including amphibious assault on remote theaters. Depth of operations up to 500-600 km from AK;
• inflicting air strikes on the enemy's KUG;
• reconnaissance of the situation at sea within a radius of up to 1000 km;
• search for submarines using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) with a magnetometer at ranges up to 100 km in front of the AK.

Limitations on the scope of missions are that the AK should not strike at AUGs, and when striking enemy territories, the UAVs of the air wing should not approach the airfields on which fighter-bombers (IB) are based, at a distance of less than 300 km. In the event that a group of UAVs undergoes an unexpected attack by the enemy's IS, the UAVs should only conduct long-range air combat with it, while simultaneously moving towards the AK.

2.2 Weight and dimensions


To reduce the cost of the AK as much as possible, we will limit its total displacement - 25 thousand tons, which corresponds to the size of the UDC - 220 * 33 m. Further, shipbuilders should take into account the size of the slipways, dry docks, etc. evaluate what is more profitable: keep this size or replace it with a more convenient for AK - 240 * 28 m. The springboard on the bow must be present. Suppose they choose 240 * 28 m.

2.3 Selecting the type of air defense system


A typical version, when only short-range air defense systems (MD) are installed on an aircraft carrier, is of little use for Russia. We do not have our own URO destroyers, Admiral Gorshkov frigates are also not crowded, and they do not solve the missile defense problem. Therefore, you will have to install a full-fledged long-range air defense system on the AK. The proposal for the appearance of the radar complex (RLC) of such an air defense system is given in the previous article, where it is shown that the missile defense radar should have 4 active phased antenna arrays (AFAR) with an area of ​​70-100 square meters. In addition, antennas of a multifunctional (MF) radar, an electronic countermeasures complex (KREP) and state recognition should be placed on the superstructure. It will not be possible to find such areas on the superstructure located on the side, as on the UDC.

2.4 Superstructure design


It is proposed to consider the option of placing the superstructure across the entire width of the deck and position it as close as possible to the bow of the ship. The lower part of the superstructure with a height of 7 m is empty. Moreover, the front and rear parts of the empty compartment are closed by the gate wings. During takeoff and landing, the doors open and are installed along the sides of the ship with a slight expansion of about 5 °.


This expansion forms the entrance flare in the event that if the UAV during landing is strongly displaced relative to the middle of the runway to the side, then the flare will prevent the wing from directly hitting the superstructure wall. Also, in the event of an accident, nozzles of the fire extinguishing system are installed in the ceiling of the empty part of the superstructure. As a result, the width of the runway is limited only by the width of the lower part of the superstructure and is equal to 26 m, which makes it possible to plant UAVs with a wingspan of up to 18-19 m and a keel height of up to 4 m.In addition, this free room can be used as a hangar to accommodate a pair of IS UAVs on duty. , which is in constant readiness and, possibly, with warm engines.

The height of the superstructure above the deck must be at least 16 m. The layout of the antennas on the side edges of the superstructure is shown in Fig. 1 in the previous article... On the front and rear faces of the superstructure, the missile defense radar cannot be located according to the same scheme as on the side ones, since these AFARs are located above the gates, and the total height of the superstructure to accommodate them is not enough. We have to rotate these AFAR 90 °, that is, place the long side of the AFAR horizontally, and the short side vertically.

During the threatened period, 3 more pairs of IS UAVs with 4 medium-range missiles (SD) R-77-1 or 12 short-range missiles (MD) described in section 5 should be located at the stern of the deck. Then the available runway length will decrease to 200 m.

3. The concept of UAVs used


Since it is assumed that air battles will be rather an exception, the IS UAVs should be subsonic. For a small aircraft carrier, it is beneficial to have small UAVs. They are then easier to transport in the hangar, require a shorter runway, and the required deck thickness is reduced. Let us limit the maximum take-off weight of an IS UAV to 4 tons. Then the air wing can contain up to 40 UAVs. Suppose that the maximum combat load of such a UAV will be 800-900 kg, and due to the low chassis, one missile of such a mass cannot be suspended under the fuselage. Therefore, the maximum load should consist of two 450 kg rockets. Further, it is not possible to increase the takeoff weight of the UAV, otherwise the size of the AK will have to be increased, and it will turn into an ordinary aircraft carrier.

Air-to-surface (VP) missiles weighing less than 450 kg, as a rule, have a short launch range and do not allow them to be used from ranges exceeding the firing range of even SD SAM systems. Of the V-V missiles, it will be possible to use only the SD SD R-77-1 missile with a launch range of 110 km. Considering that the American AMRAAM missile launcher has a launch range of 150 km, it will be problematic to win a long-range air battle. UR BD R-37 is also not suitable because of the weight of 600 kg. Consequently, the development of alternative weapons will be required, for example, glide bombs (PB) and glide missiles (GL), discussed in Section 5.

The small mass of an IS UAV will not allow it to have the entire set of equipment located on a manned IS. We will either have to develop combined options, for example, radar and electronic countermeasures (KREP), or combine UAVs in pairs: on one radar, and on the other a variety of optics and electronic intelligence.

If a UAV is given the task of conducting close air combat, then the UAV must have an overload clearly exceeding the capabilities of a manned IS, for example, 15 g. An all-aspect anti-jamming communication line with the operator will also be required. As a result, the combat load will drop even more. It's easier to limit yourself to ranged combat and 5 g overload.

In regional conflicts, it is often necessary to strike at insignificant targets, the cost of which is so low that the use of high-precision missiles turns out to be unjustified - and too expensive, and the mass of the missile is too large. The use of gliding ammunition makes it possible to reduce both weight and price, and the launch range increases. It follows that the flight altitude should be as high as possible.

Information support of the AK is provided by the second type of UAV - early warning radar (AWACS). It must have a long duty time - 6-8 hours, for which we will assume that its mass will have to be increased to 5 tons.Despite its small mass, the AWACS UAV should provide approximately the same characteristics as the Hawkeye AWACS, which has a mass of 23 tons.

The next article will be devoted to the topic of UAV AWACS. Here, we only note that the difference between the proposed AWACS and the existing ones is that the radar antennas occupy most of the UAV sides, for which a special type of UAV with an upper V-shaped wing is being developed, which does not shade the lateral AFAR.

4. The appearance of the UAV IB


The American Global Hawk UAV uses an engine from a passenger aircraft, the cold part of which has been modified to operate in a rarefied atmosphere. As a result, a flight altitude of 20 km was reached with a mass of 14 tons, a wing span of 35 m and a speed of 630 km / h.

For an IB UAV, the wingspan should be no more than 12-14 m.The fuselage length is about 8 m.Then the flight altitude, depending on the combat load and the availability of fuel, will have to be reduced to 16-18 km, and the cruising speed should be increased to 850-900 km / h ...

The thrust-to-weight ratio of the UAV must be sufficient to obtain a rate of climb of at least 60 m / s. The flight duration is at least 2,5-3 hours.

4.1 Characteristics of IS radar


For long-range air combat, the radar has two AFARs - a bow and a tail. The exact dimensions of the fuselage are to be determined in the future, but now we assume that the diameters of the AFAR radar are equal to 70 cm.

The main task of the radar is to detect various targets, for which the main AFAR of the 5,5 cm range is used. In addition, it is required to suppress the enemy's air defense radar. It is very difficult to place a KREP of sufficient power on a small UAV, so instead of KREP we will use the same radar. For this, it is necessary to provide a wider AFAR wavelength range than that of the suppressed radar. In most cases, this works. For example, the Patriot air defense system radar operates in the range of 5,2-5,8 cm, which is covered by the main AFAR. To suppress the enemy IS radar and Aegis guidance radar, you will need to have an AFAR range of 3-3,75 cm. Therefore, before flying on a specific mission, it is necessary to equip the AFAR radars of the required ranges. You can even install the nose AFAR of the 5,5 cm range, and the tail one - 3 cm. The rest of the radar units remain universal. The energy potential of the radar is at least an order of magnitude higher than the potential of any KREP. Consequently, IS used as a jammer can cover a group operating from safe areas. To suppress the Aegis MF radar, an AFAR of the 9-10 cm range is required.

4.2 Design and characteristics of radar


AFAR radar contains 416 transceiver modules (TPM), which are combined into clusters (square matrices 4 * 4 PPM. Matrix size 11 * 11 cm.). In total, AFAR contains 26 clusters. Each PPM consists of a 25 W transmitter and a pre-receiver. The signals from the outputs of all 16 receivers are summed and finally amplified in the receiving channel, the output of which is connected to an analog-to-digital converter. The ADC instantly samples the 200 MHz signal. After converting the signal into digital form, it enters the signal processor, where it is filtered out of interference and makes a decision on target detection or its absence.

The mass of each APAR is 24 kg. AFAR requires liquid cooling. The refrigerator weighs another 7 kg, etc. The total weight of an airborne radar with two AFAR is estimated at 100 kg. Power consumption - 5 kW.

The small area of ​​the AFAR does not allow obtaining the characteristics of an airborne radar equal to that of a typical IS. For example, the detection range of an IS with an effective reflecting surface (EOC) is 3 sq. M. in a typical search area 60 ° * 10 ° is equal to 120 km. The angular tracking error is 0,25 °.

With such indicators, it is difficult to count on winning long-range air combat.

4.3 Way to increase the range of radar


As a way out, you can suggest the use of group actions. To do this, UAVs must have a high-speed communication line between them. Quite simply, such a line can be realized if one cluster of radars is placed on the side surfaces of the UAV. Then the transmission speed can reach 300 Mbps at a distance of up to 20 km.

Consider an example, when 4 IS UAVs flew on a mission. If all 4 radars synchronously scan the space, then the power irradiating the signal target will increase by 4 times. If all radars emit pulses strictly at the same frequency, then we can assume that one radar with quadruple power worked. The signal received by each radar will also be quadrupled. If all received signals are sent on board the group's leading UAV and summed up there, then the power will increase 4 times more. Consequently, with the ideal operation of the equipment, the signal power received by the four radar radars will be 16 times greater than that of a single radar. In real equipment, there will always be summation losses, depending on the quality of the equipment. Specific data cannot be cited, since nothing is known about such works, but an estimate of the loss factor by half is quite plausible. Then the increase in power will occur 8 times and the detection range will increase by 1,65 times. Consequently, the IS detection range will increase to 200 km, which exceeds the launch range of the AMRAAM missile launcher and will allow air combat.

5. Guided gliding ammunition


Consider only gliding bombs and missiles (PB and PR).

PBU-39 was originally intended for striking stationary targets and was guided by GPS signals, or inertial. The cost of the PB was moderate - $ 40 thousand.

Apparently, later it turned out that the PB case with a diameter of 20 cm is not capable of shielding the GPS receiver from interference emitted by ground-based CREDs. Then the guidance began to be improved. The last modification already has an active seeker. The aiming error decreased to 1 m, but the PB price increased to $ 200 thousand, which is not very suitable for regional wars.

5.1 Proposal for the appearance of the PB


You can offer to abandon GLONASS guidance and switch to PB command guidance. This is possible if the target can be detected by the radar against the background of reflections from surrounding objects, that is, it is radio contrast. To aim at the PB, the following must be installed:

• inertial navigation system, which allows maintaining the straight line motion of the PB for at least 10 s;
• low altitude altimeter (less than 300 m);
• a radio answering machine that retransmits the interrogation signal of the on-board radar back.

Let's assume that the radar can detect a ground target in one of three modes:

• the target is so large that it can be detected against the background of reflections from the surface in the physical beam mode, that is, when the information security is flying directly at it;
• the target is small and can be detected only in the synthesized beam mode, that is, when observing the target from the side for several seconds;
• the target is small, but moves at a speed of more than 10-15 km / h and can be distinguished by this feature.

Guidance accuracy depends on whether one or a pair of information security devices conduct guidance. A single radar can accurately measure the range to the PB with an error of 1-2 m, but the azimuth is measured with a large error - with a single measurement of 0,25 °. If you observe the PB 1-3 s, then the lateral error can be reduced to 0,0005-0,001 from the range to PB. Then, at a distance of about 100 km, the lateral error will be equal to 50-100 m, which is suitable only for firing at area targets.

Suppose that there is a pair of ISs spaced 10-20 km apart. Mutual coordinates of the IS are known with the help of GLONASS quite accurately. Then, by measuring the distances from the PB to both IS and building a triangle, you can reduce the error to 10 m.

In cases where higher guidance accuracy is required, you will need to use a seeker, for example, a television one, capable of detecting a target from a distance of more than 1 km. It is possible to consider the option of transmitting a TV picture to the operator on the ship.

5.2 Use of gliding missiles


The chosen tactics of conducting air battles establishes that in case of detection of an enemy IS attack, it is necessary to fire at him at long ranges and, immediately turning around, go towards the AK. The missiles BD R-37 are completely unsuitable due to the mass of 600 kg, and the UR SD R-77-1 are partially suitable. Their mass is also not small - 190 kg, and the launch range is too small - 110 km. Therefore, we will consider the possibility of using PR.

Suppose the UAV is at an altitude of 17 km. Let him be attacked by an IS flying at a cruising supersonic 500 m / s (1800 km / h) at an altitude of 15 km. Suppose that the IS attacks the UAV at an angle of 60 °. Then the UAV will need to turn 120 ° to avoid IS. At a flight speed of 250 m / s and an overload of 4 g, a turn will take 12 seconds. For definiteness, let us set the PR mass of 60 kg, which will allow the UAV to have an ammunition load of 12 PR.

Consider the tactics of warfare. Let the IS attack the UAV in the most unfavorable variant for the UAV - at the external control center. Then, before the launch of the UR, the IS does not turn on the radar, and it can only be detected by its own UAV's radar. Even if we use group scanning of four on-board radars of the group, then the detection range will be sufficient only for conventional IS - 200 km. For the F-35, the range will drop to 90 km. Help here can be provided by an AK missile defense radar capable of detecting an F-35 flying at an altitude of 15 km at a distance of 500 km.

The decision on the need for the UAV to withdraw is made when the distance to the IS is reduced to 120-150 km. If we consider that the battle takes place at altitudes of more than 15 km, then there are almost no clouds. Then the UAV, using TV or IR cameras, can record that the IS launched the UR. If the IS is in the visibility zone of the missile defense radar, then the launch of the missile defense system can also be detected by this radar.

If the IS continues to approach the UAV without launching the UR, then the UAV resets the first pair of PR. At the moment of dropping to the PR, the carrier wing opens, and it begins to glide in a given direction. At this time, the UAV continues to turn and, when the PR is in the area of ​​the tail AFAR, it captures the PR for tracking. A PAIR of PRs continue planning, scattering up to 10 km to take the IB in ticks. When the distance from the PR to the IS is reduced to 30-40 km, the operator issues a command to start the PR engines, which will accelerate to 3-3,5 M. The fact that the PR will lose 1-3 km of altitude during planning can be ignored. since the energy of the PR is sufficient to compensate for the loss of height. A transponder must be installed on the PR, which helps to direct the PR with high accuracy. Radar seeker on PR is not required - it is enough to have simple IR or TV seeker.

If the IS in the process of the chase managed to approach the UAV at a distance of about 50 km, then it can launch the UR. In this case, PR are used in the missile defense mode. The PR is discharged in the usual way, but after the wing opens, the PR makes a turn towards the UR and then starts the engine. Since the interception occurs on a collision course, a wide field of view from the optical seeker is not required.

NOTE: to discuss the tactics of using AK, it is necessary to first consider how to obtain the control center. But the issues of constructing the main informant - an AWACS UAV operating in the marine theater of operations, will be considered in the next article.

6. findings


• the proposed AK will cost several times cheaper than the aircraft carrier Storm;
• according to the cost-effectiveness criterion, AK will significantly surpass Kuznetsov;
• a powerful air defense system will provide missile defense and air defense AUG, and UAVs will ensure constant detection of enemy submarines;
• gliding ammunition is much cheaper than typical missile launchers and will allow for long-term air cover in regional conflicts;
• AK is optimal for supporting amphibious operations;
• based on AK UAV AWACS can be used for the control center by other KUG-am;
• developed by AK, UAV, PB and PR can be successfully exported.
Author:
Articles from this series:
https://topwar.ru/176336-jeffektivnost-pvo-perspektivnogo-jesminca-alternativnyj-radiolokacionnyj-kompleks.html
https://topwar.ru/174920-problema-povyshenija-jeffektivnosti-pvo-pvo-odinochnogo-korablja.html
https://topwar.ru/175379-jeffektivnost-pvo-korabelnoj-udarnoj-gruppy-kug.html
https://topwar.ru/175899-jeffektivnost-pvo-avianosnoj-udarnoj-gruppy-aug-vozmozhen-li-proryv.html
102 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Tsoy
    Tsoy 5 November 2020 18: 21
    27
    It's time for some cool stories ...

    whether specialists want to correct them, this will significantly increase the quality of the proposal, and the Ministry of Defense cannot ignore it


    The author naively believes that someone in the MO will be interested in this fantasy?
    How, without a proven UAV control system and almost complete lack of real experience in the use of drones, take on an airplane for them with 40 (!) Sides? The UAV is 5 tons better than the hockey ... Indeed, it has no analogues. I'll get out of here before I lose my mind.
    1. Civil
      Civil 5 November 2020 18: 47
      10
      There is no technology, there is no money to develop these technologies, there is no money for us the ship itself ... enough to come up with naive ideas.
      1. Phoenix
        Phoenix 5 November 2020 20: 57
        -3
        Everything described separately is absolutely everything. It is not the idea that is naive here, but your confidence that you understand the issue enough to issue a categorical comment.
      2. Doccor18
        Doccor18 5 November 2020 21: 08
        +8
        I started reading the article ... the further, the more fantastic the story ... laughing
        [/ quote] [quote = Civilian] No technology, no money for the development of these technologies, no money for us, the ship itself ... enough to come up with naive ideas.

        That's right.
        the proposed AK will cost several times cheaper than the aircraft carrier Storm;

        Two times, at best.
        And in terms of efficiency, it will be 5 times inferior to a normal multipurpose aircraft carrier.
        And it will be destroyed by any of the existing aircraft carriers. Because the modern deck IS (for now) is head and shoulders above any attack UAV. Someday they will be equal in opportunities, but it will not be soon ...
        1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
          Boris ⁣ Shaver 5 November 2020 21: 33
          0
          Quote: Doccor18
          Because the modern deck IS (for now) is head and shoulders above any attack UAV. Someday they will equal in opportunities, but it will not be soon ...

          Purely conceptually, the drone outperforms the manned aircraft, at least in terms of flight duration. Simply because the pilot needs to sleep, eat, and the like, which are peculiar to us, humans, to do business. Hence, purely conceptually and potentially, a greater range of use and a larger number of aircraft simultaneously in the air, with a similar total number. But in order to compare with a real aircraft in terms of load or power of detection systems, the drone must have similar dimensions. The point is not that the ship with people on the planes wins. The point is that the ship with a longer and more powerful arm wins. Thus, a ship with drones may be more promising than a ship with manned aircraft, but the dimensions of the drones will not differ much from the dimensions of conventional aircraft, and therefore, the ship carrying them will not turn out to be small. But it can definitely be smaller than a classic aircraft carrier. If only because the robot does not give a damn about the acceleration with which the catapult “spits out” it from the side, this mortal human body cannot be given an overload higher than the measured one. And this circumstance directly affects the required take-off length. In total, robots are the future elite of naval aviation. Whether we like it or not
          1. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 5 November 2020 23: 49
            +2
            Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
            Purely conceptually, the drone outperforms the manned aircraft, at least in terms of flight duration. Simply because the pilot needs to sleep, eat, and the like, which are peculiar to us, humans, to do business. Hence, purely conceptually and potentially, a greater range of use and a larger number of aircraft simultaneously in the air, with a similar total number. But in order to compare with a real aircraft in terms of load or power of detection systems, the drone must have similar dimensions.

            But what if the wing's striking capabilities were removed from the concept? only reconnaissance and detection, and assign shock functions to a warrant with long-range anti-ship missiles and other means of destruction? a floating command center that ensures the implementation of the strike potential of the compound.
            1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
              Boris ⁣ Shaver 6 November 2020 00: 29
              0
              Quote: SanichSan
              What if the wing's striking capabilities were removed from the concept? only reconnaissance and detection, and assign shock functions to a warrant with long-range anti-ship missiles and other means of destruction?

              As I understand it, the energy capabilities of the aircraft affect the range of its detection equipment. Well, the size / quantity / nomenclature (weight and volume, ultimately) of the detection means installed on the aircraft, etc. - also. Thus, the big car obviously "looks" farther than the small one, and therefore it will detect the enemy first.
              In addition, a rocket launched directly from an aircraft that detected the enemy's ship (moved towards the enemy) must cover a shorter distance than a rocket launched by the carrier from the warrant of the given aircraft. And this is the difference in time of defeat that can decide everything.
              1. Sanichsan
                Sanichsan 6 November 2020 00: 54
                0
                Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
                As I understand it, the energy capabilities of the aircraft affect the range of its detection equipment. Well, the size / quantity / nomenclature (weight and volume, ultimately) of the detection means installed on the aircraft, etc. - also. Thus, the big car obviously "looks" farther than the small one, and therefore it will detect the enemy first.

                right. But in the unmanned version, space and weight are saved, since life support systems, evacuation systems, space for the crew, etc. are not needed, which means that with a smaller size, comparable detection capabilities can be provided.
                Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
                In addition, a rocket launched directly from an aircraft that detected the enemy's ship (advanced towards the enemy) must cover a shorter distance than a rocket launched by the carrier from the warrant of this aircraft.

                here is not true. detects the AWACS aircraft. the attack aircraft must first install the weapons (after an incident with a spontaneous launch, which almost led to the loss of an aircraft carrier, this is done before departure), then take off, then go to the target and only then launch a rocket. the ship that received target designation from the same AWACS does it immediately.
                Quote: Boris ⁣Razor
                And this is the difference in time of defeat that can decide everything.

                Yes sir! soldier

                PS
                for good, the tasks of this ship can be reduced to the maintenance of the reconnaissance group and the floating runway, which will reduce its cost to a minimum, while the order will work directly with a group of reconnaissance UAVs.
                1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
                  Boris ⁣ Shaver 6 November 2020 11: 33
                  0
                  Quote: SanichSan
                  in the unmanned version, space and weight are saved since life support systems, evacuation systems, space for the crew, etc. are not needed

                  Certainly. That is why I wrote about similar sizes, not identical ones.

                  Quote: SanichSan
                  detects an AWACS aircraft

                  That can't be small.
                  And the situation when AWACS helps to work an aircraft already in the air, put forward in the direction of the enemy - is quite possible. And then it happens that the gain in time of the blow that I described
        2. pin_code
          pin_code 6 November 2020 06: 47
          +1
          this is a computer in the first place, any computer can be hacked. the pilot can only be broken. anyway, for now ...
          1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
            Boris ⁣ Shaver 6 November 2020 11: 36
            +1
            Quote: pin_code
            this is a computer in the first place, any computer can be hacked.

            Even your machine has a computer that can be hacked. The pilot does not have a mechanical steering wheel in his hands, transmitting forces to the ailerons with cables, and therefore it can be hacked in the same way.
        3. Fizik M
          Fizik M 8 November 2020 01: 36
          +2
          Quote: Doccor18
          I started reading the article .. the further, the more fantastic the story ..

          The most interesting thing is that this is written by the ex-"faithful Fedosov" from the State Research Institute of the AS belay
          - an ugly example of the fact that "JUSTIFY" (unless you dig deeply) in our military science can be ANY AHINA
    2. Phoenix
      Phoenix 5 November 2020 20: 56
      -1
      Perhaps the author is sure that he will be listened to due to the presence of some connections? Or does MO consist only of aliens from Nibiru?
  2. Undecim
    Undecim 5 November 2020 18: 27
    18
    The author is not an expert in shipbuilding or aircraft construction.
    Key phrase of the article. And also, judging by the article, the author is not an expert in rocketry, radio electronics, radar, in air defense and anti-aircraft defense systems, both in general and in relation to the fleet. In short - the author does not understand at all the issues he has taken on. An article of this level on the site does not belong at all.
    By the way, why did the author decide to search for submarines exclusively with a magnetometer?
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 5 November 2020 18: 33
      +5
      Quote: Undecim
      The author is not an expert in shipbuilding or aircraft construction.
      Key phrase of the article. And also, judging by the article, the author is not an expert in rocketry, radio electronics, radar, in air defense and anti-aircraft defense systems, both in general and in relation to the fleet. In short - the author does not understand at all the issues he has taken on. An article of this level on the site does not belong at all.

      I also drew attention to this, neither the concept nor the purpose of such an Underwaffe is clear ... and you think 25000 tons of displacement .... MO "easily" will find money for R&D For the ships themselves ... so far there are no minesweepers of money
    2. Tsoy
      Tsoy 5 November 2020 18: 39
      +8
      By the way, why did the author decide to search for submarines exclusively with a magnetometer?


      Judging by the level of the article, the author confused it with a magnet. This is the logic we hang on the UAV with a large magnet to which the boats will be pulled out of the depths of the sea. wassat
    3. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 5 November 2020 19: 37
      +4
      Quote: Undecim
      why did the author decide to search for submarines exclusively with a magnetometer?

      Why ... yes, because the Author managed to remember this word and write it correctly! Probably near his house there is a shopping center "Magnetic"! what
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 5 November 2020 20: 52
        +5
        The fact that the author is far from the topic was clear from his previous opuses. Under one of them, he argued in the comments that radars of the 15-30 cm range do not occur in nature.
    4. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 5 November 2020 21: 11
      +5
      Quote: Undecim

      Key phrase of the article. And also, judging by the article, the author is not an expert in rocketry, radio electronics, radar, in air defense and anti-aircraft defense systems, both in general and in relation to the fleet. In short - the author does not understand at all the issues he has taken on. An article of this level on the site does not belong at all.

      Henry Ford, in his book "My Life, My Achievements," said: - "If you want to fail a case, entrust it to a specialist."
      I do not claim that I precisely quoted, but conveyed the idea accurately.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 5 November 2020 21: 27
        +2
        but he conveyed the idea exactly
        Not exactly.
        "Wise people are so smart and practical that they absolutely know why this or that is unrealistic; they are somehow prone to limitations. That is why I prefer not to deal with graduates. If I had a desire to deal with competitors in unfair ways, I would definitely recommend a couple of specialists. They usually give so much good advice that they don't have time to work. "
        Yeah, just for some reason, Ford invited Taylor to ration work in the machine shop.
        You should not take such statements literally. Or do you go to amateurs for treatment?
        1. Krasnoyarsk
          Krasnoyarsk 7 November 2020 15: 10
          0
          Quote: Undecim

          You should not take such statements literally. Or do you go to amateurs for treatment?

          You quoted Ford accurately. But they did not understand what he meant by this.
          When developing something new, previously unknown, do not rely on the opinion of "experts", they will prove to you that this is impossible. Something like this. Read carefully Ford and you will find confirmation of my words.
      2. BigValery
        BigValery 25 November 2020 14: 55
        0
        Henry Ford never said that. "Everything can be done better than what has been done so far," he said, and also "He who is seriously busy with his work does not have time to do another."
  3. timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 5 November 2020 18: 29
    12
    Limitations on the scope of missions are that the AK should not strike at AUGs, and when striking enemy territories, the UAVs of the air wing should not approach the airfields on which fighter-bombers (IB) are based, at a distance of less than 300 km. In the event that a group of UAVs undergoes an unexpected attack by the enemy's IS, the UAVs should only conduct long-range air combat with it, while simultaneously moving towards the AK.


    Great weapon, author. Isn't it funny for you to write all this?
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 18: 42
      -1
      The author slightly underestimates the capabilities of the UAV.
      For example UTAP-22
      The 6,1 m long turbojet can move at Mach 0,91 (1115 km / h) up to an altitude of 15 m with a maximum flight range of 000 km and endurance for three hours. It can carry 2600 kg of internal payload, 159 kg of external payload and has 227 kg of weapons on each wing.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 5 November 2020 19: 38
        +6
        The question is, what tasks does the wunderfawl solve? For example, the air defense of naval strike formations, the destruction of enemy UAV aircraft when they are used for their intended purpose, aerial reconnaissance, the receipt and issuance of a control center for strike forces in conditions of massive use of fighter aircraft by the enemy, the struggle for air supremacy over a designated area of ​​the world ocean or in the landing zone, and etc.
        Can a miracle ship with miracle drones do all this? And we have not yet touched on how many days a year the miracle ship will not be able to use aviation due to the weather, after all, it is very small both for Barentsukha and for the North Atlantic.

        As for UAVs, they can be launched from UDC and planted without any finishers and barriers.
        There is no question of Kuznetsov, if and when it will be repaired.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 19: 48
          -3
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Air defense of naval strike formations, the destruction of enemy UAV aircraft when they are used for their intended purpose, aerial reconnaissance, receipt and issuance of control units for strike forces in conditions of massive use of fighter aircraft by the enemy, the struggle for air supremacy over a designated area of ​​the world ocean or in the landing zone, etc. etc.

          The question is about the capabilities of our UAVs, or rather its information system. Making a drone with IS capabilities of 3-4 generations is not a problem, the question is the quality of its “brains” and communication channels. There is no communication problem in the USA. This is either satellite or communication with the leading manned aircraft. For example, the F35B, they will have it on a light aircraft carrier.
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 5 November 2020 20: 32
            +2
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            Making a drone with 3-4 generation IS capabilities is not a problem


            Is IS a fighter-bomber? In this case, even if it is not a problem to do it, no one has done it yet. And it may turn out that it is easier to make a conventional air defense destroyer.
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 20: 47
              -1
              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              In this case, even if it is not a problem to do it, no one has done it yet.

              Unmanned F16 Block 30 and F / A-18D Hornet suit? The latter took off and landed on an aircraft carrier in an autonomous mode (the pilot was for insurance).
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 5 November 2020 20: 50
                +2
                Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                Unmanned F16 Block 30 and F / A-18D Hornet suit?


                When their work as information security is demonstrated - yes, they will. Until then, no.

                Quote: OgnennyiKotik
                The latter took off and landed on an aircraft carrier in autonomous mode


                The X-47B did this 6 years ago, but the development of a strike aircraft based on it was abandoned.
          2. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 5 November 2020 21: 48
            +4
            As if yes, but in their NGAD system, the Americans eventually came to a manned aircraft. With all their Starlinks.
            And our avionics and avionics are incomparably worse, and the connection does not please.
            Accordingly, a living pilot is all the more uncontested.
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 21: 56
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              their NGAD system, the Americans eventually came to a manned aircraft

              So far, they pass as optionally unmanned.

              https://news.usni.org/2015/05/13/mabus-uclass-likely-a-bridge-to-autonomous-strike-aircraft-fa-xx-should-be-unmanned

              Quote: timokhin-aa
              And our avionics and avionics are incomparably worse, and the connection does not please.

              It is what it is.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 5 November 2020 22: 28
                +4
                So far, they pass as optionally unmanned.

                https://news.usni.org/2015/05/13/mabus-uclass-likely-a-bridge-to-autonomous-strike-aircraft-fa-xx-should-be-unmanned


                Don't go there, go here -
                https://vz.ru/world/2020/9/28/1062592.html

                But the wording "optional unmanned" is good. Because "in the base" they are all manned.
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 22: 34
                  0
                  Our media are terrible, they cannot translate normally. Here is a direct speech by Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the United States Navy at the time.
                  “I don't know exactly what program it will fall under, but whatever F / A-XX looks like it should be unmanned,” he said.

                  “I don’t know exactly what program it will fall under, but whatever the F / A-XX, it must be unmanned,” he said.



                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  But the wording "optional unmanned" is good. Because "in the base" they are all manned.

                  The wording is not correct: F16 / 18 in manned base, F / A-XX in base will be unmanned and manned.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 8 November 2020 12: 21
                    +1
                    NGAD is a program of the Air Force, not the Navy, and the Navy is now sawing its own and not the F / A-XX. So our media is all right in this case.
                    1. OgnennyiKotik
                      OgnennyiKotik 8 November 2020 12: 37
                      0
                      Confused. NGAD is a joint project of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Air Force and the US Navy. As a result, the F-XX and F / A-XX aircraft should be created. It is now being handled by the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works.
                      Interesting, new:
                      Building on the legacy of the successful conceptualization and development of advanced technology aircraft such as SR-71, F-117, F-22 and F-35, Skunk Works spirit of innovation and ability to deliver quality product quickly and silently

                      Perhaps we are talking about including the SR-72.
                      https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we-are/business-areas/aeronautics/advanced-aeronautics/air-dominance-of-the-future.html
                    2. OgnennyiKotik
                      OgnennyiKotik 8 November 2020 12: 53
                      0
                      I'll get better, eat program NGAD within it is Projects we know exactly about the two FX and F / A-XX, there may be others.
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 8 November 2020 13: 33
                        +1
                        This is an Air Force project, the plane passed through it as Penetrator counter air - PAC, the prototype is already flying. Well, or some kind of technology demonstrator. So far, no one has assigned the F index to it, because this is not a fighter.
                      2. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 8 November 2020 13: 41
                        0
                        ... In January, the service began exploring the requirements for a next-generation air supremacy program - an effort formerly known as F / A-XX - that could create a family of NGAD systems to replace the Super Hornets and EA-18-G Growler electronic attack capabilities in 2030. -s, USNI News service officials said Thursday in a statement.


                        Navy Director of Air Warfare (N98) Rear Admiral Mike Manazir told USNI News last year that the service is considering a partnership with the Air Force to jointly analyze the Air Force and Navy alternatives for FX and F / A-XX.

                        https://news.usni.org/2016/04/21/navy-seeking-family-of-systems-to-replace-super-hornets-growlers-sheds-fa-xx-title
                        ... The Navy is at the very beginning of the NGAD development process, completing an analysis of alternatives in June 2019, as well as general requirements and guidelines for the concept of operations. These efforts are currently in the conceptual stage, in which defense companies are exploring ideas “that balance advanced air supremacy capabilities and long-term availability / sustainability,” said Navy spokesman Captain Danny Hernandez.

                        But with an economic downturn potentially putting more pressure on the defense budget, the navy may not have the means to continue operating the NGAD as a clean fighter.

                        https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/06/01/at-a-budgetary-crossroads-the-us-navys-aviation-wing-must-choose-between-old-and-new/
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 8 November 2020 14: 02
                        0
                        NGAD is a joint program of the Navy, Air Force and DARPA. Within this program, there are various subprograms and projects. But they are all NGAD and the project of the future FX and the project of the future F / A-XX and other aircraft under this program. Perhaps the story of the F35A / C will repeat itself.
                        Again official message from the main developer of the NGAD program:
                        In partnership with Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), United States Air Force and Navy Our Skunk Works team is exploring ways to deliver non-linear, game-changing capabilities that contain current and emerging threats - ultimately providing a competitive and decisive advantage for the United States and its allies.

                        Skunk Working seeks to develop technical capabilities and explore new development locations aerial platforms new generation Air dominance (NGAD)as well as potential enhancements to existing platforms that are expected to become part of the future Joint Forces structure.

                        Building on a legacy of successful conceptualization and development of cutting-edge technology aircraft such as the SR-71, F-117, F-22 and F-35, Skunk Works has a spirit of innovation and ability to deliver a quality product quickly and quietly.

                        https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we-are/business-areas/aeronautics/advanced-aeronautics/air-dominance-of-the-future.html
  4. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 19: 03
    -3
    And I am sure that the concept of a light aircraft carrier / UAV, written in this article, will soon appear in the United States, it is enough to remake the UDC America. They already have suitable UAVs, although they will also have F35B on it.
    1. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 5 November 2020 23: 56
      0
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      UAVs they already have suitable

      MQ-1 has already been decommissioned, MQ-9 is being prepared for decommissioning. new at the stage of tender for development ... something working and so that there is no write-off?
    2. Aag
      Aag 6 November 2020 08: 52
      +2
      "... I am sure that the concept of a light aircraft carrier / UAV, written in this article, will soon appear in the United States, it is enough to remake the UDC America. They already have suitable UAVs, although they will still have F35В on it ...."

      I know how to make sure that it does not appear. Let the author publish his article on amerovskiye resources, - they will pereklinit for a long time. During this time, you see, we will rebuild our Fleet.))
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 6 November 2020 13: 36
        0
        Quote: AAG
        Let the author publish his article on amerovsky resources
        Perhaps the author is somewhat ahead of events, at present it is easier for the United States to use the F-35B and drones from full-fledged aircraft carriers.


        The X-47B has been abandoned so far, although the software for the F / A-18 "Hornet" has been used in automatic mode.

        It seems that there will be no special need to create a special carrier of unmanned vehicles, a kind of mini-aircraft carrier, rather, the drones themselves will adapt to existing ships, such as now anti-submarine helicopters on destroyers and frigates. It can be very small UAVs, like quadcopters, or disposable kamikaze drones, reconnaissance drones.
  5. Fizik M
    Fizik M 8 November 2020 01: 37
    +2
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    author. Isn't it funny for you to write all this?

    you look FROM WHERE it ... belay
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 8 November 2020 02: 04
      +1
      GosNII AS? So what, he was working on the radar, and then his fantasy "into someone else's clearing" pulled away.

      I once fantasized about how to make a tank using technologies from the times of the Crimean War. You never know what people invent ...
      1. Fizik M
        Fizik M 8 November 2020 02: 11
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        GosNII AS? So what, he worked on the radar

        what he "carries" is "fedosovschina"
        Fedosov himself, on the one hand, the uncle is extremely smart and respected, and on the other, let's say, abstruse, and ready to substantiate (with mathematics) almost anything

        a vivid example of the dispute over the Tu-160, "purely formally", within the framework of the "logic of Gorbachevsky" he is absolutely right, BUT, the key question is that there are a lot of MODELS OF APPLICATION of the aircraft, and they can differ significantly from what Mr. Gorbachevsky, but with OTHER models and ALL OTHER results are obtained (rather than Gorbachevsky's "noodles")
  • antivirus
    antivirus 5 November 2020 18: 31
    +1
    I read-read-as I went through the litter-- AND SHOYGU ACTS STRICTLY ACCORDING TO THE OGARKOV-USTINOV-SUFFICIENCY DOCTRINE. what should have been obtained 40 years ago from the AvCr .... now they are finishing off missiles and the planning a \ b + radius of coastal aviation has grown to acceptable (??) values.
    Smoke moreman bamboo. or give Angola and Argentina to Putin (with a referendum, as in Crimea) - then we will defend our lands and our citizens.
    The eastern part of the Srz of the sea was controlled - there the launch of missiles and planes to Ukraine ("Novorossiya") got out - the main industrial region of the USSR, right now, a foreign land. The North Sea is also covered with missiles.
    PROTECTION OF MOSCOW AND URALS IS GOING ON DR Frontier. Is there a need to cram non-puffy av / carriers there?
    and Primorsky Territory with Kamchatka - what did the "strategists" see there ?? not me, but YOU AGAINST SHOYGU (IS HIS ONE?) to scribble articles.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 5 November 2020 19: 39
      +3
      You seem to have a temperature. Measure it.
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 5 November 2020 21: 47
        -2
        tried it on, saw the Russian alphabet. thanks for the advice.
        ALL GREAT MILITARY FLEETERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE A WATERPROOF AND A CLUE.
        who advises - he knows about thermometers and the construction of the fleet better than "blockheads" (or something more innocuous about the leadership) from the General Staff and the Ministry of Defense.
        All geniuses prevent Shoigu from reviving the Army and the Navy, and building aircraft carriers.
        a bad dancer ... something ... interferes with dancing, and a very bad one - a partner
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 6 November 2020 11: 02
          0
          No, it's not even a temperature anymore ...
      2. Aag
        Aag 6 November 2020 09: 06
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        You seem to have a temperature. Measure it.

        Not everyone will master such an article without consequences, "or rather, not only will master everything"))))
  • OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 18: 34
    -3
    allows to plant UAVs with a wingspan of up to 18-19 m and a keel height of up to 4 m

    For visualization, the description fits MQ-25 Stingray, Boeing Loyal Wingman



    But it makes sense to use 2 types of UAVs. "Heavy" and "light". Heavy, as I indicated above, light type UTAP 22 / Tu-143 "Reis"


    Altius-type UAV radar.

    The division into 2 classes of UAVs will speed up the launch and reduce the cost of the entire project. Lungs can be used as consumables: radar emitters, electronic warfare aircraft, decoys, etc. On heavy performance of basic tasks.
    1. pin_code
      pin_code 6 November 2020 06: 58
      +1
      and if there is no satellite, how will he fly?
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 5 November 2020 18: 39
    +1
    But there are no suitable UAVs yet, even in the project.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 18: 44
      -11 qualifying.
      Everything is. If you do not waste resources on useless projects like "Hunter", everything can be done in a short time.
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 5 November 2020 18: 48
        +3
        Quote: OgnennyiKotik
        Everything is.


        For example?
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 18: 56
          -6
          We make an analogue of the JF-17, unmanned, deformed, adapted for short take-off (rocket boosters, catapult; no pilot, iron must withstand acceleration) Engine, avionics for it, the glider will be designed quickly, there is equipment for unmanned control. Radio control, helicopter UAVs and Altius-type repeaters. What cannot be done from this?
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 5 November 2020 19: 00
            +3
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            Making an analogue of the JF-17


            To do it, you need to start. There is no such project yet.

            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            there is equipment for unmanned control


            Remote control equipment? It's not worth starting with such UAVs.

            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            What cannot be done from this?


            Anything is possible that does not contradict the laws of physics.
        2. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 18: 59
          -5
          You can recycle the Yak-130, possibly easier and cheaper.
  • ZEMCH
    ZEMCH 5 November 2020 18: 54
    +6
    What the hell did I read laughing
    In reality, articles are published on VO, after which you want to not visit the site for a long time repeat
  • Lex_is
    Lex_is 5 November 2020 18: 59
    14
    Article fire!
    I sobbed while reading!
    Most of all, I liked the concept - project (despite the fact that almost everything in the article is beautiful):

    I think the Ministry of Defense cannot ignore such a proposal. laughing

    PS It's time to somehow deal with the authors' drug addiction, something already very difficult to consume began ...
    1. Phoenix
      Phoenix 5 November 2020 21: 00
      0
      I have a counter offer to you - help a visually impaired author draw a beautiful and presentable concept art. Or weak?
      1. Lex_is
        Lex_is 5 November 2020 21: 37
        +5
        Or weak?

        Weakly.
        I, unlike the author, soberly assess my engineering and shipbuilding talents.
        It takes me almost a month to roughly calculate and model the hull of a small, 9-meter-long sailing dinghy.
        And you invite me to sketch the body of an aircraft carrier laughing
  • Asad
    Asad 5 November 2020 19: 08
    +6
    Nearby is an article about turboprop aircraft! And this. Damn editors, do you even read what you publish?
  • Lex_is
    Lex_is 5 November 2020 19: 20
    +3
    I also really liked the idea of ​​planting the UAV directly into the hangar under the superstructure, which is the entire width of the hull, with a pair of UAVs on duty standing there, and the gate bell provided there carefully
    This expansion forms the entrance flare in the event that if the UAV during landing is strongly displaced relative to the middle of the runway, then the flare will prevent a direct wing impact on the superstructure wall

    I just didn't understand two points:
    1. Where will the UAV tumble, after the wing hitting the bell? And he has nowhere to somersault, except in the pair on duty)
    2. Where is it better to leave the UAV in case of an unsuccessful landing approach (the element, after all, a wave, wind, all that), to the hangar with a pair of duty or to the superstructure? He has nowhere else to go
    1. Anachoret
      Anachoret 6 November 2020 01: 15
      0
      The idea of ​​planting directly into the hangar is not new) I would even say that this idea caused attacks of nostalgia for the Elite on the Spectrum
      And such a blurry multitasking of such an aircraft carrier reminded of an old anecdote about a foreign tour of a symphony orchestra. We buy cigars there, sell them there and buy household appliances ... But what about tools? just one question.
      here and here, an attempt to solve all the problems with one universal and inexpensive project, but it smells like tukhachevism in armored construction and then you will have to give up this project and do expensive ones separately.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 6 November 2020 13: 34
      +2
      There is also a third question: what will this superstructure with "gates" arrange with the air flow above the deck?
      There was already one AB with two decks (landing and takeoff), separated by a superstructure:

      According to the results of its operation, it turned out that it was practically impossible to use the aft landing deck: the superstructure creates air vortices that unpredictably change the trajectory of the landing aircraft.
  • Igor Semenov
    Igor Semenov 5 November 2020 19: 31
    +3
    Why did the author decide to publish here and not on Zen? Why did the editorial board skip THIS? Again the damned unknown! laughing
    1. Fizik M
      Fizik M 8 November 2020 01: 39
      +1
      Quote: Igor Semenov
      Why did the author decide to publish here and not on Zen? Why did the editorial board skip THIS?

      The editors missed only one thing - write where the author is from. lol
      From GosNII AS belay
  • Mooh
    Mooh 5 November 2020 19: 56
    +2
    The article, of course, not very much, but this is primarily due to the personality of the author, who is not an expert in shipbuilding and aviation, but nevertheless believes that his ideas should be considered by the RF Ministry of Defense as a priority.
    But the very idea of ​​a not very large ship with a powerful air defense system and a flight deck for an uav may make sense. Unfortunately, I am not an expert either and I am not able to estimate the cost of such a project and the timing of its implementation, but there are obvious advantages to this idea. However, as are the obvious disadvantages.
    1. Avior
      Avior 5 November 2020 20: 56
      +5
      A powerful air defense system is not installed on aircraft carriers, as it interferes with flights
      1. Mooh
        Mooh 6 November 2020 01: 10
        -1
        A powerful air defense system is not installed on aircraft carriers, as it interferes with flights

        I don’t think this is an insurmountable obstacle.
        1. Avior
          Avior 6 November 2020 03: 11
          +5
          Maybe surmountable, but it's not in vain that there are no long-range air defense systems on aircraft carriers and there are no UDKs.
          It would be no problem to supply the appropriate cells, for a body of 40 thousand tons this is not a problem, but the radar is still quite distant.
          But as a rule, they are limited to no further than an average range, or even self-defense in general, up to 10 km, or generally with barrel mounts.
          I don’t think that the designers are completely stupid and did not think to strengthen the air defense.
          I think, rather, real operating experience confirms that long-range air defense systems lead to a limitation of the possibilities for the main function of the ship.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 6 November 2020 13: 51
        +1
        Quote: Avior
        A powerful air defense system is not installed on aircraft carriers, as it interferes with flights

        * looks thoughtfully at Sea Dart on Invincible and Storm on top three 1143.

        It's not about flying. The fact is that the air defense missile system DD is an extremely large piece in terms of the antenna part and the starting part.
        Quote: Avior
        It would be no problem to supply the appropriate cells, for a body of 40 thousand tons this is not a problem, but the radar is still quite distant.

        The problem is that vacancies on AB are mostly sponsored. And the sponsons of the PU SAM DD will not fit either in the beam version or in the UVP version. Simply because the total height of the PU exceeds the height of the sponson, so the lower part of the UVP will hang outward like a "sausage". Plus, PU needs protection.
        So, you need to put the PU where they fit into the ship in height. And there, these launchers will take away areas and volumes from the main and core armament of AB - aircraft.
        For a specialized aircraft carrier, the main thing is the size of the air group and the possibilities for its basing. Simply because SAM, PLUR and other complexes can also be carried by other AUG ships - FR, EM, KR. But the planes are carried by only one AUG ship - and it would be irrational to exchange them for something that can be put on smaller escort ships.
        1. Avior
          Avior 6 November 2020 14: 24
          +1
          I, in fact, wrote this
          I think, rather, real operating experience confirms that long-range air defense systems lead to a limitation of the possibilities for the main function of the ship.

          A photo of Invisible clearly explains why the new British aircraft carriers do not have this.
          UVP on the deck takes up much less space than beam launchers.
          But nevertheless, for De Gaulle, for example, they limited themselves to Aster-15, although add a little length to the launcher and put the distant Aster 30.
          Still did not deliver
          Apparently, during launch, there should still be free space around the launcher, takes up space, interferes with flights
        2. aagor
          6 November 2020 14: 42
          0
          A powerful air defense system means a powerful radar, which is capable of providing missile defense to the entire AUG. The ammunition load of the air defense missile system on the AK should be minimal to ensure the destruction of especially dangerous targets such as a hypersonic anti-ship missile system. A feature of the proposed AK is that its superstructure practically does not take up space on the deck, but all the antennas are perfectly placed.
          1. Avior
            Avior 6 November 2020 14: 57
            +1
            There are just no problems with the radar, they are quite powerful on aircraft carriers
          2. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 8 November 2020 12: 24
            +1
            Do you understand that in the course of real hostilities, the operation of an aircraft carrier's radar will need to be hidden?
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 5 November 2020 23: 20
      0
      Quote: MooH
      But the very idea of ​​a not very large ship with a powerful air defense system and a flight deck for an uav may make sense.

      The idea of ​​a spacecraft designed for use by shock UAVs, let's say, has a chance of being implemented. It is clear that it will be problematic to resist a full-fledged AUG, but how many countries have it? But a powerful air defense system is already superfluous - as the operating experience shows, an aircraft-carrying ship should be it, and not perform the functions of an escort.
      1. Mooh
        Mooh 6 November 2020 01: 05
        +1
        The fact of the matter is that such a ship is unlikely to cope with the tasks of a classic aircraft carrier. With a tonnage of 25000, you cannot take away a lot of reserves and full-fledged work along the coast will not work. Even the Papuans. But as an attachment to the IBM? A sort of escort who solves the tasks of air defense, anti-aircraft defense and reconnaissance of the entire compound? We really do not have enough DLRO, and the task of target designation for long-range anti-ship missiles is very acute.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 6 November 2020 18: 17
          0
          Quote: MooH
          The fact of the matter is that such a ship is unlikely to cope with the tasks of a classic aircraft carrier
          And he shouldn't.
          Quote: MooH
          With a tonnage of 25000, you cannot take away a lot of reserves and full-fledged work along the coast will not work.

          Well, how can I say, I did not write specifically about the tonnage of 25000 tons, but about the very idea of ​​an airplane for a UAV.
    3. cap830
      cap830 6 November 2020 21: 48
      +1
      That is why everyone believes that "his ideas should ...". Once upon a time, patent officials sent us an idea of ​​an eccentric. They asked for a substantiated (!) Conclusion on the usefulness of the idea - "The submarine hull should be made in the form of a spin. When entering a dense water medium, the resistance will be less and the speed will increase." A good idea? At the eccentric. obviously, there was an association with a bottle cork. But what are the officials! They did not answer them anything. Or maybe over time we will be wrong ...
  • Phoenix
    Phoenix 5 November 2020 20: 55
    -2
    In the conclusions, they forgot to indicate the advantage described at the beginning - there is no need to contain a complex system of training for sea pilots.
  • Avior
    Avior 5 November 2020 21: 01
    +7
    The author covered too much in one article - a deck-based UAV, a carrier ship for them, and even radar support for the carrier.
    Moreover, all three covered problems are based on technologies that do not exist now.
    IMHO, you need to take one thing and reduce the level of innovation - then the project will look more realistic
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 21: 13
      0
      Quote: Avior
      you need to take one thing and reduce the level of innovation - then the project will look more realistic

      I agree. But this is a minus to the current government, not the author.
      If we take the United States, then everything is logical there.
      There is UDC America, on it from 6 to 22 F35В, now a competition for Loyal Wingman has been launched, there are 2 ready-made versions of UTAP-22 and XQ-58, also the Australian Boeing has its own project, as well as the project of the MQ-25 refueling tanker. Putting it all together, then you can make a UDC with a completely unmanned aerial wing (if, of course, it makes sense).
      1. Avior
        Avior 5 November 2020 22: 38
        +4
        While drones do not really perform air defense functions even minimally, at the level of some Harrier, and even more so the F-35V, it will be possible to try to apply projects of a carrier-carrier of a purely UAV only in addition to them, but rather, to a multi-purpose strike aircraft carrier.
        As an independent unit for such an expensive project, it will have very limited applicability, and in this form the fleet will not be of interest.
        In principle, for a start, they will begin to add UAVs to existing ships in order to gain experience in application, as the Americans are doing now.
        When there is too much novelty, this is not good, it is a greater risk of failure, in technology this is not accepted, deliberately limit the degree of novelty.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 22: 43
          0
          I completely agree. Everything goes evolutionary for them, step by step. There is also the F35 as the center of network-centric systems and it is in all types of troops where there is aviation. Therefore, they will quietly introduce the slaves into the Air Force, Navy, KMP. Introducing autonomous UAVs right away is painful.
  • Phoenix
    Phoenix 5 November 2020 21: 09
    0
    Auto RU. The idea of ​​a superstructure above the deck will be strongly rejected by the MoD, regardless of the quality of the arguments. The military-industrial complex is the most conservative part of the industry in general and of the Russian industry in particular. After reading your previous articles on AUG air defense, the first thing I thought about was how we could learn how to make vertical take-off and landing UAVs with minimal parasitic mass. This is what commercial firms are doing in this direction (photo below). UAVs of this type could be based on other non-specialized ships. Of course, not directly these small ones, but capable of taking off and landing vertically.

    [img]https://assets.newatlas.com/dims4/default/4ed7dd0/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1646x1097+137+0/resize/1200x800!/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewatlas-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fe0%2F04%2F17da1dcb498ea58c643d5cf355e6%2F1920-img-1897.jpg[/img]
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 5 November 2020 21: 23
      0
      Bell has a project for an unmanned tiltrotor V-247

      It is also possible to make an unmanned Raider.
  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 5 November 2020 21: 09
    0
    It's good, but it's unrealistic.
  • Vadim_888
    Vadim_888 5 November 2020 21: 11
    0
    Yeah, build a ship for what is not? Has the mace story taught you nothing?
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 5 November 2020 21: 53
    +6
    And call this drone carrier Pablo Escobar.
    1. Mooh
      Mooh 6 November 2020 01: 15
      +2
      Better "oligarch Pupkin" and build on the money of this very oligarch. On a voluntary and compulsory basis.
  • pin_code
    pin_code 6 November 2020 06: 41
    +1
    AvKr 25 to displacement is not even worth building. especially for some kind of drones. flawed concept 100%. you need to build full-fledged aircraft carriers. even if not right now, but in the future. or light, but not less than 50 kilotons of displacement with fighters, to gain air supremacy.
  • cap830
    cap830 6 November 2020 21: 10
    0
    After clause 2.1, I didn't feel like reading. First of all, on what such remote coasts was the author going to land? Cover the landing in Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, or maybe Florida from the air? Aggressive policies are officially condemned. Secondly, what is this miracle with the search for 100 km or reconnaissance of 1000 km? Conventional hydro-radars allow more. Thirdly, about the cost. Well, it's really sad here. Poor, impoverished land of science fiction writers. The victims of the exam are understandable, fantasize, and it is a sin to save on medicine.
  • exo
    exo 7 November 2020 11: 16
    0
    Taking into account how difficult it is for us to develop conventional UAVs, it is better not to dream of deck-mounted ones. And the very concept of an aircraft carrier with a springboard is flawed.
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey 7 November 2020 11: 33
    0
    With each article by this author, I am more and more convinced that it is not worth reading it ...
  • S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 7 November 2020 14: 49
    0
    The projects should be criticized, but the very fact of the discussion is obviously needed. There is a struggle of interests and disagreements in understanding the problem.
  • hostel
    hostel 7 November 2020 19: 04
    0
    With all due respect to the author, the idea of ​​creating such a castrato ship is very flawed. It is easier to rework the aircraft carrier Storm in the version with a reduced displacement of 70000 tons with a minimum AA defense (only air defense of the near zone). You only need catapults and AWACS aircraft. The latter need to be developed anyway, because it is not always advisable to drive a-50. But the problem is that a poor country does not pull the navy as a branch of the army. Hence the problems.
    1. agond
      agond 8 November 2020 11: 56
      0
      Quote: alberigo
      Easier to rework the aircraft carrier Storm in the version with a reduced displacement

      Yes, it's easier, but taking off and landing on a smaller aircraft carrier is more difficult
      It is really simpler and more correct, instead of the proposed project of one universal ship with missiles and drones, to have two ships - an olin with AFAR and missiles, the second with a deck and a UAV.It is high time to take it for an axiom that universal things always lose to specialized ones, and here again they propose to create a kind of floating "Combine," for all cases, but with a small displacement, this does not happen.
  • Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 8 November 2020 17: 16
    +1
    The author, you understand that you are writing science fiction. Your AK will be cheaper than Storm, oh? You propose to develop a new ship, with a new architecture, new aircraft (several types), with a new composition of weapons. All this at cost will outweigh not only Storm, but in general half of the Navy's budget. And if everything works out, in Russia, you know, there are some problems even with rather primitive UAVs. AFARs are considered too expensive to put even on "adult" planes, but you want two in your plane! And at the same time, this drone will not roll around with a normal information security. And the UAV DROW is generally strong. This is not just a flying antenna, in fact! Why do you think there are five crew members on the Hokai? Well, and most importantly: Russia needs an aircraft carrier not at all for strikes on the ground, but to cover its KUGs.
  • Vdi73
    Vdi73 Today, 07: 43
    0
    Russia can create everything thanks to still Soviet plans, developments, ideas, drawings and specialists, the question is in the small economy and money. And in the near future, in my opinion, there will be a question of qualified scientists, engineers, workers, reformers killed Soviet education, and in its place they created a paid parody.