Military Review

Aircraft carrier battle

89
"Admiral Kuznetsov", "Liaoning", "Nimitz": who is worth something


According to the degree of compliance of the combat effectiveness of the ship with its destination, our aircraft carrier is inferior to the “American” in local conflicts about 14 percent, in a large-scale war - approximately 10 percent. At the same time, Kuznetsov surpasses Chinese Liaoning in 10 and 6 percent by the same indicators, respectively.

Aircraft carriers - the foundation of the American fleet. They should have taken their rightful place in the Soviet Navy. Did not happen. However, they can become, and in the short term, in 15–20 years, the core of the surface forces of the PLA Navy. Therefore, a comparison of such ships is very important for assessing the combat capabilities of the fleets as a whole.

In addition, the aircraft carriers reflect the highest achievements in the field of not only shipbuilding, but also aviation. Therefore, a comparative analysis is also important for assessing the technological level of states in the respective sectors.

Weighing

The comparison technique for regular readers is known (“Sea battle with a shadow:“ Moscow ”against“ Ticonderoga ”). It begins with a selection of matching ships. One of them, naturally, should be our only aircraft carrier (more precisely, a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser) of the 1143.5 Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov project or simply Kuznetsov. The main competitor of Russia in the seas and oceans has been and remains the United States, so it is quite correct to choose for comparison the main type of the American aircraft carrier - the Nimitz. We could stop at this, but today we are actively developing water areas, starting to build up a naval confrontation with the United States and China. Therefore, it is advisable to take for comparison also the Chinese "Liaoning", he is the former Soviet "Varyag".

The next stage is the analysis of the tasks that aircraft carriers intend to solve. Ships of this class in various states, despite their versatility, have specificity. Some are designed primarily for solving anti-submarine defense tasks (PLO), such as the British Invincible type, others are focused on the air defense of naval connections in the sea, this directly applies to Kuznetsov, others are truly universal. An example of the latter are just American.

Aircraft carriers vary in size with the corresponding differences of air groups and combat capabilities. The number of aircraft of various classes varies widely: from 8 – 12 on light aircraft carriers with a predominantly anti-submarine mission to 90 – 95 in heavy universal ones. At the same time, the specificity of fleets is such that giants are far from being needed by everyone. Ships of this class are built in relation to specific tasks that arise from the concept of the combat use of fleet forces. Therefore, comparing aircraft carriers from different countries as ships colliding in battle against each other is incorrect, because they will act as part of different groups. And even if it happens that the aircraft carriers will be in opposing groups, they will solve different tasks. Some will perform the main striking force, others will ensure the actions of the compound solving the main tasks. Therefore, it makes sense to compare aircraft carriers from different countries only in the degree to which their capabilities correspond to what is required of them.

Battle plan

Analysis of the tasks shows that the nomenclature of those for all aircraft carriers is about the same, but the value of each is strictly individual and in accordance with the assessment methodology it must be assigned a “weighting factor”.

According to the experience of the post-war years, aircraft carriers are actively used in armed conflicts and local wars of various sizes. And they will be one of the main components of the groups of opposing fleets with the start of hostilities between them. Accordingly, when comparing, it is necessary to consider two variants of conditions of application: in a local conflict against a weak naval enemy and in a large-scale war.

In general, all three types of aircraft carriers will participate in solving the following main tasks, according to which we will compare them: the destruction of enemy carrier strike and multipurpose groups, the defeat of large groups of surface ships (KUG and KPUG), the fight against submarines, the repelling of air strikes attacks, fire impact on ground objects.

In a local war against a weak enemy, we can estimate (taking into account the likelihood of attracting carrier-based aviation) the weights of the significance of the tasks as follows: defeat groups of surface ships and boats - 0,1, destruction of submarines - 0,05, repelling enemy air attacks - 0,3, attacking ground targets - 0,55. The proportions are derived from the analysis of the use of aircraft carriers in the wars of the late XX - early XXI century and apply equally to both the Russian and the American and Chinese ships. Obviously, the task of destroying enemy carrier-carrying forces is not worth it.

In a large-scale war, the weights are distributed differently and differ with respect to the ships of the countries in question. For Kuznetsov, the values ​​can be estimated as follows: the destruction of enemy carrier strike and multipurpose groups - 0,15, surface ships - 0,15, submarines - 0,25, reflection of air attack - 0,35, work on ground targets - 0,1.

For Nimitz, the coefficients are distributed differently: the destruction of enemy aircraft carriers - 0,05 (the main geopolitical opponents of the United States - Russia and China each have one aircraft carrier with limited impact capabilities, which determines the minimum significance of this task for the “American”), the defeat of surface ships - 0,3, submarines - 0,05, reflection of air attack - 0,15, work on land objects - 0,45.

The distribution of the significance of the tasks for Liaonin can be done only with great approximation, since the tasks of this ship are not formulated in the open press. It is known that this is essentially an experimental ship, the operation of which will further allow you to create your own aircraft carriers, optimized for the specific tasks of the Chinese fleet. However, the particularities of the aircraft group of the ship, as well as the specifics of the theater of war, suggest that the destruction of enemy carrier strike and multipurpose groups for Liaonin may be 0,2, groups of surface ships - 0,3, submarines - 0,05, repelled air attack - 0,4, work on ground objects - 0,05.

Impact force

The main striking force of the compared ships is the air group. Own air defense and anti-aircraft defense systems are designed for self-defense and therefore do not affect the assessment of operational and tactical capabilities for solving the above-mentioned tasks.

Aircraft carrier battleThe most important indicators for any aircraft carrier are the possible duration of active combat operations up to the moment of replenishment of stocks and the disposable daily life of aviation. The experience of military operations in the course of local wars and calculations show that the American Nimitz, when conducting intensive military operations by its air group, after seven or eight days, needs to be replenished with material and technical resources, primarily fuel and ammunition. During this time, he will be able to perform up to a thousand sorties, including up to 600 - the multi-purpose Super Hornet fighters. The aircraft carrier has 40 positions for aircraft training. This means that the limiting composition of simultaneously used sides is 40 units.

The Russian aircraft carrier, as shown by calculations based on open data, can operate with full voltage with its air group for five to six days, having completed flights before 350, including Su-150 and MiG-33К / KUB before 29. The number of positions for their preparation limits the limiting composition of the 16 group to units.

Evaluation of the operational capabilities of the Chinese "Liaoning" may be based on the fact that its ability to support the activities of the air group are comparable to the "Kuznetsov." Accordingly, the air group must be able to perform the same 350 departures, but for a longer period of time (up to seven days). Of these, 200 will be fighters. The limiting composition of the group of aircraft - 16 machines.

Opportunities rivals

The task of fighting the enemy aircraft carriers can be solved in the course of a sea battle lasting up to a day. In it, the parties will use all the available potential, since the carrier group is an extremely powerful and well-defended enemy.

Kuznetsov will be able to fly up to 50 Su-33 and MiG-29K / KUB sorties in 24 hours. Only the latter can inflict strikes on an aircraft carrier, since the regular Su-33 is currently not ready to use the Moskit anti-ship missiles (although the tests were carried out). Less than at least four positions for the use of helicopters and air defense fighters in the defense system of the compound at the same time, up to 12 vehicles can be involved in the strike. Of these, at least four must be in the airspace clearance group. There are eight MiG-29K / KUB left, on each of which no more than four anti-ship missiles X-35 (on the other nodes of the suspension air-to-air missiles are placed). Total - 32 PKR. With a 800 – 900 radar depth of kilometers (including coastal AWACS airplanes), Nimitz will be able to counter our air strike with a combat air patrol (BVP) consisting of two to four cars and another four to six from on-duty duty. Of these, our air-fighter clearing groups will be linked by a battle of four to six aircraft. As a result, the strike team will be approaching the turn of the task in pairs, evading enemy fighter attacks with the loss of two or three cars. As a result, the probability of a breakthrough to an aircraft carrier of at least one missile will not exceed 0,5 – 0,8. That is, the possibility of its failure - the maximum 0,03 – 0,05. Our aircraft carrier will be able to inflict two such strikes. The overall probability of putting an “American” out of action will not exceed 0,06 – 0,09.

Approximately the same result will be in the Chinese aircraft carrier.

In turn, “Nimitz” is able to use up to 34 fighters to strike at our compound. Including up to 8 airspace clearing machines and 16 in a shock group with numerous software. This will allow even taking into account the opposition of Russian ship fighters to provide an approach to the line of accomplishing the task of the attack groups in one or two links with a volley in the 16 – 32 RCC “Harpoon”. In this case, the probability of decommissioning our aircraft carrier during one strike reaches 0,15 – 0,2, and a day before it reaches 0,3 – 0,35. The capabilities of the Nimitz for the defeat of the Chinese aircraft carrier, taking into account the less efficient ship defense systems, are increasing to 0,35 – 0,5.

Gong


The task of dealing with groups of surface ships will be one of the main tasks during the operation to gain superiority at sea in a designated operational-critical area. Its duration is from three to four to six to eight days. In local conflicts, the objects of ship (deck) aviation strikes will primarily be groups of missile boats. In a large-scale war, the main efforts will focus on the defeat of large surface ships: KUG from cruisers, destroyers, frigates and corvettes of URO, amphibious detachments (DESO), convoys (KOH), KPUG and APG (airborne search and attack groups).

In local conflicts, judging by experience, the task of countering 2 – 5 KUG with two or three missile boats each can be important. For the defeat of any such group, it is enough to single out two or three pairs of strike aircraft with anti-ship missiles and NURS. In total, the solution of the problem will require up to 30 aircraft, which is quite achievable not only for Nimitz, but also for the Russian and Chinese aircraft carriers, for which it does not exceed 15 – 20 percent of the total available resource. And the probability of the destruction of enemy boats will be close to the guaranteed - 0,9 and more.

When solving problems of fighting ship groups in a large-scale war, the Federation Council will operate up to 14 of various ship groups, including 4 – 5 KUG of cruisers, destroyers, frigates and corvettes URO, 1 – 2 DESO, 2 – 3 KON, XNUM –3 CPUG and APUG. To defeat each of them, our carrier will be able to identify a group in the composition, similar to that given in the calculations of the strike on the AUG. Such a group, with probability 4 – 0,3, can crush the KUG, 0,5 – 0,4 - DESO with the US Marine Corps Expeditionary Battalion, 0,6 – 0,6 - KPUG, 0,7 – 0,4 - APUG, or destroy up to a quarter of the ships from the middle convoy. Given the possible resource allocated to this task, two or three groups can be subjected to the strikes of deck aviation. The expected efficiency of solving this problem by Kuznetsov can be estimated in 0,6 – 0,07.

In the area of ​​responsibility of the PLA Navy, the number of ship groups can be up to 20 (including the Japanese fleet). However, this task is more important for the Chinese aircraft carrier. Under the assumption that his carrier-based fighters may carry a similar anti-ship weapon, we estimate the expected effectiveness of Liaoning in 0,12 – 0,14.

The American aircraft carrier in the war against Russia or China will have to solve the task of defeating the grouping of surface ships as part of 6 – 8 KUG (including 2 – 3 KUG with cruisers and destroyers), 5 – 6 KPUG (including 2 – 3 KPUG with fleet and 4 – 5 KPUG (including 10 – 8 KPUG with fleets and 12 KPUG with FFGS-32 KNUG). large anti-submarine ships) and 0,2 – 0,23 small coastal KON. For strikes on these forces, Nimitz will be able to strike up to XNUMX with groups of XNUMX – XNUMX (in small ship groups) to XNUMX machines (in large groups with powerful air defense). Without going into details of the calculation, we will evaluate the effectiveness of such actions in XNUMX – XNUMX.

It is advisable to determine the capabilities of an aircraft carrier to combat submarines by the criterion of the probability of their destruction before entering the short-range RCC salvo position on the war-core ships. This indicator depends on many factors, but the most important of them is the number of helicopters and PLO aircraft that are simultaneously in duty zones, as well as the ability of their search engines to detect submarines. Our and American (in the shock version - without PLO aircraft) aircraft carriers here have approximately the same capabilities. Taking into account the whole complex of factors, the probability of failure of the submarine to reach the line of short-range missile attack can be estimated at 0,2 – 0,4 depending on the hydroacoustic conditions and the type of submarine. For the Chinese "Liaoning", which has only six PLO helicopters, this figure does not exceed 0,05 – 0,07.

The capabilities of aircraft carriers to solve air defense tasks can be estimated by the proportion of foiled enemy aircraft strikes against the ships of their formation and other covered objects of the total number of such attacks.

Kuznetsov, having this task as one of the main targets, can provide for the interception of an air enemy by 12 – 14 groups of two or three pairs in four to five days of operation. During this time, in the zone of responsibility of the Federation Council, it is possible to expect actions against surface forces at sea up to the 20 – 25 tactical and carrier-based aviation groups from the link to the squadron. The probability of failure of each of them to complete the task as a result of interception by our group of ship fighters can be estimated from 0,2 – 0,3 to 0,6 – 0,8. On the whole, the share of reflected strikes at sea targets by the Russian aircraft carrier will be 0,3 – 0,4.

In Liaoning, the indicator is about the same. This is due to the fact that with the anticipated vigorous activity in the likely Japanese Air Force TVD, we should expect the allocation of a greater resource of carrier-based aviation in China to solve air defense tasks.

For the US aircraft carrier, the main factor in this situation will be a reflection of long-range missile strikes and naval missile-carrying aircraft (MRA). He will be able to accomplish this task mainly by BVP and fighter aircraft from the duty position on deck in readiness number 1, in total up to six to eight vehicles. This is explained by the fact that long-range anti-ship missiles, having a supersonic speed and launch range of about 300 – 500 kilometers, reach the target of accomplishing the task in a time that allows only BVP aircraft to enter into battle. And to counter the MRA, which has the line of launch of 300 – 350 missiles kilometers from the main order, even with the depth of the AUG 800 – 900 radar field, only 30 – 40 minutes remain. Given the need for fighters to reach the line of interception not less than 400 – 450 kilometers from an aircraft carrier, only vehicles on deck in readiness number 1 can be brought into battle. These forces can only really weaken the blow, destroying 15 – 20 percent of air targets, which should be considered an assessment of the effectiveness of the American aircraft carrier in solving air defense tasks.

It remains to compare the possibilities for the destruction of ground objects. Kuznetsov in a large-scale war, taking into account the allocated resource, will destroy no more than two or three point objects to a depth of 600 kilometers from the coast, which roughly corresponds to 0,05 – 0,07 of general operational needs. In a local war, opportunities are significantly higher due to the allocation of a much larger resource. Calculations give the indicator 0,2 – 0,25. The Chinese aircraft carrier has about the same capabilities. Nimitz can hit ground targets up to 800 kilometers from the coast to 25 – 40 depending on their type and security, which is up to 0,35 – 0,45 from the need for a limited, operational area in a large-scale war. In the local, this figure can reach 0,45 – 0,55.

Referee decision

The analysis performed allows us to derive the integral comparative index of the three ships. The Russian aircraft carrier, he is in relation to local conflicts 0,3, and for large-scale war - 0,25. The "American" - 0,35 and 0,28, respectively. Chinese "Liaoning" has 0,27 and 0,21. The low compliance rates of our and the Chinese aircraft carriers compared to the American ones are due to the fact that the latter is more versatile and this allows it to more effectively solve the entire range of tasks. “Kuznetsov” and “Liaoning”, being focused on the tasks of providing air defense, in practice will have to be attracted to a substantially larger range of tasks, which reduces their indicators of compliance with the combat mission.

"Fleet Admiral Kuznetsov": over 50 aircraft. Including the 12 fighter Su-33, 14 multipurpose MiG-29K / KUB, about 20 anti-submarine helicopters Ka-27, three DRLO helicopters Ka-31 and four Ka-27 in search and rescue version.

Length - 306,5 meters

Width - 72 meter

Displacement - 61 400 tons

Nimitz: 48 – 60 F-18 Super Hornet multi-role fighter jets, up to 12 anti-submarine Viking S-3, four DRLO “Hokai” and EW “Prowler” EA-6A aircraft (or coming to replace machines based on F-18), four trucks KA-6А, 12 helicopters "Sea King" and four search and rescue.

Length - 332,8 meters

Width - 78 meters

Displacement - 106 300 tons

"Liaoning": X-NUMX multi-purpose fighter J-24 (unlicensed copy of the Su-15 with Chinese avionics), four DRLO helicopters Z-33J, six anti-submarine Z-18F and two search and rescue Z-18C. Total - 9 machines. In terms of their performance characteristics, the Chinese helicopters, the DRLO and anti-submarine helicopters, are close to their Russian counterparts, the Ka-36 and Ka-31, respectively.

Length - 304,5 meters

Width - 75 meters

Displacement - 59 500 tons
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/30422
89 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Yak28
    Yak28 1 May 2016 06: 44
    +57
    The US has gone far ahead in the construction of aircraft carriers, and from Russia, and even less so from China. Today we do not have the technology, practice, experience in building large airborne cruisers. "Fleet Admiral Kuznetsov" is inferior in all respects to any US aircraft carrier, it makes sense to arrange a battle request
    1. ups
      ups 1 May 2016 10: 58
      +3
      For me, the key: the United States left)))) Once I also wished us 10 aircraft carriers at least, but time passed and it became clear that aircraft carriers are a dead-end branch of the fleet's development, a couple of floating airfields for more "Kuzi" Russia needs, but no more, for me 20 Leaders will tear this unnecessary and unprofitable pin_dos air platform.
    2. g1v2
      g1v2 1 May 2016 12: 26
      +27
      The most important thing is that for mattresses the aircraft carrier is the main strike force of the aug, and our Grasshopper is auxiliary for the mug. It makes no sense to compare them. If the mattress of an aircraft carrier is the center and the meaning of aug, then for us Grasshopper is a pleasant addition. Why compare them - xs? But I don’t put a minus for the article because everyone has fun as he can. But personally, I don’t see comparing our ships and those of the United States because the tasks of the fleet are different, the areas of application are different, and even the purpose is different. hi
      1. Altona
        Altona 1 May 2016 13: 25
        +3
        Quote: g1v2
        The most important thing is that for mattresses the aircraft carrier is the main strike force of the aug, and our Grasshopper is auxiliary for the mug. It makes no sense to compare them. If the mattress of an aircraft carrier is the center and the meaning of aug, then for us Grasshopper is a pleasant addition. Why compare them - xs? But I don’t put a minus for the article because everyone has fun as he can. But personally, I don’t see comparing our ships and those of the United States because the tasks of the fleet are different, the areas of application are different, and even the purpose is different.

        ----------------------
        I completely agree with you. The US Navy is a striking force, as the US has no land borders with a potential enemy. And the main opponents of the United States do not care the US fleets, they have a huge range of super-powerful missiles, the use of which makes Yellowstone a game on the children's lawn. Our fleet is quite successfully solving the problem of supporting our land and aerospace forces. Our Aerospace Forces and ground forces have shown that any rival will be torn apart like a rag in three months, and the enemy, who is hiding in dense urban development. And the aircraft carrier fleet is of course a force, but for our capabilities, which we will also increase, this is about nothing. This is for China and Iran, the straits, "freedom of navigation", this is a means of military expansion and blackmail of a weaker enemy.
        1. sa-ag
          sa-ag 3 May 2016 11: 33
          +3
          Quote: Altona
          Our VKS and ground forces have shown that any opponent will be torn like a rag in three months

          And who opposed the aerospace forces and ground forces, were they equal or approximately equal in capabilities? This is generally an incorrect example, it’s the same as arranging exercises at the training ground and then declaring to the whole world that any opponent will be defeated
          1. Altona
            Altona 3 May 2016 21: 36
            0
            Quote: sa-ag
            And who opposed the aerospace forces and ground forces, were they equal or approximately equal in capabilities?

            ---------------------
            Air defense zones and armored groups are simply hammered by "Caliber" and "Iskander" classics of the genre. See Tomahawks against Libya or against Iraq.
        2. Kenneth
          Kenneth 3 May 2016 11: 59
          +1
          Stocked up enough hats for casting adversary. In response to your pardon delirium, I recall how the Americans quickly and effectively gutted the Iraqi army.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 May 2016 13: 55
      +13
      The United States not only moved forward on aircraft carriers, but also on destroyers which are already armed with 75 pieces, as well as submarines - which they build 2 pieces each year.
    4. ism_ek
      ism_ek 1 May 2016 20: 45
      +3
      At the beginning of World War II, the Japanese also argued whose aircraft carrier was better, but by 1945 the Americans had fielded almost 100 aircraft carriers against Japan .. More than 3000 B-29 "Superfortresses".
      Conflict with the USA is a meaningless undertaking.
      1. jjj
        jjj 2 May 2016 16: 18
        +1
        Again the "military expert of RBK" - Sivkov - muddies the waters. Aircraft carriers are the power of yesterday's war. Let the ship have a hundred planes. Let each vehicle carry ten missiles. Total "one-time salvo" - 1 missiles. And if you place 000 cruise missiles on a ship. The dimensions of the ship will be smaller. Extra fuel is not required, there is no aircraft wing personnel. And missiles fly farther than carrier-based fighters
    5. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 3 May 2016 03: 02
      +2
      And why should we chase after them. Our doctrine connected with the Fleet is completely different. And the tasks for our fleet are completely different. There are other possibilities, respectively. And these comparisons are filkin diploma. If we are to compare, then we need to compare the doctrines of the use of the Fleets on both sides. USSR found the decision why to look for the enemy, he was always nearby at the sight of our naval forces. We did not intend to drag our troops to the American coast. This is the whole difference in the construction of the Navy. We never had giant floating arsenals of weapons depots packed to the eyeballs. Different goals are different tasks. Based on this, our Fleet was built and is being built. The number of naval bases of the US Navy is huge. We don’t have that. Accordingly, the solutions are completely different with other possibilities. Under these decisions, our Fleet is built. And such comparisons are just a finger to the sky. The American Fleet and its aviation can not be compared. And chasing after him is a waste of huge resources.
  2. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 1 May 2016 06: 46
    +32
    In terms of strike capabilities, comparing these aircraft carriers is simply stupid. In addition to strike aircraft, the American aircraft carrier also carries AWACS aircraft, refueling tanks, EW aircraft, which already gives a significant advantage, the presence of catapults allows you to take full combat load in accordance with the technical characteristics of the aircraft. not achievable for ships with steam and gas turbine SU. And generally, an extremely strange comparison technique.
    1. nosferatus2
      nosferatus2 20 May 2016 16: 10
      0
      I agree 100%. Moreover, in the Navy of the USSR / RF "Admiral Kuznetsov" was never considered an aircraft carrier, it is a TAKR. The Nimitz could be compared with the Project 1160 ship, but alas.
  3. tchoni
    tchoni 1 May 2016 07: 10
    +16
    According to the degree of compliance of the combat effectiveness of the ship with its destination, our aircraft carrier is inferior to the “American” in local conflicts about 14 percent, in a large-scale war - approximately 10 percent. At the same time, Kuznetsov surpasses Chinese Liaoning in 10 and 6 percent by the same indicators, respectively.
    The beginning of the article kills and baffles. Where did the author get these numbers? and only in the middle of the article do you realize that this is the fruit of the author’s creativity. By the end of the article comes the understanding that the author smokes something wrong, because comparing aircraft carriers ignoring the composition of air groups - this, excuse me, is nonsense.
    1. pv1005
      pv1005 1 May 2016 07: 50
      +7
      Quote: tchoni
      According to the degree of compliance of the combat effectiveness of the ship with its destination, our aircraft carrier is inferior to the “American” in local conflicts about 14 percent, in a large-scale war - approximately 10 percent. At the same time, Kuznetsov surpasses Chinese Liaoning in 10 and 6 percent by the same indicators, respectively.
      The beginning of the article kills and baffles. Where did the author get these numbers? and only in the middle of the article do you realize that this is the fruit of the author’s creativity. By the end of the article comes the understanding that the author smokes something wrong, because comparing aircraft carriers ignoring the composition of air groups - this, excuse me, is nonsense.

      But you have witnessed the birth of one more "O. Kaptsov". laughing
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 1 May 2016 07: 56
        +2
        wink It may be good, original thinking, but all is well moderated
      2. avt
        avt 1 May 2016 09: 14
        +18
        Quote: pv1005
        But you witnessed the birth of another "O. Kaptsov"

        No. Otstvenny caperang stuffs great-wise publications such as scientific papers on the counter. It’s the same geopolitical Sivkov who set out on a campaign for the title of geopolitical academician of geopolitical sciences at the Geopolitical Academy. But in vain. In reality, at the Russian Academy of Sciences, only Lesha Arbatov became an academician on this topic, well, you need to know who his dad is. So Sivkov also needs to end up struggling with these "works", remember the old army joke, well, about - Dad, will I become a colonel? And the general? No, the general has his own son. So I sincerely advise the author to tie the people up to make people laugh by sewing the academician's robes and plant seedlings on the beds. Oleg is enough for our eyes and he writes more fun and cool, he won't get boring, if he carries it. so it will carry from the heart - it is dear to watch laughing
  4. godofwar6699
    godofwar6699 1 May 2016 07: 10
    +4
    Quote: Yak28
    The US has gone far ahead in the construction of aircraft carriers, and from Russia, and even less so from China. Today we do not have the technology, practice, experience in building large airborne cruisers. "Fleet Admiral Kuznetsov" is inferior in all respects to any US aircraft carrier, it makes sense to arrange a battle request

    not a military site but a kindergarten
  5. Voyager
    Voyager 1 May 2016 07: 35
    +11
    Sorry for the time spent on the article.
  6. 31rus2
    31rus2 1 May 2016 07: 42
    +5
    Dear, you are absolutely right and the quantity and quality are on the side of the Americans, but why throw Kuzyu into direct confrontation? This is where the very concept of using AUG is needed, alas, and here we have neither experience nor the concept itself, that is we will act according to the situation, that's all the confrontation
  7. kepmor
    kepmor 1 May 2016 07: 47
    +8
    I'm not trying to offend the author in any way, but this is some kind of "bullshit", as my grandmother used to say!
    It's like comparing Mosin's "three line" with the AK-74 ... there's nothing to even discuss!
    1. weksha50
      weksha50 1 May 2016 17: 01
      0
      Quote: kepmor
      It's like comparing Mosin's "three line" with the AK-74 ... there's nothing to even discuss!


      And again, each of these types of weapons is superior to the other - depending on the circumstances ...

      So truly all these comparisons are empty talk ...
    2. yehat
      yehat 5 May 2016 13: 53
      0
      rather, it is a comparison of a pump-action shotgun and an assault rifle.
  8. Andreitas
    Andreitas 1 May 2016 08: 47
    +5
    Comparison of an elephant (USA) and Moski (Russia). In terms of aircraft carriers naturally.
  9. max702
    max702 1 May 2016 09: 41
    +5
    Our aircraft carrier and the entire surface fleet was created with the sole purpose of combining the attacking NATO block (aviation, the KR, the fleet) and giving the opportunity to launch nuclear submarines .. All ... Other STRATEGIC missions were not specifically considered, tactical YES! These are anti-piracy actions, and the landing of the MP (there was one division in composition), and escort operations .. In the USSR, during the stagnation period, there was an attempt to threaten strategic actions across the oceans, but it did not grow together .. it became a little expensive ..
  10. mvg
    mvg 1 May 2016 10: 21
    +4
    an author with sadomasochistic inclinations. first the article appeared on "Warfiles", where it was "destroyed" by comments, so no, I wanted to "continue the banquet"
  11. tehnokrat
    tehnokrat 1 May 2016 10: 32
    +2
    He put the article “+” for the fact that the author’s attempt to “assess the potentials” is thought-provoking. Quantitative assessments are generally more interesting and productive than emotional ones, such as bullshit. Here you can argue. And it seems controversial that Nimitz will be involved by 45% in our ground facilities, i.e. almost like - according to the author - "In a local war against a weak adversary". What is it like? Like a desert storm? And why should Nimitsu do this work when NATO is already close to us on land everywhere?
    He will be busy with other goals.
    By the way, here, at VO, quite convincing material about the possible loss of its role by American AUGs:
    http://topwar.ru/85713-cnn-avianoscy-ssha-mogut-stat-neeffektivnymi.html ,
    Doubts about the expediency of further increasing the number of aircraft carriers by the States sounded a few years ago; now, after the demonstration of our Kyrgyz Republic in Syria, the impunity of the ACG against our coast is completely ephemeral.
    So it turns out that the “battle of aircraft carriers” poses a problem: do we need an aircraft carrier fleet, and if so, which one?
  12. PPD
    PPD 1 May 2016 10: 45
    +3
    It should be remembered once and for all- an aircraft-carrying cruiser and an aircraft carrier are different classes of warships.
    VARIOUS. Can then compare the minesweeper with a battleship?
    The last aircraft carrier with a stretch we had in the First World War.
    1. avt
      avt 1 May 2016 11: 17
      0
      Quote: PPD
      The last aircraft carrier with a stretch we had in the First World War.

      wassat And do not enlighten us unreasonable ??? Who and what are you pulling from the crew of the Russian imperial fleet? wassat Or by Pikul you are checking, well, by his ,, From ,, Eagles "planes took off ?? wassat Then there is a direct road to the orderly ranks of geo-academics of the academic geo-war sciences, to the section of hybrid commanders. laughing
      1. yehat
        yehat 5 May 2016 13: 51
        0
        probably it’s either a carrier for seaplanes or a converted barge, again for seaplanes.
    2. yehat
      yehat 5 May 2016 13: 51
      0
      the Japanese still built and underwater aircraft carriers)))
  13. Verdun
    Verdun 1 May 2016 11: 15
    +6
    It is senseless and incorrect to compare the Admiral Kuznetsov with the American attack aircraft carriers. It was created on the basis of a project not so much of an aircraft carrier as of an aircraft-carrying cruiser, such as the "Kiev" and "Baku" and is significantly inferior to the American ships in terms of the numerical composition of the aviation group. But it surpasses air defense means. The American "floating airfield" must be constantly accompanied by guard ships. Otherwise, he becomes very vulnerable. "Kuznetsov" is more independent in this respect. By and large, neither one nor the other option should be considered ideal. For the tasks that the US Navy solves, the American version is more suitable. And we have not even decided on these tasks yet ...
  14. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 1 May 2016 11: 19
    +7
    It is not necessary to compare "stupidly" the aircraft carriers themselves and the attack aircraft that are based on them, but the entire air wing (and by all characteristics) and the capabilities of the entire AUG. The author has a "deuce", I don't even want to discuss his "nonsense".
  15. alex80
    alex80 1 May 2016 11: 49
    +7
    As soon as I find in any article a similar crap in percent:
    “According to the degree of compliance of the ship's combat effectiveness with its intended purpose, our aircraft carrier is inferior to the“ American ”in local conflicts by about 14 percent, in a large-scale war - by about 10 percent. . ",
    which is usually never justified, but simply taken from the ceiling,
    then I look further to who the author of this article is. In 90% of cases, this is the "military geoacademician" Sivkov,
    then I put a minus and do not spend my time anymore. The exception is this comment, because already he just pulled up his calculations and similar articles, only the air clogs.
  16. Andy
    Andy 1 May 2016 11: 56
    +7
    and the article is not so hot and the comments are mostly from the kindergarten. here they write "but why do we (aircraft carriers) 20 leaders will tear them." do you have them, 20 leaders? their berks will be more likely. this raz.vtoroe-we need an aircraft carrier for the air defense of ships at sea, to cover our submarines. no one is going to storm the coast of America (like they are ours).
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 May 2016 14: 05
      +2
      But they, with the help of their numerous strike fleet and numerous landing ships, after the exchange of nuclear strikes - our Far East can "storm" very well - and it must be admitted that Russia does not have effective means of detecting and countering the US fleet.
  17. podgornovea
    podgornovea 1 May 2016 12: 21
    +8
    Well, bookkeeper, damn it!
    I calculated everything in percentages!
    Kuzya is almost Nimitz! And if you give him the cruiser Aurora, then he will break Nimitz like a tusik heating pad!
    Three Ka-31s are probably only a couple of percent inferior to four Hawks, we will tear apart the specialized EW airplanes with hibins (somehow we fasten it, we attach it to the Su-33).
    Nuclear reactor is not environmentally friendly, fuel oil drives!

    The main thing is that their aircraft carriers catch one at a time, then Kuzya will kill all - in the order of a live turn! soldier
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 1 May 2016 14: 36
      0
      One cannot cope one at a time, it is necessary to halve, or better, a quarter to Nimitsov per Kuzyu.
    2. yehat
      yehat 5 May 2016 13: 40
      0
      jokes as jokes, but even if ancient Aurora accidentally falls into the line of sight of Avik, then Avik can be scrapped.
  18. Taoist
    Taoist 1 May 2016 13: 49
    +4
    Again the battle of the "whale with the elephant" ... not tired?
    1. Sergey-8848
      Sergey-8848 1 May 2016 16: 44
      0
      Exactly! There is no sense in comparing ships in a speculative battle, without taking into account nuclear weapons. In Battle Ship, you need to play at the appropriate sites.
  19. raddy13
    raddy13 1 May 2016 14: 04
    +2
    Nimitz-Anti-aircraft artillery 3 or 4 × 20-mm gun mount Mk 15 [1] or ASMD
    Missile weapons 16-24 PU "Sea Sparrow" and all. Not everything + rockets and aircraft bombs
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 May 2016 15: 53
      0
      And missile defense, air defense, tactical missiles, torpedoes - ships and submarines cover.
  20. Marsblade
    Marsblade 1 May 2016 16: 02
    +1
    The article is complete nonsense. In addition, other countries have aircraft carriers (India, France - at least)
  21. certero
    certero 1 May 2016 18: 54
    +1
    Russia needs not to catch up, but to bet on innovation. The future aircraft carrier is a carrier of shock drones. Starting to build such ships, you can become a leader, but the displacement for them can be less.
    Autonomous attack drones (that is, they do not require constant control from the ground) will make manned aircraft obsolete. Since drones can use higher G-forces and less weight, since there is no need to ensure the survival of a fragile person. In general - watch the pilot film "Cruiser Galaxy" for understanding :)
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 May 2016 19: 13
      +3
      Russia needs to create means of counteracting aircraft carrier connections around the world in the form of reconnaissance satellite constellation - transmitting the coordinates of aircraft carrier connections to ICBM flight control computers, with a launch range of 20000 kilometers, online.
    2. yehat
      yehat 5 May 2016 13: 42
      0
      how do we rely on drones if there are much more problems with electronic components than in the USA? In this race we can only win if the competitor himself goes off the track.
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 1 May 2016 19: 27
    0
    Maybe the respected expert -President K. Sivkov of "strategic research" is more of an accountant than an expert in the field of naval weapons? Each of his articles is more than a profanation, rather than serious analytical materials !? Or is he just a provocateur or a dezinformator, or a stupid alarmist pouring water on the enemy's mill? Konstantin, namesake, explain to the respected expert community - WHO ARE YOU ???
  25. pafegosoff
    pafegosoff 1 May 2016 19: 51
    -1
    In general, why do we need an aircraft carrier group?
  26. King, just king
    King, just king 1 May 2016 21: 10
    0
    WHAT FOR? Well, why, write another nonsense about aircraft carriers. The author, the conflict between Kuznetsov and Nimitz is the 3rd world thermonuclear war between the Russian Federation and the United States, where everyone will get on the drum who has how many airplanes on deck and in the hangar.
    Why the author, why write delusional articles?
  27. Dewy
    Dewy 1 May 2016 21: 23
    0
    ism_ek ====== Conflicting with the USA is a meaningless undertaking.
    Looking for someone is meaningless)) For them or for us, that’s the question. For me it’s clear, for them)))
  28. litus
    litus 1 May 2016 22: 59
    0
    Quote: Vadim237
    Russia needs to create means of counteracting aircraft carrier connections around the world in the form of reconnaissance satellite constellation - transmitting the coordinates of aircraft carrier connections to ICBM flight control computers, with a launch range of 20000 kilometers, online.


    all right. I have the same opinion.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 2 May 2016 10: 09
      +1
      Alas, such systems are not even expected in the long term.
  29. Mig32
    Mig32 2 May 2016 00: 19
    +3
    Russia needs to bet on the tactical submarine fleet. So that at any moment a small vulgar torpedo will sink several billion dollars :-)
    1. yehat
      yehat 5 May 2016 13: 44
      0
      What is a tactical submarine fleet?
      Are the cruiser Varyag or the battleship Borodino considered units of this fleet?
  30. bbss
    bbss 2 May 2016 00: 56
    +1
    We play checker pawns? Delusional article.
  31. Lucy
    Lucy 2 May 2016 11: 12
    +3
    Quote: stas52
    These ships cannot be compared to different types of ships, if only because:
    Kuznetsov weapons-12 × SCRC 4K80 "Granite"
    24 × PU Dagger (192 missiles)
    8 × ZRAK 3М87 "Dagger" (256 rockets)
    2 × RBU-12000 "Boa constrictor" (60 depth charges)
    6 × AK-630
    Nimitz-Anti-aircraft artillery 3 or 4 × 20-mm gun mount Mk 15 [1] or ASMD
    Missile weapons 16 – 24 PU "Sea Sparrow" and all.
    That is, one on one still does not know who will emerge victorious, but Nimitz never walks alone.

    Granites on "Kuznetsovo" more than 15 years ago! There is no one to receive CU! RBU-12000 is very attractive for an aircraft carrier!
    These are not ships, but aircraft carriers. Study the aircraft suspension, tactical radius, takeoff intervals, initial (planned) composition of the wing. Kuznetsov is currently a mass grave, and a floating simulator for takeoff and landing.
  32. cdznjckfd
    cdznjckfd 2 May 2016 11: 17
    +4
    And in my opinion a normal article, just commentators, did not understand the meaning of the article.
  33. Helizer
    Helizer 2 May 2016 16: 44
    +4
    In non-flying weather, all aircraft carriers turn into a pumpkin. And only an aircraft-carrying cruiser can still use missiles.

    Not a single American aircraft carrier is a fighter for the Arctic because of the steam catapult, which itself will freeze and cover the deck with ice.
  34. Lucy
    Lucy 3 May 2016 21: 36
    +1
    Quote: Chelicera
    In non-flying weather, all aircraft carriers turn into a pumpkin. And only an aircraft-carrying cruiser can still use missiles.

    Not a single American aircraft carrier is a fighter for the Arctic because of the steam catapult, which itself will freeze and cover the deck with ice.



    And what is non-flying weather?
    THE ARCTIC IS NEEDED ONLY TO GO!
    And is Kuznetsov also an icebreaker?
    Explore at what latitude, the ice edge (it is impossible to use PLAviation to search for the fruit) begins in the month of July in SLOkean!
    Drive Kuznetsov even into the ice, because everything is exactly the tactical radius of the F-18 with anti-ship missiles 2-3 times larger than the Launch of the Granite missile launcher on an aircraft carrier, and even without a command center.
    In general, there are quite a few airfields in Norway and there are F-16s with Penguins and Harpoons.
    1. yehat
      yehat 5 May 2016 13: 47
      0
      penguin - this is not serious for modern air defense.
      harpoon ... can you even imagine how many harpoons it takes to drown an aircraft carrier that normally fights for survivability?
      It’s not so easy to fight planes against ships.
      another thing if you mentioned Orions. Even one such aircraft can put so much into Kuznetsov that he, at best, will have to go for repairs. And, unlike F16, f18, he is able to find the target himself.
  35. kirpich
    kirpich 3 May 2016 22: 15
    0
    The ever-memorable "Donald Cook" tried to scout the passages to the shores of Russia in the Black Sea. Got it in the face. I tried to approach Russia from the Baltic side, again a bummer. Well, where can the American AUG go ??? request wink
  36. Lucy
    Lucy 3 May 2016 22: 59
    +2
    Quote: kirpich
    The ever-memorable "Donald Cook" tried to scout the passages to the shores of Russia in the Black Sea. Got it in the face. I tried to approach Russia from the Baltic side, again a bummer. Well, where can the American AUG go ??? request wink


    Only with the Su-24MR, EXCEPT AS DULES TURN MORE "in the face" nothing!
    1. kirpich
      kirpich 4 May 2016 02: 04
      -1
      Well why. It's one thing when our bomber is shot down over the territory of Turkey (and they are right). Another thing is when they brazenly climb across our border and try to prove that our pilots are breaking something there.
      1. yehat
        yehat 5 May 2016 13: 49
        0
        and where is the bomber shot down over the territory of Turkey?
        where is such a point unknown to anyone?
        1. kirpich
          kirpich 6 May 2016 14: 36
          0
          Before you minus, look at the landing approach of our bomber (this is on the Internet). The Turks were in their own right. Our Su crossed their border. Another thing is that we did not give an adequate answer. But this is on the conscience of our fathers-commanders.
          If you are too lazy to look, take a look here http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/70875.html
          I do not condone the Turks, on the contrary, if I come across this evening and there will be no police ... there will be another capercaillie.

          P.S. in addition http://www.bolshoyvopros.ru/questions/1799204-a-kuda-vozvraschalsja-pustoj-su-24
          -letja-ot-svoej-bazy-po-versii-mo-rf.html
  37. 70BSN
    70BSN 4 May 2016 13: 52
    0
    Author You are somehow strangely calculating the percentages .... here is the last aircraft carrier, the number of about 6000 thousand people ... and here is a little bit for evening entertainment >>> https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_H._W._Bush_ ( CVN-77)
  38. RedBaron
    RedBaron 6 May 2016 04: 59
    -1
    Ehh to compare now the Russian aircraft carriers and come to the conclusion that they surpass all non-analogs ..... laughing
  39. Ustinov 055 055
    Ustinov 055 055 6 May 2016 16: 15
    0
    The American aircraft carrier in the war against Russia or China will have to solve the problem of defeating a group of surface ships consisting of 6–8 KGGs (including 2–3 KGGs with cruisers and destroyers), 5–6 KPUGs (including 2–3 KPUGs with frigates and large anti-submarine ships) and 4–5 small coastal KOH. For strikes against these forces, Nimitz will be able to deliver up to 10 strikes in groups of 8–12 (for small ship groups) to 32 vehicles (for large groups with powerful air defense). Without going into details of the calculation, we evaluate the effectiveness of such actions at 0,2–0,23. This is where such quantities from us ships ???????????
  40. Hog
    Hog 9 May 2016 15: 33
    0
    And who ever took into account their own missile weapons "Kuzi" (ASM) in the fight against AUG?
  41. Radchenko Valentin
    Radchenko Valentin 6 December 2016 22: 25
    0
    There is no new information about the next successes of the supercarrier "Admiral Kuznetsov", which, leaving behind a smoky trail of a coal steamer, still reached the shores of Syria. How many aircraft from the air wing have already been lost - just two or more? And this is with the complete absence of any enemy in the air and at sea. I wonder what the picture of losses would have been in real combat. But they are trying to compare him with "Nimitz" ...