Promising aircraft carrier against the destroyer Orly Burke

1. Introduction. Summary of previous episodes

This article concludes a series of articles devoted to discussing the reality of the task of building aircraft carriers in the Russian Federation.

The author's proposal on the need to consider an alternative concept of a light and affordable aircraft carrier and assess its capabilities in the Ministry of Defense did not arouse interest. Therefore, this series can only be viewed as a fantasy on the topic:

"What would happen if you were interested?"

In reality, from time to time we pull out the project of the full-size aircraft carrier Storm, shake off the dust from it, then look into the wallet and, making sure that there is no more money, we cross out the line from the GPV.

In the meantime, there are no new proposals, we have to remember Nekrasov:

"Or, obeying the law of fate,
You have already done everything that you could
Created Kuzyu like a moan
And he rested spiritually forever. "

Naturally, all tactical techniques in this article are calculated based on the assumptions that in the 2030s the technical level of weapons will increase on both sides.

In the first article in the series "The effectiveness of the air defense of the naval strike group" Using the example of the US AUG, it is shown that the AUG has a multi-echeloned air defense, which requires huge resources to break through - no less than an air regiment or a squadron with dozens of anti-ship missiles.

No single ship, even armed with supersonic anti-ship missiles (SPKR), will be able to hit an aircraft carrier with one dashing attack. Hopes for a miracle missile "aircraft carrier killer" should be attributed to the realm of non-technical fiction. What the hypersound will give, and whether the overheated GPCR will be able to find the aircraft carrier, diving at it from a height of 40 km, is completely unknown.

Some "experts" say that the age of aircraft carriers is over, and our Navy only needs to control 1000 km along the coast. They do not accept explanations why not only China, but even France are building aircraft carriers. Therefore, we need to decide the question not of whether to "build or not build", but which aircraft carrier to build in the conditions of the Navy financing on a leftover basis?

Article "The concept of an aircraft-carrying cruiser with a sixth generation UAV" it is shown that on the basis of UDC "Priboy" or "Ivan Rogov" with a displacement of 25-30 thousand tons, it is possible to build an aircraft-carrying cruiser (AK) worth 1 billion dollars. The cost of an air wing, consisting of 40 UAVs of subsonic fighter-bombers (IS) and 3 UAVs of AWACS, should be about the same. If inexpensive ammunition is developed for the IS UAV, then the AK will surpass all ships in terms of cost-effectiveness in regional conflicts.

In the same article, it is noted that in the Russian Federation there are no ships with Aegis-class air defense systems, and the AK air defense task must solve itself. To do this, it is necessary to place a powerful radar complex (RLK) on the AK, superior to the Aegis radar system. The article Air defense efficiency of a promising destroyer.

Alternative radar complex the design of such a radar was justified and it was shown that its cost would be less than 10% of the price of the ship. Low-altitude targets are detected by an AWACS UAV, the design of which is described in the article "Concept of shipborne unmanned aircraft AWACS"... With a mass of only 6 tons, it provides significantly better performance than Hawkeye AWACS. In particular, it can provide highly accurate guidance weapons.

In the last (from published) article "Air defense tactics of a promising aircraft-carrying cruiser" it is shown that with the coordinated actions of the radar, AWACS and UAVs of the IS, most of the anti-ship missiles will be destroyed at distant lines, and that the air defense system will only have to repel single attacks. This article substantiates the tactics of conducting operations against the enemy's KUG.

It is necessary to remind once again that the author is not an aircraft designer, and all the given performance characteristics are given roughly.

2. Preparation of AUG actions against destroyers Orly Burke

Immediately, we note that the possibility of a counter battle between our and the American AUGs is not being considered. For such a battle, we need to make up an AUG of 3-4 AK, when the advantages of the AK group defense and the numerical superiority of the IS UAV will make it possible to compensate for their lower strike potential. Therefore, we will consider the task of striking the US CUG, which is feasible for the AK, which includes 1 Orly Burke destroyer and ships of smaller classes.

We will assume that the opponents are aware of each other's presence long before the actual start of the battle. KUG receives control center from satellites at intervals of 1 hour. The AK receives only a rough command control from the AWACS UAV, but continuously. It will not be possible to obtain the exact control center for the AK because of the operation of the electronic countermeasures (KREP) complexes.

Suppose the distance to the nearest enemy airfield is more than 1200 km. Therefore, it is possible that only small IS groups may appear, arriving with the use of refueling or overhead tanks. We will assume that they will not pose a serious danger.

Therefore, further we will consider only the tactics of the AK-KUG duel. Placement of anti-ship missiles on the AK is not provided. A number of anti-ship missiles are deployed on escort ships. However, it is irrational to use them, having only a rough control system.

The rapid development of KREP technology will lead to the emergence of jamming UAVs (UAVs) flying away from the ship by a few kilometers. Under the influence of interference, anti-ship missiles can be diverted to decoys.

2.1. Air defense capabilities of the destroyer Orly Burke

The air defense of the American destroyer is provided by the Aegis air defense system. The modern version of the air defense system has a radar, consisting of two radars, each of which contains 3 AFAR, providing all-round visibility. Multifunctional (MF) radar operates in the 10-cm wavelength range and produces all-weather target detection and tracking. The missile guidance radar operates in a 3-cm range and provides high-precision tracking and target illumination. The detection range of the MF radar is supposedly 400–500 km according to IS.

For our UAVs, the greatest danger is posed by the long-range missile defense system (MD) SM6. In the public domain (Wikipedia) it is stated that the launch range of this missile is 250 km, and the speed is 3-4 M. However, according to experts, its characteristics are clearly underestimated. Now there are two modifications of missiles, and in 2024 the third, the most powerful, will be adopted.

Since the exact values ​​are unknown, we will take an estimate of the maximum speed of 2-2,5 km / s and the firing range against air targets of 370 km, and against sea targets - 460 km. When launched at such ranges, the altitude of the upper point of the trajectory will exceed 40 km. The radar homing head (GOS) of the SAM is unified with the GOS UR AMRAAM and also provides guidance to the SAM and ships.

At present, almost all destroyers are equipped with Standard-2 air defense missiles with firing ranges of 120-240 km, but the new series will be equipped with SM6. The cost of the SM6 is quite high - $ 4 million. Therefore, it is difficult to expect that the entire maximum available number of launchers (74) will be occupied by SM6. Further, assume that only half of the launchers (36) will be occupied by SM6.

The short-range air defense line is provided by the Sea Sparrow SAM with a launch range of 20 km. The disadvantage of this missile defense system is that it is converted from the old aviation UR medium-range and has a semi-active seeker, requiring illumination from the ship's radar, and a heavy warhead - 45 kg. As a result, the mass of the SAM is 225 kg. The advantage of the SAM is its relative cheapness - apparently about 200 thousand dollars.

KREP SLQ-32, located on the destroyer, has a very high energy potential - up to 1 MW, which is achieved due to the formation of narrow beams directed to the suppressed radar. KREP is designed to suppress IS radar, which traditionally operate in the range of 3-4 cm, as well as the GOS of the anti-ship missile system, operating in the 0,8-3 cm range. Wavelengths over 4 cm are not suppressed. Consequently, the IS and AWACS UAV radars, operating in the 5,5 cm range, will be suppressed only by the UAV jammers (SP), and their energy potential is tens to hundreds of times less than the energy potential of the ship's CREDs.

2.2. Determination of the number of ships in the KUG

To strike, it is necessary to open the composition and configuration of the KUG.

In the absence of interference, the AWACS could determine the coordinates of ships from safe ranges of 400-500 km. And the error of definition would be satisfactory: 100-200 m. However, the taken out PP can mask the marks of targets. For this, the PP must be in the beam of the AWACS radar when the beam is directed to the target. With a distance from the AWACS to the target of 400 km and a radar beam width of 0,7 °, the distance of the PP from the ship should not exceed ± 2 km. Therefore, if the AWACS locates the PP instead of the target, then such a CO will still remain inaccurate.

To combat PP, it is best to use a second AWACS. The distance between the two AWACS should be large - about 100 km. Then you can use the second AWACS in semi-active mode. That is, he himself does not emit, but uses the illumination of targets from the first AWACS. Consequently, the SP will irradiate only the active AWACS, and the second will either remain completely unirradiated, or the interference power will be an order of magnitude less. In addition, if the interference signals received by both AWACS are retransmitted to the AC, then the signal of the first AWACS can be used to compensate for the interference in the second. The coordinate determination error can increase up to 200–400 m.

3. The tactics of using anti-ship missiles

When the AUG and the KUG come closer to a distance of 600 km, the AUG, in principle, can already start a battle. But this is unprofitable, since the launch range of supersonic anti-ship missiles (SPKR) of the Onyx type and an IS UAV is close to the limit.

To start the battle, the KUG also needs to have a SPKR, since the launch range of the Harpoon subsonic anti-ship missiles (DPKR) is less than 300 km. Our DPKR Kh-35u has the same range. The 3M14 Caliber could have been used as a DPKR BD, but no such use was announced.

The advantage of the proposed AWACS UAV is its high flight altitude - 17 km. Accordingly, the range of the horizon for detecting ships by him reaches 500 km. The detection range of AWACS flying at an altitude of 10 km is 400 km.

Therefore, the presence in the AUG of the BD 40N6E missile defense system with a launch range of 400 km almost excludes the use of AWACS, since it has no information security at such distances. And it is dangerous to hope for the protection of the Aegis air defense system.

3.1. Possibilities of targeting anti-ship missiles to a target in jamming conditions (special point for those interested)

The basic principle of operation of the radar is that the antenna beam is exposed in the next specified direction. And then a short pulse of the selected length is emitted there. The entire distance along which the pulse is rolled is divided into elements, the length of which is equal to the pulse length.

If there is a target at a distance, then the echo signal reflected from it returns to the radar after a while. Knowing the signal delay and pulse velocity, you can determine the distance to the element where the target is. On the radar display, this element is highlighted by a mark, the brightness of which is proportional to the power of the echo signal.

The enemy, seeking to suppress the radar, can emit two types of interference.

Noise interference operates continuously and illuminates all range elements on the indicator, so it requires a high average interference power.

Simulation interference is a rare pulse that copies radar pulses. Accordingly, they simulate target marks only in a small number of range elements. And this requires tens of times less power than a noise interference.

The second method for increasing the efficiency of interference is the use of rather large antennas in the CRED, forming a narrow beam. As a result, the power flux density of the jammer in the direction of the jammed radar increases. Since PP UAVs are small in size, they, in contrast to KREP ships, more often increase efficiency through the use of imitation noise.

Next, we will consider the dynamics of guidance of the SPKR in the presence of a PP UAV.

Let the Onyx-type SPKR fly up to the target at a low altitude of 10 m. At a distance of 15–25 km, the seeker is switched on and the target search begins. The specific range of inclusion and the width of the search zone are determined by the accuracy of the control center and the accuracy of the SPKR entering the search zone. If the output of the SPKR to the target is made by the same AWACS that detected the target, then using the transponder of the radio correction line of the SPKR, the output error can be reduced to 100 m.

At the moment of turning on the seeker, it is desirable for the UAV PP to take a position to the side of the protected ship by 0,5-1 km and 1-2 km forward in the direction of the SPKR.

Suppose that in response to turning on the GOS, the PS will emit several simulation pulses. One of the pulses must be emitted so as to coincide in time with the echo reflected from the ship. The power of this simulation pulse should be several times the power of the echo.

Then the GOS will perceive the sum of the echo and the pulse as a single echo signal reflected from the target, but the direction to this false target will coincide with the direction to the more powerful PP pulse. The typical beam width of the seeker is 5–7 °, so at a distance of 5–8 km, the true target will come out of the seeker beam, since the beam is directed at the decoy target.

As a result, guidance will continue on the PP, and there will be no target in the beam. The control of the delay time of the PP pulses is performed by the ship's radar, which measures the exact trajectory of the SPKR and, knowing the exact position of the PP, calculates the required pulse delay.

The AWACS could deal with the diversion of the seeker to a false target, since the AWACS and the seeker operate in different wavelengths. If the coordinates of the target, determined by the AWACS and the GOS, differ significantly, then the AWACS can issue a command to search for a target in the zone that the AWACS considers correct. However, it should be taken into account that in the presence of several UAVs, the submarine AWACS may also not understand the situation.

3.2. Long-range anti-ship missile attack tactics

Let's assume that the AUG is at a safe distance of 500 km from the KUG. The launch range of the Onyx SPKR equipped with a ramjet engine was announced to be 650 km. For such SPKR, the maximum range is achieved when flying along a trajectory at altitudes of more than 12 km.

If the SPKR flies the entire distance at low altitude, then the flight range will be reduced by 4–5 times. Therefore, when the SPKR is launched from a range of 500 km, it will be possible to fly no more than 40 km at low altitude. Taking into account the fact that the SPKR at low-altitude flight leaves the horizon at a distance of 30 km, we find that the covert flight section (10 km) is negligible. The only gain will be that at low altitudes the probability of being hit by missiles decreases.

When flying at high altitudes, the Aegis MF radar will be able to detect SPKR at a range of up to 300-400 km. If a decision is made to destroy the SPKR with the help of the SM6 missile defense system, then the meeting point will be assigned at a short range of about 100 km, where the probability of defeat is very high, since the SPKR at such ranges does not yet maneuver, and the missile guidance accuracy is high.

In the event of a miss SM6, the second attempt to defeat the SPKR will already be provided by a pair of MD missiles. The point of the second meeting (15 km) will allow (in case of a miss) to perform a third attempt at defeat.

It is possible to increase the probability of survival of the SPKR if you perform intensive maneuvering at the time of the approach of the missile defense system. The SPKR cannot constantly maneuver due to the loss of speed. To detect an attacking missile defense system, a standard seeker could be used, which would require the introduction of new operating modes of the seeker and the development of appropriate algorithms. The power of the seeker is small, and independently detect missiles with an RCS of 0,1–0,3 sq. m it will be able to at a distance of 2-4 km, which is not enough to determine the trajectory of the missile defense system and select the optimal anti-aircraft maneuver.

On the cruise phase of the flight, when the SPKR flies at an altitude of more than 20 km, the missile defense radar of the AK will be able to detect the missile defense system and transmit the control center to the SPKR. Then the detection range of the seeker will increase to 6–8 km. Even if the GOS did not detect the missile defense system, the maneuver can be started according to the missile defense radar data, albeit suboptimal.

On the descent site, when the height of the SPKR becomes less than 10 km, the SPKR will be below the horizon of the missile defense radar, and the issuance of the control center will become impossible. The detection of missiles during flight at low altitudes could provide an AWACS, but for this it needs to approach the destroyer at least 150-200 km, which is extremely dangerous. The number of SPKR in AUG is small, and the number of air defense missile systems and MD Kuga exceeds 100.

The cost of the US destroyer is estimated at $ 2 billion, so the placement of 36 SM6 missiles on them seems to be quite justified. Ammunition anti-ship missiles of the Navy and the US Air Force is 7 thousand units. Comparing the military budgets of the Russian Federation and the United States, you quickly realize that you need to look for an asymmetric answer. The reality of the possibility of building an AK, which (together with the air wing) should cost about the same as Orly Burke, causes disbelief among VO readers.

Meanwhile, the IB UAVs allow the use of much cheaper ammunition than the SPKR or SAM BD. Of course, we would also like to have a universal missile defense system that successfully fulfills the role of the SPKR. What is the shape of our 40N6E SAM is still unknown. If it turns out to be no worse than the SM6 SAM, then the question arises - how many such SAMs will we have and when? What radars will be capable of directing such a missile defense system at a range of 400 km and for what purposes? So far, frigates of the Admiral Gorshkov type, capable of at least somehow use the data of the missile defense system, we have 4 fleet all 2.

As a result, we come to the conclusion that even without taking into account the effect of the interference, the probability of a destroyer being hit by regular SPKR is very small. Therefore, further we will consider an alternative method of striking.

4. Use of UAV IS for strike
4.1. KUG ammunition depletion concept. Prospects for the use of light anti-ship missiles

The lightest SPKR X-31 have a launch range of not much more than 100 km and do not provide an opportunity for IS launch from safe areas. The next DPKR X-35 has a launch range of 300 km. But, like other DPKR, it has a low survival rate, and its weight increases to 700 kg.

The rest of the anti-ship missiles are even more expensive and heavier. In many ways, such a mass of anti-ship missiles is explained by the requirement to have a heavy warhead of 200-400 kg in order to hit the ship with a single hit. It is also required to ensure the principle of "let and forget". And an independent search for a goal in a wide sector. As a result, the dimensions and mass of the anti-ship missile system increase. And the likelihood of their defeat by missiles or ZAKs increases. The increase in the mass and cost of the SPKR leads to a decrease in ammunition. SPKR DB are so heavy that a typical IS cannot lift them.

Bombers Tu-22m3, Tu-95, Tu-160 are capable of carrying 2-4 SPKR, but they themselves have such a high visibility that they cannot enter the zone of destruction of the ship's air defense. The safe distance from these aircraft to the Aegis air defense system with the SM6 SAM will be 450 km. The conventional radar of these aircraft is many times inferior to the radar of the AWACS both in range, and in accuracy, and in noise protection. Therefore, if the SPKR is launched, it will not be by target marks, but by the patch of interference seen by the radar in place of the KUG. After the launch of the seeker, the PRK will have to independently deal with the interference and evade the missile defense system.

The essence of the alternative concept of anti-ship missiles is that in conditions of a powerful enemy air defense, it is better to have several simple, light and cheap anti-ship missiles than one excellent, heavy and expensive one.

It is important to create a "zugzwang" situation for the enemy, when he cannot not spend missiles by firing at our anti-ship missiles, and the number of anti-ship missiles we have is obviously greater than his anti-missile defense systems. When the KUG uses all the SAM ammunition, it will remain virtually defenseless.

As a light anti-ship missile, it is proposed to use a modification of a gliding bomb (PB) with IR seeker, described in the article "Concept of an aircraft-carrying cruiser". The disadvantage of the PB is the short flight range of 100–150 km. The range can be increased by installing a starting booster.

Suppose that with a PB weight of 120–130 kg, an accelerator weighing 90–100 kg can accelerate the PB to a speed of 1200 m / s and undock. A PB with an accelerator will be called a planning anti-ship missile (PPKR).

The PPKR trajectory consists of several stages:

- UAV IS rises to an altitude of 16-18 km at a speed of 270 m / s.

- Then the PPKR accelerator is launched, and the PPKR along a trajectory close to ballistic, rises to an altitude of about 40 km at a speed at the highest point of 750 m / s.

- Next, planning towards the goal is carried out. It is assumed that the maximum gliding range will be achieved when it is possible to ensure the minimum speed at the end of the section of 150 m / s. At this moment, the PPKR should be almost at the target at an altitude of 3 km.

- To avoid being hit by the ZAK Vulcan-Fallanx, after the end of the planning section, the PPKR switches to the dive mode, for which the wing is dropped. The speed at the end of the dive increases to 270 m / s.

As a result, due to the fact that most of the trajectory passes in the stratosphere, the flight range of the PPKR with a mass of 220 kg reaches approximately 300 km. This is despite the fact that the PPKR uses a simple solid-fuel accelerator. The advantage of light PPKR is that the UAV IB can carry 4 such PPKR. With a heavier booster, by increasing the mass of the PPKR to 350 kg, the launch range can be increased to 400 km. But such PPKR UAVs can only carry two. As a result, the enemy will use up half the missiles, which is unprofitable.

Starting from high altitudes allows you to gain altitude up to 40 km with low energy losses and fly the supersonic gliding section at altitudes of more than 20 km, which provides a slow loss of speed. An additional advantage of the PPKR is its low visibility (EPR less than 0,01 sq. M) and small dimensions - 1,7 m long, 0,19 m in diameter, making PPKR a difficult target for missiles.

4.2. Anti-missile defense tactics (special point for those interested)

This paragraph deals with the preliminary stage of the attack, when the enemy is provoked to launch the maximum number of missile defense systems. The greatest difficulty in overcoming the air defense of the KUG is the problem of combating the hypersonic SAM SM6. UAV IB (in the presence of ammunition on the external sling) cannot have low visibility. Therefore, when flying at an altitude of more than 15 km, UAVs can be detected by Aegis radar at a distance to the horizon of 500 km. Consequently, already at a distance of 350-400 km, an IS UAV can be hit.

Manned IS use flight at altitudes below the horizon, and only after approaching the launch line, completing a "slide" and finding a target, they launch anti-ship missiles. On the contrary, the launch of PPKR can only occur from high altitudes. Realizing the inevitability of an encounter with SM6, consider the tactics that make this encounter as easy as possible.

It is necessary to force the air defense missile system to launch the SM6 at maximum ranges, when the speed of the missile defense system drops to 2-3 M. For this, the enemy must know that the UAV can carry up to 4 PPKR, and it is better to destroy it before reaching the launch line.

The flight altitude of the UAV should be 13-14 km, so that the operator of the air defense missile system was afraid that the UAV could rise another 3 km and launch the PPKR, and did not doubt the reality of the possibility of hitting the UAV.

- It is necessary that the AK missile defense radar detects the SM6 already during the acceleration of this missile defense system.

- Having received data on the launch of the missile defense system, the UAV quickly descends below the horizon and, having completed the descent, moves aside by 20-30 km.

- GOS SAM, having lost the support of the MF radar, will not be able to detect the UAV and will miss.

- If the missile defense system accidentally or according to third-party sources turns in the direction of the UAV maneuver, then the missile defense radar must issue a command for the UAV to use PR against the missile defense system.

It is desirable to use 2 UAVs at the same time, separated from each other by 100–120 km. Then the operator of the air defense missile system will be forced to launch a pair of missiles at once. Only by detecting the launch of the second missile defense system, it is possible to allow both UAVs to descend below the horizon, otherwise the launch of the second missile defense system may be canceled. After both missiles miss, UAVs can rise above the horizon in new places and repeat the whole scenario again. It is impossible only to approach the KUG at a distance of less than 300 km, so as not to reduce the balance of time for UAV maneuvers. If, after several SM6 misses, the operator stops further launches, then it will be possible to push the UAV to the next line - 250 km, from which it is possible to launch the PPKR, having a certain margin of launch range.

4.3. Preparation of the launch of the PPKR. Exploration of coordinates KUG

The launch of the PPKR will be carried out from two positions located at the turn of 250-280 km and spaced 100-120 km along the front. UAVs AWACS are critical assets for the entire operation. Therefore, the AWACS should be behind the UAV, in this case, at the turn of 300-330 km at an altitude of 6-8 km.

Having taken this line, the AWACS begins to irradiate the KUG. In response, PP KUGa begin to suppress the AWACS radar. From such a range, it is impossible to provide accurate command guidance of the PPKR. Of course, in favorable conditions, even with inaccurate guidance, the IR GOS PPKR would provide guidance to a given compartment of the ship.

But in reality, the enemy, knowing that the ICGS is installed on the PPKR, will interfere. For example, in the form of aerosol clouds, etc. Therefore, it is necessary to strive to reduce the error of command guidance by 3-4 times. For this, it is necessary to create a reconnaissance group consisting of an AWACS UAV and an IS UAV equipped with PR.

The group in stealth mode moves forward and takes a position for AWACS at the turn of 150 km, and for IS at the turn of 100 km. Further, the group checks the intention of the air defense missile system operator to fire the approaching IS. For this, the IS rises to an altitude of 1 km and begins to defiantly patrol at this range, imitating an AWACS UAV.

The AWACS of the group, while continuing to remain below the horizon, begins to irradiate the space above the KUG in order to record the fact of the launch of the anti-aircraft missile defense system. If the launch took place, then the IB, having dropped below the horizon, goes to the side. AWACS continues to control the flight of missiles. And, if it is found that the missile defense system has guessed the location of the IS, it issues a command to use a pair of PR against the missile defense system. Since the ranges to the missile defense system are small, high accuracy of the PR guidance will be ensured.

Only in the event of the termination of the launches of the missile defense system, a command is issued to start the launches of the first pair of UAVs from the line of 250 km. At this time, the AWACS of the group in a covert mode flies up to the 100-120 km line. 30 seconds before the first PPKR approaches the target, the AWACS rises above the horizon and in semi-active mode for 10-15 seconds receives the coordinates of the ships. Further, the AWACS drops below the horizon, continuing to direct the PPKR. Pointing error will be less than 30 m.

4.4. Striking tactics

Having detected a PPKR raid, the enemy will not use SM6 on them, since for subsonic targets it is better to use MD missiles, which are launched in pairs. However, the stock of MD missiles is also small. And destroyer will not be able to destroy more than 20-30 PPKR. After the end of the stock of the MD SAM, it remains only to continue the launches of the SM6, but already only on the UAVs located closer than 300 km.

If missile launches occur, then the next approaching UAVs are at an altitude of 13-14 km, which allows them to quickly descend to a safe altitude in the event of a threat. Nevertheless, approaching the 250 km line, the UAVs must rise to an altitude of 16-18 km.

After detecting the launch of the SM6, the UAV turns around and leaves, while simultaneously descending at a maximum speed to an altitude of 4 km. Before the turn, the first pair of missiles is launched in a gliding mode towards the missile defense system. When SM6 descends to an altitude of 20-25 km, PR start engines and start towards. The meeting of the first pair with SM6 occurs at a distance of 35–40 km from the UAV. After evaluating the results of the first start, the second pair is started, which starts in a gliding mode and starts the engines immediately after the completion of the turn. Their meeting with the SAM should take place at a distance of 5-7 km from the UAV.

Let us briefly mention that it is possible to propose a variant of disrupting the SM6 attack with the help of KREP, the role of which should be played by the UAV radar. AFAR radar should operate in the same 3 cm range as the seeker SM6. Then a pair of UAVs, separated by 500-700 m, can organize flickering interference, when the interference is switched on alternately from one UAV or another. Switching rate 2–3 s. When, at a distance of 4-5 km, the missile defense system finally aims at one of the interference, this interference is turned off. And the second turns on and suppresses the seeker along the side lobes of its antenna. At this moment, the first UAV makes an intense maneuver and moves away.

If SM6 starts stopped. And there is reason to believe that there are only a few of them left, then both AWACS (accompanied by UAVs with PR) can fly up to the KUG at a distance of 100-120 km at an altitude of 1-1,5 km. At such ranges, PPs will no longer be able to hide targets. From the line of 120 km, IS UAVs can launch already conventional PBs, carrying 6 of them.

5. Conclusions. Final assessment of the effectiveness of the aircraft carrier

- The estimated cost of a serial AK, along with an air wing and ammunition, is comparable to the cost of a US destroyer with ammunition.

- The long range of the air wing's action against ground and sea targets is 600 km, and the air defense border is 200 km.

- The joint work of the AK radar and the AWACS radar allows the UAV to successfully detect attacking missiles and evade the attack. In critical situations, PR can successfully solve missile defense missions.

- UAV AWACS is capable of targeting weapons, which makes it possible to simplify the seeker and reduce the cost of ammunition.

- The cheapness of gliding ammunition makes it possible to use the concept of an "attacking swarm" and force the enemy to use up a set of missiles of any air defense system.

- The use of PB from a height of 16-18 km along the way allows the UAV to fly safely over the affected area of ​​any air defense missile system MD.

- The combat effectiveness of the AK significantly exceeds the effectiveness of its "classmates" - Peter the Great and the modernized admiral Nakhimov. And in the "smaller class" Orly Burke, AK wins for a clear advantage.

- AK is intended for use in regional conflicts. And should not engage in direct combat with the US AUG. But the amalgamation of 3-4 AK will be able to solve this problem due to the multiple advantages in the rate of aircraft sorties, especially repeated ones.

Comments

[Asad]

I gave up, did not finish reading, I will wait for the comments!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

What are the comments? A person needs an alternative history site, it would go there. And even then - not everyone :))))

[lucul]

What are the comments? A person needs an alternative history site, it would go there. And even then - not everyone :))))

Man at least tries to model.
All the rest do not even try, but wait for the opinion of the Xsperds, those who do not have Calibers, this is all Soyuzmultfilm.

[bk0010]

Quote: lucul

Man at least tries to model.

This is not a simulation, he believes that the adversary will act to confirm his concepts. What could go wrong? 1) No missiles will be spent on a gliding aerial bomb, but will be shot by Vulcans. 2) They will not spend missiles on drones, but will call on duty fighters with AUG 3) The ships of the KUG and the aircraft of the nearest AUG (it is unlikely that the Americans will throw the KUG without the AUG, when the enemy fleet still exists) will sink its aircraft carrier - no repeated sorties. Etc.

[YOUR]

Throw one cruiser on the AUG, immediately write it off as irrecoverable losses. Unfortunately, we still have scraps from the ocean fleet.
In the 80s, exercises and simulations of the raid on the AUG were repeatedly conducted. It turned out that the Tu-16 regiment was irrevocable with unclear prospects.
And here is nonsense like

- The joint work of the AK radar and the AWACS radar allows the UAV to successfully detect attacking missiles and evade the attack.

Man is absolutely not versed in technology and weapons. SAM speed is about 1000 M / s, try during its flight, get data from the AWACS and get away from the attack.
Correctly the above comment was written by the author to try his hand at the genre of alternative history .. There his conclusions are in place.

[bk0010]

Quote: YOUR

Man is absolutely not versed in technology and weapons.

Well, it seemed to me that he understood in the radars.

[YOUR]

Not. Nothing to do with reality.

[Dread]

lucul! You are one of the decent people living in Israel. There is no need to defend this author. He's not worth it.

[ironic]

Anti-Semites should not talk about those living in Israel. There you are not here.

[lucul]

lucul! You are one of the decent people living in Israel

They made me laugh, I actually live in Belarus)))

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: lucul

Man at least tries to model.

Yes, there is no modeling, but there is a permanent adjustment of the parameter to the concept. Enchanting performance characteristics of UAVs, etc. etc.

[Dread]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

What are the comments? A person needs an alternative history site, it would go there. And even then - not everyone :))))

Good evening, Andrey! I already wrote to this "expert" last time - that he needs to write novels. However, he did not heed this - did not understand that he had been bitten by on VO. This "expert", together with another "expert" - Temezhnikov, wrote his children's
babbling in the tabloid press - "Novaya Gazeta", where they tried to spit on the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation about the destruction of the Il-20 aircraft in Syria, where the guilt of the Jews was obvious in creating the air situation, which led to the tragedy ... I here on VO proved this to the forum users - one of the Jews here who wrote nonsense was a Jew under the nickname "lieutenant colonel in the reserve" and his friends from Israel.
Gorbachevsky - this "expert" proved his complete ignorance of the aircraft approach scheme, the glide path angle and the aircraft flight altitude. In addition, the writers of Novaya Gazeta openly lied in their comments, distorting the flight altitude of the Il-20, which was visible on one of the images of the S-400 radar. Type the last name and first name of this "expert" on the Internet and see his face. Therefore, there is nothing surprising in Gorbachevsky's materials!

[ironic]

Not all of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, but that part of the strippers who wanted to cover their ass for sloppiness and the horse at the head of the explanation. Where the blood libel against Israel was obvious, but their stripes had to be saved. Especially in view of the fact that no one bothered to control the air situation with the C-400 complex on alert. And now you still need to emphasize your anti-Semitism under another article, because your proofs from the field of professorship of sour cabbage soup to actual practice for today definitely have no relation. There was a lot of time to withdraw the plane. And it’s better not to talk about lying, because it was about an explosion, and then it turned out that the only explosion was the self-destruction of the C-400 missiles, which they tried to take down late for the C-200, which is generally not in the IL. Because it is impossible for the plane to be shot down by the C-200 aiming at it, but for some reason it was shot down not by an explosion, but by a kinetic blow, which smashed the wing tangentially and damaged the tail, causing a fire, but at the same time the explosion of the rocket itself does not occur and should the GDP itself accidentally let it slip - a tragic accident. If someone has no idea, then the crew sent the last report that they are fighting a fire on board and the engines of one side are damaged, and the explosion of the C-200, even at close range, is not a fire or damage, it is a small salad from an airplane to pieces of paper cut into a quarter. Who doubts - get acquainted with the warhead C-200. And the masterpiece at the end was the confirmation of European operators that the horse-drawn sky map taken from the C-400 radars was civilian flights, not Israeli F-16s. And this is not counting the lies about retargeting the missile, which can be immediately seen from open sources of the RF Ministry of Defense TTX and the C-200 targeting modes, which say that when firing a mod up to 80 km range, retargeting is not possible at all. You should be ashamed of this disgusting vain that you have erected on innocent people, your anti-Semitism is simply disgusting.

[Dread]

ironic! Nobody asked you to prompts what you dont know! Moreover, learn Russian or change the translator, for your intelligible invention ... At the moment - a conversation on the forum about something else.

[ironic]

And I didn't ask your permission... You will be prompted by your household if you ask, and I accused you of meanness and anti-Semitism. You do not know this nifiga... And even if my Russian is not perfect, the meaning of what I said is clear and transparent. Learn not only to eat in your head, then the language, even not ideal, will not be an obstacle to bringing meaning to you. And if the conversation is not about this, then why did you need this conversation for your vile libel? Was there nowhere to offtopic?

[Dread]

ironic! Learn the meaning of those wordsthat you use for the fruit of your children's wild fantasies! And carefully read my expressions in Russian, to understand the truth ...

[ironic]

Vile libels of yours and your horse - these are violent fantasies, you are a kind of insolent. If you were truly literate, you would know that the truth is not comprehensible by definition. Fundamentals of quantum physics to help the professor of sour cabbage soup. The meaning of words libelist и Judophobe Am I good enough for you in Russian?

[Dread]

To shame a liar, make fun of a fool
And arguing with a woman is all the same
What to draw water sieve:
Deliver us from these three, God! ..
M. Yu. Lermontov.

[ironic]

"... And then you and correctly written - beef." (FROM). It's useless to shame you for your lies, and joke on your stupidity much credit for stupidity. As for Gd, it is said that if Gd decided to punish a person, then first of all he draws a line over his head. So, historically, the first delineated from Gd appeared Judophobe.

Blossom terry and stubborn
fruit of progress seeds:
the snobbery of the plebeian, the swagger of the boor,
shit's arrogance.

Igor Guberman.

[yehat2]

the task of building a UAV-radar, which is mentioned in the article, can be solved and this is very useful.
where is the fantasy? Or do you intend to use the a50 for another 50 years?

[credo]

Quote: ASAD

I gave up, did not finish reading, I will wait for the comments!

Well, in vain. The most important thing was the end.

Quote: ASAD

- AK is intended for use in regional conflicts. And should not engage in direct combat with the US AUG. But the amalgamation of 3-4 AK will be able to solve this problem due to the multiple advantages in the rate of aircraft sorties, especially repeated ones.

I just do not understand what regional conflicts the Author is talking about. An example would be helpful.
And also what does it mean - "... to solve this problem too due to the multiple advantage in the rate of aircraft sorties, especially repeated ones." For some reason, I immediately remembered the pit stop at the rally and the attendants on the ship, who are worn like a madman with shells in their hands.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: credo

I just do not understand what regional conflicts the Author is talking about.

I also break my head
And the article basically contains a lot of "smart" words and little meaning.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: ASAD

Gave up, didn't finish reading

Small loss

[Nemchinov Vl]

Quote: ASAD

I gave up, did not finish reading, I will wait for the comments!

what is it ? !! Don't like it - surrealism ? !!

... provides SAM Aegis

? !! ... now Timokhin and Klimov will come running, and begin to humiliate the author, with words,

sit down - deuce !!

, for the fact that BIUS confused the air defense system ...
and some "rude", become pro, -

teach the mate part to speak ...

!!
I here, from this article, really liked the phrase, -

...essence of the alternative concept

, as - most subtly and precisely reflecting all its essence !!! ...

[AllXVahhaB]

Quote: ASAD

I gave up, did not finish reading, I will wait for the comments!

And I won't even read the comments - why discuss this fantasy?

[Thrifty]

The passage about the "overheated" hypersonic rocket made me laugh! Why, then, is an anticarable hypersonic missile being created, if not to defeat and sink warships! And the aircraft carrier is precisely the warship!

[ironic]

As far as I understand, the author's speech was about aerobalistic rakeshte, and such a decision as a RCC, well, except that it comes from zero origin.

[Avior]

... The cost of an air wing, consisting of 40 UAVs of subsonic fighter-bombers (IS) and 3 UAVs of AWACS

The problem is that neither one nor the other type of UAV exists in nature.
The second problem is that if they appear, Americans will have them even earlier.
They already have a large number of carriers suitable for their basing.
This is the main point.
But there are others
For example, in fact, the modern version of the Sea Sparrow has a range of 50 km and does not require backlighting - it has an active seeker
I would like to note that the author has made the article more "readable", but still a bit hard
Perhaps it was necessary to write separately about UAVs and separately - about the tactics of using their carriers?

[Sergey39]

By the time 2 light aircraft carriers will be launched in Crimea and UAVs will appear for them. Surely work on them is underway.

[Yuri V.A]

When they appear, these light aircraft carriers will immediately become a priority surface target and they are unlikely to send a modest destroyer to the gala.

[Avior]

In no case will they send. For why would they then have aircraft carriers?
Although Burke cannot be called modest destroyers, it is obvious that the Americans will hunt with all available forces as an airborne enemy ship of any type, and will not risk it.

[Yuri V.A]

Among the traditional daring, combative and desperate, one can be called humble.

[storm]

AUG possesses a multi-echeloned air defense system, which requires huge resources to break through

Or maybe there is no need to break through this echeloned air defense, one single Poseidon from a depth of 1 km will enter the "belly" of the aircraft carrier and everything is decided.
And if there are several of them, then the entire AUG will be liquidated.
Cheap and effective.

[garri-lin]

And the good old age-old question. If they are going to hammer on the US Navy, why with conventional ammunition? If such a kipish goes, then nuclear weapons. Otherwise, it's a giveaway game.

[ironic]

Yeah, caught in a regional conflict and women of nuclear weapons. And why was there no great babakh during Vietnam or Afghanistan?

[garri-lin]

I did not know that in Vietnam or Afghanistan, the Merikos ships were sunk together with the crew.

[ironic]

Few Americans died in Vietnam? You can't kill that much by sinking a ship. And few Soviet citizens died in Afghanistan? And here and there everyone understood who was opposed to whom, and the great babak, nevertheless, was not and was not planned.

[garri-lin]

Tobish at a boxing tournament, could coaches of opponents' boxers arrange a shootout? You are confusing a citizen. And in Afghanistan and in other conflicts there was no direct confrontation between a large number of military personnel of the USSR and America. Maximum air battles. And hitting a ship is the equivalent of hitting territory. For the ship is the sovereign territory of the state under whose flag the ship is sailing.

[ironic]

Well yes. Anecdotes about the pilot Li-si-tsyn, they are such anecdotes. And even Israel made a mark with the ship, moreover, against the American one, and this was not a mistake, but a deliberate strike. And nothing, it is still not glazed.

[garri-lin]

Are you talking about hitting the scout? During the period when the United States was trying with all its might to make friends with Israel? A very bad example. That scout can be equated with Yamato or Bismarck. They beat him. Many clocks struck. But they just didn't finish it off. Everything is dull there. Yes, and Israel immediately raised its legs to the public, raised. Type with the Egyptians confused. A very bad example.

[ironic]

Nobody confused anything. They didn’t finish it off because it was a mess. The krasnozhopye komunyachee in Israel was off scale and acted accordingly. And what to say not really and were looking for something that was not before. And then it was necessary to blur something out that would suit all parties. He (a mess) and now has a place to be, how can it be without him in the army, but not the same. You can't drink experience like that. And komunyaki, thank God, are at least partially a thing of the past.

[garri-lin]

A communist movement in Israel during the Six Day War? I thought you were just not in the subject and you are one of the followers of alternative history. Shame on you, it's not fashionable this season.

[ironic]

Not literally communist, but with a decent red ass, although there were too many communists. Do you even know when the hammer and sickle began to get lost in Israel? After the Eichmann case and Ben-Gurion's departure to a remote place called Sde-Boker, where he is buried. But this was only the beginning of the end, and in the Six Day War, the sickle and hammerheads ruled throughout Israel. This is not an alternative history, you are just new to our history.

[garri-lin]

During the six-day war, Israel had close contact with America. It was the beginning of a long friendship. What nafig communists?

[ironic]

Close communication was just beginning, and before that, Israel did not resist to America. These are the ones. Until now, we cannot completely get rid of krasnozhopii, and you say what.

[garri-lin]

America became interested in Israel as soon as it proved its strength in the region. And from the protectorate of the USSR and personally Comrade Stalin began to be dismissed. Actively. America needed a surety. And Israel saw its benefit in such an alliance and therefore willingly went to contact. Although he was not going to become an unquestioning bargaining chip.

[ironic]

Once again, the Israeli-American close cooperation just started with the 6-day war and this is a historical fact. As well as the fact that socialism with a high level of Red Sovietism with an even touch of Stalinism has just begun its degradation in Israel with the departure of Ben-Gurion. And this did not interfere with bad relations with the USSR, as well as later good ones with the United States. Real capitalism in Israel began to win already with the arrival of Bibi Nataniyahu.

[garri-lin]

Therefore, you recognize that at the time of the attack, Israel and the United States were friends.

[ironic]

It could not yet be called friendship when compared with the partnership of the years following this war.

[garri-lin]

Who are you more likely to go into conflict with? With a trusted and reliable friend or with a person in whose friendship you are interested but have no solid relationship yet?

[3danimal]

Israel was noted, moreover, in the American and it was not a mistake, but a deliberate blow

Are you sure? Because opinions differ

https://archive.9tv.co.il/news/2011/06/18/103903.html

And what was the purpose of the attack on the US ship? Fears that he will pass on intelligence to Egypt? Again, the potential cost of such an attack.

[ironic]

Not fear, but confidence in the transfer of intelligence.

At that time, Israel was ruled by people of a different worldview. It is difficult to accuse me of an anti-Israel position, but in Israel, as well as in every country, especially one that fought for its survival, there are not the most pleasant pages of history.

[ironic]

Yeah, walked, walked AUG, and then Poseidon and in the belly. About Little Red Riding Hood, how blockbuster sounds cooler.

[Ryusei]

One single kitchen knife will rid our country of such a moron as you ...

[storm]

Minushers bezargumentnye something frolic .....

[ximkim]

In principle, aircraft carriers are needed. Lots of taxis for planes is an example of this "Kuzya" off the coast of the SAR.

[Bez 310]

"This article concludes a series of articles ..."
On the one hand, it pleases, but on the other ...
What will the next "series of articles" be about?
What to expect from this owner of such
inquiring mind?
Interestingly, the author for this "series" of money
received, or is it all on sheer enthusiasm?

[aagor]

I can please: there will be no new episodes. I did not receive any money and did not ask for it. It was a shame for the backwardness of our technology.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: aagor

It was a shame for the backwardness of our technology.

About how!
Andrey, take comfort: you are not alone - amam is also "abidna, do you panic, yeah," that the Russian State Health Protection Committee is on the way, and they all rape R&D ... but STONE FLOWER DOES NOT COME OUT !!! This is the first thing.
Second, the your mistake (as well as many other authors) lies in the projection of land tactics at sea. Therefore, you do not even have a mention of submarine forces. This is probably because the land has no "war moles".
And in the naval operation to defeat the enemy's OBK, all available forces are involved, and sometimes you also have to ask the senior commander to "help" at the stage of success development, or the curtailment of forces and withdrawal from the battle ... cover, blocking the area, with the redeployment of forces.
Third, you, like most colleagues far from the navy, are absolutely not familiar with such concepts as operational camouflage, deception of the enemy, demonstrative actions, and other "small things" that sometimes determine the success of an operation.
Fourth, AMs, without air cover, stopped fighting from the end of WWII. And you have the core of the forces of the 6th (for example) fleet - an aircraft carrier formation - "smokes bamboo" while the bad Russians deal with a couple of Burks who hunt on foreign shores ... (And why did they flood there, orphan girls? .. ... ) This is nonsense!
Probably all the same, colleagues are right, who criticized your research on the "revolutionary transformation of the tactics of the Russian Navy" ... What you got is "alternative story tactics "Navy ... (to Andrey from Chelyabinsk - )
But!!! If there were no authors like you, our site would be moldy with boredom!
Therefore - write, there will be something to think about (laugh, postebatsya, clever, critically look at the path traveled!)
Just for the "huge array of printed signs" that you raised in the material, you definitely need to put a big plus!
With respect to the hard work of the author-innovator.
Boa.

[Runway]

Do not be offended, but "having slowly descended from the mountain" do "work on mistakes." It seemed to me that you wanted to seize "laurels for style" from Damantsev - an extremely "heavy" opus turned out.
Take as a basis for "work" a specific theater of operations with real tasks and SIS of the parties on such and real geography. Without diving into fantasy, draw a “legend of possibilities” and draw conclusions (who needs what).

[timokhin-aa]

You are laughing, but the author is from GosNII AS. These people are developing the aviation concepts of the future for us.

[Ryusei]

Yes, let them be empty (cancer proves to everyone that they are just humans) ...

[Senior seaman]

I do not even know. Having a UAV plus real aviation is probably good, but having it instead of ... I doubt very much.

[UA3QHP]

"The use of PB from a height of 16-18 km along the way allows the UAV to fly safely over the affected area of ​​any air defense missile system MD."
Such an interesting aircraft carrier cruiser for 40 aircraft with a stratospheric ceiling. It turns out an ordinary aircraft carrier the dimensions of "Kuznetsov" and where do the drones and radars?

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Ua3qhp

"The use of PB from a height of 16-18 km along the way allows the UAV to fly safely over the affected area of ​​any air defense missile system MD."
Such an interesting aircraft carrier cruiser for 40 aircraft with a stratospheric ceiling. It turns out an ordinary aircraft carrier the dimensions of "Kuznetsov" and where do the drones and radars?

Sergey, I didn’t want to comment on the author’s bloopers, but I have to, because his pearls cause confusion among site visitors.
1. the author has not decided on the concepts and categories. Hence the confusion.
Well, for example. An aircraft-carrying CRUISER assumes the presence on board, in addition to aviation, of other weapons (KR, BR, PLUR). That is why he is a cruiser! and not just an AVM.
2. PB to a height of 16-18 km can only climb by diving, along a ballistic trajectory. They will not be able to stay at this height: the support area is very small, or all CPTs need to be burned, then the issue with a range of 500 km can be completely forgotten ...
3. Therefore, you are correctly asking the question: "What is it actually about? And what have the UAV and radar station to do with it?"
But this is the author's know-how!

[UA3QHP]

Alexander, in this stream of consciousness, the opposing forces are also incomprehensible - this is the lonely Arly against the lonely aircraft-carrying cruiser for 40 aircraft, then he basically has no chances. Even if it is a 2 MB aircraft carrier. Or is it a clash between AUG and KUG?

[Boa kaa]

You are absolutely right!

[BAI]

Naturally, all tactical techniques in this article are calculated based on the assumptions that in the 2030s the technical level of weapons will increase on both sides.

I suspect that the level of armaments, even by 2030, will increase significantly more significantly than the author expects.
These are classic weapons - tanks, ships have been developing and serving for decades (they have almost exhausted their potential). But weapons based on new physical principles can revolutionize the situation. The arms race in space (without an official announcement) is proceeding by leaps and bounds. And if now the threat from outer space can not be considered, then in 10 years it may be very real. And all these kinds of predictions (as presented) are in the trash can.
Moreover, fundamental changes in the military sphere can cause achievements from the civilian sector of science and technology. For example, the invention of a small-sized but very high-capacity energy source.
To make such predictions, you need to have a very large amount of knowledge in all areas. One person cannot physically cope with this.
One has 50% accuracy. Guess, not guess.

[petrol cutter]

- "The estimated cost of a serial AK, along with the wing and ammunition, is comparable to the cost of a US destroyer with ammunition."
Something strong doubts visit me however.
These are just some miracles!
EM manufacturing and AV manufacturing.
These are absolutely two big differences in the labor intensity of at least work in production.
AB dominates in hemorrhoids.
Plus the cost of an air wing? Training...

"The AK is intended for use in regional conflicts. It should not engage in direct combat with the US AUG."
In general, there is no reason to disagree.
The question is, why is yon needed then?!.
In any such regional wars, we suddenly need a whole AV, and even a series? With Japan or what?! ..

[petrol cutter]

I wanted to add one moment. ABs do not walk alone.
As life shows them, a lot of accompanying scrap metal is needed.
Thus, we come to what conclusion?
Right.

[Pavel57]

Such articles are best read with comments.

[7,62x54]

A lot of letters

[Rome]

Not a good example for analyzing the theory of using AK in a naval battle!
AK not when not to meet with USCG! They form a KUG only for strikes on enemy territory and operate under the cover of the AUG, or even jointly, strengthening the AUG.
If the presence of an adversary's AUG or AK is expected, then the United States will put forward its own AUG and not any KUG will be there, or they will act as reinforcement. In short, the likelihood of AK to attack the US KUG in a duel situation tends to zero!
especially as indicated by the KUG in the composition of EM and smaller vessels if you do not take littoral ships, then the United States has nothing less Orliks
We dream about destroyers, and they have the most massive class of ships in the surface fleet!
The best would have considered, the battle between the EM Congo of the Japanese Navy, this is a more real example
The very tactics without discussing the subtleties (I'm not strong, so I take the author's word ), raises questions:
1. Why are UAVs visible hundreds of miles away? Now everything is done with the magic word STEALTH, probably the tactics should be considered with these parameters, it probably differs from the tactics of conventional aircraft.
2. A hypothetical AK may appear in some years, by which time Zircon will be in service to defeat important targets! Why is the issue of attack by Zircons not considered? Or a combined attack with Zircons and Onyxes.

[aagor]

UAVs carrying up to 8 gliding missiles will have an RCS of several square meters. Therefore, they are visible. Nothing is known about Zircons, therefore it is impossible to consider them.

[Rome]

Let 8 missiles, are they more than F35? Amer EPR states that it is impossible to see under a microscope

[The eye of the crying]

Quote: Eroma

Amer EPR states that it is impossible to see under a microscope

This EPR is with weapons in the inner compartments. And there - a maximum of 6 air-to-air missiles.

[3danimal]

Lockheed Martin has several decades of experience in creating and operating stealth aircraft, it is worth considering.
And you can't just look at such an airplane at an exhibition (or even steal it) and “do the same,” you also need to know the technical process.

[Rome]

What is not some kind of stealth we did drink Hunter, Su57, the bomber over there is also gammy STEALTH, in any case, their EPR is several times less than that of any aircraft not STEALTH maybe more than that of F35, since they have been doing this for 10 years already

[3danimal]

What is not some stealth

Exactly. Any aircraft with a reduced radar signature can be called stealth.
The hunter is a prototype, we often sin by comparing them with serial samples of foreign equipment.
And nothing is known about its EPR.
Su-57 is a good maneuverable fighter with reduced radar signature.

maybe more than F35,

But a number of solutions to reduce it were clearly neglected.
Many times good, but even better - by orders of magnitude (10, 100, 1000 times).
It's enough just to compare the appearance:

[ironic]

And what will happen if Burke, having received information about the deployment at a certain distance of the enemy's compound from the DLRO aircraft, breaks out on this compound with Axes, block 5, endowed with the function of work on ships, or even block 4 with an upgrade, which are also endowed with the first 30 pieces from last year?

[Vladimir1155]

the task was set neurally, the conditions of the task are 1. they are 60 destroyers Arlie Burke and dozens of ticonederogs ... reinforced by 11 aircraft carriers, + NATO ships 2. against, Kuzya + Petya + tug + tanker, drlo planes, no minesweepers, no coastal aviation support. .... 3 then everything is clear without calculations

[Vladimir1155]

I thought .... no, we won't give Petya to them ... and who will help the coastal aviation and frigates with corvettes to ensure the exit of the SSBN and the Defense of Murmansk and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky? So only one Kuzya can go out to meet the NATO fleet ... let's put all AB fans on him and let them fight

[Yuri V.A]

When the Premier League fans run out, AB fans will have to fight.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Yuri V.A

When the Premier League fans run out, AB fans will have to fight

it is necessary that the nuclear submarines do not end, this is the purpose of the Russian fleet

[Yuri V.A]

The purpose of the Russian fleet is to fulfill the task, therefore, different forces are needed, different forces are important and, as they say, for the friendship of the combat arms!

[Boa kaa]

Quote: vladimir1155

the task was set neurally, the conditions of the task are 1. they are 60 destroyers Arlie Burke and dozens of ticonederogs ... reinforced by 11 aircraft carriers, + NATO ships 2. against, Kuzya + Petya + tug + tanker, drlo planes, no minesweepers, no coastal aviation support. .... 3 then everything is clear without calculations

Vladimir! You have painted the perfect picture for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against enemy forces!
I suppose you specially gathered them in a pile so that they would bring us democracy on their ships ... (so they go there !!!)
And no one in such a situation will even bother! Don't believe me? - Look at the calendar of our Military Doctrine!
Success.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

I suppose you specially gathered them in a pile so that they would bring us democracy on their ships ... (so they go there !!!)

I think that strategic nuclear strikes will end even before they are gathered into a pile ... but mcapl can strike a pile of their own, so I support your idea .. just aw does not fit into the paradigm of modern war of superpowers

[Boa kaa]

Quote: vladimir1155

only aw does not fit into the paradigm of modern superpower war

Why such an opinion !?
I would like to remind you: there are only 147 SBPs on the AVM (in my time there were), including, of course, deep beaters.
And where do you tell me to put such luxury?
Really there is no use for it ...

[ironic]

At the stage - they have only Harpoon from the anti-ship missile system, and this is 300 km of range, I stopped reading, because it lost its meaning.

[Undecim]

Quote: aagor

It was a shame for the backwardness of our technology.

And after these articles it became even more insulting for the backwardness of our authors.

[Volder]

Quote: Andrey Gorbachevsky

AUG possesses a multi-echeloned air defense, which requires huge resources to break through - no less than an air regiment or squadron with dozens of anti-ship missiles.

It used to be like that. With the advent of hypersonic weapons, from which liberal pseudo-patriots are grieving, the situation with the neutralization of the AUG has changed dramatically. Less attack missiles are now required.

What the hypersound will give, and whether the overheated GPCR will be able to find the aircraft carrier, diving at it from a height of 40 km, is completely unknown.

The author is unknown and does not believe in the calculations of Russian scientists. Simply because this author is smarter. Not believing and not owning accurate data from the development institutes, the author does not hesitate to conclude: "Hopes for a miracle missile" killer of aircraft carriers "should be attributed to the area of ​​non-technical fiction." This is a shapkozakidatelstvo, deployed in the opposite direction 180 degrees.

They do not accept explanations why not only China, but even France are building aircraft carriers.

China needs aircraft carriers for expansion into the South China Sea, Indochina, as well as for confrontation with the United States, because they do not have effective missiles like the Russians. France needs an aircraft carrier to assert itself in Europe to be the leading military power there (after Brexit). Macron also states that France, and indeed the whole of Europe, must rely primarily on its own forces, and not on NATO.

The article "Air defense tactics of a promising aircraft-carrying cruiser" shows that with the coordinated actions of radar, AWACS and IS UAVs, most of the anti-ship missiles will be destroyed at distant lines, and that the air defense system will only have to repel isolated attacks.

For the massive repulsion of anti-ship missiles, our stake is placed on electronic warfare systems. Don't you think that the American "tomahawks" launched from destroyers at Syrian targets in 2017 did not reach their targets just like that or because of a malfunction of the missiles themselves? Ours gave the Americans a face-saving, allowing some part of the missiles to fly.

It is necessary to remind once again that the author is not an aircraft designer

And he is not even a missile developer. But this does not prevent him from drawing unambiguous conclusions about the ineffectiveness of missiles. But American missiles are certainly better and more effective. Russians always bluff, but in the West they cannot bluff and overestimate performance characteristics.

Launch range of SAM SM6. is 250 km, and the speed is 3-4 M. However, according to experts, its characteristics are clearly underestimated. Now there are two modifications of missiles, and in 2024 the third, the most powerful, will be adopted.

In previous years, there was news about the testing of new modifications of the SM6, but they somehow kept quiet about the completion of the tests and adoption. 2024 is a very optimistic forecast that will clearly move. I didn't understand something: is the author modeling from what is now, or from what will be in the future? Some kind of vinaigrette :)

[timokhin-aa]

Less attack missiles are now required.

Can I ask you how many Tsirkogs are in service with the Navy? And how many submarines and NCs will be able to use them?

[Volder]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Can I ask you how many Zircons are in service with the Navy?

May I ask you how many SM6s of the second and third modifications do the Americans have right now? In addition to the Zircons, Russia is developing other hypersonic missiles, including those for aircraft.

[timokhin-aa]

Don't go off topic. SM-6 made 500 units and even a third have not yet fired.

So how many Zircons are in the ranks? And how many submarines and NCs will be able to use them? You are a mentally full-fledged person, and you raised the topic yourself, so you can answer this ELEMENTARY question?

[Volder]

Quote: timokhin-aa

SM-6 made 500 units and even a third have not yet shot

These are the ones that fly 250 km? Oh well...

Quote: timokhin-aa

So how many Zircons are in the ranks? And how many submarines and NCs will be able to use them?

How many Zircons were made is unknown. In the ranks - not a single one. Zircons will be able to use all corvettes 20385, frigates 22350, as well as the upgraded PBK and the cruiser Admiral Nakhimov. Let's wait until the end of GPV-2027, in 2028 we'll see what Russia has achieved and what America has achieved.
Considering that the Zircon is a unique weapon that cannot be shot down, the question of the number of such missiles is not critical. I don’t understand what you are driving at? Do you really think that Russia will not be able to master the serial production of Zircons in the next couple of years? The vanguard has already mastered.

[timokhin-aa]

In the ranks - not a single one. Zircons will be able to use all corvettes 20385, frigates 22350, as well as the upgraded PBK and the cruiser Admiral Nakhimov.

Vooot. The schoolboy began to notice reality.

Now we take these ships and write them out from the column, then for each we sign the estimated year of acceptance into service and the fleet for which it will go.

Then from this we draw up a plate for each of the fleets "Growth of the total salvo of hypersonic missiles until 2030".

Then we look at this and rethink your phrase, which I was hooked on:

It used to be like that. With the advent of hypersonic weapons, from which liberal pseudo-patriots are grieving, the situation with the neutralization of the AUG has changed dramatically. Less attack missiles are now required.

[Volder]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Now we take these ships and write them out from the column

Not just ships. Both nuclear submarines and aviation must be registered.

Quote: timokhin-aa

Growth of the total salvo of hypersonic missiles until 2030

Such a calculation, of course, must be done. But! The number of hypersonic missiles should not be compared with conventional missiles and the conclusion that Russia is lagging behind in the hypersonic race should not be drawn. It is possible to have a small number of hypersonic missiles, but this number will be no less effective in battle than several times the total salvo of subsonic and supersonic missiles.

[timokhin-aa]

Both nuclear submarines and aviation must be registered.

Aviation is not necessary, our valiant fleet is not interested in these issues, and the Air Force GZUR does not work on ships.

Undoubtedly, submarines are needed, but this is my professional deformation, for me they are also just underwater ships.

Make a plate, it cleans the brains very well.

It is possible to have a small number of hypersonic missiles, but this number will be no less effective in battle than several times the total salvo of subsonic and supersonic missiles.

This is not a silver bullet even once, if anything. And they also have disadvantages in comparison with supersonic Onyxes, and for some battle conditions they are critical.

And make a sign, it's 15 minutes, along with googling. If you are too lazy to look for ships under construction yourself, take a look at Shishkin's blog LJ navy-korabel, Shishkin, of course, is a crazy character, but he is responsible for statistics and his data on units under construction are accurate.

[Volder]

Quote: timokhin-aa

VVSovskaya GZUR does not work on ships

I disagree with that. First, officials have repeatedly stated that the Dagger missile is capable of hitting moving surface targets. Secondly, the "Gran" type seeker developed by the UPKB Detal JSC is used on modernized anti-ship missiles. It is capable of providing the GZUR with the ability to defeat not only land, but also surface targets.

This is not a silver bullet never, if that

Silver, of course. Even the X-32 missile is unlikely to be shot down by the American air defense. More details:
https://www.arms-expo.ru/analytics/vooruzhenie-i-voennaya-tekhnika-/konstantin-sivkov-raketnyy-kompleks-kh-32-menyaet-rasklad-sil-v-borbe-na-more/

[timokhin-aa]

Don’t put murzilki under my breath, I’m not you.
GZUR and Dagger are completely different projects.
The dagger with its seeker cannot on moving targets, off. faces lie.
The Kh-32 is still not mass-produced, several sides have been re-equipped for its tests, the combat crews that launched this missile, God forbid, will gain a dozen, the Air Force does not work out strikes against surface targets in the required volume.

These are facts, no need to lead to propaganda, then it will be ashamed.
The X-32 gets lost is elementary.

[vostok68]

"Placing anti-ship missiles on AK is not provided"And the term AK (Aircraft Carrier Cruiser), how do you decipher it? Why is there no anti-ship missile system?"

[starshina]

I do not understand why to engage in a battle with an obviously strong enemy in which you will obviously lose !!! Why chase the enemy aircraft carriers that are scattered across all oceans and Russia does not have the means and opportunities for this !!! It is better to create arsenals at the Orlan base --- which should not chase aircraft carrier groups, but patrol the Opponent's sea coast together with the Ashes, and in case of danger or an order to unleash a disarming first strike with hypersonic missiles on the Opponent's naval bases, thereby disable all supply and repair bases and deprive the bases of all the enemy aircraft carrier formations !!! And to destroy the enemy's aircraft carrier groupings, use naval aviation from the coastal airfields of Russia and the mosquito fleet, as well as coastal missile systems such as BAL and BASTION, which will meet the enemy on the approaches to the Russian coast !!!

[timokhin-aa]

I do not understand why to engage in a battle with an obviously strong enemy in which you will obviously lose !!! Why chase

You do not need to chase after them, they themselves will chase your arsenals-ships.

[nnz226]

One question: Aegis has been considered a bogeyman for nearly 40 years. Is it too long? This BIUS appeared during the still blessed memory of Admiral Gorshkov. Yes, they could modernize it, change the element base. And the algorithms of action have not become obsolete in 40 years? It is possible to change the algorithms, but how can one then dock ships with different algorithms of CIUS operation in one AUG? (due to the different construction times of the carrier ships) What, for 40 years have they not yet studied the mentioned algorithms (even though they were stolen by spies-hackers from Russia or China), and have not developed mechanisms to bypass them?

[timokhin-aa]

AEGIS is a collective name, and BIUS and rockets are continually evolving.

[timokhin-aa]

Arleigh Burke is pronounced Arleigh Burke. Not Orly.

Well, who teaches you, huh?

[evgen1221]

There are no tasks, there are no colonies, no needs, no technologies and no industry with personnel, no air wing and no training courses, no mortar flight, no experience and no thirst for exploiting other peoples. There are no exits to the ocean, there are no safe places for repair and parking On this short list, the question of aircraft carriers and aug rf can be considered closed.

[EvilLion]

Some "experts" claim that the age of aircraft carriers is over, and our Navy only needs to control 1000 km along the coast. They do not accept explanations why not only China, but even France are building aircraft carriers.

What do we care about France? China climbs into the Indian Ocean, there is theoretically floating. the airfield is needed. For the rest, if we accept that the main weapon of the AUG is aircraft, otherwise the question is why the aircraft carrier itself is needed, then the range of ground aircraft is no less than the range of the deck aircraft, and when an aircraft wing is destroyed, the aircraft carrier must leave for replenishment. The advantage in maneuver makes sense only if it allows you to strike where the enemy is weak, it is obvious that the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the concentration of our bases in a small territory of the Primorsky Territory do not leave the AUG the freedom to choose targets for attack and its air wing inevitably collides with our 22nd and 23rd IAP, as well as everyone else that may arrive in that region.

[ruivit1988]

All these stories about aircraft-carrying cruisers or destroyers are certainly interesting. But they lead to interesting thoughts at the same time. And here is the first thought, judging by these wonderful articles, the authors of which can not measure much with the economic and political reality that exists in our country. They are ready to spread thoughts about the fact that we need super duper ships and planes. But the reality is that our country can barely cope with frigates and is not able to build a destroyer, let alone an aircraft-carrying cruiser or an aircraft carrier. Second, before the outbreak of World War II, huge battleships with large expensive guns were built. But the brunt of the battles of the sea was laid on those ships that were not previously considered something serious. I am exaggerating, of course, but nevertheless the war may show that an expensive floating airfield will be vulnerable, in front of, say, a launch with a container of cruise missiles. So something like this, a person likes to complicate things, but life simplifies everything.

[Rome]

I dare to disagree with you as for money, we have it (look at foreign exchange reserves). We build ships poorly for technical reasons! Judging by the VO, the whole problem is in the engines, they are dumb, and their creation is a troublesome business, for frigates they are there for destroyers, so we have very bad things with destroyers but the nuclear heart for an aircraft carrier, we should probably gash down easily (atamokhody bake like pies). but with avik a snag, in need, such a huge one may not be in trend in the 21st century, but maybe stupidly free stocks under it are dumb.

[kig]

It is necessary to remind once again that the author is not an aircraft designer

- and who is the author in general? I could have introduced myself.

[VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK]

What nafig ABOUT US AUG? Will they knock down the zircon? In general, the principles of building units are different! Can compare our and their air defense? Baby talk, Anya article!

[Ryusei]

That is, 3-4 monitor lizards per one AV state, and how many there will be ... well, let's say in THAT theater: 6 AUG, how many lizards are needed for them - 18-24, but hasn't the author -> author -> author?

[storm]

Using the example of the US AUG, it is shown that the AUG has a multi-echeloned air defense, which requires huge resources to break through - no less than an air regiment or a squadron with dozens of anti-ship missiles.

For subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missiles, this statement is rather true, but hypersonic changes the entire alignment of forces and a salvo of 16 hypersonic missiles from one frigate / bomber flight / coastal missile battery is capable of sinking the entire AUG.

[storm]

If inexpensive ammunition is developed for an IS UAV, then the AK will surpass all ships on the cost-effectiveness criterion in regional conflicts.

Our "semi-aircraft carrier" or Aircraft Carrier (AK) Kuznetsov has already shown the whole world that its use is too expensive with almost zero efficiency, even in a regional conflict when the enemy does not have its own aircraft.
What more proof do you need?