Military Review

Leap into the future

58
Leap into the future



After the publication in September 2013 of the report of the US Audit Chamber on the state of the construction program for the new generation of the leading aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), a number of articles appeared in the foreign and domestic press in which the construction of the aircraft carrier was considered in a very negative light. Some of these articles exaggerated the significance of real problems with the construction of the ship and presented information rather one-sidedly. Let's try to figure out what the state of the construction program for the latest American aircraft carrier is in. fleet and what are her prospects.

LONG AND DEAR WAY TO THE NEW ARRAY MASTER

The construction contract for Gerald R. Ford was signed on 10 on September 2008 of the year. The ship was laid on 13 in November 2009, at the Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) shipyard of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), the only American shipyard on which atomic aircraft carriers are built. The ceremony of the aircraft carrier's baptism took place on November 9 of 2013.

At the conclusion of the contract in 2008, the cost of construction of the Gerald R. Ford was estimated at 10,5 billion dollars, but then it grew by about 22% and today is 12,8 billion dollars, including 3,3 billion dollars of one-time costs for designing the entire aircraft carrier series new generation. This amount does not include the cost of R & D to build a new generation aircraft carrier, for which, according to the budget of the Congress, 4,7 billion dollars were spent.

In 2001 – 2007 fiscal years, 3,7 billion dollars were allocated to create the backlog, 2008 billion dollars were allocated in 2011 – 7,8 fiscal years, 2014 should be additionally allocated in 2015 – 1,3 fiscal years billion dollars

During the construction of Gerald R. Ford, certain delays also arose - it was originally planned to transfer the ship to the fleet in September of 2015. One of the reasons for the delays was the inability of subcontractors to supply in full and on time the valves for the chilled water supply system specially designed for the aircraft carrier. Another reason was the use of thinner steel sheets in the manufacture of ship decks to reduce weight and increase the aircraft carrier’s metacentric height, which is necessary to increase the ship’s modernization potential and to install additional equipment in the future. The result of this was the frequent cases of deformation of steel sheets in the finished sections, which resulted in long and costly work to eliminate the deformation.

To date, the transfer of the aircraft carrier to the fleet is scheduled for February 2016 of the year. After that, for approximately 10 months, state tests of the integration of the main systems of the ship will be carried out, followed by final state tests, the duration of which will be about 32 months. From August 2016 to February 2017, additional systems will be installed on the aircraft carrier and changes will be made to those already installed. The ship’s initial combat readiness should reach the 2017 of the year in July, and its full combat readiness in February of the 2019. Such a long period between the transfer of the ship to the fleet and the achievement of combat readiness, according to the head of the US Navy's aircraft-carrier programs department, Rear Admiral Thomas Moore, is natural for the lead ship of a new generation, especially as complex as an atomic carrier.

The rising cost of building an aircraft carrier was one of the key reasons for sharp criticism of the program from the Congress, its various services and the press. The cost of R & D and the construction of the ship, which are now estimated at 17,5 billion dollars, seem astronomical. At the same time, I would like to note a number of factors that should be taken into account.

First, the construction of new generation ships, both in the United States and in other countries, is almost always associated with a sharp increase in the cost and timing of the program. Examples of such programs include the construction of San-Antonio-type amphibious assault ships, coastal warships such as LCS and destroyers like Zumwalt in the USA, destroyers like Daring and nuclear submarines of the type Astute in the UK, frigates of the 22350 project and non-nuclear submarines project 677 in Russia.

Secondly, thanks to the introduction of new technologies, which will be discussed below, the Navy expects to reduce the cost of the ship’s full life cycle (life cycle) compared to Nimitz aircraft carriers by about 16% - from 32 billion dollars to 27 billion (in 2004 prices of the year). With the lifespan of a ship in 50 years, the costs of a new generation aircraft carrier program stretched by about a decade and a half do not look so astronomical.

Third, almost half of 17,5 billions of dollars are spent on research and development and one-time design costs, which means significantly less (in constant prices) the cost of mass-produced aircraft carriers. Some of the technologies introduced at Gerald R. Ford, in particular, the new generation of arresting gear, may be introduced in the future on some Nimitz-type aircraft carriers as they are upgraded. It is assumed that the construction of serial aircraft carriers will also be able to avoid many of the problems encountered during the construction of Gerald R. Ford, including disruptions in the work of subcontractors and the NNS shipyard itself, which also has a positive impact on the timing and cost of construction. Finally, 17,5 billion dollars stretched over a decade and a half make up less than 3% of the total US military spending in the budget for the 2014 fiscal year.

WITH A VISION TO THE PERSPECTIVE

For about 40 years, nuclear aircraft carriers of the United States were built on one project (USS Nimitz was laid in 1968, its last sistership USS George HW Bush was transferred to the fleet in 2009). Naturally, changes were made to the project of aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type, but the project did not undergo drastic changes, which raised the question of creating an aircraft carrier of a new generation and introducing a significant number of new technologies necessary for the effective operation of the US Navy aircraft carrier component in the 21st century.

External differences Gerald R. Ford from their predecessors at first glance do not seem significant. A smaller but larger “island” is shifted more than 40 meters closer to the stern and a little closer to the starboard. The ship is equipped with three aircraft lifts instead of four on aircraft carriers such as Nimitz. The flight deck area is increased by 4,4%. The layout of the flight deck involves the optimization of the movement of ammunition, aircraft and cargo, as well as the simplification of inter-flight maintenance of aircraft, which will be carried out directly on the flight deck.

The aircraft carrier project Gerald R. Ford involves the introduction of 13 new critical technologies. Initially, it was supposed to gradually introduce new technologies during the construction of the last aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type and the first two aircraft carriers of the new generation, but in 2002, it was decided to introduce all key technologies during the construction of Gerald R. Ford. This decision was one of the reasons for the complexity and significant increase in the cost of building a ship. The reluctance to postpone the implementation of the Gerald R. Ford construction program has led the NNS to begin building the ship without a final project.

The technologies introduced at Gerald R. Ford should achieve two key objectives: to increase the efficiency of deck applications. aviation and, as mentioned above, reducing the cost of PZhZ. It is planned to increase the number of sorties per day by 25% compared with aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type (from 120 to 160 with a 12-hour flight day). For a short time with Gerald R. Ford, it is planned to provide up to 270 sorties with a 24-hour flight day. For comparison, in 1997, during the JTFEX 97-2 exercises, the Nimitz aircraft carrier managed to carry out 771 strike flights under the most favorable conditions within four days (about 193 sorties per day).

New technologies should make it possible to reduce the crew size of the ship from approximately 3300 to 2500 people, and the size of the wing will be approximately from 2300 to 1800 people. The value of this factor is difficult to overestimate, given that the costs associated with the crew, are about 40% of the cost of life cycle aircraft carrier type Nimitz. The duration of the operational cycle of an aircraft carrier, including a planned average or current repair and overhaul period, is planned to increase from 32 to 43 months. Dock repair is planned to be carried out once every 12 years, and not 8 years, as on aircraft carriers like the Nimitz.

Much of the criticism that the Gerald R. Ford program was subjected to in the September report of the Chamber of Accounts is related to the technical readiness level (UTG) of the ship’s critical technologies, namely, their achievement of the UTG 6 (readiness for testing under the required conditions) and the UTG 7 (readiness to mass production and regular operation), and then the UTG 8 – 9 (confirmation of the possibility of regular operation of serial samples in necessary and real conditions, respectively). The development of a number of critical technologies has experienced significant delays. Not wanting to postpone the construction and transfer of the ship to the fleet, the Navy decided to start mass production and installation of critical systems parallel to the ongoing tests until the UTG 7 was reached. As is rightly noted in the report of the Accounts Chamber, if any significant problems and shortcomings in the operation of the key systems of the ship are identified in the future, this can lead to long-lasting and costly changes, as well as a decrease in the combat potential of the ship.

The Director of Operations Evaluation and Testing (DOT & E) 2013 Annual Report was recently released, which also criticizes the Gerald R. Ford program. The criticism of the program builds on the October 2013 evaluation.

The report points to "low or unrecognized" reliability and availability of a number of Gerald R. Ford's critical technologies, including catapults, aerofinishers, multifunctional radar and aircraft munition lifts, which could negatively impact sortie rates and require additional redesign. According to DOT & E, the declared rate of flight intensity (160 per day under normal conditions and 270 for a short time) is based on overly optimistic conditions (unlimited visibility, good weather, no malfunctions in ship systems, etc.) and is unlikely to be achieved. Nevertheless, it will be possible to assess this only during the operational assessment and testing of the ship before it reaches its initial combat readiness.

The DOT & E report notes that the current timing of the Gerald R. Ford program does not suggest enough time for development testing and troubleshooting. The riskiness of carrying out a number of development tests after the start of the operational assessment and testing is emphasized.

The DOT & E report also notes the inability of Gerald R. Ford to support data transmission over multiple CDL channels, which may limit the ability of an aircraft carrier to interact with other forces and means, a high risk that the ship's self-defense systems will not meet existing requirements, and insufficient time for crew training ... All this could, according to DOT & E, jeopardize the successful conduct of operational assessment and testing and the achievement of initial combat readiness.

Rear Admiral Thomas Moore and other representatives of the Navy and NNS spoke out in defense of the program and expressed their confidence that all existing problems will be resolved within the two years remaining before the aircraft carrier is handed over to the fleet. Navy officials also challenged a number of other findings of the report, including the "overly optimistic" reported sortie rate. It should be noted that the presence of critical remarks in the DOT & E report is natural, given the specifics of the work of this department (as well as the Accounts Chamber), as well as the inevitable difficulties in the implementation of such a complex program as the construction of a new generation lead aircraft carrier. Little of the US military program is criticized in DOT & E reports.

RADAR STATIONS

Two of the 13 key stations being implemented at Gerald R. Ford are combined DBR radar, including the X-band AN / SPY-3 MFR X-band active phased array radar from AFthe S-band AFAR / SPY-4 VSR manufactured by Lockheed Martin. The DBR radar program began in the 1999 year, when the Navy signed a contract with Raytheon for OCR to develop the MFR radar. Install a DBR radar on the Gerald R. Ford is scheduled for 2015 year.

To date, the MFR radar is on the UTG 7. The radar completed ground tests in the 2005 year and tests on the remote-controlled SDTS test ship in the 2006 year. In the 2010 year, ground-based integration tests of the MFR prototype and VSR were completed. MFR tests at Gerald R. Ford are scheduled for 2014 year. Also, this radar will be installed on destroyers such as Zumwalt.

The situation with the VSR radar is somewhat worse: today, this radar is located on the UTG 6. It was originally planned to install a VSR radar as part of a DBR radar on Zumwalt-type destroyers. The ground-based prototype installed at 2006 in the Wallops Island test center was supposed to be ready for mass production in the 2009 year, and the radar on the destroyer was supposed to complete basic tests in the 2014 year. But the cost of development and creation of VSR increased from 202 million dollars to 484 million (+ 140%), and in the 2010 year, the installation of this radar on destroyers such as Zumwalt was refused for reasons of cost savings. This led to almost a five-year delay in the testing and refinement of the radar. The end of ground-based testing of the prototype is scheduled for 2014 year, tests for Gerald R. Ford - in 2016-m, the achievement of the UTG 7 - in 2017 year.


Weapons engineers hang the AIM-120 UR on an F / A-18E Super Hornet fighter.


ELECTROMAGNETIC CATAPULTS AND AIR FINISHERS

Equally important technologies at Gerald R. Ford are EMALS electromagnetic catapults and modern AAG cable airfinders. These two technologies play a key role in increasing the number of sorties per day, and also contribute to a reduction in crew size. Unlike existing systems, the power of EMALS and AAG can be precisely controlled depending on the mass of the aircraft (LA), which allows launching both light UAVs and heavy aircraft. Due to this, AAG and EMALS significantly reduce the load on the airframe of the aircraft, which contributes to an increase in the service life and lower the operating cost of the aircraft. In comparison with steam electromagnetic catapults, it is much lighter, occupies less volume, has greater efficiency, contributes to a significant reduction in corrosion, and requires less labor for maintenance.

EMALS and AAG are installed at Gerald R. Ford in parallel with the continuation of tests at the United Base McGwire Dix Lakehurst in New Jersey. AAG refiners and EMALS electromagnetic catapults are currently on the 6 ATG. The achievement of EMALS and AAGUTG 7 is planned after the termination of ground tests in 2014 and 2015 respectively, although it was originally planned to achieve this level in 2011 and 2012 respectively. The cost of developing and building AAG increased from 75 million to 168 million (+ 125%), and EMALS from 318 million to 743 million (+ 134%).

In June 2014, the AAG must pass the test with the landing of the aircraft at Gerald R. Ford. By the 2015 year, it is planned to land about 600 aircraft.

The first aircraft from the EMALS simplified ground prototype was launched on December 18 2010. They became the F / A-18E Super Hornet from the 23 th test and evaluation squadron. The first phase of the EMALS ground prototype test ended in the fall of the 2011 of the year and included the 133 take-off. In addition to the F / A-18E with the EMALS, the T-45C Goshawk training aircraft, the C-2A Greyhound transport aircraft and the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye long-range radar detection and control aircraft took off. November 18 2011 of the year with EMALS for the first time took off a promising fifth-generation fighter-bomber of the fifth generation F-35C LightingII. 25 June 2013 of the Year with EMALS for the first time took off the EW EA-18G Growler aircraft, marking the beginning of the second test phase, which should include about 300 take-offs.

The desired average for EMALS is about 1250 aircraft launches between critical failures. Now this figure is about 240 launches. The situation with the AAG, according to DOT & E, is even worse: with the desired average of about 5000 aircraft landings between critical failures, the current figure is only 20 landings. The question remains open as to whether the Navy and industry will be able to address the reliability issues of the AAG and EMALS in a timely manner. The position of the Navy and industry themselves, in contrast to the GAO and DOT & E, is very optimistic on this issue.

For example, steam catapults of the C-13 model (0, 1 and 2 series), despite their inherent drawbacks compared with electromagnetic catapults, demonstrated a high degree of reliability. So, in 1990-s on 800, thousands of aircraft launches from the decks of American aircraft carriers had only 30 serious problems, and only one of them led to the loss of the aircraft. In February – June 2011, the aircraft wing of the aircraft carrier Enterprise performed about 3000 combat missions as part of the operation in Afghanistan. The share of successful launches with steam catapults was about 99%, and of the 112 days of flight operations, only 18 days (16%) were spent on maintenance of the catapults.

OTHER CRITICAL IMPORTANT TECHNOLOGIES

The heart of Gerald R. Ford is a nuclear power plant (NPP) with two A1B reactors manufactured by Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corporation (UTG 8). Electricity production will increase 3,5 times compared to NI NI aircraft carriers (with two A4W reactors), which allows replacing hydraulic systems with electric ones and installing systems such as EMALS, AAG, and advanced high-energy weapon systems of directional action. The electric power system Gerald R. Ford differs from its counterparts on ships like the Nimitz by its compactness, lower labor costs in operation, which leads to a decrease in the number of crew and the cost of life-saving personnel of the ship. Gerald R. Ford is expected to achieve an 2014 of the year in December. No complaints about the operation of the ship’s nuclear power unit have been identified. The UTG 7 was made back in the 2004 year.

Other critical technologies of Gerald R. Ford include elevators for the transport of aviation ammunition AWE - UTG 6 (UTG 7 is to be achieved in 2014; the ship is planned to install 11 elevators instead of 9 on aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type; the use of linear electric motors instead of cables has increased the load from 5 to 11 tons and increase the survivability of the ship by installing horizontal gates in armory cellars), compatible with the MFR radar control protocol for the ESSMJUWL air defense system - UTG 6 (UTG 7 is planned to be achieved in 2014), an all-weather landing system using the GPS JPALS satellite global positioning system - UTG 6 (UTG 7 should be achieved in the near future), plasma -arc furnace for waste processing PAWDS and station for receiving cargo on the move HURRS - UTG 7, reverse osmosis desalination plant (+ 25% capacity compared to existing systems) and high-strength low-alloy steel HSLA 115 - UTG 8 used in the ship's flight deck, used in bulkheads and decks high-strength low-alloy steel HSLA 65 - UTG 9.

MAIN CALIBER

The success of the Gerald R. Ford program depends to a great extent on the success of the implementation of the wing-wing aircraft wing modernization program. In the short term (until the middle of the 2030-s), seeming changes in this area at first glance will boil down to replacing the “classic” Hornet F / A-18C / D with F-35C and the emergence of a heavy deck UAV, currently being developed under the UCLASS program . These two priority programs will give the US Navy what they lack today: an increase in combat radius and stealth. The F-35C fighter-bomber, which plans to purchase both the fleet and the Marine Corps, will perform primarily the tasks of the “first day of war” strike stealth aircraft. The UCLASS UAV, which is likely to be built with a wider, albeit smaller than F-35C, use of stealth technology, will become a strike and reconnaissance platform capable of being in the air for a very long time in the area of ​​combat operations.

Achieving initial combat readiness for the F-35C in the US Navy is planned according to current plans in August 2018 of the year, that is, later than in other combat arms. This is due to the more serious requirements of the Navy — they recognize the F-35C in the fleet only after the readiness of the Block 3F version, which provides support for a wider range of weapons compared to the earlier versions, which the Air Force and the International Maritime Commission will arrange for the first time. Also, the avionics will be more fully disclosed, in particular, the radar station will be able to fully operate in the synthetic aperture mode, which is necessary, for example, to search for and destroy small ground targets in adverse weather conditions. F-35C should become not only the “first day” strike aircraft, but also the “eyes and ears of the fleet” —in the conditions of the widespread use of such anti-access / area denial means A2 / AD, as modern air defense missile systems will be able to delve into the airspace controlled by the enemy.

The result of the UCLASS program should be the creation of a heavy UAV by the end of the decade, capable of long flights, primarily for reconnaissance purposes. In addition, they want to entrust it with the tasks of striking ground targets, a tanker, and possibly even a medium-range carrier-to-air missile carrier, capable of hitting air targets with external target designation.

UCLASS is for the Navy and the experiment, only having gained experience in operating such a complex, they will be able to correctly develop the requirements for replacing their main fighter, the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet. The fighter of the sixth generation will be at least optionally manned, and possibly completely unmanned.

Also in the near future there will be a replacement of carrier-based aircraft E-2C Hawkeye to the machines of the new modification - E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. The E-2D will be distinguished by more efficient engines, a new radar and significantly greater capabilities for acting as an air command post and a node of the network-centric battlefield due to new operator workstations and support for modern and future data transmission channels.

The Navy plans to link the F-35C, UCLASS and other fleet forces into a single information network with the possibility of rapid multilateral data transfer. The concept was called Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA). The main efforts for its successful implementation are not focused on the development of new aircraft or types of weapons, but on new highly secure over-the-horizon data transmission channels with high performance. In the future, the Air Force will probably also be included in the NIFC-CA within the framework of the concept of “Air-Sea Operation” On the way to the NIFC-CA Navy to solve a wide range of complex technological problems.

Obviously, the construction of ships of the new generation requires considerable time and resources, and the development and introduction of new critical technologies is always associated with significant risks. The experience of the implementation of the new generation aircraft carrier program by the Americans should serve as a source of experience for the Russian fleet. It is necessary to study as fully as possible the risks that the US Navy faced during the construction of Gerald R. Ford, wishing to concentrate the maximum number of new technologies on one ship. It seems more reasonable to gradually introduce new technologies during construction, to achieve a high UTG before installing systems directly on the ship. But here, too, it is necessary to take into account risks, namely, the need to minimize changes to the project during the construction of ships and ensure sufficient modernization potential for the introduction of new technologies.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2014-02-28/1_future.html
58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. StolzSS
    StolzSS 1 March 2014 10: 04
    +9
    Children build bitch however (((It is necessary to send hunchback and Serdyukov to them on a business trip in order to rebuild and reform)))
  2. poccinin
    poccinin 1 March 2014 10: 11
    +7
    EVERYTHING ARE PLANTERS ARE BUILDING! - CHINA.INDIA. ENGLAND.USA and in RUSSIA think why they are needed?
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 1 March 2014 17: 10
      +2
      Quote: poccinin
      Build ALL CARRIERS!


      Nearly! No.

      Quote: poccinin
      CHINA.INDIA. ENGLAND.USA


      China and India, yes, but Britain is no longer. The USA is building, because economic potential allows them.

      Quote: poccinin
      in RUSSIA think why they are needed?


      Not informed You - dear ... hi Under the weapons program, the OKK is developing light, medium, and heavy aircraft carriers.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 1 March 2014 18: 05
      +12
      Quote: poccinin
      but in RUSSIA they think why they are needed?

      The naval leadership knows exactly why aircraft carriers are needed. But "the eye sees, but the tooth does not." Well, we cannot afford such a luxury, when the rest of the fleet (surface ships of the main classes) is practically gone, so we have to build priorities based on the tasks of strategic stability: first the missile forces, ICBMs, and yes, and only then the general-purpose forces. For the fleet, these are, first of all, multipurpose nuclear submarines with CD on board. Unfortunately, the aircraft carrier is a beautiful dream, quite feasible, but not today. Yes, and such AVUs as J. Ford are too tough for our industry. Therefore, you need to look at France and her unsuccessful experience with De Golem, England with her Elizabeth and make your own, corresponding to the tasks of our fleet.
      1. Zhenya1991
        Zhenya1991 12 October 2014 17: 06
        0
        Aha only in the picture except that I give it a tooth and in 10 years it will not enter service. Yes, and to be honest, Kuznetsov out of 60 fighter aircraft decked only 12 roofing felts 14 aircraft.
    3. Sour
      Sour 2 March 2014 19: 50
      +1
      Quote: poccinin
      Build ALL CARRIERS!

      And build, and break.
      Over the past 20 years, the number of aircraft carriers in the United States has decreased from 14 to 10.
      Quote: poccinin
      ENGLAND.

      As far as I know, no.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 3 March 2014 01: 07
        +2
        Quote: Sour
        ENGLAND. As far as I know, no.

        "The Queen Elizabeth Class (CVA-01) aircraft carriers are a British heavy strike aircraft carrier project of the mid-1960s. Discontinued in February 1966 prior to construction of the lead ship. All British aircraft carriers built since then are belong to the class of light aircraft carriers (aircraft carriers of the type "Invincible"). Currently (July 2010) under construction is the aircraft carrier of the same name with similar characteristics, which allows us to speak about the return of the British Navy to the construction of large aircraft carriers ".http: //ru.wikipedia .org / wiki /
        "In October 2010, the UK National Defense and Security Strategy was published according to which Queen Elizabeth will be commissioned in 2016 for three years and will be used as a helicopter carrier. After this period, the ship will be mothballed or sold, as it was designed for the operation of the F-35B VTOL aircraft, which the UK refused to purchase in October 2010 in favor of the F-35C modification. The second aircraft carrier, Prince of Wales, equipped with a catapult for launching F-35C aircraft, will enter service in 2018 and two years, until the UK receives fighters in 2020, it will not have its own air group and will accept aircraft from the American and French navies.
        At present, in connection with the decision of Great Britain to buy F-35B aircraft, the previously stated plans to sell Queen Elizabeth have lost their relevance and both ships will be commissioned as aircraft carriers with springboards. "
  3. Wiruz
    Wiruz 1 March 2014 10: 36
    +11
    It is worth recognizing that what you can’t argue with the Americans is in the experience of building aircraft carriers. We (Russia) still have to grow and grow in this regard. Sadness recourse
    1. avg
      avg 1 March 2014 16: 02
      +4
      Quote: Wiruz
      It is worth recognizing that what you can’t argue with the Americans is in the experience of building aircraft carriers. We (Russia) still have to grow and grow in this regard. Sadness

      Everything has its own order. Now, first of all, we need to deal with the unsinkable aircraft carrier "Crimea". Perhaps with an eye on the Nikolaev shipyards. And also, the accelerated implementation of the adopted rearmament program. So, there is no time to be especially sad. yes
    2. shuhartred
      shuhartred 1 March 2014 16: 20
      +6
      Quote: Wiruz
      It is worth recognizing that what you can’t argue with the Americans is in the experience of building aircraft carriers. We (Russia) still have to grow and grow in this regard. Sadness recourse

      Calmly. Russia understands that getting involved in an aircraft carrier race is extremely unprofitable. Therefore, all efforts have been devoted to creating weapons against the AUG, cheap and effective, which will negate all the advantages of aircraft carriers. As in due time they (aircraft carriers) arrived with battleships and they left the stage.
      1. supertiger21
        supertiger21 1 March 2014 17: 13
        +1
        Quote: shuhartred
        weapons against the AUG, cheap and effective, which will negate all the advantages of aircraft carriers


        It can help, but it will not be absolutely so. It is impossible to guarantee anything ... stop
    3. denort
      denort 2 March 2014 02: 09
      +1
      aircraft carrier - weapon of attack. America has such a strategy - to wage war around the world, and this is what is needed. and Russia has no desire to conquer countries - that’s why they are building all types of air defense systems, nuclear submarines, etc. There was already an article on VO about the asymmetric response of America from Russia.
      1. kplayer
        kplayer 6 March 2014 16: 22
        0
        Quote: denort
        aircraft carrier - weapon of attack. America has such a strategy - to wage war around the world, and this is what is needed. and Russia has no desire to conquer countries - that’s why they are building all types of air defense systems, nuclear submarines, etc. There was already an article on VO about the asymmetric response of America from Russia.

        Aircraft carrier is a means of gaining superiority in air over the sea (oceans). Just as the ground forces need support and cover for the Air Force aviation, the fleet also needs naval (base and carrier-based) aviation. In other words, aviation is the guarantee of success in military operations, both over land and over the sea.
        The fact that we are observing the use of carrier-based carrier-based aircraft in local conflicts (in fact, there is no operational need) is a more common exception than the desire to keep aircraft carriers, crews and flight crews in combat readiness. It is better to use them than to keep on the balance sheet (5 permanent operational formations (fleets) and the ship's staff, taking into account rotation).
        For geographical reasons, US aircraft carriers are more necessary in the event of a war with China (aircraft in peacetime - 2,3 million people) than with Russia. So in the Atlantic zone, with the abundance of NATO land bases, they are not needed at all (they never went to the Baltic and Black Sea), and our D. East is not very populated in the Asia-Pacific region, it is not so full of potential targets and objects, here they have enough air bases in Japan, South Korea, Alaska and the Aleutian Islands.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. siberalt
      siberalt 2 March 2014 22: 04
      +1
      What is sadness about? Estimate the distance from Klingrad to Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands. And what can we overcome on our aircraft carriers? Or pin dosovsie aircraft carriers, in principle, unsinkable?
      1. inkass_98
        inkass_98 3 March 2014 07: 23
        0
        No, no need to overcome. It is necessary in the future to have AUG on each strategic direction. In the Baltic, for example, it is hardly needed. The Mediterranean, Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans are the main areas of their application, which, in fact, are shown to us by the "lords of the seas next".
        Quote: denort
        aircraft carrier - weapon of attack.

        Again, I do not quite agree. Our pre-Avian carriers of the Soviet period were not a means of attack (although they didn’t have such an opportunity), but they quite seriously demonstrated the flag of the Soviet Navy in all the waters of the World Ocean.
  4. _Voislav_
    _Voislav_ 1 March 2014 10: 47
    +2
    Let them build, the hike of one aircraft carrier is good for American taxpayers at a cost
  5. gerafak
    gerafak 1 March 2014 11: 26
    0
    We spent money on the Olympics, the Americans on an aircraft carrier. Such priorities.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 1 March 2014 11: 54
      -1
      Quote: gerafak
      We spent money on the Olympics, the Americans on an aircraft carrier. Such priorities.

      C'mon, what is 50 billion green for the Olympics versus 17,5 billion for some sort of aircraft carrier? In the end, after 50 years, everything will fall into place and the carrier will be more expensive for which they will annually throw out money for operation, and Olympic facilities will be abandoned and there will be no need to spend money on them.
      1. Fiero
        Fiero 1 March 2014 12: 20
        +5
        Are sports facilities worth $ 40-50 billion? The Juventus stadium, worth 42 thousand, was worth 120 million euros.
        Almost all olympiad money is invested in infrastructure.
        This is still "cheap", and then several km of Moscow Ring Road Recently were "built" not much cheaper than NINE Arly Burkov ...
      2. supertiger21
        supertiger21 1 March 2014 17: 22
        +4
        Quote: Nayhas
        C'mon, what is 50 billion green for the Olympics versus 17,5 billion for some sort of aircraft carrier? In the end, after 50 years, everything will fall into place and the carrier will be more expensive for which they will annually throw out money for operation, and Olympic facilities will be abandoned and there will be no need to spend money on them.


        Just don’t dare stop to spoil the cultural dignity of the country. The Olympics is a kind of symbol that makes it clear to our people that there is much to strive for. Not everything is lost, not everything has been "sold and plundered" Gorbachev and Yeltsin. We are going up, and so far only in some directions, but things are not done quickly and this takes many, many years. But it is difficult for such "all-fangers" like Nayhas to understand ... unfortunately crying
        1. wadim13
          wadim13 2 March 2014 21: 04
          -2
          Well, where did our people rush after the Olympics 80?
      3. Witold
        Witold 5 March 2014 21: 07
        0
        The amount of the annual content of the Olympic complex of $ 4 billion was published.
      4. Witold
        Witold 5 March 2014 21: 07
        0
        The amount of the annual content of the Olympic complex of $ 4 billion was published.
    2. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 1 March 2014 13: 03
      +12
      Now the main struggle is not at sea, but in the minds of people. Moreover, the most important thing is to win first in the minds of your people and, secondly, to influence foreign citizens. The Olympics in this sense has done more than ever any aircraft carrier.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. siberalt
      siberalt 2 March 2014 22: 08
      +4
      The aircraft carrier does not fit in with the economy. Swims, but rusts. And Sochi will remain the people.
  6. gerafak
    gerafak 1 March 2014 12: 15
    +10
    For me, it would be better to spend money on sports all over the world than on aircraft carriers - and the return is greater on Earth as well. The same American state does not find money for free medicine, and the defense budget is growing again.
    PS And Olympic facilities, I hope they will not abandon ...
    1. Fiero
      Fiero 1 March 2014 12: 40
      +1
      And who will play at Fishte in Sochi? There are no football teams there, yes, and even if there were still absolutely no one to go ... A stadium is the best in Russia (so far).
    2. itkul
      itkul 1 March 2014 13: 52
      +4
      Quote: gerafak
      The same American state does not find money for free medicine


      Who deceived you so hard

      http://garyh-jet.livejournal.com/49439.html

      Medicaid is a joint program between the federal and state governments that pays for a wide range of health services for people with low incomes and limited resources.

      Medicaid should not be confused with Medicare.

      The Medicaid program is not available to everyone; it requires an application. To receive this assistance, you must meet certain income, resource, and other requirements. In most states, Medicaid is the main source of payment for long-term care.

      In New York State, Medicaid pays for the following services:

      Hospitalization, outpatient and hospital emergency services
      Diagnostic and preventive services
      Prescription Drugs, Dentures and Hearing Aids
      Dental services and prosthetics
      Optometrist and glasses
      Physiotherapy and rehabilitation services
      Speech therapist, services for the deaf and occupational therapy
      Boarding schools with medical services, private care on duty, personal care services
      Curation, Psychiatric, and Hospice Care
      Durable medical equipment and vehicles

      Who is eligible for the Medicaid program?

      Recipients of Supplemental Poverty Allowance (SSI) are automatically eligible for Medicaid. A separate application for Medicaid is not required.
      Recipients of the Public Assistance program are no longer automatically eligible for Medicaid. The job center must be notified that the person is applying for Medicaid. The Employment Center considers both applications.
      Persons 65 years of age or older or disabled and blind with a certificate having a monthly income of no higher than a certain level.
      Low Income Families (LIF).
      Children under the age of 21 living in a family and without support, i.e., who have no parent, a disabled parent, an unemployed or part-time parent; or a pregnant woman who has no other children and does not fall under the "LIF" category.
      ADC-U. In need of appropriate medical attention. A complete family (with both parents) with children under the age of 21, regardless of how many hours the main breadwinner of the family worked.
      S / CC. Single / childless couples. Non-federal category, including single or married adults aged 21 to 64 years who are not blind, disabled, pregnant, have no children under the age of 21 years.
    3. Revolver
      Revolver 2 March 2014 07: 40
      +1
      Quote: gerafak
      The same American state does not find money for free medicine

      Free nothing, including medicine, does not happen. There is a medicine program for the poor [Medicaid], but tax payers pay for it. And in general, free cheese only happens in a mousetrap.
    4. bvi1965
      bvi1965 3 March 2014 16: 53
      0
      I agree, but a pocket with defense money cannot be kept empty either.
  7. kplayer
    kplayer 1 March 2014 12: 47
    +2
    Quote: _Voislav_
    Let them build, the hike of one aircraft carrier is good for American taxpayers at a cost

    And the trip of our only, non-nuclear, with a steam-powered power plant and only with 14 deck Su-33 (excluding turntables), or a circumnavigation, for example?

    Quote: gerafak
    PS And Olympic facilities, I hope they will not abandon ...

    No! perhaps they have already been divided among their bureaucrats by their private possessions.
  8. MolGro
    MolGro 1 March 2014 14: 35
    -6
    We did not have time to build, but it is already falling apart)
    We have no experience in the construction of aircraft carriers, we do not need them in FIG!
    We will build aircraft-carrying cruisers, so at least plans for the Russian Navy.
  9. Bosk
    Bosk 1 March 2014 15: 52
    -5
    Then I thought ... in the event of a grandiose conflict, will these giant aircraft carriers not suffer the fate of battleships? Well, do not drive the "Papuans" and demonstrate their strength, but I think they will be "merged" in the first days. and each "sink" wakes up akin to a catastrophe on a national scale, can you concentrate forces on an average displacement?
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 1 March 2014 18: 45
      +4
      Quote: Bosk
      in the event of a major conflict, will these giant aircraft carriers not befall the fate of battleships?

      The American naval doctrine considers the AVU as the basis of the surface fleet and the reserve of aircraft in the atomic war. Naturally, they will be protected, masked, protected during the maintenance of the database.
      To destroy them, the Chinese have invented the DF-21 BKR (anti-ship BR "Dongfeng-21D"), we rely on a submarine with a space control center from "Liana". But, I believe that the maneuvering BB of our promising ICBMs and SLBMs will be able to defeat such sea targets as AVU.
      But in a normal war, AVUs are necessary to bring combat stability to the NK groups and our submarines. It was not without reason that the former Navy Group of Companies noted that without air cover our rcSNs would cease to exist on the 2 day.
  10. kplayer
    kplayer 1 March 2014 16: 54
    +1
    Quote: MolGro
    ... We have no experience in the construction of aircraft carriers, we do not need them in FIG!
    We will build aircraft carriers cruisers ...

    Nonsense !: "Aircraft carriers are not needed, but aircraft-carrying cruisers are needed" - ORIGINAL! Is the difference big? Or are there only aircraft carriers similar to the American ones?
    1. Bosk
      Bosk 1 March 2014 18: 04
      0
      The difference is that going out to sea during the hostilities of such an aircraft carrier wakes up akin to the exit of the Bismarck during WWII, and the loss of a couple of such ships wakes up almost equal to defeat at sea, so the thought appeared ... it might be better to build a couple of three medium than one so big ...
    2. MolGro
      MolGro 2 March 2014 08: 06
      -2
      very large) the aircraft carrier is not able to protect itself! and the aircraft carrier cruiser is capable!
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 2 March 2014 13: 23
        +4
        Quote: MolGro
        an aircraft carrier is not able to protect itself! and an aircraft carrier cruiser is capable!

        "Let's agree: flies - separately, cutlets - separately!" (C)
        A couple of remarks. Neither an aircraft carrier (AVU) nor an aircraft-carrying cruiser (TAKR) go to sea alone, even in peacetime, and even in BP training grounds. American AVUs, changing in the Middle Sea, even go with the escort ship. These ships (at least) during AB flights go in the wake of the aircraft carrier at a certain distance, visually indicating "near (?) Drive to the carrier ship". Without this reference point, it is psychologically difficult for a pilot. Although modern systems can automatically bring the aircraft to the landing glide path and land the aircraft. At the coastal airfield - for sure, there is no need to cling to the aerofinisher cable.
        Therefore, such ships enter the sea as part of the TG, together with security ships, which, depending on the main threat, line up in the corresponding order (PLO, air defense, FFP).


        The aircraft carrier, as the basis of the AUG, is guarded by all the ships and submarines of this compound, and the aircraft cover with the AVU carries out the air cover of the entire group. The depth of such a defense reaches 500 and more than km. The aircraft carrier itself is capable of engaging in a battle with the enemy’s OPK at a distance of up to 1250 km. Directories give 750-800 km, but this is outdated data. Therefore, the protection function of the AVU is performed by the ships of its warrant and aircraft. Yes, the carrier does not have anti-ship missiles, but this does not mean that the F-18C / D is not capable of carrying anti-ship missiles. And then it turns out (800 + 280 or 600 = 1080 or 1400km) - AVU hand.


        Our aircraft carrier can "puzzle" the enemy with 12 PKRP "Granit-NK" with D = 700-800 km (along the V-14 pipeline). Again, "SU-33" with "Onyx" or "Mosquito" will add another 240-300 km to their combat radius. Things are good. Only our planes are 2 times less than on AVU.
        Therefore, the assertion that the AVU cannot, and TAKR can protect itself, is at least incorrect.
        1. Saburov
          Saburov 3 March 2014 03: 37
          +2
          Supporters of aircraft carriers usually cite the devastating results of attacks by an almost complete nuclear group of an atomic aircraft carrier on the maximum combat radius (48 rocket launchers * 4 anti-ship missiles "Harpoon" on each = 192 anti-ship missiles that unexpectedly hit the enemy warrant at 1000 km from the American aircraft carrier). This, of course, is beautiful, but ... The same "Hornet" without refueling is able to stay in the air for about 3 hours (although this time can be increased and decreased - the presence and capacity of the PTB, the weight of the combat load, flight profile, etc. are of great importance). But if, for example, it took 2 hours to lift the entire Nimitz air group, this would mean that by the time the last plane was torn off the deck of a giant ship, the hour of flight would remain the first! What sort of departure distance can I talk about here? The Hornets taking off first are unlikely to be able to retire for more than 15-20 minutes of flight from an aircraft carrier ... But what if 2 and 3 hours are needed to lift an air group? Then, by the time the last aircraft fly into the air, the first will have to land, because they are running out of fuel ... Therefore, the real range of the air group does not exceed 600 km, which makes the aircraft carrier unable to fight an enemy that has coastal anti-ship systems and the presence of more or less stable air defense.
  11. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 1 March 2014 17: 48
    0
    Don’t go to the grandmother. After commissioning, he will be in trial operation for ten years as an LTC. Relief of the body he still comes around.
  12. supertiger21
    supertiger21 1 March 2014 18: 33
    0
    By the way, Gerald Ford is the first aircraft carrier on which 5th generation fighters will be based. They are going to equip 75 F-35Cs with a combat radius of 1250 km. The main task of these sea stealth fighters, like the predecessor F / A-18 there will be shock.
  13. kplayer
    kplayer 1 March 2014 19: 24
    +1
    Quote: Bosk
    The difference is that going out to sea during the hostilities of such an aircraft carrier wakes up akin to the exit of the Bismarck during WWII, and the loss of a couple of such ships wakes up almost equal to defeat at sea, so the thought appeared ... it might be better to build a couple of three medium than one so big ...

    In other words, will the loss of a couple of three (i.e. all) aircraft-carrying cruisers be painless? and the loss of two or three aircraft carriers out of a dozen American "will be practically equal to a defeat at sea" - tin!
    It may be worthwhile to study military history in order to compare the significance of battleship guns with the capabilities of carrier-based aviation (not to mention the universality of modern carrier-based aircraft and ACG in general).
    Where is this thin parallel between the aircraft carrier and the battleship, in addition to a large displacement, I did not find anything.
    1. Bosk
      Bosk 1 March 2014 23: 31
      0
      The parallel lies in the colossal sums that are invested in the creation of these huge floating cities and the impossibility of their "stamping" during hostilities (in a short time), again, it is necessary to take into account the development of anti-ship weapons, and they have recently developed not weakly and I will not be surprised that in the nearest future will appear if some factor has not already appeared that will make the enemy keep from the coast at a distance greater than the flight distance of his carrier-based aircraft ... and from such squiggles in my head, the question arises, is this gigantomania not too much? Although the Americans can be understood, their geographical position has a very great influence and they are forced to create large floating airfields ... but do we need this ?, we seem to be capturing America and Australia until we are going to ... I guess.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 2 March 2014 12: 55
        0
        Googled it, production during the Second World War, find there a line in the USA, aircraft carriers and be surprised. I will bring it to you just in case.
        USA = 22 (141)

        22 full-fledged aircraft carriers and 119 auxiliary in 4 years. Taki
        1. Bosk
          Bosk 2 March 2014 14: 52
          0
          It's useless for me to google, I didn't learn history yesterday, but much earlier. You can't compare those full-fledged aircraft carriers with modern ones, I'm not talking about escort vessels. A full-fledged super-duper aircraft carrier today can be built with all the stress of years that way, in five probably all this multiplied by the number of large docks, and their number is limited and again they are usually busy and it takes time to release too ... then it comes out today day "pancakes will not bake quickly", and something tells me (maybe I'm wrong) that during military operations "without rules" they will not wake up these five years ..., so it turns out for "local" and "region" they it seems to be very useful, but in the case of a "big nix" doubts arise ...
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 3 March 2014 15: 55
            +1
            So it’s a common thing to simplify and cheapen expensive projects and force construction to the detriment of quality, as well as reducing resources to a minimum. During the war.
            That is, Fords of the epic mahach will serve about 5 years for a place of 50
            The crew will be twice as much instead of automation, etc. . And so will the theme of the same aircraft carriers.
            1. Bosk
              Bosk 3 March 2014 20: 53
              0
              Well, it's kind of like the same escort aircraft carriers of the Second World War are obtained, only more dimensioned, but with them, too, there was still a hassle, if my memory does not fail, then some of them went under water from being hit by a single bomb, here is such a "stick about two ends "it turns out ...
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 4 March 2014 17: 05
                0
                There is a very simple wisdom. If the headquarters is being bombed, then you obviously flipped something.
  14. supertiger21
    supertiger21 1 March 2014 20: 23
    0
    What is the difference between an aircraft carrier and an aircraft carrier cruiser ??? what request
  15. Power
    Power 1 March 2014 21: 36
    0
    It will be nice to let such an expensive swell to the bottom.
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 1 March 2014 21: 51
      0
      Quote: Strength
      It will be nice to let such an expensive swell to the bottom.


      To begin with, we would have such fellow "tsatka" build ... crying
      1. Power
        Power 1 March 2014 22: 16
        +1
        Expensively, we now have the launch of boats of an event of universal scale. Drowning is cheaper. Asymmetric answer. She has a head not only for wearing a hat.
  16. kplayer
    kplayer 2 March 2014 02: 19
    +2
    Quote: Bosk
    ... again, it is necessary to take into account the development of anti-ship means, and they have not developed lately and I won’t be surprised that in the near future it will appear if there is no other factor that makes the enemy stay offshore more than the flight distance of his carrier-based aircraft ...

    So far, the balance of forces and capabilities is such that the United States has an impressive orbital grouping of reconnaissance satellites that provide instant detection of missile launches and launch positions, and no less impressive strategic aviation with cruise missiles (CR) on board, and the super-anti-ship missiles currently available do not bother them too much , they can work out coastal and priority surface launchers for them (Peter the Great, for example) before the AUG approach. But in general I see no reason for their aircraft carriers to approach our shores (especially in the Atlantic zone, in the Asia-Pacific region there are enough air bases in Japan, South Korea, Alaska and the islands, and potential targets in the Far East are not so hot), it is one thing to run AUG ( more precisely, carrier-based aviation) in local conflicts, another is an operational necessity. In the Pacific Ocean and the North Sea, it is enough for them to overlay us with their submarines.
    Our supersonic anti-ship missiles and any missiles do not fly at all with an approach to the flank and rear, and the direction of the strike can be predicted (where the enemy is from there and the missiles), the descent and flight at low altitude occurs only after the target is captured by the seeker, i.e. up to this point, anti-ship missiles are quite detectable (by onboard radars of ships and fighters and by AWACS aircraft) and can be destroyed (missiles of shipborne SAM and air-to-air missiles of fighters).
    The flight distance of the aircraft tends to increase when refueling in the air, plus the launch distance of the "air-to-surface" missile launcher (including anti-radar missile launchers).
    Quote: Bosk
    ... is this gigantomania not too much? Although Americans can be understood, their geographic location has a great influence and they are forced to create large floating airfields ... and we need this? We kind of like to capture America and Australia until we are going to ... probably.

    The USA has been mass-building aircraft carriers since the Second World War to this day, I don’t know what should happen to interrupt this tradition, by the way, they are building a lot of large civilian vessels (building, damn it!).
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. Mark Twain
    Mark Twain 2 March 2014 14: 26
    0
    Cabin F 35 on the 100th anniversary of military aviation in Australia
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 2 March 2014 17: 45
      0
      An information ponel immediately catches your eye in the form of a 50 by 20 cm display. The helmet designator of the 35th is also impressive. Perhaps the F-35 is an example of how avionics is now becoming the main quality of the 5th generation along with stealth technologies.
  19. Mark Twain
    Mark Twain 2 March 2014 14: 29
    0
    F35 in Poit Cook Melbourne
    1. supertiger21
      supertiger21 2 March 2014 17: 49
      -1
      Beautiful photos, but I think that Lockheed Martin would be better to make more internal points of arms.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. abc_alex
    abc_alex 3 March 2014 11: 56
    0
    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
    The aircraft carrier, as the basis of the AUG, is guarded by all the ships and submarines of this compound, and the aircraft cover with the AVU carries out the air cover of the entire group. The depth of such a defense reaches 500 and more than km. The aircraft carrier itself is capable of engaging in a battle with the enemy’s OPK at a distance of up to 1250 km. Directories give 750-800 km, but this is outdated data. Therefore, the protection function of the AVU is performed by the ships of its warrant and aircraft. Yes, the carrier does not have anti-ship missiles, but this does not mean that the F-18C / D is not capable of carrying anti-ship missiles. And then it turns out (800 + 280 or 600 = 1080 or 1400km) - AVU hand.



    This arithmetic is at least optimistic, but in real life is incorrect.

    Firstly, the AUG order is strongly extended in one direction ELIPS... Not a circle. Therefore, all the charms of a 1200-kilometer-long strike shoulder of an aircraft carrier are realized if the order is pulled in advance towards the enemy. It is then that the depth of defense is obtained in hundreds of kilometers. But with an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances - the exit of the enemy strike weapons from an "inconvenient" azimuth - the aircraft carrier itself will actually be with a naked fillet. This includes the development of high-speed anti-ship missile delivery vehicles in the USSR.

    Secondly, if you are already starting to compare the naval complexes of the USSR and the USA (there simply isn’t any Russian yet), then compare them in FULL volume, and not with the fragment you like. I remind you that the AUG counteraction system included not only the naval group but also the naval aviation. This is at least a division of heavy attack aircraft equipped with supersonic missiles including the Tu-22M3 with X-22. And this is not less than 1500 km + 300 km. If we are about range.

    And there are submarines of Project 949A Antey. Even a pair of such nuclear submarines, coming from an uncomfortable AOG azimuth, are capable of at least depriving it of supply vessels. And as a maximum, bring the AUG core to a state of disability. It was planned to build more than 30 pieces. They have autonomy of at least 130 days.
  22. TAMERLAN 7
    TAMERLAN 7 3 March 2014 12: 47
    +1
    Prospective group Nimitz (forecast)
    36 - F-35S
    12 - shock UAV
    2 UAV EW
    6 manned EW aircraft
    4 Hokai AWACS aircraft
    4 UAVs
    2 transport aircraft
    20 PLO helicopters and other purposes
    And in all - 86 aircraft.

    Pretty unpleasant prospect, I must say. In such a situation, it is important to detect the enemy in time. What do we have from AWACS?
    Ka-31

    Antenna full revolution time 10 sec. The radar provides simultaneous detection and tracking of up to 20 targets. Detection range is: for airplanes 100-150 km, for surface ships 250–285 km. Duration of patrolling 2.5 hours when flying at an altitude of 3500 m.





    Yak-44

    The detection range of an air target with an EPR of 3 m² was 250 km. As you can see, not much better than the Ka-31!

    Given that the F-35 is a 5th generation aircraft and has a low EPR, and therefore a low detection range, and the AIM - 120 from high altitude will soon be able to hit targets at a distance of 200 km, the prospect is not too bright. Yes, and drones can not be passed to our ships! Need a powerful aircraft AWACS (possibly even a drone).

    If you build an aircraft carrier, then it must be a full-fledged heavy aircraft carrier! It is necessary to equip it with catapults (this will increase the combat load of the aircraft and allow you to create a full-fledged AWACS), 5th generation aircraft and, of course, AWACS with a powerful radar!
  23. abc_alex
    abc_alex 3 March 2014 17: 06
    +1
    Quote: TAMERLAN 7
    Prospective group Nimitz (forecast)
    36 - F-35S
    12 - shock UAV
    2 UAV EW
    6 manned EW aircraft
    4 Hokai AWACS aircraft
    4 UAVs
    2 transport aircraft
    20 PLO helicopters and other purposes
    And in all - 86 aircraft.



    Yes? And nothing that the "Nimitz" do not go with such a set? :) All this breakthrough of technology will certainly fit on it, but it won't be able to work with it. The usual number of aircraft is 60 with a small number of vehicles.

    Quote: TAMERLAN 7
    If you build an aircraft carrier, then it must be a full-fledged heavy aircraft carrier! It is necessary to equip it with catapults (this will increase the combat load of the aircraft and allow you to create a full-fledged AWACS), 5th generation aircraft and, of course, AWACS with a powerful radar!


    Yes, but how will a "full-fledged aircraft carrier" be combined with a missile-carrying strike fleet equipped with heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles? After all, if the main shock function is shifted to airplanes, then what kind of goblin do Granites and Onyxes need? :) The whole fleet, starting with the Eagles, is to a dump?
    Are we changing the concept of the entire fleet and redesigning a missile cruiser and destroyer already for a "full-fledged aircraft carrier"? I think this is a "hit the wall" advice :)

    Maybe just TAKr with an air link, sharpened by AWACS and EW? And of course fighter cover? Anyway, Russia will not catch up with the USA in the AUGs race, so why start a deliberately losing game?
  24. TAMERLAN 7
    TAMERLAN 7 4 March 2014 12: 04
    0
    Quote: abc_alex
    Yes? And nothing that the "Nimitz" do not go with such a set? :)

    2010: Typical Air Group (Wikipedia)
    Qty
    Squadron Type
    Aircraft Name Qty Note
    3 F / A-18 McDonnell Hornet 48
    1 EA-6B Grumman Prowler 4
    1 E-2C Grumman Hawkeye 4
    ½ C-2A Grumman Greyhound 2 Transport
    1 SH-3H Sikorsky Sea King 8
    Total: 66
    The composition of a typical AUG (our time):
    1 shock atomic supercarrier (class “Nimitz” or “Enterprise”)
    Aircraft carrier air group:
    2 squadrons (24 aircraft) multi-role fighter F / A-18F "SuperHornet"
    2 squadrons (24 aircraft) multi-role fighter F / A-18C "Hornet"
    4 aircraft AWACS E-2C “Hokai”
    4 aircraft EW EA-18G "Growler"
    2 logistics aircraft C-2 Greyhand
    10 anti-submarine helicopters MH-60 “Sykhok”
    1-2 Ticonderoga class missile cruisers
    2-3 (in wartime - up to 5) destroyers of the “Arly Burke” class
    2-3 Los Angeles or Virginia-class multipurpose submarines
    1 Sapplay or Sacramento Logistic Fleet

    I wrote about the forecast, and not about what is really on the aircraft carriers now.

    Approximate attack pattern:


    After all, if the main percussion function will be shifted to airplanes, then what kind of woods do Granites and Onyxes need? :) To the dump, the entire fleet, starting with the Eagles?

    RCC "Onyx"
    Range:
    along a high-altitude path - 450 — 500 km
    along a combined trajectory (the length of the final section is 40 km) - up to 300 km
    along low altitude trajectory - 120 km
    ASM "Granite"
    Range:
    550 (625) km along a combined path,
    145 (200) km along an exceptionally low altitude trajectory
    Since the flight time of the rocket at a long range is significant, and the target can go beyond the detection radius of the missile's seeker, the complex needs precise target designation, carried out by the "Success" aviation complex from Tu-95RTs aircraft or Ka-25Ts helicopters, or by the space reconnaissance and target designation complex MKRC "Legend" [5]
  25. The comment was deleted.
  26. TAMERLAN 7
    TAMERLAN 7 4 March 2014 12: 48
    0
    The main task of our aircraft carriers should be the air defense of our ships! To attack the Granites and Onyxes, you need to approach 200-300km, or provide them with target designation at a distance of 500-600km. I don’t even want to talk about the chances of survival of the crews of the Tu-95RC. Why not use (adapt) the AWACS aircraft from an aircraft carrier? It will not only allow us to warn our AUG about the approach of enemy aircraft, but also to complete the work of the Tu-95RC, and fighters will cover it. Without an aircraft carrier, the chances of our UG against ASG look ..... We need aircraft carriers for attack ships, precisely for their full application.

    Quote: abc_alex
    Maybe just TAKr with an air link, sharpened by AWACS and EW? And of course fighter cover? Anyway, Russia will not catch up with the USA in the AUGs race, so why start a deliberately losing game?


    It is expensive to create 60-80 thousand tons of a ship with an air defense function, and without AWACS, like Kuznetsov. It is necessary to create 3-4 full-fledged aircraft carriers: 1-2 in the Pacific Ocean and in the Arctic, for 2 AUGs (each 1-2 aircraft carriers). These ACGs will be able to solve political problems in a different way (like the US ACG). The threat of the appearance of a Russian aircraft carrier off the coast of a certain country and its ability to work as US aircraft carriers will make you think and temper ardor. Imagine it at one time off the coast of Georgia, Syria, Ukraine .... bully
  27. Realist1989
    Realist1989 25 March 2014 21: 55
    0
    Of course, I'm not an expert, but just a person interested in the topic, but I think that Russia needs aircraft carriers in the configuration of the so-called. "Ship of control of the sea", i.e. relatively small (about 20-25 thousand tons) aircraft-carrying ships with a non-nuclear power plant, no frills like catapults (which complicate, make the ship heavier and more expensive) with a vertical and short take-off / landing air group. Combat aircraft can be multipurpose fighters - a continuation of the Yak-141 project (I know that the 141 has a very small range and carrying capacity, but there are opportunities to increase these performance characteristics, and they were planning to implement them in the Yak-201). Transport, AWACS or anti-submarine aircraft should be tiltrotors (Mi-30 pr. And its logical continuation) and tiltrotor UAVs (Albatros pr. Yakovlev Design Bureau) or helicopter type, which have a much longer range than conventional helicopters. Of course, the radius of action of such an air wing is somewhat inferior to an aircraft of a catapult launch, but IMHO, it is not critical, and is sufficient for effective protection of its ship group from an aircraft carrier fleet in air defense mode, for a successful fight against a non-aircraft carrier fleet, and effective participation in peacekeeping humanitarian operations under the auspices of the UN or any other association. Moreover, such aircraft carriers will be cheaper and more affordable than atomic mastadons with catapults, and for their construction new shipyards of the level of the Nikolaevo plant will not be needed. So, by shifting attention from the problems of ship design to the design of the above aircraft, one can solve a difficult dilemma about what a Russian aircraft carrier should be like anyway ...