An aircraft carrier is evil, but if someone lacks evil...
Let's count the money in other people's pockets and be a little surprised? More precisely, we will consider aircraft carriers, but who said that they do not cost money? Not even money - SUM. But to begin with, I will allow myself a tiny and (oh miracle!) Not historical retreat.
The other day, a land mine from one of the readers flew to me in a personal. My constant references to history began to infuriate him, which, as he believes, simply lead away from the topic and distract. I totally agree and disagree with this at the same time. Yes, in armory journalism is simply unrealistic not to look back, everything was invented before us. It is very difficult for designers to come up with something new, and if it turns out, it doesn’t matter, the roots are there, in the past. So if this infuriates anyone - sorry, but there's nothing to be done about it.
But we are going to our sheep, that is, aircraft carriers.
Rummaging recently in articles of very ancient times (I was looking for something on the deck aviation Japan), suddenly brought himself back to the present and thought about this: the United States has a fleet of aircraft carriers. 11 pieces, of which 10 are of the Nimitz type and 1 of the Ford type. And this is a huge force, because in the case of any world-scale batch, these are 11 airfields, advanced to an arbitrarily large distance from the US coast. And at each airfield there are 80-100 aircraft capable of solving a variety of tasks. Pretty decent forward outpost, isn't it? 11 outposts.
And then what?
And then the fun begins. Behind the aircraft carrier fleet USA has another fleet. An aircraft carrier, which is twice as large in number.
Well, let's stop on this for now and go ... Yes, as usual, into history.
Now I’ll give you a general seditious thought for overclocking: not aircraft carriers won the war at sea between the United States and Japan.
It’s good that they don’t read us on the other side of the ocean, otherwise the karma of the khan would have come. They cursed, at least, as a maximum, and poked black needles into the chrysalis, as is customary there. Well, indeed, Midway, the Marshall Islands, Okinawa, Yamato ...
Well, let's say, there is no special honor in plugging the Yamato with torpedoes. A hefty ship without air cover was doomed in the same way that the Prince of Wales and Repulse went to the bottom in 1941. I mean, it's just a massacre. Rest…
Okay, let me clarify. Escort aircraft carriers ensured US victory at sea in the war with Japan.
And this is the essence and logic. While these heavyweights, attack aircraft carriers, were exchanging air raids, sinking each other and battleships, escorts quietly conducted convoys, cleared squares of submarines, and supported landings on hundreds of islands captured by the Japanese in the Pacific Ocean.
Routine such everyday work, which, it seems, was not worth distracting these Essexes and Enterprises. But if you look at the map of the Pacific Ocean and think about what territories were captured by Japan, you understand that the Germans only dreamed of such a blitzkrieg. And the coalition liberated these territories until September 1945.
Just numbers: aircraft carriers of the CV class (that is, "normal") and CVL (light type of the same "Independence") in the United States were built from 1927 to 1945 33 units of all projects. And escort aircraft carriers from 1940 to 1945 - 126.
Yes, escort aircraft carriers carried up to 30 aircraft, while normal aircraft carriers carried from 70 to 100 units. And the planes on them were by no means the latest modifications, but such a huge fleet of escorts had time everywhere. And since escort aircraft carriers were not built according to special projects, but were usually rebuilt from more or less suitable ships and vessels, usually bulk carriers, they could carry not only aircraft.
Do you understand what I'm leading to? The class of CVE, escort aircraft carriers, made it possible to move more than just aircraft. Anything could be loaded into the large holds of the former transports. Yes, CVE did not have the speeds of warships, but they gave out 15-18 knots. That is, a slow-moving convoy with troops, artillery, tanks, guns, fuel and ammunition slowly, but inevitably, walked towards its goal. And the convoy had cover planes, which could then take bombs under their wings and process the enemy’s front line of defense.
Well, everyone already understands what I'm getting at. To what exactly from escort aircraft carriers, the UDC class was born - assault landing ships.
And this is normal practice. In the same way, from the "male" and "female" tanks of the First World War, two classes of armored vehicles were born: from the "male", that is, armed with guns, a class of main tanks appeared, and from the "female", that is, armed only with machine guns, a class BMP.
The same thing happened with aircraft carriers. Normal, that is, class CV, were very effective, since one such ship could perform combat missions in a large region. How "Big E" after Pearl Harbor remained the only aircraft carrier in the area and nothing, somehow pulled out everything on the wings of its aircraft.
However, the moment: the Enterprise had a displacement of 25 tons, which in itself made it not a small ship. Speed - 500 knots. Range - 32,5 miles.
Plus, "Big E" had (in 1943) a very impressive armament for a ship of this class:
- 8 universal guns 127 mm;
- 40 barrels of 40-mm "Boforsov" (8 × 2, 6 × 4);
- 50 single-barreled 20-mm Oerlikons.
Plus three elevators, two hydraulic catapults and up to 96 aircraft of various classes.
What does it all say? First of all, about the high cost and the fact that no matter how you get out, they don’t build such ships quickly. As shown, in fact, the statistics. The construction of strike aircraft carriers, even for a country like the United States, turned out to be a slow business. And what about Japan...
And the Navy (this applies to both countries) needed more aircraft carriers than it had. But for many missions, the fleet did not need an attack aircraft carrier. During missions to support amphibious assaults or escort convoys, a smaller amount of air force was sufficient.
Therefore, the US Navy came up with and implemented the idea of escort aircraft carriers, small vessels that could be mass-produced and deployed. He built 126 escort carriers, including 50 Casablanca-class escort carriers, which were a formidable force.
USS Casablanca (CVE-55)
Displacement: 10 tons.
Speed: 19 nodes.
Range: 10 miles.
Armament (actual, not according to the project):
1 gun 127 mm;
8 × 2 anti-aircraft guns "Bofors" 40 mm;
30 × 20 mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns.
2 elevators, 1 catapult and up to 27 different aircraft.
The difference is palpable. An escort aircraft carrier is much more modest, but also cheaper. And efficiency ... We use the calculator to the maximum.
33 attack carriers could move (exaggerate) 96 aircraft each. Total - 3 aircraft.
126 escort aircraft carriers could carry 27 aircraft each. Total - 3 aircraft.
That is, these cheap things, which were rebuilt from bulk carriers, could carry as many aircraft as "clean" "real" strike aircraft carriers carried.
What do we have today?
And today, the US Marine Corps is actively using its landing craft. And these ships carry not only manpower, but also equipment, as well as ammunition and much of what is necessary for landing operations. Hospitals, communications, provisions and so on.
Can modern UDCs carry aircraft? Certainly. If it's F-35V. Generally no problem.
Let's take the "old men" of the US Navy, UDC class "Wasp". This is a modified Tarawa class for carrying AV-8B Harrier II VTOL aircraft and landing hovercraft (LCAC).
Just on the left - "Wasp", on the right - "Tarawa"
Landing craft are not of interest to us, but the question of whether Lightning 2 can be used instead of the Harrier does not require much thought. Of course, yes, it can.
And the UDC "Wasp" the Americans have 7 more pieces ...
Interesting ship. With a displacement of 40 tons, the UDC can move at speeds up to 500 knots over a distance of up to 22 miles.
And we will leave its defensive weapons (there is order), and look at the air group:
- 6 F-35B "Lightning II" fighters;
- 4 attack helicopters AH-1W / Z "Super Cobra" / "Viper";
- 12 MV-22B "Osprey" landing support convertoplanes;
- 4 heavy-lift helicopters CH-53E "Super Stallion";
- 3-4 utility helicopters UH-1Y "Venom".
But if you leave only 6 SH-60F anti-submarine helicopters, then the number of F-35B miraculously increases to 20. And this is already more interesting. In fact, this is plus one more Ford-class aircraft carrier.
And among other things, quite impressive UDCs of the "America" type are still being built (according to project 11).
The displacement is even greater, almost 45 tons. The speed is about 000 knots, and the range is at least 20 miles. But the most important thing on our topic is from 10 to 000 F-20B aircraft.
Of course, the construction of the UDC is less costly and troublesome than the construction of an attack aircraft carrier. This is clear to everyone, the question is solely in the country's capabilities. The capabilities of the United States are enough to build not 11, but, say, 20 such ships, there would be a desire and how to equip these UDCs.
What for?
Why do you need an aircraft carrier? This is, first of all, a tool for projecting power into a certain area of the world. This is a big sledgehammer that can strike with its planes where it reaches. Yes, deadly, effective and all that.
And five UDCs, having approximately the same number of aircraft, will be able to simultaneously deliver FIVE strikes at various points. Yes, and to land troops, which the aircraft carrier just cannot.
Of course, if you remember what 6 US aircraft carriers did to Iraq during Operation Desert Storm, then the loss of 40 aircraft against the background of the total number of sorties looks normal. This is just a great example of the competent use of an aircraft carrier sledgehammer.
And if it will be necessary, say, for demonstrative purposes, to capture an island like the same Spratly? Is it worth using a sledgehammer for this, or are a few hammers enough?
American experts themselves say that amphibious warships have very great prospects. They fit perfectly into the Marine Corps Operational Maneuver from the Sea (OMFTS) and Ship to Target Maneuver (STOM) principles. And most importantly - UDCs are able to ensure the fulfillment of the direct tasks of the US Marine Corps, and most importantly, to do this much cheaper than using the terrible shock fists of the AUG.
Indeed, to drive an aircraft carrier, a couple of cruisers and five destroyers to the other side of the world, and 10-12 escort ships to them - well, it’s just burning bundles of dollars in boilers. Or in an aircraft carrier reactor.
The use of UDC as a light aircraft carrier to perform less expensive tasks is not only justified financially, but also contains secondary profits. Rkech is about possible damage to the ship. It's one thing if, for example, a Ford gets a rocket into the holds, and it's a completely different thing if the UDC. It is very beneficial, both morally and financially.
The Marine Corps has experimented with maximizing the number of aircraft it deploys on LHA-type landing craft, and experiments have shown that the 16 F-35B deployed on the Tripoli UDC proved to be quite capable of performing any combat mission. The Tripoli deck crew did a pretty good job of getting the planes into the air and taking them back.
And if, if necessary, use the old docks-helicopter carriers of the Landing type ... Yes, they are really ancient, but they have all the necessary infrastructure for launching and receiving aircraft (albeit designed for the Harrier) and are not much inferior in size to the UDC type LHA.
Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the UDC is slowly and confidently "getting fat". "America" really approaches the Indian aircraft carriers "Vikrant" and "Vikramaditsya" in terms of displacement (total displacement of 45 tons) and even surpasses the French "Charles de Gaulle" with its 000 tons. The Chinese "Liaoning" (full 42 tons), of course, is larger, but still, it falls short of the "Ford" (000 tons).
That is, if we take the American Gerald Ford as a standard, then almost all other aircraft carriers in the world can be safely classified as LHA or LHD type UDCs than as aircraft carriers. Or sign up for an escort. But, unlike the UDC, aircraft carriers do not take or land troops.
The issue of using such weapons as UDC will occupy the thoughts of experts and planners for a long time to come. The answer to the question of which is better, UDC or a full-fledged aircraft carrier will still be located where it will be more profitable to use ships of these classes.
But if the United States suddenly needed to mobilize all aircraft carrier resources, then by calling the LHA and LHD ships into service as assistants, the US aircraft carrier fleet would amount to more than 20 ships. That is more than the rest of the world combined.
That is, if the aircraft carrier is evil, but there is not enough evil, you can take the UDC. It definitely won't get worse. On the whole, this is a small hint that some Israeli-Turkish ships are roaming the Black Sea, and hammers do not knock in Kerch ...
Information