Aircraft carrier "Gerald R. Ford" at the shipyard "Newport News Shipbuilding"
Usually so called articles on the plight of our fleet. However, today is about something else. The aircraft carrier was deleted from the military shipbuilding program until 2020, but they left the project 885 nuclear submarines (nuclear submarines). So the Russian fleet is on the familiar road of the Soviet fleet. Once again, the main strike force will be nuclear submarines with cruise missiles (CR), which are also called nuclear submarine missile cruisers (APRK). The submarine fleet will not fail, and the aircraft carrier, as Leonid Ilyich used to say, - weapon capitalist aggression and therefore, as Sergey Gorshkov sang along with him, he was alien to the Soviet naval doctrine. It turns out that the main shock force of our fleet goes under water. Blame - immersed. Hence the name of the article.
There is no need to explain that an aircraft carrier is extremely valuable in case of the so-called asymmetric threats, that is, in those conflicts in the perspective of which there is no doubt in the XNUMXst century. In contrast to the aircraft carrier, the APRK is not effective in such conflicts. He cannot support the landing of an inspection team, the release of hostages or the landing of a landing on the beach; he cannot be as effective as the deck aviation, control shipping and are not able to protect our ships from attacks by pirates or from air bombardments.
These are truisms, therefore, domestic fighters against aircraft carriers entrenched in the leadership of the Navy, apply a different argument. Namely: the weak combat stability of the aircraft carrier and the relative cheapness of the APRC.
They argue that an aircraft carrier is effective only in the fight against a weak adversary; in a serious war, an aircraft carrier is too large a target and will be sunk at the beginning of the conflict. Everything, as in Soviet times, while the commander in chief of the Navy, Sergei Gorshkov, also believed that aircraft carriers were useless in a third world war, and would not participate in local conflicts of the USSR Navy. So it turned out that an aircraft carrier is a weapon of capitalist aggression against weak countries, useless in the fight against the world's first state of workers and peasants. And the most effective means of deterring carrier-based strike groups (AUG) by the criterion of efficiency – cost is APRC. It is on these arguments, legs and there is a colossus, crushing any carrier-based encroachments in the Russian fleet. But is it not clay feet?
LEG No. 1
Let's see how much the APNG of the 885 project is needed to kill Nimitz. Since the calculations of the combat effectiveness of the 885 project are hidden under the heading of “secret”, we are left with only a way to independently calculate this efficiency. We take the combat effectiveness of the 949 project, the ancestor of the 885 project, as the starting point of our calculation. So dive in history...
Extensive efficiency studies began to be conducted in the Soviet Navy only at the end of the 70-s, when electronic computers appeared. Studies conducted by several organizations have shown that in order to ensure the destruction of one aircraft carrier from AUG, it was necessary to launch 100 – 150 Granit-type missiles in a volley. If all the missiles had nuclear warheads, then the number of missiles would be reduced almost 1,5 times. Thus, to solve the problem by the APNC of the 949 project alone, they required an average of six.
Let it not surprise a large number of missiles with nuclear warheads. In order for at least one nuclear missile to break through to an aircraft carrier, it is necessary to “sacrifice” as many missiles as it can shoot down the AUG air defense system. At the beginning of the 80, the AUG air defense could knock down the 70 – 120 Granit or X-22 rockets, depending on the tactical situation. It also follows that for the sinking of the American aircraft carrier, up to 30 it was necessary to hit Granit or 10 - 12 missiles to disable it.
Now let's turn to Onyx. In Onyx, as in Granita, penetrating warhead (PBC), but three times smaller in mass, but the mass of the rocket (it must also be taken into account when calculating the striking potential of a supersonic rocket) is only twice as small. Therefore, “Onyx” to destroy an aircraft carrier is necessary approximately two to two and a half times more - we take as the average 25 value of “Onyxes” hits for decommissioning an aircraft carrier. Of course, there will immediately be critics who will blame the author for not knowing that Onyx is equipped with a more advanced homing head (GOS), and, therefore, the missiles will hit the aircraft carrier pointwise: one to the aerofinisers and another four to the catapults. Total: only five "Onyxes" - and "Nimitz" is unarmed. Well, if you shoot at a Chinese frigate, or even better at an Afghan aul, then you can not only get into the arresting machine, you can get out the window, and even into a specific bed, where an international terrorist peacefully snores, and none of his wives and concubines were hurt. Wow, already captures the spirit that modern precision weapons can! But there is a snag. All these wonders of precision are achieved only in the absence of electronic countermeasures (REB). An aircraft carrier is not an aul for you, it’s not up to the aero-finisher, you would get into a ship.
Now we define the value of the "victim", that is, how many "Onyxes" can bring down the air defense of the modern AUG. The air defense consists of two components: the first is fighter aircraft, the second is the anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) of ships.
Consider the first component. From 2006, the aircraft wing of the American aircraft carrier includes up to the 60 F / A-18E “Super Hornet”, performing equally well the role of attack aircraft and fighter. AUG can constantly hide behind four locking F / A-18E. Each Super Hornet carries AIM-10 AMRAAM 120 missiles and is capable of shooting down Onyxes 5 – 6. Total: AUG air patrol will knock down Onyx 22.
Now the second component. And here, of course, we will talk about Aegis. Ah, we know, we know, he cannot knock Mosquito down, and X-15 is too tough for him, and Granit hardly beats him, but where can he go to Onyx! Indeed, it does not knock ... If you still live in 80, and if, like me, in 2013, it knocks, and how knocks! About "Aegis" we have little to write, but in vain. We'll have to fill a little gap. Since the newspaper is not a magazine and certainly not a book, the story will be brief and devoted only to the air defense system to the Aegis component.
The Aegis complex has two radars: SPY-1 (general detection and "rough" guidance) and SPG-62 (final guidance). The SPY-1 radar (four phased antennas) constantly operates in general detection mode and monitors air targets from 250 to 300. These targets can be either enemy missiles or their own Standard-2 missiles. The flight of the Standard-2 is monitored and periodically adjusted from the ship. When the “Standard-2” is at a distance of 10 km from the target, SPG-62 comes into play (there are four on Ticonderog, three on Arly Burke), they irradiate the target, and the semi-active GOS Standard-2, having captured it, it flies on to the reflected signal without adjusting the Aegis. Since one and the same station accompanies its own missiles and general target detection, Aidzhis has the ability, by reducing the number of accompanied targets, to increase the number of accompanying Standards-2 and vice versa. Hence, the striking "multi-channel", theoretically, to 100 shelling targets.
Nuclear submarine missile cruiser project 949A "Antey"
But there are no perfect solutions, of course. The element base of the beginning of the 80-x did not allow to create a perfect air defense system from the "Ajis". Combining the general detection and targeting in one radar, the Americans were forced to sacrifice both the detection range and the targeting accuracy. As a result, "Aegis" could not shoot down low-altitude supersonic ("Mosquito") or aeroballistic (X-15) goals. But why did the Americans go this way? For the sake of perspective. As time went on, Aegis improved, in 90, he learned to beat Mosquitoes and X-15, and in 2000, he reached out to space, becoming the world's first naval air defense / missile defense complex. Domestic shipboard SAMs, created by the 80-x ideology, no matter how modernized, but will not be the "Aegis". Therefore, we have one way - to create your Aegis. In the meantime, "Aegis" reigns in splendid isolation and beats every conceivable record of longevity.
But back to the main topic of this article. I did not write by chance - theoretically, it can simultaneously fire at 100 targets. In life, everything rests on the rate of fire of the universal vertical start-up of the installation (UVPU) Mk41. It will be decisive in our calculation. Since Tikonderogi gradually go down in history, we will continue to consider only Arly Burk. In the nose cellar of “Arly Burke” 4 MK41 (32 cells), in the aft - 8 Мк41 (64 cells). The rocket launch rate from the 1 cellar, sec., From two cellars in total - two rockets per second. It turns out that for the first 32 seconds. Arly Burke will launch 64 Standard-2, and the remaining 32 rockets will be released in 32 seconds. It is impossible to determine how many Americans will load anti-aircraft missiles, and how many drums. She is also a universal TLU, so as not to bind the admirals hands. Unlike us, Americans can like to change the range of missile ammunition. Therefore, we will have to accept the following assumption: since the conflict will begin in a threatening period, the Americans, fearing in advance our anti-ship missiles (RCC), will increase their anti-aircraft ammunition, hence assume that the 32 "Standard-2" is in the bow cellar, and in the stern cellar there are 48 "Standards -2 ”and 16“ Tomahawks. ” It turns out that in 48 seconds, Arly Burke will release 80 Standards-2.
Now we determine the reflection time of the attack. If the submarine of the 885 project can sneak up to AUG on 100 km, then Onyxes will go at low altitude. Then Aegis will find them at a distance of 35 – 32 minus 2 km — the dead zone for Standards-2, and it turns out that Onyxes will be under fire for 28 km. Onyx will cover this distance in 37 seconds, and Arly Burk will release 69 Standards-2 during this time. But that's not all. It is unlikely that the 885 submarine's rate of fire is higher than that of the 949 submarine, that is, less than one second, then the 885 submarine of the project will need 31 seconds more to launch the remaining missiles, which, in turn, will allow the Arly Berk to release the remaining "Standards-2".
It turns out that one "Arly Burke" will release 80 "Standards-2" and, with a probability of hitting 0,7 (example, the average 0,65), will knock down the 52 "Onyx". And how many "Arly Berkov" in the composition of the AUG? The composition of the AUG of the US Navy usually includes the 5 – 6 Ticonderog and Arly Berkov. So we’ll assume that Arly Berkov is attacked by the AUG 5. If the attack is made from a distance of 100 km, that is, at a low altitude, and from one direction, then only Arly Burka's 3 can take part in the attack. In this case, the escort ships shoot down the Onyx 156. But this scenario is unlikely.
As early as the end of 70, the leadership of the Soviet Navy made it clear that it was impossible to guarantee that several APRKs could reach the 50 – 60 distance from AUG. Therefore, the APRK of the 661 project with long-range (operational assignment) anti-ship missiles replaced the APRK of the 670 and 949М projects. Yes, of course, the boats of the 885 project are much more secretive than the boats of the 949 project, but the American anti-submarine defense (PLO) does not stand still. Therefore, we will be honest and recognize that the attack will have to start from the maximum shooting distance and, therefore, "Onyxes" will fly at high altitude (5 – 6 thousand meters). In this case, Aegis will begin to repel the attack from the 250 km distance, and Arly Berki, shooting up, will not be constrained by neighboring ships and will be able to take part, without exception, in repelling the strike. In this case, they will shoot down the Onyx 260.
Now we summarize the number of “Onyxes” received, which is necessary to bring the aircraft carrier out of action: 25 + number knocked down by an air patrol, 22 + number knocked down by escort ships (260), total: 307. Therefore, a joint launch of the 10 APRK of the 855 project is necessary for the guaranteed disabling of the aircraft carrier from the AUG. Not a small amount, but even more than was previously required for the XRUMX APRK project. It may be objected that new hypersonic RCCs are already being created and they will arm the boats of the 949 project. Soon, PR affects, but not soon the product is done. What is now called hypersonic RCC is not yet hypersound. The promised 885-4М (M is the Mach number, or the ratio of the flow velocity at a given gas flow point to the local sound propagation velocity in a moving medium) is only the threshold beyond which the real hypersonic velocity begins. In the meantime, they promise us only to approach, and not to cross the threshold. But such "hypersonic" goals and our "Fort-M" and "Aegis" are being shot down now. To overcome the "Aegis", you need 5M, but also to maneuver during the attack, otherwise "Standard-10" will hit the target on 3M. And to such a PKR still oh, very far. So, the proposed 10 APNC for the construction of the 10 885 can be scary only one out of ten American AUGs. But this danger Americans can easily avoid. They only need to double their AUGs, and the 10 APRK of the 885 project will not do anything to this connection.
LEG No. 2
So, we have crushed the first leg - the weak combat stability of an aircraft carrier. Now we turn to the second leg - the relative cheapness of the APRK. In the domestic press, including electronic, there is still a popular opinion that the 949 submarine is cheaper than the Nimitz aircraft carrier by a factor of 10. A classic example of the evidence base is the following: “As of the middle of the 80-s, the cost of one boat of the 949 project was 226 million rubles, which at par was only 10% of the cost of the Roosevelt multipurpose aircraft carrier (2,3 billion dollars without value his aviation wing) ”.
What is the denomination? Where it comes from - go and figure it out. For example, if you recalculate the average wage, then in the US in 1986, it was 1444 dollars, and in the USSR - 206 rubles. Then it turns out, the dollar against the ruble in purchasing power can be 7 to 1. In this case, Roosevelt is only 1,5 times more expensive than the 949 project. But this is also wrong, because the dollar is a freely convertible currency, but there is no ruble, and there was no real market in the USSR, and it was not enough to have money for a car or an apartment, it was also necessary to have the right to purchase them. Well, how in this case, consider the "nominal"? If you do not take into account the socio-economic model of the state, then it turns out that the most effective military-industrial complex in the world is in the DPRK, where AK-47 will be collected for a bag of rice. But I firmly believe that those who read with admiration, and those who write about the “cheapness” of the 949 project, will not even work as a janitor for a bag of rice or for 100 dollars.
But this article is not about the charms of socialism or capitalism, so let’s dwell on the fact that you cannot determine the relative cost of the 949 project and Nimitz. And even now, when in Russia, more or less, but capitalism and the ruble are freely convertible into a dollar, you cannot derive the cost ratio. Example: the cost of the last “Nimitz” - “George Bush” 6,2 billion dollars (2009 year), and the cost, according to the contract, of the second boat of the project 885 “Kazan” - 47 billion rubles, or 1,45 billion dollars. four times cheaper, but at the expense of what? Is it due to wages? So, the average wage of a worker, net of taxes, on Sevmash 1100 dollars, and on Newport News, after paying taxes, 3250 dollars. Felt the difference? Of course, they can tell me that, they say, medicine is more expensive for them, but I will say that they have food, clothes and housing cheaper, and in general “Sevmash” is the north, and Newport News is a warm south. I didn’t hear that they were going to work at Sevmash from all over Russia, but the Newport News was the American “working Mecca”.
The dream of Russian sailors is an atomic aircraft carrier. The project of heavy aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk.
So how then to determine the relative cost of the APRK and the nuclear multi-purpose aircraft carrier? There is only one correct way - to compare the relative cost of a nuclear boat and an aircraft carrier in the same country, and thereby obtain the desired ratio. For example, the cost of an aircraft carrier project 11437 "Ulyanovsk" in 1989 was estimated at 750 million rubles, and boats of the project 949А in the same year - at 300 – 320 million rubles. That is, in the USSR, the cost of an atomic aircraft carrier was equal to the 2,4 APRK.
Now an American example. Only need to find the right analogues. The Nimitz is comparable to the Ulyanovsk, the first, however, more in displacement, but the second has more sophisticated electronic and rocket weapons. But to find an analogue of the 885 project or the 949 project is more difficult. “Virginia” is clearly too small and simpler, and it should be compared with the boat of the 971 project, but “Seafulf” is quite comparable in complexity with the boat of the 885 project. So, the construction of the second building of Siefulf (Connecticut) in 1998 cost 2,4 billion dollars, and the cost of construction of Gary Truman (the eighth Nimitz) in the same year amounted to 4,5 billion dollars. It turns out, 1,9 "Sifulfa" is equal to one "Nimitz". And here it should be noted that if Ulyanovsk were designed as a real multi-purpose aircraft carrier, and not as a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser (TAKR), that is, it would not have sophisticated radio-electronic and especially strike missile weapons, then its construction would be cheaper by about 100 million rubles. And the ship project 11437 would cost two APRK. So, the ratio that the two APRKs are equal in value to one nuclear aircraft carrier can be considered proven.
I foresee indignation, they say - the aircraft carrier itself is not a weapon, it needs aircraft and escort ships, and this is the main item of expenditure. But this “anti-avianos” argument is the weakest. Not a single modern ship, nor even a nuclear submarine, can be "one warrior in the field." The Soviet Navy had a submarine orientation, but was forced to develop a surface fleet, and by 1991 it had more than 100 1 and 2 rank ships, which would be more than enough for 15 AUGs. Similarly, present-day Russia has about 30 of such ships, which is enough for 5 AUGs. And that's not counting the construction of corvettes and frigates 12.
And on the deck aircraft will not have to spend extra. Our ship planes are only modernized land. And the fifth-generation T-50, as announced, will be made in both land and deck versions. This means that you just need to redistribute the order for new aircraft to 2020 year. It is necessary to reduce the order for land versions of the MiG-29, Su-35, T-50 and enter the order for the ship. Flight and technical staff can be taken from the Air Force. With such a redistribution of the air defense resource, Russia will not suffer, since, unlike the APRK cruise missiles, the deck aircraft can operate not only from the deck, but also from the airfield. And if needed, decked-wing aircraft will immediately relocate to coastal airfields and, having passed into the command of the Air Force, will turn into front-line aviation.
It follows from the above that, instead of 10 APCS, Russia can build five full-fledged aircraft carriers and form five AUGs from them.
LEG No. 3
So, the second leg - the relative cheapness of the APRK in comparison with the aircraft carrier, we also crushed. But oh, a miracle! The colossus does not fall, why? The fact is that while we were crushing his legs, a third leg was substituted for him, which earlier, for ideological reasons, could not be. And this leg is stronger than the previous ones, because they put it not only the anti-avian lobby, but also the supporters of the aircraft carrier. The bottom line is that Russia has neither a place to build an aircraft carrier, nor the appropriate technologies. And, therefore, the very discussion that it is better to build an APRK or an aircraft carrier loses all meaning. Disassemble this leg.
Where did the opinion come from that we have nowhere to build an aircraft carrier? Find on the Internet the telephone of the receiving director of Baltiysky Zavod and mock him with this statement. Yes, the discharge weight of the Nimitz is too big for the plant, but the body of the aircraft carrier, comparable to the Enterprise, is real. And the plant can lower such cases every 2,5 of the year. Not enough plant capacity for quick completion and construction of the lead aircraft carrier will be delayed? And who prevents to arrange cooperation and transfer the lowered hulls to other plants? The Chinese "Varyag" in tow across the world held, what are we worse? Just to stop the construction of a series of boats of the 855 project, the Sevmash capacity will be released, and then the Baltiysky Zavod will assemble the hulls, and the Sevmash will finish building. So we have a place for construction, there would be a desire.
I foresee, of course, indignation, they say, the frames have been lost - there is no way for Vikramaditya, and nothing good will come of it. And where are we not lost? Epopee with "Bulava" forgotten? And "Kazan", which for more than a year can not pass? And by the way, Kazan, I remind you, Sevmash is building - the main specialist in the construction of nuclear submarines, and still some flour. Why are there new types of weapons, you will remember the Algerian shame with the MiG-29, and with what disgrace the USC, the 1159 project guard, for the same Algeria last year repaired! The list goes on. With us wherever you throw - everywhere a wedge, and now - sit back? Yes, we will build the lead aircraft carrier in the throes of the 10 years, but he is the leader, and there is nothing to fear.
What are the key technologies necessary aircraft carrier, we do not have? It turns out that we have already lagged behind China and India, since they can build aircraft carriers there, but we can’t? But this is obvious nonsense. For the answer, we turn to the leadership. In 2011, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Vladimir Vysotsky, stated that the domestic shipbuilding industry can only offer an outdated version of the 90-s aircraft carrier, while the United States is building a fundamentally new aircraft carrier, Gerald R. Ford. That is, if for India and China an aircraft carrier of the 90-x level is an achievement, then for Russia it is a shame. And what does Russia need? And the answer to this question can be found at the same commander in chief. Russia needs a "multi-media" IAC! What kind of beast? We rummage in the press, turn to the informants. An informant for ARMS-TASS from the military-industrial complex said that the IAC will be atomic in 80 thousand tons with a powerful missile system, a complex of compound control and 80 combat aircraft. I wonder how it all fits on it? The informer from USC explained that the MAC, at the request of the Navy, would not have a powerful missile system, but it would have full electric propulsion, electro-catapult and powerful radar to control near space. There is other information from which it can be concluded that the leadership of the Navy itself does not know what it wants.
But what all sources agree on is that the IAC must surpass "Gerald R. Ford", the Navy does not agree to anything less! Our naval commanders cannot understand that an aircraft carrier is primarily a floating airfield, and secondly, and thirdly, a floating airfield. The modernity of an aircraft carrier is determined only by its ability to ensure the basing of the modern wing. The rejection of the “Nimitz” and the transition to “Gerald R. Ford” is associated only with the introduction of new technologies and, as a result, the cheapening of operation. If we evaluate the capabilities of the basing of aviation, the "Gerald R. Ford" is not much different from the "Nimitz". And since we do not have new technologies yet, the aircraft carrier 90's will fit, the main thing is that T-50 can be based on it, the rest is husk. Why don't our admirals understand this? This requires separate narration.
Ah, if I were a king, well, or at least a president, then instead of a program to build an APRC, I would start building aircraft carriers. I am not against nuclear submarines, but Russia still has 24 multipurpose nuclear submarines (projects: 949, 945, 971), which by the main criterion - stealth - are superior to all the submarines built and planned for construction in France, China and India. Our submarine fleet is second in the world and second only to the US. The construction of 10 "Ash" will not lead us to the first position. But our surface fleet is completely devoid of aircraft carriers, is able to fight only with Somali pirates and is not able to protect our tourists from the next Arab spring. It is necessary to impose a temporary moratorium on the construction of nuclear submarines and to release the released resource on aircraft carriers. These funds will be enough for the construction of four aircraft carriers and the transformation of the Kuznetsov from the TAVKR aircraft carrier.
Only aircraft carriers need to be built without the "excesses" of the TAKR. Catapult must be available. It is necessary to forget about the springboard as a terrible dream. To begin with, let it be steam, then replace it with electromagnetic. Also, complete electric movement is required, which will give an inexhaustible reserve for modernization for the next 50 years. Aircraft carriers will be gas turbine, nuclear or diesel - not fundamental. In the presence of catapults, high speed is not necessary, and you can limit 25 – 27 to knots, as the French and the British did, which will significantly reduce the cost of building and operating an aircraft carrier and allow the use of technologies already mastered in USC in electric propulsion. Five aircraft carriers, these are five AUGs, of which four in a threatening period can be in service. Four AUGs are 250 – 270 multipurpose fighters. This amount is enough to gain air superiority over most countries of the world. Only a limited circle of great countries and Israel can not be afraid of such power.
And to this part of the article there will be critics, and the toughest are skeptics. "What 10" Ash ", what a defense order for 2020 year, all stolen, so that neither 10 APRK, nor the five aircraft carriers of Russia can not be seen as their ears." I will tell them this: before starting to redraw the defense order, I will appoint a special person to the position of chairman of the Accounts Chamber. Now believe that everything will work out?