Military Review

Non-aircraft carriers and their aircraft. A little about ersatz aircraft carriers of the 80s

88
Non-aircraft carriers and their aircraft. A little about ersatz aircraft carriers of the 80s

The use of non-military vessels for military purposes has a long history history in world fleets... There are countless examples. This is due to a simple fact - it is technically impossible for any country to have and maintain a military fleet large enough to meet the potential needs of wartime in peacetime. There is really no way out - for any naval war you have to mobilize ships from the merchant fleet, and woe to the country that does not have one.


Examples of various kinds of auxiliary cruisers, raiders, British Q-ships hunting them, steamers converted into minesags, ships converted into military transport, and improvised landing craft (up to the dredger used during the Kerch-Feodosia landing operation) are known to everyone.

A particular case of such events is more interesting - the use of converted (not to be confused with those built on the basis of a civilian project, such as "jeep-carriers") commercial and other civil vessels for basing on them aviation.

It is also known that while the German Condors were the main threat to the Atlantic convoys, the British used catapults on merchant ships to launch fighters. When a German aircraft approached, such a fighter was launched from a catapult, intercepted (or drove away) the Condor or a flying boat, and landed on the water, after which the pilot was picked up from boats, boats or escort ships of the convoy. True, once the pilot made it to Soviet territory.

Fighter "Harikkein" on a catapult.

And its start on a solid fuel accelerator.

The debut of American helicopters in the Pacific theater of operations during World War II was also carried out from the converted US Army floating workshops. Prior to this, the US Coast Guard tested its helicopters from the converted vessel Governor Cobb. For more details see the article "Helicopters on the fronts of World War II".

During the Cold War, old ideas returned. And the issue of basing aviation on converted merchant ships has become urgent again. It makes sense to recall some projects from the end of the Cold War.

British in the Falklands


The Falklands War made the dead Atlantic Conveyor widely known, but it was not, generally speaking, the only air transport mobilized.

First, a few words about the Atlantic Conveyor itself.


This ship belonged to the type, which in domestic terminology is called a "ro-ro-container carrier", that is, it was suitable for transporting containers and self-propelled equipment at the same time.

Before conversion

In the context.

The ship was hastily refitted.

One of the main weaknesses in the conversion was that the British simply did not have time to do everything right - the operation in the Falklands had to be completed before the storm season in the South Atlantic. This dictated the pace, and he made careful preparation impossible.

On refurbishment

The British provided the ship with Harrier aircraft, helicopters and a large amount of ammunition.

The latter, however, did not have special rooms with fire extinguishing systems and structural protection, but were simply folded into containers. The decoy launchers were not mounted, which would have guaranteed to save the ship from the primitive seeker of the Argentine anti-ship missiles.

The result is known.


There are still people who are convinced that the Atlantic Conveyor was an ersatz aircraft carrier.

This is naturally not the case.

The ship had an airstrip, from which the Harrier, taking off vertically (which meant - without weapons), could have flown to an aircraft carrier nearby.


Helicopters were supposed to fly from it. This vessel could not be used as an aircraft carrier. And, from this point of view, Atlantic Conveyor is not a completely “clean” example. But it is impossible not to mention it.

The Atlantic Conveyor was not the only such vessel - its sister ship, the Atlantic Causeway, went to war with it. Almost the same ship was used for the same. On this transport, captured Argentine attack aircraft IA-58 Pucara were delivered back to Britain. Converted, however, it was slightly different.


It is worth mentioning the air transport that transported the helicopters.

First is the Contender Bezant, pictured below. The transport also returned from this war unharmed.


Moreover, it was once again converted into a military transport and is still in the ranks of the auxiliary fleet as "Argus" (RFA Argus).

But the next British unit is much more interesting.

So, get acquainted - "Astronomer".

As well as "Atlantics" - a ro-ro-container ship. Built in Poland (in Gdansk) in just six months, this vessel began to work for the shipping company Harrison Lines. When Argentina captured the Falkland Islands, this ship, like others, was mobilized and used as a military transport.

Like the ships mentioned above, the Astronomer was supposed to deliver helicopters too. Hangars for helicopters were mounted in the bow of the Astronomer hull, and in the middle of the hull, where the swinging amplitude is minimal, there was a landing pad. In this form, the ship passed the Falklands. And in this form it remained to serve in the Royal Auxiliary Navy.

The Astronomer goes to the Falklands.

After the Falklands, a new turn took place in his fate, because of which, perhaps, we should call him a ship.

If in the Falklands the task of all these transports was simply to deliver aircraft and cargo, then this transport was to go to war, where it would perform real combat missions.

ARAPAHO and the British attempt at implementation


Let's go overseas.

Intensive preparations for a war against the USSR raised the question for the Americans - who, if anything, will guard the ocean convoys?

By that time, it was clear that hunting convoys in the style of Karl Dönitz's unshaven boys was not the main task of the Soviet submarine.

However, firstly, possible successful operations of the Navy against the United States and NATO could still lead to this. Secondly, attacks on convoys could not be ruled out anyway. In any case, the Navy regularly practiced the penetration of submarines through the Faroe-Icelandic barrier.

In such conditions, the Americans could find themselves in a situation where no forces are enough to simultaneously conduct high-intensity military operations against the Soviet Navy in the North and the Pacific Ocean and to defend Atlantic, and, in some cases, Pacific convoys.

This problem gave rise, for example, to the concept of "sea control ship", Sea Control Ship - SCS, which the Americans themselves did not implement later, but which they "threw" to their NATO allies.

As a result, Spain and Italy began to build ships optimized for such tasks, and the British "Invincible-class" before the Falklands were considered in the same vein.

In fact, by the mid-80s, the United States could count on at least four such ships in the Atlantic. In Asia, Thailand bought such a ship for itself. And if the United States happened to fight in the Pacific or Indian Oceans, the loyal Thais would not have left their main ally alone. Especially considering that this would give them the opportunity to get even with Vietnam, and Kampuchea-Cambodia, and the USSR, which supported these two countries against Thailand.

Nevertheless, the forces available at the end of the seventies were clearly not enough.

Some in the United States considered the natural response to the "not enough ships" situation to mobilize existing merchant ships and re-equip them into some kind of escort ship armed with anti-submarine and search and rescue helicopters and a minimal set of weapons.

Some theorists believed that such ships should be armed with vertical / short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft, that is, "Harriers".

They were supposed to be used for the same purpose as on the "ships of naval control", that is, to destroy the Tu-95RTs, which, in the opinion of the Americans, would have directed Soviet submarines to their convoys, like the German Condors in World War II.

This is how a project called ARAPAKHO was born in the USA.

Initially, it was about taking a container ship, mounting a take-off and landing pad on it, sonar equipment in containers, fuel supplies, equipment for servicing aircraft, and the aircraft themselves.

Initially, it was assumed that it could be helicopters and Harriers. For example, some artists saw a container ship converted into an escort ship like this.


In reality, the study of ARAPAHO showed that appetites should be tempered.

In order for the Harriers to fly freely from a civilian ship, it must be a truly large vessel, uncommon for those times.

Here, for example, is a scaled-up "Harrier" on a specific container ship. Feel what is called the difference.


Soon ARAPAHO turned into an ersatz helicopter escort.

In the fall of 1982, the Americans conducted a series of tests on the Export Leader container ship, and closed the topic - Ronald Reagan's 600 ships program was on the way, and ARAPAKO's ersatz helicopter carriers were, as they say, "out of place."

But the poor (in comparison with the United States) British grabbed the idea - especially since they had a successful, as they believed, partially (in comparison with the project) re-equipped Astronomer. The United Kingdom has acquired all the necessary documentation from the United States. And soon "Astronomer" got up to a new re-equipment.

This time the British were serious.

They planned to create not a transport, but a warship. And, moreover, they intended to use it in military operations.

In 1983 the vessel was refitted. Following the conversion to a quasi-combat ship, the ship was renamed Reliant (HMS Reliant).

The ship (now so, yes) received a hangar of a modified design, fuel tanks, communication equipment for flight control. The above-deck structures were made of containers, and various workshops were equipped inside them. The ship was very close in its capabilities to the American project ARAPAHO. And many of today's researchers believe that the Reliant is the only full-fledged ship of such a project.


HMS Reliant is the closest to the ARAPAHO project that has just been built. Above, there is the Astronomer before the conversion. Obviously, such a ship could not carry the Harriers.

In 1984, a ship with helicopters sailed to the Mediterranean for her first and last combat service.

The task of the ship was to ensure the basing of helicopters capable of operating in the interests of the British peacekeeping contingent in Lebanon.

Alas, the results were disappointing.

The hull of the container ship rocked too much, its dimensions were insufficient, and the contours were inappropriate. The walls of the above-deck structures built from containers let water through, which then flowed below the upper deck.

In some rooms there was ankle-deep water, including in workshops. The very placement of the latter in containers also did not justify itself and turned out to be very inconvenient.

The steel flooring of the runway in the hot Mediterranean climate led to rapid wear of helicopter tires.

In general, ARAPAHO turned out to be a bad idea - in order for the container ship to really become a warship, much more rework was needed.

However, such projects did not arise.

SCADS


ARAPAKHO was more a project of ersatz anti-submarine ships, and there was also an air defense problem.

The USSR had Tu-95 and X-22 anti-ship missiles. In theory, the very logic of confrontation with the West suggested that one day the Russians would fuse this platform and this missile. So, by the way, then it happened, however, the X-22 with the Tu-95 of the Air Force was planned to be used not only (and not so much) against surface targets. Tu-95K-22 appeared in the second half of the 80s, but it was not difficult to predict at the very beginning.

In the case of the British in whose hearts the ashes of the Atlantic Conveyor were still pounding, it was obvious that the matter was not limited to the Russians. It can be anything, and it is highly desirable that the vehicles would be normally protected from air strikes, even if they are not in touch with the Russians. The loss of the Atlantic Conveyor in 1982 greatly complicated the British operations on the ground.

The answer to the problem of providing air defense for transports was the SCADS project - shipborne containerized air defense system. In Russian - ship-based container air defense system.

SCADS consisted of blocks and subsystems of the Sea Wolfe air defense missile system mounted in containers, false target launchers, a hangar for Harriers, with dimensions that were multiples of a container, and assembled from them. A quick-detachable airstrip with a springboard, container containers for aircraft fuel and warehouses located in containers, workshops and everything else that was necessary for the Harriers' flights. It was assumed that together "Harriers" and the air defense system will be able to protect the ship.

At the same time, there would have been room for purely cargo containers - the entire SCADS infrastructure would fit into two levels of containers.

SCADS: red containers - everything you need to maintain and repair aircraft, blue - weapons (air defense systems in general), yellow - general-purpose premises such as warehouses, green - personnel accommodation and related services (for example, a first-aid post, galley, etc.). pink - aviation fuel.

The radars for the complex were made by Plessey, which developed the AWS-5A radar. They also designed the launch facility for decoys. British Aerospace developed the container air defense system, the rest of the container infrastructure and the aircraft themselves. Fairey Engineering made a springboard.

It was assumed that the SCADS kits made and stored in advance could be installed on any container ship of suitable size in 48 hours, which would make it more or less protected from air strikes. The air group was supposed to include an AWACS helicopter.

In general, against a single aircraft with bombs, such a kit would work quite well.

But the topic, as they say, "did not go".

What can be a lot of reasons.

From the required dimensions of the ship to the "one-sidedness" of the project, which is capable of protecting the ship only from a non-massive attack from the air by one or two aircraft, and even then not always.

Let's just say, against the Tu-95K-22 with one or two X-22, the chances of such a complex were not very high. Against a pair of "Tupolev" - about zero With Tu-16 and 22M - it was the same story.

And new Falklands, where such a complex could really become a significant factor, were not planned in the foreseeable future.

As a result, SCADS remained on paper.

Sky hook - sky hook


Another interesting project was the "skyhook" - Skyhook.

At the same time, in the 80s, the British, who loved their wonderful toys "Harriers" without any measure, had another brilliant idea - to equip these aircraft ... No, not merchant ships converted into something, but quite a military ships of the " frigate".

The problem was that the Harrier could only land on such a small object in exceptional circumstances, including zero pitching (for example, in the North Atlantic) and unpredictable pilot luck.

However, with the availability of fuel, this aircraft could easily hover next to a moving ship.

In the bowels of BAE, an idea has matured - what if you hook up planes right in the air with a special grip and then use a crane to put them on the deck? The idea inspired, and work began to boil at the firm.

The result was the sky hook project.


The essence of the idea was as follows.

A special computer-controlled grip was created that could pick up the aircraft and, in a semi-automatic mode, lower it onto the deck on a special landing device. It was assumed that this would make it possible to build ships in the size of a frigate and a destroyer, which would carry 4-8 Harriers each.

However, in order for the idea to start, this very grip was needed, capable of gently picking up a flying jet attack aircraft and gently, without damaging it, lower it onto the deck.



And such a system - the main part of the project - was created!

Both the grappling hook and the 80s advanced computer control system have been successfully tested with real aircraft.

True, due to the fact that these were the first stages of testing, instead of the ship and the sea, the Harrier was caught with an ordinary truck crane.


But they were catching!

The challenge inspired the team to go further. And come up with a plan to fuel the Harriers on the move. Moreover, "hooks" and refueling equipment for this were supposed to be placed not only on ships, but also on oil production platforms.

The project, however, did not go further.

According to the military senselessness, obvious to any unbiased observer.

Skyhook remained a technical curiosity.

To whom it is interesting, here The full text of the US patent for this system has been posted.

Let's return now to the converted civilian ships and aviation on them.

Soviet experiences


There is such a joke:

"The presence of a weapon is tempting to use it."

The experience of the USSR Navy confirms this.

As soon as the Yak-38 flew into the naval aviation, the temptation immediately arose to try to use them from a merchant ship.

For the experiments, the same type of vessel was chosen that the British liked so much - a ro-ro container ship. In our case, these were ships of the B-481 project of Polish construction - "Nikolay Cherkasov" and "Agostinho Neto".

Unlike SCADS, the undertaking in our case was conceived only as a research one, with a view to what, in general, it is, in principle - flights from a merchant ship on a jet plane.

In 1983, two container ro-ro ships were converted into floating take-off and landing sites. Their decks were rearranged, they were equipped with open take-off and landing areas measuring 18 × 24 meters each, the platforms were made on a deck made of heat-resistant steel, which was not destroyed by Yak-38 engines.

September 14, 1983 Colonel Yu.N. Kozlov performed the first flight with Agostinho Neto. Subsequently, 20 flights were performed with "Neto" and 18 more - with "Nikolai Cherkasov".

Flights from "Nikolai Cherkasov". Pay attention to how many planes fit on such a rather big ship.

The conclusions were disappointing, despite the rather large size of the ships, no more than two planes could fly from them, and landing was also extremely inconvenient - the superstructure prevented landing from the stern, it was necessary to do it at an angle to the diametrical (longitudinal) axis of the ship and "hit" into a small area.


Two different photos of different landings and all the time at an angle to the centreline of the vessel. These were not the easiest flights.

Takeoff and landing were possible only vertically, which greatly limited the combat radius and combat load.

In general, the assessment of the experience gained was extremely contradictory:

"You can fly, but if possible you don't need to."

These experiments were not further developed "in metal".

Another experiment was not developed either.

From the memoirs of Captain 1st Rank A.E. Soldatenkova:

“In 1991, there was still such a ship-owning organization as DMURGB - the Far Eastern Marine Directorate for Exploration Deep Drilling.

In the ship register of this organization there was such a mighty vessel as "TRANSSHELF". At its core, it was a giant transport dock ship. It was intended for transportation of offshore drilling platforms over long distances.

On the slipway, stands were built for a specific drilling platform, the ship was immersed in the required recess, the tug platform was brought so that the submerged ship was under it, the ship floated up, and the platform stood on the cage, fastened for subsequent transportation and could be delivered by sea to any part of the planet ...

The Transhelf was of impressive size and unlimited seaworthiness.

The idea arose to use it as a floating VVPP for a link of three MI-14PLO anti-submarine helicopters and one MI-14PS rescue helicopter.

Thanks to their TTD, MI-14 helicopters could stay in the air for up to eight hours. This made it possible to take off from the coastal airfield to perform anti-submarine missions in the seas surrounding Sakhalin Island and land on the Transshelf deployed in advance in the desired direction.

Further refueling, rest or change of crews, maintenance, replenishment of RGAB stocks and ammunition for the continuation of anti-submarine operations with subsequent return to one of the coastal airfields or to "Transhelf".

At that time, there was still an advanced base on the island of Simushir (Broughton Bay), where there were all the conditions for the basing of four MI-14 helicopters.

Thus, the middle of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk became quite attainable for shore-based anti-submarine helicopters. "

The phenomena that preceded the collapse of the USSR and the collapse itself made adjustments to these plans, but the interest is indicative.

The USSR paid great attention to mobilization readiness. The adaptation of merchant and other non-military vessels to possible military service has also received great attention. And, as it is now clear, the possibilities of using aviation from such mobilized ships - too.

Conclusion


Such an opportunity as the conversion of a civil ship into an aircraft carrier has not lost its significance today.

But with a lot of reservations about efficiency, requirements for re-equipment and the ship itself, deviation from which literally collapses the effectiveness of the undertaking.


But a number of countries are not afraid of this. And today he boldly goes to experiments.

Thus, Malaysia put into operation the ship "Bunga Mas Lima", which performs the tasks of a patrol. It has on board and a hangar for a helicopter, and the helicopter itself, and everything you need to use it. This ship is converted from a container ship.

Bunga mas lima

Iran has recently demonstrated the Makran floating base, which is also capable of providing short-term helicopter bases. It is also obtained by rebuilding a merchant ship.

You can laugh at this attempt as much as you like, but the Iranians can already bring this ship somewhere to the shores of Venezuela and carry out some kind of airmobile operations there, while simultaneously supplying the grouping of surface ships and, possibly, submarines with everything necessary (with fuel and food for sure).



This kind of use of converted vessels, when the function of the floating rear prevails over others, may well be successful.

Although for long-term use of helicopters "Makran" is even less suitable than ARAPAKHO, it does not even have a hangar, although the deck is large and it is quite convenient to fly from it. For Iran, by the way, this is not the first experience of such re-equipment.

The British example suggests that, theoretically, a good air transport can turn out from a commercial vessel - if there is time for its full revision. If not, then there is a risk of getting not Astronomer and Contender Bizant, but Atlantic Conveyor.

But the experience of using converted merchant ships precisely as carriers of military aircraft, from which it is used, after the Second World War, is still rather negative.

The hulls of these vessels do not have acceptable seaworthiness, even if they are large in size. The re-equipment does not provide the convenience of using aircraft, comparable to ships of special construction. The very possibilities of quick and not very expensive rebuilding of the ship's hull are limited. Placing a strong air group on them is impossible.

This is superimposed on such specific features of purely civilian shipbuilding as the absence in the ship's design of solutions aimed at increasing combat survivability, and the speed insufficient for a warship.

The experience of operating the Malaysian ship is more or less positive. The rest were much worse. However, perhaps the Iranians will be able to surprise.

There is one more point that has been ignored in all cases, except for the SCADS project - radio-electronic and communication equipment for flight control.

Without such complexes, it is impossible to organize not just takeoff and landing, but precisely the combat work of aviation. And this equipment is expensive and complex, although in some primitive version it can probably be "containerized". But precisely what is primitive.

In any case, an aircraft carrier from a container ship cannot be made in this way.

And a full-fledged aviation control complex is many tens of tons of equipment for billions of rubles.

However, we will make a reservation.

A ship in which, during construction, the possibility of converting into a warship is provided, with the addition of additional diesel generators, laying cables, installing protected compartments in the lower part of the hull (preferably below the waterline) for storing aircraft weapons, with contours somewhat more optimized for speed and seaworthiness, rather than "purely" civilian ships, can be an ersatz warship.

Bad, of course.

But such a ship will be able to carry several helicopters on board. And not in an ARAPAHO style chicken coop assembled from containers, but in a normal hangar. That would take off from a normal take-off area with a suitable surface.

Such a ship can have a mini-GAS for detecting torpedoes coming at it, installed during re-equipment, several launch tubes or standard TPK with anti-torpedoes, the same modular air defense systems (with all their disadvantages), fuel reserves and places for personnel.

It really can be put as a carrier of anti-submarine helicopters to guard the convoy. Or use it in anti-pirate operations (remembering several helicopters). And in simple cases - against a weak opponent. And if he has launching and lifting devices for high-speed boats and boats themselves - even to support the actions of special operations forces at a distance from available bases.

It can be by air. And in an amphibious operation, helicopters for various purposes can be lifted from it.

In operations where the risk of losing such a ship is small, it could carry communications equipment and a command post on board. Flight control could be taken over by a corvette operating in conjunction with such a ship.

In conditions of an acute shortage of ship personnel, such things are possible, but it is necessary to prepare for them in advance, preferably at the design stage of the original civilian ships. Tactical application models are also needed. And also in advance.

If all of the above requirements are met, the ship can turn out to be quite good, although it will be inferior to warships of special construction in everything.

It is for the quick conversion of ships into warships according to this option that various modular and container systems can be useful, which for normal ships actually proved to be a stillborn concept.

Another interesting takeaway concerns aircraft.

Namely, aircraft with short or vertical takeoff and vertical landing.
And the conclusion is this. The deployment of basing jet aircraft on ships that were initially unsuitable for this is the only niche where SCVVPs are really irreplaceable. In all other cases, this is not the case. And with a certain level of organizational effort, such planes can almost always be dispensed with, having received something significantly more useful for their cost.

But if the question arose of rebuilding container ships into ersatz aircraft carriers for the same escort tasks, or the use of aircraft in air defense of convoys (the same SCADS), then "verticals" become almost no alternative means.

On a long through deck (more than 250 meters), besides them and helicopters, light attack aircraft such as "Bronco" and the like can also be based, which on such a ship does not need catapults, jumps, or finishers. But this is rather an exception, such a deck still needs to be done somehow. We still need to find such a vessel for re-equipment. At the same time, one must remember about the above-mentioned serious disadvantages of such ships, even if there is no choice left and they have to be made, the concept's shortcomings will not disappear anywhere. They just have to endure.

Accordingly, if military plans do not provide for the deployment of combat aircraft on every large "trough", then you can easily do without "vertical". In all other cases, they are not the only possible or irreplaceable solution.

Themselves such ersatz ships must be thought out in advance and prepared for their re-equipment as carefully as possible.

Otherwise it will be a fiasco.

These are the conclusions drawn from relatively recent experience.

Both ours and foreign.
Author:
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 21 February 2021 05: 27
    +13
    Size matters. In the examples given by A. Timokhin, they tried to land planes and helicopters on tiny ships by modern standards. And from this worthless results

    Military floating base - helicopter carrier Puller

    78 thousand tons, length 230 m, width 50 m.
    1,5 times wider than UDC Mistral

    The project was created on the basis of the tanker Alaska




    A similar tanker with carved tanks is another military ship, Monford Point, landing craft base

    For anyone who sees these ships as easy targets for Onyx and Zircons, please do not worry. No, Puller is not for war with us. It is for other tasks. For us - SSBN Ohio
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 February 2021 06: 35
      +10
      Military floating base - helicopter carrier Puller


      This is not a converted merchant ship, this is originally a warship based on a civilian project - a completely different beast.
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 21 February 2021 15: 02
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        This is not a converted merchant ship, this is originally a warship based on a civilian project - a completely different beast.

        And such animals are much better than the "ersatz-alterations" described by you, again because they have stabilization systems, the same Iranian and Malaysian counterparts in our Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet simply cannot work because of stronger winds, storms, waves, temperature changes, and ice conditions.

        In my opinion, the only military-profitable option for the Russian Federation is to design specialized "multifunctional civil-military ships", which in peacetime would be registered in public-private transport and logistics companies and would be engaged in "making money" by recouping the cost of their production. necessary, chartered by the Navy \ MO \ etc and \ or put on military records with an exemption in case of war. This is the only way to provide the Russian Federation with a fleet of 100+ ships for many generations, even if such ships will be less military-efficient, but they will be orders of magnitude more military-economically profitable than highly specialized ships of the type AV \ UDC \ DVKD \ BDK \ etc.
      2. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 21 February 2021 17: 21
        +1
        An excellent article, especially its part about domestic experience, controversial but excellent.

        The ship had an airstrip from which the Harrier, taking off vertically (which meant - without weapons), could fly to an aircraft carrier nearby.
        Is this an unarmed plane with a pair of Sidewinder? As far as I remember, such a configuration allowed any takeoff options without any problems.
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 February 2021 19: 41
          +1
          Only there was not enough fuel for anything. And so yes.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 21 February 2021 20: 02
            0
            To intercept the Skyhawks was enough. Here you overdid it, in the configuration of the attack aircraft did not take off vertically, of course. And there are no problems in the configuration of the interceptor.
            1. timokhin-aa
              21 February 2021 20: 10
              0
              They did not take off vertically, and the time in the combat mission area did not exceed 10 minutes.
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 21 February 2021 20: 43
                0
                I don’t remember the details, but nothing prevented us from lifting the interceptors from the Atlantic Conveyor. It is not hard to guess that "the time in the area of ​​the combat mission" depends on the distance of the given area. Ersatz aircraft carrier is intended for this, to push interceptors closer to the threatened area.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  22 February 2021 11: 07
                  0
                  I remember the details - without a vertical take-off tank destroyer, the Harrier had a combat radius with two missiles of several tens of kilometers, and with a normal size tank destroyer with a full refueling and a pair of missile launchers, it seemed that it could not take off vertically.
                  1. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 22 February 2021 18: 57
                    0
                    I apologize. Without PTB about 340 km like. This is a little, but still not "several tens of kilometers".
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      22 February 2021 18: 59
                      0
                      This is when taking off from a springboard
                      1. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 23 February 2021 18: 50
                        0
                        I suspect you mean this:
                        With vertical takeoff with a load of 1360 kg, the combat radius of the aircraft is only 92 km. An increase in the combat radius to 500-700 km is possible only during takeoff with a takeoff run of 270-305 m long.

                        This is what I wrote about, the configuration of the attack aircraft. To estimate the weight in the interceptor mode, I would like to remind you that the weight of the AIM-9 air-to-air missiles is 87 kg, the weight of the AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles is 157 kg. As you can see, there is still almost a ton for fuel. So 340 km is the minimum combat radius estimate.
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        24 February 2021 09: 28
                        0
                        You do not remember, apparently, how the Harriers "in the interceptor version" in the Falklands had to land on landing ships so as not to fall into the water.
  2. Bogatyrev
    Bogatyrev 22 February 2021 02: 12
    +1
    If you believe the materials about the post-nuclear war, after the end of the nuclear phase, it is the war for the tanker and merchant fleet that will become the most acute form of struggle for the remaining resources on the planet. And here ships armed in this way, in the absence of stronger ships, can generally become a weapon of victory.
    But obviously not ours, our fleet is too tough for this - neither the military nor the merchant. Except for the Arctic.
  • Lipchanin
    Lipchanin 21 February 2021 05: 27
    -7
    Interesting article good
    Only now I didn't understand it
    The debut of American helicopters in the Pacific theater of operations during World War II

    Did the Americans use helicopters in WWII? As far as I remember, they began to use them in Vietnam
    1. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 21 February 2021 06: 18
      +13
      Sikorsky R-4, entered series production in
      1942, from 1943 used in the Pacific theater of operations.
      1. Lipchanin
        Lipchanin 21 February 2021 06: 34
        +4
        Thanks I'll know hi
        1. 3x3zsave
          3x3zsave 21 February 2021 06: 36
          +6
          You are welcome. The resource had a good review article, authored by S. Yuferev, about WWII helicopters.
          1. Lipchanin
            Lipchanin 21 February 2021 06: 38
            0
            I'll try to find
      2. timokhin-aa
        21 February 2021 06: 37
        +9
        No, not since 1943, in Indochina since 1944, in the Pacific in 1945.
        https://topwar.ru/172340-vertolety-na-frontah-vtoroj-mirovoj.html
        1. 3x3zsave
          3x3zsave 21 February 2021 06: 47
          +4
          You are probably right. Not my topic, so, "in the axes" I remember.
          Thank you for the article!
    2. Avior
      Avior 21 February 2021 06: 31
      +7
      Used for patrolling and reconnaissance as well.
      Sikorsky R4
      1. Lipchanin
        Lipchanin 21 February 2021 06: 35
        +2
        Thank you hi
        Live and learn... request
      2. timokhin-aa
        21 February 2021 06: 37
        +6
        For the evacuation of the wounded and other purposes.
        https://topwar.ru/172340-vertolety-na-frontah-vtoroj-mirovoj.html
    3. timokhin-aa
      21 February 2021 06: 36
      +6
      Details here - https://topwar.ru/172340-vertolety-na-frontah-vtoroj-mirovoj.html
    4. Shiden
      Shiden 22 February 2021 18: 56
      0
      I want to fix you massively in Korea in the second limited at the end of the war.
  • demiurg
    demiurg 21 February 2021 07: 12
    +1
    1. We take the same container ship of the Panamax level. 289 by 32 meters.
    2. Cut off the left side of the setting. We widen the left side. We get a through flight deck.
    3. Doing minimum two lifts. One for aircraft, the second for weapons.
    And there is no need to fence collective farms from containers on the deck, in the holds at least two-story hangars will fit easily, and there will be a lot of space for warehouses and workshops.
    4. Strengthening the deck, if you wish, you can be puzzled by the aerofinishers.
    5. Maximum of armament signal flare gun. Escort ships should guard. But 5-10 planes and a dozen helicopters will fit easily. In times of crisis, the wing can be doubled.

    It will certainly not be an aircraft carrier. Let's call this a colonial aircraft carrier.
    Although he will be able to work as a forward operational base, refueling vehicles that have taken off from the shore, and expanding their range.
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 21 February 2021 12: 29
      +1
      Will such a ship definitely be cheaper than the original aircraft carrier with similar capabilities?
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 21 February 2021 12: 32
        0
        Factor of. A conventional container ship is a simple steel box with a diesel engine, built using civilian technology.
        Indonesians seem to be building something like that.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 21 February 2021 15: 29
          0
          It (ersatz-alteration from a container ship) will certainly be financially cheaper, but at the same time it will be unprofitable for military purposes, in particular, due to restrictions on the number of aircraft, the effectiveness of stabilization systems and much more ...
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 21 February 2021 07: 15
    +3
    Thanks to Alexander for another literate article.
    It is interesting, and most importantly, this is the correct and sober conclusion:
    In conditions of an acute shortage of ship personnel, such things are possible, but it is necessary to prepare for them in advance, preferably at the design stage of the original civilian ships. Tactical application models are also needed. And also in advance.

    If all of the above requirements are met, the ship can turn out to be quite good, although it will be inferior to warships of special construction in everything.

    There is nothing to add.
  • demiurg
    demiurg 21 February 2021 07: 36
    0
    In general, I thought while sitting on the couch. If you prepare in advance.
    We are building a series of 5-10 pamax container ships. Ice class, and we drive them by the Northern Sea Route, so that they are always close by. In the construction of the wheelhouse, we foresee the possibility of converting into an island on the starboard side in advance. In the hull, we leave reinforcements in advance for mounting the landing deck on the port side and the ramp on the bow. The deck is pre-reinforced to be used as a runway. This will of course degrade the performance as a "truck" but in any case it will be cost effective.
    Sections with warehouses, cabins, elevators, workshops, hangars according to the size of the holds are stored on the shore.
    Ramps and inclined decks are also stored there.
    Out of 5-10 ships, 1-2 are always in service with replacement crews.
    The pilots and vehicles are attached to the naval aviation and are based on the coast in peacetime, two or four air regiments in the North and Far East may well have analogs of Nitka.
    If it is completely perverted, then provide places and foundations for the installation of afterburners. And then the issue of 18 knots maximum shift towards 24-25 knots.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 February 2021 08: 58
      +6
      And now we draw it with a pencil on a scale, measure the resulting areas for aircraft preparation on the deck, add that the ship does not have any solutions to ensure survivability, add the cost of the base vessel only to the air control system. movement, let's see what we did.

      In principle, I am not at all opposed to the use of mobilized "traders", but everything must be done wisely and not go too far.
      Malaysian version with TOP, extended hangar for 4-5 helicopters, towed GAS, anti-torpedo GAS, PU Pack with pneumatic start, cockpit for the special forces group, gunsmith, prison, four boats. Possibility of simultaneous launch of two turntables, with full pre-flight preparation in the hangar, on the deck only quick refueling under high pressure, suspension of weapons and that's it.

      The structure of the vessel must correspond to all this during construction, of course
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 21 February 2021 12: 45
        0
        Vitality? We seal every second hold, divide it into three parts lengthwise, and pressurize it with carbon dioxide.
        If on a normal aircraft carrier of 50-60 thousand tons about 50 aircraft are freely based, then even on such a box of 70000-80000 tons there is room for two dozen aircraft. And a dozen more in the holds. To make up for losses.
        You cannot put weapons on such a ship. Laying power and information routes will dramatically increase rework time.
        Maximum Pantsir-SM or the same Thor as a stand-alone module.
        UDCs are being built. BDK two new and two under construction. There are colonial sloops.
        But there is nothing to conduct reconnaissance, to cover submarines and ships.
    2. Scharnhorst
      Scharnhorst 21 February 2021 09: 19
      +4
      In the construction of the wheelhouse, we provide in advance the possibility of converting into an island on the starboard side

      Since you are going to build a series of dual-purpose container ships in advance, the wheelhouse should be designed right away on the stern edge with an overboard up to the midship size, immediately increased height with a decent locator. Why then rebuild in the mobilization mode? And why starboard? I want from the left, we will not make ourselves an idol from the Americans! And afterburner turbines are not allowed due to environmental considerations and alternative energy according to Greta Tumberg - is there not enough space for solar panels? laughing
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 21 February 2021 12: 36
        0
        Why should civilian sailors live in the hold, in cabin without windows?
        Achievements of modern optics and electronics generally make it possible to cut off the entire superstructure, leaving a choice of a mast with observation equipment and an exhaust pipe on the left or right side.
  • Runway
    Runway 21 February 2021 07: 38
    0
    The article is interesting. With regard to the Russian Navy, the issue of air cover (from ASP / anti-ship missiles + AWACS / RC) of a group of steamers outside the VKS's coverage area hangs in the air (a sad pun).
    The only possibility is to provide the group with a number of missiles capable of "digesting" the daily flight of the aircraft carrier's wing (600 targets - ASP and carriers).
  • Sergey_G_M
    Sergey_G_M 21 February 2021 08: 06
    +1
    Given the development of unmanned aircraft, converting container ships into a drone carrier can be a good cheap solution. Helicopter-type drones fit well into the container form factor as well as the equipment for them.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 February 2021 08: 52
      +3
      What to do with them? And if the enemy uses electronic warfare?
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 21 February 2021 14: 51
        +1
        Electronic warfare is no more dangerous for autonomous drones than for manned vehicles.
        1. timokhin-aa
          22 February 2021 11: 08
          0
          A country that masters fully autonomous drones goes to the league where no ersatz aircraft carriers are needed anymore.
          It's kind of like a machine gun company against the Zulus with shields and spears ..
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 22 February 2021 12: 22
            0
            Not sure what "completely" is, but autonomous drones are more of a weapon against knights. Which, of course, annoyed the knights, but did not send them to the dustbin of history. And autonomous drones ("autonomous" here - "not requiring an external pilot") already exist.
            1. timokhin-aa
              22 February 2021 13: 42
              0
              Which, of course, annoyed the knights, but did not send them to the dustbin of history.


              And where are the knights now?

              Which, of course, annoyed the knights, but did not send them to the dustbin of history.


              Examples please.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 22 February 2021 13: 49
                -1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                And where are the knights now?


                In the dustbin of history, of course. But by no means because of the gunshot.

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Examples please.


                Knights and firearms coexisted for 100-200 years.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  22 February 2021 14: 00
                  0
                  By firearms. It was he who made it possible to train a completely effective fighter in six months or a year, which ultimately finished off the entire old military organization. Obviously, this was not an instant process.

                  Please give examples on autonomous drones.
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 22 February 2021 14: 58
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    It was he who made it possible to train a completely effective fighter in six months or a year, which ultimately finished off the entire old military organization. Obviously, this was not an instant process.


                    Yes, it took a couple of centuries. And in the case of machine guns against the Zulus - a couple of years and the Zulus are over.

                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Please give examples on autonomous drones.


                    From XB-47B to Valkyrie (and C-70, probably). Development programs - LCASD, Skyborg, Loyal Wingman. There are quite a lot of materials on VO about them (although everything interesting is said in the comments).
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      22 February 2021 18: 10
                      0
                      So these drones do not exist as finished serial products, and the X-47 will never be.
                      The S-70 was not finished with artificial intelligence, and its prospects are still unclear.
                      Apparently, it's not that simple with the wingman either.

                      I don't have them yet.
                      1. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 22 February 2021 19: 06
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        So these drones do not exist as finished serial products.


                        I did not say that they are already in the series (or in service). But, on the other hand, the first fight of a manned aircraft with an unmanned F-16 is scheduled for this year (https://www.airforcemag.com/air-force-to-test-fighter-drone-against-human-pilot/). the MQ-25 series is almost planned.
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        22 February 2021 19: 13
                        0
                        I did not say that they are already in the series (or in service).


                        Let's now take the next step and admit that they are not in the form of autonomous ones yet, in principle - algorithms have not been written.

                        But, on the other hand, the real production BGM-34F already 50 years ago was able to conduct air combat at the level of a regular US Navy pilot.


                        I could not, the first time a combat pilot was carried out in a simulation of a real dump by a computer program already in this century.

                        the first battle of a manned aircraft with an unmanned F-16 is scheduled for this year


                        Then you will need to carry out a GROUP battle "machines against people". And only after that do you say something on the topic.

                        the MQ-25 series is almost planned.


                        This example is generally past.
                      3. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 22 February 2021 19: 17
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Let's now take the next step and admit that they are not in the form of autonomous ones yet, in principle - algorithms have not been written.


                        Let's not deny reality. Algorithms already exist, and the platform for them existed 50 years ago.

                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        I didn't know how


                        Yes, I was wrong. He was remotely piloted.

                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        the MQ-25 series is almost planned.

                        This example is generally past.


                        I was talking about autonomous drones, and this is an autonomous drone.

                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Then you will need to carry out a GROUP battle "machines against people". And only after that do you say something on the topic.


                        Why? A drone capable of fighting one-on-one is already a useful thing.
                      4. timokhin-aa
                        22 February 2021 19: 32
                        0
                        Algorithms already exist


                        Not yet. There are the simplest, perhaps by the middle of the decade we and Boeing-Australia will add algorithms for the "slave".
                        With them, our "Hunter" will be able to perform 10-15 percent of the planned ...

                        I was talking about autonomous drones, and this is an autonomous drone.


                        Not completely, there is a control post under it at the AV, where operators control it.

                        Why? A drone capable of fighting one-on-one is already a useful thing.


                        Useful, but limited, because against a strong opponent one on one it will be a rarity.
                        The point of AI is that you are limited only by industry and are not afraid of the enemy's electronic warfare.
                        Tuned 10 primitive subsonic dogfighters and carried them out to the US Air Force without losing a single living pilot).
                        But for this, these things must be able to think for themselves.
                        With regard to the S-70, it was precisely such a task (to think, not the US Air Force) that was set, but so far it has not been solved.
                      5. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 22 February 2021 19: 53
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        there is under it at the AV control post, where it is controlled by operators.


                        If he knows how to manage himself, then he is autonomous. It doesn't matter that, in addition, it can be controlled remotely.

                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Tuned 10 primitive subsonic dogfighters and carried them out to the US Air Force without losing a single living pilot).


                        Some kind of youthful maximalism. The point is to set up 10000 simple (non-primitive) dogfighters and reduce your losses significantly.

                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        But for this, these things must be able to think for themselves.


                        Not. In addition, "by the middle of the decade" (or perhaps never) they will definitely not learn to think.
                      6. timokhin-aa
                        22 February 2021 20: 04
                        0
                        Google the US Air Force NGAD project and then think about the fact that we planned to assign these tasks to Hunter. And then evaluate how smart he had to be for this ...
                        MQ-25 in some modes is controlled from AB, as far as I know, in others by itself.
                      7. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 22 February 2021 20: 16
                        0
                        I have an idea of ​​what NGAD is, but this is the first time I hear that the C-70 should (or should have) performed similar tasks.
                      8. timokhin-aa
                        22 February 2021 20: 19
                        0
                        https://rg.ru/2019/09/27/pervyj-sovmestnyj-polet-su-57-i-udarnogo-ohotnika-sniali-na-video.html

                        This is + the confirmed ability to carry the missile defense missile does not leave other options at all.
                      9. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 22 February 2021 20: 23
                        0
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        https://rg.ru/2019/09/27/pervyj-sovmestnyj-polet-su-57-i-udarnogo-ohotnika-sniali-na-video.html


                        This can be interpreted in the range from "this is our loyal wingman" to "this is an operation to misinform the enemy".
                      10. timokhin-aa
                        23 February 2021 00: 18
                        0
                        They could well have lied to anything else.
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 21 February 2021 08: 17
    +4
    I liked the article. And I learned a lot. If, thanks to the study of the Falklen conflict, I read about English container ships, then I hear about American and our attempts for the first time.
  • Observer2014
    Observer2014 21 February 2021 08: 57
    -1
    Interesting article! good About "catching" "Harrier" was generally interesting to read and learn even. In general, plus the article is definitely
  • Alceers
    Alceers 21 February 2021 10: 09
    +2
    The question of why all these arguments do not take off has not yet been clarified.
    And it is simple.
    Essentially the article. If the re-equipment is in a hurry, then everything is bad. If not on the knee, then it is easier and more expensive to build initially. I. it is concluded that it is necessary to do initially projects suitable for installing a mobile kit ...
    But! It was possible in the USSR. And now the market! Putting it into the structure of the mobile potential makes it more expensive! For the very reinforcements of the hull, free volumes for electronics and TD. Which ship owner will buy more for what is not needed for profit?
    It got to the point that the new FSB pskr. They do not envisage the possibility of converting it into an IPC. No hydroacoustics ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 February 2021 10: 28
      +8
      And now the market! Putting it into the structure of the mobile potential makes it more expensive! For the very reinforcements of the hull, free volumes for electronics and TD. Which ship owner will buy more for what is not needed for profit?


      Well, who needs mob potential? Shipowner or Ministry of Defense? Let the MO jump and pay.
      But MO does not jump or pay.
      All these issues are resolved by the next Ministry of Industry and Trade subsidy. There would be a desire.

      It got to the point that the new FSB pskr. They do not envisage the possibility of converting it into an IPC. No hydroacoustics ...


      There are container options for towed GAS, in extreme cases, instead of a helicopter, you can attach on the deck, and walk in pairs - PSKR with a helicopter, PSKR with GAS.
      But on the other hand, this is just a very good indicator that there is no deliberate strategy behind the dump in the fleet.
      We are preparing for the PR of the Minister of Defense, for parades and other injections of drugs to the honorable public. But not for war.
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 21 February 2021 11: 33
        +1
        Alexander, thanks for the article. hi
        I, just one of those who sincerely believed that the "Atlantic Conveyor" was an ersatz aircraft carrier, now I no longer think. smile

        I have a couple of questions, and the first one is about the article:

        On this transport, captured Argentine attack aircraft IA-58 Pucara were delivered back to Britain.


        If not difficult, tell us where and how the British captured these aircraft? On islands?

        The second question has been of interest to me for a long time:
        what does the term "top aircraft" mean during the Atlantic convoys of World War II? I came across in different books, but without any explanation. With regard to maritime affairs, I know what a "top mast" is, but about a "top plane" - complete fog. He was not at the top of the mast. laughing
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 February 2021 12: 34
          +2
          If not difficult, tell us where and how the British captured these aircraft? On islands?


          Yes, there were still attack aircraft, damaged commandos at the airfield, for example.
        2. Mooh
          Mooh 21 February 2021 12: 48
          +2
          It seems to me, Konstantin, that you are confusing something. I have never seen such a term. I can suggest 2 options:
          If the books are in English or translated crookedly, then we can talk about an aircraft with high parameters. And finally, the leader of our top 5, the great and terrible si harikain !!! tadam :)))
          The second option is about top mast bombing. This is a tactical system when a conventional aircraft carries out bombing at sea from a low altitude (top mast height). Pilots acting in this way are called top mastheads. But not top managers or top ones.
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 21 February 2021 13: 16
            +1
            Thank you, Andrey, but I am not confusing it, it is the "top plane" that is why I am interested.
        3. demiurg
          demiurg 21 February 2021 12: 51
          +1
          It's more like mast bombing.
          The bomb was dropped from level flight, from a low height, below the target's masthead. The bomb, before hitting the target, splashed on the water a couple of times, like a pebble launched by a pancake.
          Here's a clumsy link:
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 21 February 2021 13: 18
            +1
            Thank you, Valery.
            I knew about topmast bombing, of course, most likely with regard to the "top aircraft", there were just misprints. I'm sure I've met more than once.
        4. Kostya Lavinyukov
          Kostya Lavinyukov 21 February 2021 13: 41
          +1
          It seems that there was an article on this topic.
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 21 February 2021 14: 05
            0
            I don't remember at all. request
            1. Kostya Lavinyukov
              Kostya Lavinyukov 21 February 2021 15: 30
              +1
              https://topwar.ru/175690-sluzhba-i-boevoe-primenenie-argentinskih-turbovintovyh-shturmovikov-ia58a-pucara.html
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 21 February 2021 15: 44
                0
                Thanks, namesake. smile
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 21 February 2021 10: 45
    +8
    There are still people who are convinced that the Atlantic Conveyor was an ersatz aircraft carrier.
    This is naturally not the case.
    The ship had an airstrip from which the Harrier, taking off vertically (which meant - without weapons), could fly to an aircraft carrier nearby.

    Everything is correct. The Atlantic Conveyor, of course, was not an ersatz aircraft carrier. It was just a modest air transport capable of providing a flight of aircraft and helicopters located on it to aircraft carriers or a captured bridgehead
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 February 2021 11: 08
      +4
      Well, here and there someone here and there sometimes catches up with us sometimes.
  • demiurg
    demiurg 21 February 2021 13: 06
    0
    Now Vika looked. Directly from there quote:
    The design of ULCS ships was initiated by Lloyd's Register jointly with Ocean Shipping Consultants Ltd. in 1999. In September 2005, a new design for a 13 TEU vessel was presented by the Germanischer Lloyd register and the Korean shipyards Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI). The design features were the presence of two main engines and two propellers. The vessel is 000 m long, 382 m wide and 54,2 m draft. 13,5 containers in holds and 6230 on deck. Two main engines of 7210 kW each, the design speed of the vessel is 45 knots.
    These are 13000 containers. Small things in modern times. And the price tag is tens of millions of dollars. A penny compared to the price of even a karakurt.
    I think that there will be enough space for two or three air regiments. And how to score the rest of the volumes, I can't imagine.
  • Kostya Lavinyukov
    Kostya Lavinyukov 21 February 2021 13: 45
    0
    I heard that the scheme with the capture of the aircraft was implemented by the Japanese on their khm ... destroyers. Or am I wrong somewhere?
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 21 February 2021 14: 47
    0
    this equipment is expensive and complex, although in some primitive version it can probably be "containerized". But precisely what is primitive.


    It would not hurt to justify here. Quite real SPRN stations are now being made in the form of containers (except for antennas, of course).
  • 911sx
    911sx 21 February 2021 15: 35
    0
    Thank you for the article. I learned a lot of new things. An interesting experience with the Transhelf at the Pacific Fleet. It needs to be developed (an example of the use of a civilian vessel for flat), well, catching Harrier with a crane amused. It is necessary for the Anglo-Saxons to throw up the idea of ​​catching the Phy 35 with a drone, and refuel with it in the air.
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 21 February 2021 17: 45
    +1
    No guys. Anything that is not intended to perform specific tasks is no longer buzzing.
    Tested thousands of times.
    A universal tool is worse than a specially sharpened one.
    Another conversation is that quite often a special tool is used absolutely not for its intended purpose.
    After that regrets / discussions begin ...
    How did it happen? ... And other lamentations.
    Well, that's it ...
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 21 February 2021 19: 07
      0
      There is no "better" or "worse" tool. He either copes with the task at a minimum cost (labor, financial, time), or does not cope.
      Versatility is the most important characteristic for reducing these very costs.
      1. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 21 February 2021 19: 11
        0
        Not convinced.
        This whole kitchen was passed forty-seven times.
        It is sad that to this day it needs to be clarified.
        1. Nestor Vlakhovski
          Nestor Vlakhovski 21 February 2021 19: 25
          0
          Think what you want, but when you have to vote for universality or "a tool for solving specific problems" with your time, money or efforts, mark my words.
          1. Petrol cutter
            Petrol cutter 21 February 2021 19: 35
            0
            So I, every single day I come across this ..
            I would begin to breed polemics here hi
  • Nestor Vlakhovski
    Nestor Vlakhovski 21 February 2021 19: 19
    0
    The topic of converting civilian ships into combat units would be worth starting with a historical perspective, there are many examples of this.
    It is also worth dividing "air transport" into more precise types, the difference between the carriers of helicopters and aircraft is enormous.
    If the topic of basing vertical take-off and landing aircraft on exotic carriers failed, then civilian ships (is the term appropriate? Correct if that) are often altered even now, calling it various expeditionary floating bases.
  • exo
    exo 21 February 2021 22: 40
    0
    Very informative. Before that I read about it: something in the ZVO, something in later publications (about domestic experiments). But, everywhere, very briefly. Thanks to the author!
  • grumbler
    grumbler 1 March 2021 21: 23
    +1
    Thanks for the interesting review.
    imho, today this topic is gaining relevance in connection with the basing and creation of occasional "jump airfields" for UAVs. It is unnecessary for them to build precisely special "UAVs" - serial transport ships equipped with modular (container) UAV support systems are enough. A patrol UAV (military border, rescue, fishing or scientific) is flying. Any ship with a small landing pad (foldable?) Or simply with a mast on which a fuel tank / battery is attached floats by.
    The UAV is remotely recognized as having the right to land / refuel. Drops his tank, takes a full one. And flies to "patrol" further. Everything is in automatic mode.
    Such systems can be installed on any vessel that travels through the desired area. For example, this is how you can service SevMorPut. It is possible to organize support for flights of search UAVs in areas where shipwrecks are frequent or where pirates operate.
  • fomin
    fomin 5 March 2021 20: 30
    +1
    "from the primitive GOS of the Argentine anti-ship missile system" dear author, you have worked out the material well enough and against this background such bloopers do not look like "camilfo", the missiles were not Argentine, but French "Exocet", advanced at that time, and whatever they say about ersatz - aircraft carriers but it was they who helped England to squeeze the islands from Argentina. I draw your attention to the following words "The hull of the container ship was shaking too much ..." if we take into account that we build helicopters for low-tonnage vessels such as corvette, frigate, the question arises how they can use these helicopters in the open sea, if it shakes and makes flights impossible helicopters from a container ship? In the event of war, the losses of combat ships will and will be significant, therefore, it will be possible to replenish the combat strength of the fleet only at the expense of mobilized civilian ships, and this needs to be thought about now.
  • IPC 245
    IPC 245 9 March 2021 07: 13
    +9
    I liked the article, it is interesting and very informative, thanks!
  • Basarev
    Basarev April 27 2021 20: 36
    0
    In my opinion, these container ships have a much more useful purpose in war. Just carry supplies, which is what they were originally intended for.