Military Review

Supercarriers in modern US naval strategy

39
Since World War II, an aircraft carrier in the US Navy remains a capital ship. This term can be translated as "the most important ship fleet". Capital ship in terms of its characteristics surpasses any other class of ships and occupies a dominant position in the naval strategy of the state. An analysis of the experience of using aircraft carriers at the present stage and the prospects for their development suggests that they will retain this status for the foreseeable future.


FROM “STORMS IN THE DESERT” TO “IRAQ FREEDOM”

Over the past decades of the Cold War, the key task of the aircraft carrier component of the US Navy was to prepare for a major armed conflict with the Soviet Union. Carriers were to ensure dominance at sea and the unimpeded use of sea lines of communication by the ships of the United States and their allies in the face of opposition to the Soviet fleet, which by the middle of the 1980-s. reached its peak.

The first Gulf War 1991 turned the view of the American military and political leadership on the principles of using aircraft carriers and the fleet as a whole. Admiral William Owens, who commanded the Sixth Fleet at the time, believed that "For the Navy, more than for any other type of aircraft, Desert Storm was the godmother of the changes."

During this operation, the US Navy did not have to fight for supremacy at sea and in the air. On the contrary, the key task of the fleet was to participate in delivering massive strikes against coastal targets using high-precision weaponsthat was not previously included in the list of its priority tasks. Operation Desert Storm marked the beginning of a revolution in military affairs, but it took almost a decade to massively introduce new technologies and transform the fleet carrier component.

Supercarriers in modern US naval strategy

The largest naval base of the US Navy Norfolk. This 20 December 2012 picture shows aircraft carriers Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), George HW Bush (CVN-77), Enterprise (CVN-65), Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), as well as UDC and other ships of the Atlantic fleet.


Projecting power “offshore” and participating in low-intensity local conflicts in coastal areas became the basis of the new “From the Sea” naval strategy, and the role of aircraft carriers in it was key. At the same time, the fleet constantly faced sharp criticism from representatives of the Air Force, who questioned the effectiveness of strike operations on deck aviation and criticized her for her limited range. It was noted that carrier-based aviation is not capable of conducting effective operations at a distance of more than 900 km.

Key to the US Navy’s aircraft carrier component were operations in Afghanistan and Iraq at the start of the 2000s. They showed significantly increased capabilities of aircraft carriers.

TO 1400 KILOMETERS

The large-scale air operation in Afghanistan began less than a month after the September 11 terrorist attacks on 2001 and lasted about five months (October 7, 2001 - March 16, 2002). It managed to take part six aircraft carriers. Most of the time, two aircraft carriers participated in the operation at the same time.

The main difficulty in the bombing of Afghanistan was the geographical remoteness of the theater of operations (theater of operations) and the lack of suitable military air bases in the region. The average distance from the aircraft carrier to the target was about 1100 km, and the most distant of the affected objects were at a distance of 750 nautical miles, that is, about 1400 km.

Despite the significant distances that aircraft carriers shared in the Arabian Sea and their objectives, naval aviation was able to ensure that there are at least six fighter-bombers (IB) around the clock in the airspace over Afghanistan. It should be noted that these indicators would have been impossible to achieve without the use of air force tankers.


The main striking force of the US aircraft carriers is the F / A-18E / F fighter-bombers.


The intensity of flights during operations in Afghanistan was relatively low. Each wing had on average 40 combat sorties per day. The total number of aircraft departures per day, including departures of tankers, aircraft electronic warfare (EW), etc., was about 90. This figure was sufficient to perform all the combat missions.

About 80% target readings were obtained after the aircraft was lifted into the air. The total share of precision weapons was about 60% (for deck aircraft - 80%), while during Storm in the Desert this figure was less than 10%, and in 1999 in Yugoslavia - about 30%. Naval aviation and Marine Corps carried out about 12 thousands of combat missions, which accounted for 72% of their total number.

The aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk (CV-63) in the course of this operation carried out functions unusual for American aircraft carriers — it was the forward base for the concentration of special operations forces. On the aircraft carrier was left only eight IS, which allowed to place a significant number of helicopters.

UP TO FIVE AIRWAYS UNIFIED

Carriers played a key role and during the military operation in Iraq in 2003, Saudi Arabia and Turkey denied the United States the right to use its military air bases to attack Iraq, which placed the main burden of military operations on carrier-based aircraft. The Navy concentrated five aircraft carriers to attack Iraq — two in the eastern Mediterranean and three in the Persian Gulf. This allowed to fly around the clock. All in all, in the oceans were eight of the twelve American aircraft carriers.

The share of carrier-based naval aviation and the Marine Corps accounted for about 14000 sorties - approximately 34% of the total. The number of flight sorties of carrier-based aviation was more than 5500, and the number of sorties after in-flight refueling exceeded 2000.

Deck Aviation operated at a distance of 900-1300 km. Due to the shortage of tanker aircraft, the deck F / A-18E / F Super Hornet, which were first massively used during the operation in Iraq, carried out about 400 refueling missions as tankers. In the first month of the war, the average number of daily aircraft flights per deck wing aircraft exceeded 120. The share of precision weapons during operations in Iraq increased to 80% (for carrier-based aviation, about 95%).


F / A-18E / F today perform almost all the tasks in aircraft groups of aircraft carriers.


The experience of the operation in Iraq formed the basis for the adoption of the Fleet Response Plan (Fleet Response Plan), which provides for the deployment in the event of a crisis of the maximum number of aircraft carriers in a short time. Initially, the “6 + 2” formula was used, that is, the deployment of six aircraft carriers within 30 days and two more within 90 days. In connection with the reduction in the number of aircraft carriers, this indicator was somewhat adjusted and replaced by the formula "6 + 1". The experience of the war in Iraq was also taken into account when moving from carrier-based combat groups (CVBG) to carrier-based strike groups (CSG) with a reduction in the number of ships accompanying the aircraft carrier.

"SOFT POWER"

Traditionally, American superavianos are perceived as a symbol of the policy of "big stick", that is, the right of Washington to force intervention in the affairs of other states. At the same time, recently they have been repeatedly and quite successfully used in such an unconventional role as the provision of humanitarian assistance and emergency response.

In December, 2004 - January 2005. The aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) was actively involved in providing humanitarian aid to Indonesia, seriously affected by the 26 earthquake in December. 2004. The United States (United Unified Assistance) was one of the reasons a significant increase in the positive perception of America by the citizens of Indonesia.

In March, 2011, the aircraft carriers Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) and George Washington (CVN-73) participated in providing humanitarian aid to Japan after the 11 earthquake in March of 2011 (Operation Tomodachi).

Such non-military operations have a significant political and diplomatic effect. High speed, the ability to produce about 1500 tons of fresh water daily, as well as provide round-the-clock operations of aircraft for several weeks, give aircraft carriers significant advantages in providing humanitarian assistance in case of serious natural disasters over universal landing craft (UDC).

PROSPECTS OF USE OF AIRLINES

The experience of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan shows that aircraft carriers, which are called "floating airfields", have two significant advantages over real airfields - mobility and independence. Carriers can be quickly transferred to the region in which there is a growing threat to US national interests. Unlike coastal-based aviation, carrier-based aviation allows both to quickly build up military power in the region, and to quickly roll it up. Using aircraft carriers, it is possible in a short time to provide a demonstration of power, projecting it as much time as is necessary in specific conditions. Neither the Air Force nor the army provide such a possibility. Carriers allow operations without the need to obtain the right to use the territory and airspace of other states. The experience of operations in Afghanistan has shown that aircraft carriers can be used effectively even on a highly remote theater of operations from the sea coast.


In the near future, universal landing ships will be used to carry out operations against weak opponents.


Over the past two decades, the mechanisms of using super heroes for power projection have been sharpened, which allowed for long and high-intensity operations. At the same time, recently, two diametrically opposed challenges have appeared before the carrier strike groups as the main key element of the US Navy.

First, it becomes obvious that in the short term, in order to carry out operations against relatively weak opponents, there will be no need to involve a supercarrier. Supercarriers, unlike light aircraft carriers and UDC, provide a larger range of actions for carrier-based aviation and, above all, DRLO and reconnaissance capabilities. But to fight a weak opponent, the possibilities of supercarriers seem to be excessive.

The precedent was the operation in Libya (Operation Odyssey Dawn), when the power was projected at the expense of the UDC airgroup Kearsarge LHD-3. The adoption of a new generation of America-type UDC with improved aviation capabilities and short-take-off and vertical landing aircraft F-35B will allow low-intensity military operations with smaller forces, which is especially important in the face of reduced military spending.


At 2015, the US Navy should become the lead carrier of the new generation, Gerald Ford (CVN-78).


Critical comments began to appear in relation to aircraft carriers and on the part of supporters of the development of the fleet of large surface combat ships. Some experts believe that modern and prospective destroyers have more advanced, as compared to aircraft carriers, capabilities of air defense, air defense and missile defense, and Tomahawk SLCMs are able to perform many information security tasks at lower costs and risks.

Secondly, many states, including Iran and China, are actively developing the so-called “access restriction systems” (A2 / AD - anti-access / area denial) - non-nuclear submarines, anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, anti-ship aircraft, mines , air defense systems. Having no real opportunity to deprive the US Navy of domination in the World Ocean and its individual regions, Washington’s potential adversaries are striving to secure for themselves the potential to challenge domination at sea, primarily in their own coastal regions. The use of large ship connections in such conditions will be associated with an ever-increasing risk. This reduces the effectiveness of the use of aircraft carriers in the event of a conflict with similar states, and also forces them to move aircraft carriers away from the coast, which reduces the effective range of deck aircraft.

The development of China’s aviation and fleet, its growing ambitions in the western Pacific and the desire to become a full-fledged naval power, including the creation of its own fleet carrier component, once again draw attention to the problem of gaining dominance at sea and in the air. At the same time, for two decades the domination of the transoceanic approach and the projection of power against weak adversaries, insufficient attention was paid to the development of these functions.


PGRK Topol-M.


It is worth noting that the successful use of aircraft carriers by Washington to demonstrate force during the Taiwan “mini-crisis” in March 1996 was one of the reasons for the acceleration and buildup of Chinese naval construction programs.

SUPERAVIANOTS OF THE FUTURE

In the 2015, the US Navy should enter the lead aircraft carrier of the new generation Gerald Ford CVN-78. The cost of the ship is estimated at $ 12,3 billion, among which is $ 3,3 billion of one-time costs for R & D. New aircraft carriers will differ significantly from their predecessors such as the Nimitz.

Carriers such as Gerald Ford will be able to provide up to 270 sorties a day.

The flight deck will be optimized, and its total area will be increased without increasing the ship’s displacement. The “island” superstructure will be reduced in size and shifted closer to the starboard and stern. The ship will be equipped with three, not four, as before, aircraft lifts - two of them will be located in front of the "island" and one - on the left side in the rear part. This will increase the number of sorties per day from 120 on aircraft carriers such as Nimitz to 160 (with a standard load). With increased round-the-clock load, the number of sorties can be increased for a short time to 270 per day. For comparison, during the exercises in July 1997, the aircraft carrier Nimitz CVN-68 was able to achieve the 243 indicator of aircraft sorties per day (including 193 combat), which was largely achieved by creating the most favorable conditions and limiting the combat radius to 360 km.

The increase in the flight deck will facilitate the movement of large, prospective UAVs through it, the wingspan of which will be significantly larger than that of modern deck-based information security forces, and maneuverability - worse.

New aircraft carriers will also be equipped with a single dual-band radar, improved arresting gear, electromagnetic catapults, as well as a new, improved nuclear power plant. All this will significantly improve the performance of its main functions by the aircraft carrier, will reduce the crew crew by 600 people and reduce the cost of operating the ship by $ 4 billion during its fifty-year life cycle. More economical in operation, new catapults and aerofinisers, among other things, will increase the take-off weight of deck-mounted aircraft and reduce the load on the airframe.

"MAIN CALIBER" OF AIRLINES

Technological development and changes in the principles of the use of aircraft carriers significantly affected the appearance of deck aviation groups. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, carrier-based aviation underwent unification and "optimization". From a diverse fleet of aircraft assembled according to the principle “one task - one plane”, in our years they came to an air group built around the only type of combat aircraft: F / A-18E / F, which provides both air defense formations and strikes against ground targets . The EW problem is solved by its modification EA-18G Growler, which replaced the EA-6B Prowler aircraft.


The EW EA-6B Prowler (top) aircraft are replaced by the EA-18G Growler (bottom), built on the F / A-18E / F base.


Boeing was able to create a plane that really meets the requirements of the fleet, but it should be noted that the reason for this lies largely in a significant simplification of these requirements. The disappearance of the threat from Soviet missile-carrying aircraft and the ships carrying heavy anti-ship missiles made it possible to abandon the specialized interceptor whose niche was occupied by the F-14 Tomcat, and reducing the threat from submarines from the specialized anti-submarine aircraft. Therefore, now the functions of the air defense and the air defense system were assigned to escort ships, universal F / A-18E / F and multi-purpose helicopters.

In the wake of cuts in military spending of the early 1990s, to which all types of US Armed Forces were subjected, deck aircraft suffered only one really painful loss, which affected its capabilities. In 1991, for financial reasons, the development of the new A-12 Avenger II strike aircraft was discontinued, which was carried out with 1983 using the Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA) program as a replacement for the A-6 attack aircraft. The A-12 was supposed to be the unobtrusive “day one” aircraft, the more advanced analogue of the F-117 Air Force. When in January 1991, the ATA program was closed due to a significant increase in cost and timing of its implementation and the fleet was left without its own unobtrusive strike aircraft, the A-6 functions were assigned to F / A-18E / F.


The “missions of the first day of war”, that is, the actions of aviation in the airspace of the enemy under the conditions of the continuing centralized air defense system, are the most difficult task that modern aviation can face. The lack of an unobtrusive aircraft suitable for this role forces the US Navy to resort to either the massive use of SLCMs or the help of the Air Force, which is not always possible and contradicts the idea of ​​the self-sufficiency of aircraft-carrier strike groups. The third option is to fight the enemy's air defense system with the help of strike groups under the cover of EW facilities, which is fraught with high losses.

The Pentagon realized the need to create a subtle strike aircraft for the fleet. After several years of searching, the Navy decided to join the Air Force. This led to the birth of the program to create a single for the Air Force, Navy and the Marine Corps of the fifth generation fighter - Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). F-35C Lightning II - JSF option for the Navy at the end of 2010-x - the beginning of 2020-x. should occupy the vacant niche of the “first day” strike aircraft and supplement F / A-18E / F.

In many ways, the success of the program F-35C depends on the implementation of the program of the shock-reconnaissance deck UAV - UCLASS. It is difficult to judge now whether the promising drone will suffer the fate of the ATA program or whether it will be successfully implemented, which, according to the most optimistic forecasts, will make the F-35C redundant. UAVs developed under the UCLASS program, due to their low profile, long range and no threat to the pilot, are able to take on the role of a strike aircraft of the “first day of war”. It is assumed that new drones will be commissioned to 2020.


Thus, in the coming decade, with the introduction of a new generation of aircraft carriers, promising carrier-based aircraft and UAVs, the capabilities of the aircraft carrier components of the US Navy should increase significantly. Of particular importance will be the increase in the combat radius of carrier-based aviation and its ability to act in the face of opposition from modern air defense systems. With the adoption of the new UDC and F-35B fighters, American supercarriers are likely to be less likely to be involved in low-intensity conflicts, which will partially reduce the operational load on the fleet, as well as increase the presence of aircraft carriers in the Asia-Pacific region.
Author:
Originator:
http://oborona.ru
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Russian
    Russian 22 March 2013 08: 59 New
    +1
    With the f-35 they have big problems, what kind of deck version can there be, if with the usual so many flaws.
    I hope in connection with a reduction in the military budget, many of these "Fords" will not be built wink
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco 22 March 2013 09: 43 New
      0
      Americans have ten aircraft carriers! All, as one, atomic. Each is twice as big as our Kuznetsov. AND…
      And ... you can't catch the elusive Joe because nobody needs him. Who are the American aircraft carriers going to fight in the open ocean? With gulls and albatrosses? Or with the unfinished Indian Wikramaditya?
      Objectively, there are no opponents for Nimitz in the open ocean. Let furrow the endless expanse of water and amuse American vanity - until the US National Debt reaches 30 trillion. dollars and the United States economy will not collapse. http://topwar.ru/25741-rossiyskiy-flot-vtoroy-po-velichine-v-mire.html
    2. Zeus
      Zeus 22 March 2013 10: 09 New
      0
      It is advisable that they freeze the construction of the first Ford. It will be like a boomerang with our Ulyanovsk.
    3. yak69
      yak69 23 March 2013 00: 49 New
      0
      And what to do with all this Amerov disgrace ?! Drown or what?
      BUT?!
  2. Orik
    Orik 22 March 2013 09: 02 New
    +3
    Ptf, torpedo them aboard ...
  3. Nayhas
    Nayhas 22 March 2013 09: 12 New
    0
    I would like to comment on Oleg Koptsov SWEET_SIXTEEN on this subject, because it goes against his vision of aircraft carriers.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 22 March 2013 14: 54 New
      -5
      Good day!
      Here, in fact, is the whole answer:

      The "missions of the first day of the war", that is, the actions of aviation in enemy airspace in the conditions of a continuing centralized air defense system, are the most difficult task that modern aviation can face. The absence of an inconspicuous aircraft suitable for this role forces the US Navy to resort to either the massive use of SLCMs or the help of the Air Force, which is not always possible contrary to the idea of ​​self-sufficiency of carrier strike groups. The third option is to fight the enemy’s air defense system with the help of strike groups under the cover of electronic warfare, which is fraught with high losses.


      Aircraft carriers are nothing without air force aviation. And in the presence of the Air Force aviation, aircraft carriers are no longer needed, their power is lost against the background of thousands of ground-based combat and auxiliary aircraft.
      "Projection of force", "omnipotent AUG" or "quick decapitation strike" - fiction, bluff for impressionable inhabitants
      1. Su24
        Su24 23 March 2013 01: 55 New
        +1
        Well done, said, as snapped, expert lol Where did you see "thousands of ground combat aircraft"? The number of US carrier-based fighter aircraft on 10 AB is 480 units in the standard version of the air group. The number of all fighters and attack aircraft of the US Air Force in the regular units is about 1300 units. those. comparable. Moreover, carrier-based fighter aircraft is the most modern and mobile part of the fleet. Carriers can be quickly assembled in one place, they are independent of ground infrastructure. Only thanks to them, surface ship groups acquire combat stability. Here's how to direct anti-ship missiles with a range of 300 km without carrier-based AWACS? How to keep track of opponents?
    2. qwert
      qwert 22 March 2013 15: 01 New
      +1
      Oleg Koptsov SWEET_SIXTEEN is more convincing. Yes, aircraft carriers are a cool thing. Huge and man-made horseradish. This is something that demonstrates what technologies mankind has mastered in the 20-21 centuries. But, it is needed only by a country that seeks to bring democracy to underdeveloped countries or to control the world market of energy resources (and that is, first of all, demonstrating strength. Since Iran will not be able to overwhelm Iran only with aircraft carrier groups, but they can indicate an increase in confrontation). Because Russia is not concerned about such issues with monsters for 40 yards of green and it does not need a thousand ton displacement of 100.
      We need nuclear submarines so that aircraft carriers do not relax smile
  4. Sirocco
    Sirocco 22 March 2013 09: 21 New
    +1
    Some big words Super, duper, and so on. They did not justify their purpose. Another BLUF from the USA. Where and in which armed conflict of recent decades, have the US aircraft carriers and their aircraft played a key role in the conflicts? But there is no such thing. How many planes were marked in Libya? and how many of them were with the US Carriers, a minuscule of the total mass, that is another zilch. They are more suitable as a deterrent machine for third world countries.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 22 March 2013 14: 47 New
      -1
      Quote: Sirocco
      how many planes were marked in Libya? and how many of them were with US aircraft carriers

      0%

      None of the 10 Nimits participated in the bombing of Libya
    2. Mikola
      Mikola 25 March 2013 15: 58 New
      -1
      Here is an example of Projecting a Force (which is like a bluff from Oleg Koptsov) - NTV: Bad news for Gaddafi came from Washington: an American aircraft carrier Enterprise from the coast of Somalia is being thrown into the Mediterranean Sea. Airspace over the country may be declared flightless in the coming days, and then the bombers and fighters, which will fly into the air by order of Gaddafi, can be shot down from the sea by US forces.
      Read more: http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/223267/#ixzz2OYGfcECJ

      After the arrival of the US aircraft carrier, and then France - did Gaddafi’s aircraft fly a lot? Here is an example of efficiency in practice smile It is a pity that the warriors of Gaddafi did not know - it’s only a scarecrow am
  5. Sirocco
    Sirocco 22 March 2013 09: 23 New
    +1
    In many respects, the success of the F-35C program depends on the implementation of the UCLASS strike-reconnaissance deck UAV program. This is not success, but complete failure. Although you do not call this Aircraft, but it does not pull for MANY YEARS)))) Most likely it is a STONE FALL lol
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco 22 March 2013 11: 07 New
      0
      So the minuses climbed, laughing it means the truth is pricking someone's eyes)))))
  6. jayich
    jayich 22 March 2013 10: 45 New
    0
    well, we’ll bring anything up to 30 years, the number of ash-trees to 25-30 pieces and let us be nervous laughing
  7. crambol
    crambol 22 March 2013 10: 51 New
    +4
    Illustration for the article.
    Attack aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy.
    Norfolk District.
    1969 year.
    Several times, carrier-based fighter aircraft came from the stern to our Kronstadt Slava fish processing floating base, simulating a bombardment approach. The feeling, frankly, was disgusting.
    1. qwert
      qwert 22 March 2013 14: 46 New
      0

      Well what can I say, n @@ race. Although the use of aircraft carriers in order to engage in marine hooliganism is certainly a huge stupidity. Is it really necessary to create 35 billionth aircraft carriers in order to weird (by the letter m) and carry out a maximum of 35% of sorties in military operations (while from these 20% there are still 28% for refueling, that is, only 40% of all sorties)? And what is 40 billion? These are 1000 Su-27 aircraft. The question is, is an aircraft carrier really economically viable? My view as an economist is not worth it.

      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 22 March 2013 16: 34 New
        -4
        Quote: qwert
        and carry out a maximum of 35% of sorties in military operations

        This is when such miracles were observed?)))
        Even in Vietnam, the participation of aircraft carriers was less.

        Modernity - from 0% (Libya) to 17% (Desert Storm)
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 March 2013 17: 25 New
        +2
        Quote: qwert
        My view as an economist is not worth it.

        Your will, but it would be worth the economics to learn something else :)))
      3. Su24
        Su24 23 March 2013 01: 27 New
        +3
        Attention! You do not have permission to view hidden text.


        This is about Afghanistan. Read carefully. And who told you all guys that AB 40 billion is worth it, I don’t understand? Even the newest Gerald Ford costs 12, of which 3 billion is R&D expenses, as was said. Those. The most advanced heavy nuclear-powered aircraft carrier costs $ 9 billion.
    2. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 22 March 2013 14: 50 New
      -2
      Quote: crambol
      Norfolk District.

      Quote: crambol
      fighters came from the stern to our fish processing floating base "Kronstadt Glory"

      ))))) What did the Krontand Glory floating base do in the area of ​​the main naval base of the US Navy?)))))

      remembered the "peaceful Soviet tractor"
  8. Axel
    Axel 22 March 2013 12: 08 New
    +6
    On the USS Gerald R. Ford Aircraft Carrier, the steam catapult will be replaced by a railgun

    More than half a century of dominance of steam catapults designed to launch aircraft from the deck of an aircraft carrier will soon be interrupted by a much more modern and technological device.

    The EMALS system (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System) is based on the principle of a railgun (railgun) - mass accelerator, which is an electrically conductive rails along which the vehicle is guided. Acceleration occurs under the influence of a magnetic field excited in rails.
    The engine power used in EMALS is 100 thousand liters. with. (73,5 MW), which allows to give speed to 333 km / h to manned and unmanned vehicles.

    The advantages of this launch catapult over the existing steam-powered catapult are obvious: less noise, fewer service staff, higher productivity. In addition, the pilot and the plane are not experiencing such severe overloads.

    Work on EMALS began ten years ago. This year, more than 720 test launches took place at the US Navy Lakehurst aviation engineering station, and in the last three days there have been several successful launches of the F / A-18E Super Hornet carrier-based bomber.
    The developer, General Atomics, intends to complete the project by May 2011 in order to comply with the plans for the construction of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier (see illustration above), which is due to enter service in 2015. It is for ships of this class that electromagnetic catapults are designed.

    EMALS Trials: First Launch of the F / A-18E Super Hornet at Lakehurst Base
    1. Zeus
      Zeus 22 March 2013 15: 08 New
      +1
      In addition, the pilot and the plane are not experiencing such severe overloads.


      Steam catapult. Length 92,1 or 94,5 meters, accelerates an airplane weighing up to 43 tons to a speed of 300 km / h.
      EMALS electromagnetic catapult: 91 meters long, accelerates an airplane weighing up to 45 tons to a speed of 333 km / h.
      Where will the electromagnetic overload be less? On the contrary, overload will increase.

      And by the way, these new catapults will consume much more energy than steam)))
      1. Axel
        Axel 22 March 2013 17: 20 New
        +1
        Quote: Zeus
        Steam catapult

        EMALS electromagnetic catapult smoother launch (gradually accelerates the plane), steam transfers energy all at once (like a shot)
    2. 77bor1973
      77bor1973 22 March 2013 22: 25 New
      0
      It’s just that the aircraft itself grew not only from the catapult, but also from the aircraft carriers themselves, on the old Midue there were 153 aircraft, and on the Nimitz - which was twice as large in displacement as 80-90.
  9. I think so
    I think so 22 March 2013 14: 08 New
    -6
    At the moment, an aircraft carrier is only an excellent target for ballistic missiles with homing heads (not nuclear). The Chinese have long tested such missiles at their landfills. Destruction of an aircraft carrier at ranges of 1.5-2 thousand km is not a problem at all. If necessary, more powerful missiles can be equipped with such warheads. One two hits will be enough to incapacitate this trough for a long time or even forever.
    1. Axel
      Axel 22 March 2013 17: 22 New
      0
      Quote: I think so
      Currently an aircraft carrier

      The aircraft carrier must still be approached at a distance of rocket launch
    2. Delta
      Delta 22 March 2013 18: 02 New
      +3
      Quote: I think so
      The Chinese have long tested such missiles at their landfills

      yeah, only the training ground, namely, the platform allegedly depicting an aircraft carrier was motionless))). At the same time, the Chinese forgot to ask ABM, but what does she think about their launches
    3. patsantre
      patsantre 24 March 2013 17: 43 New
      0
      Absolute ignorance of the materiel.
      1) As far as I know, the Chinese have tested exactly missiles with nuclear warheads
      2) Somewhere there was an article or discussion in which it was clearly stated that the guidance of non-nuclear warheads of the BRSD with accuracy sufficient to hit the aircraft carrier is so difficult due to speeds and overloads that at the moment it is simply impossible.
      3) Who will give target designation at such a distance?
  10. qwert
    qwert 22 March 2013 14: 40 New
    +1
    "At the same time, recently they have been repeatedly and quite successfully used in such an unconventional role as humanitarian assistance and emergency response.

    In December, 2004 - January 2005. The aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) was actively involved in providing humanitarian aid to Indonesia, seriously affected by the 26 earthquake in December. 2004. The United States (United Unified Assistance) was one of the reasons a significant increase in the positive perception of America by the citizens of Indonesia.
    In March 2011, aircraft carriers Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) and George Washington (CVN-73) participated in humanitarian assistance to Japan after the 11 earthquake of March 2011 (Operation Tomodachi). "
    So, in Yugoslavia, didn’t they carry out a humanitarian function? Eliminated the consequences of the humanitarian catastrophe. And in Iraq, they also provided humanitarian assistance — they brought democracy. And these facts of humanitarian aid in terms of enhancing democracy, especially in oil-bearing regions, can continue indefinitely.

  11. Zomanus
    Zomanus 22 March 2013 15: 43 New
    +2
    Where there is a photo with a hockey, change the signature, nifiga is not poplar ...
    1. ABV
      ABV 22 March 2013 20: 24 New
      0
      I support, it catches my eye ..... I sat for half a day thinking what kind of PSG I had !!!
  12. Avenger711
    Avenger711 22 March 2013 15: 47 New
    0
    The increase in the flight deck will facilitate the movement of large, prospective UAVs through it, the wingspan of which will be significantly larger than that of modern deck-based information security forces, and maneuverability - worse.


    Question per million, damn it, if you remove the cockpit from the plane, leaving control to the computer with sensors, then how will its size change while maintaining the same flight data and the same payload? Resizing in a spiral is underway, the cabin has been removed, the weight has become smaller, but this makes power elements easier and takes less fuel. But this allows us to further reduce the size, etc. Roughly speaking, they removed one element per ton, and the whole structure was relieved by two tons. What is considered a heavy UAV is actually a very small aircraft, and since UAVs now have a mode for flying wings, with their small elongation, the aircraft turns out to be very compact.
  13. homosum20
    homosum20 22 March 2013 17: 30 New
    0
    The larger the target, the easier it is to hit it.
    (William Tell)
  14. crambol
    crambol 22 March 2013 20: 08 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    What did the Krontand Glory floating base do in the area of ​​the main naval base of the US Navy?

    I am pleased to answer. There are several herring areas in the West Atlantic - the Big Newfoundland Bank, the Georges Bank, the Norfolk area, etc. Fishing fleets from all over the area gathered there, and even the Chinese came across. The CPT and SRTR fishers fished and transferred to fish processing floating bases for further processing into finished products.
  15. crambol
    crambol 22 March 2013 20: 10 New
    +3
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    What did the Krontand Glory floating base do in the area of ​​the main naval base of the US Navy?

    I am pleased to answer. There are several herring areas in the West Atlantic - the Big Newfoundland Bank, the Georges Bank, the Norfolk area, etc. Fishing fleets from all over the area gathered there, and even the Chinese came across. The CPT and SRTR fishers fished and transferred to fish processing floating bases for further processing into finished products.
    1. crambol
      crambol 22 March 2013 20: 16 New
      +1
      Floating base "Kronstadt Glory"
    2. vyatom
      vyatom 29 March 2013 13: 50 New
      0
      Quote: crambol
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      What did the Krontand Glory floating base do in the area of ​​the main naval base of the US Navy?

      I am pleased to answer. There are several herring areas in the West Atlantic - the Big Newfoundland Bank, the Georges Bank, the Norfolk area, etc. Fishing fleets from all over the area gathered there, and even the Chinese came across. The CPT and SRTR fishers fished and transferred to fish processing floating bases for further processing into finished products.


      All is correct. Read the law of the sea. There are 12-mile tervodes and a 200-mile economic zone. Beyond these limits, you can fish for all countries, and American pilots behaved like a complete n ..sy. But nothing in Vietnam, we taught these courtesies of courtesy.
  16. crambol
    crambol 22 March 2013 20: 13 New
    0
    Floating base "Kronstadt Glory"
  17. Comrade1945
    Comrade1945 22 March 2013 21: 02 New
    +3
    Maybe enough about these damn aircraft carriers ..? negative
  18. SPACE
    SPACE 22 March 2013 21: 40 New
    +1
    I wish the Americans more large aircraft carriers with electromagnetic catapults and f-35 ...
    Z.Y. Big ship, big torpedo.
  19. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 23 March 2013 02: 00 New
    +5
    Quote: qwert
    The question is, is an aircraft carrier really economically viable? My view as an economist is not worth it.

    Amer, who are strangled by the dollar, do not take economically inexpedient decisions. There is simply direct economic benefit, but there is indirect. What is an aircraft carrier politically, our diplomats are well aware. At times, many issues were resolved only by demonstrating their readiness to use force. The discussion of the land public follows one path: Avu against the coast. This is true when conducting a landing operation of the fleet, striking a control system and air defense of a coastal country, building up an air group in the shortest possible time in the direction of the main strike, etc. The main thing: an aircraft carrier is the basis of the combat stability of a ship’s formation in the far sea zone. The depth of its air defense zone is up to 500 km, the PLO zone (depending on the composition of the wing, when its typical composition is not taken according to the conditions of the task) is also up to 400-500 km. So “torpedoing him aboard” is the dream of any submarine commander. But if it is not with special equipment, then such torpedoes need pieces of 8-10 in one side. The main threat to a ship at sea is a fire. For avu - first of all. The main objective of an aircraft carrier (AMG) is to gain dominance in a specific area of ​​the sea. If the Faroero - Icelandic boundary of the PLO becomes this area, then there is a big problem of breaking through the Northern Fleet to the Atlantic to defeat the KOH and DESO amers. Euro NATO's without the help of the Yankees will not last more than a week. You don’t dodge much with an air bridge. Therefore, it is, above all, a naval SUPERWEAR. In the ranking of goals, they stand immediately after SSBNs. I think when we become economically and technologically stronger a little, and we will have 60-thousandths with nuclear power, electric catapults and decent aircraft. Our fleet, as a seriously ill fighter, needs time and money to recover. There are brains, found money. It is up to technology and political will.
  20. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 23 March 2013 02: 09 New
    +5
    Quote: Comrade1945
    Maybe enough about these damn aircraft carriers ..?

    My dear, can you beguiled the sites and your place on the C / X site? Sorry if inadvertently offended. This is not from evil, but from nostalgia for modern ships of the far ocean zone. The first among which are aircraft carriers (TAKRs, aircraft carriers, UDK type "Tarava").
    1. Comrade1945
      Comrade1945 25 March 2013 20: 27 New
      0
      Boa kaa
      My comment was directly related to U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, which I’m already sick of looking at, because recently there are a lot of articles on VO about them.

      PS
      Of course, I’m not offended by anyone, but I’m still not worth sending me to places "not so distant": I have never met this site on a similar topic better.

      Pss
      I would read about domestic aircraft-carrying cruisers with pleasure, albeit from such reading with modern realities rather, tears in the eyes are welling up, than you are getting satisfaction.

      Sincerely.
  21. alex86
    alex86 24 March 2013 21: 19 New
    0
    And here’s the amateurish question again: maybe return to the Yak-141 (having converted it to one engine) and place them on ships like ro-ro container carriers — here you have the aircraft carrier and the UDC in one bottle.
    1. qwert
      qwert 25 March 2013 07: 32 New
      0
      On one engine? This is to make the concept like F-35 ????
      Well, in principle, the Americans are now just the majority of problems with this particular fan. It doesn’t give up power and the drive overheats, and indeed the drive system turned out to be unreliable. And the fan with the drive is heavier than the lift engine of equal thrust.
      Why did not the Americans want lifting engines ??? And because they have a jetted stream, and the Americans and the British are used to working with "cold" ones. But, having a boost-marching engine afterburning with an even higher temperature and also a downward sense, the fear of the lifting engines disappears.
      But in due time, both our and Western magazine "experts" criticized the Yak-141 scheme as a dead end. Type VTOL is possible only according to the Harrier scheme, because in the west they are smart, and in our country they are kind of stupid. Now I would shove our journalists that article and then all the articles about F-35 in a famous place ....