Nimitz v. Moscow, assessment of real opportunities
In the spring of 1783, after the annexation of Crimea to Russia, Empress Catherine II signed a decree establishing the Black Sea fleet. Nowadays, after the re-annexation of Crimea to Russia, this day becomes again significant and historically connected with the present. I sincerely congratulate the sailors of the Black Sea Fleet on their holiday and dedicate this article to the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet - the Moscow missile cruiser. Although the reason for writing the article is not a holiday, but another publication. The pages of the respected patriotic Internet resource "Free Press" have recently published remarkable material on the confrontation between the Russian and American fleets. This topic has long become relevant in connection with the aggravation of relations between Russia and the United States and the war in Syria. The author of the material, respected by many military experts, Konstantin Sivkov, claims that the so-called “killer aircraft carriers” are Russian project 1164 cruisers (the project includes the flagships of the Pacific and Black Sea fleets missile cruisers “Varyag” and “Moscow”) are. In other words, they cannot compete with American aircraft carriers in the event of a direct combat collision. Of course, we are not talking about a one-on-one duel, in reality, such ships go only accompanied by other, less powerful, but bearing important functions of ships, that is, groups of ships complementing each other functionally and forming sufficiently protected and stable in real battle connection. For aircraft carriers, such groups are called AUG - aircraft carrier strike group. There is no special name for our cruisers, and the composition of such groups is much more variable and depends on the specific situation. Most often, our “killer aircraft carriers” are escorted by anti-submarine ships, which serve as additional protection against submarines. These are like inseparable pairs. Other ships are already part of the order only to strengthen the overall strike force or carry some additional functions (such as landing ships, rescuers and tankers). In principle, the cruiser itself, unlike the aircraft carrier, has quite a lot of functionality, the ship carries the most extensive set of weapons that can protect the cruiser from a variety of threats - both from surface ships, and from aircraft and submarines. Just special ships can do this a little better and allow the flagship not to do all the things right away. Separation of threats is also an important factor for their successful reflection.
Flagship of the Black Sea Fleet missile cruiser Moscow
In general, the discussion here is still not about a duel, but about a confrontation between two likely opponents, accompanied by their most common assistants. That is how the situation was considered by the doctor of military sciences, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Missile and Artillery Sciences, captain of the first rank, first vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems Konstantin Sivkov. And he made a disappointing conclusion - "our ship’s formation will not even be able to approach the distance of missile firing." In other words, our heavy cruisers are not any “killer aircraft carriers”. It seems like a myth is, aircraft carriers are stronger. And we have no choice but to build our own ... Otherwise, things are bad. This is the main message of the article, which, to put it mildly, outraged me. And not even a conclusion that I cannot agree with, but an almost complete absence of argumentation. It is clear that the article was intended for the general public, who is often not interested in technical details ... However, this style of presentation is generally strange for a military specialist. General phrases about the fact that the enemy has "superiority in the range of application of the deck aviation"and" airstrikes of up to 40 machines "cannot serve as arguments. After all, this is not a lecture for schoolchildren, a more detailed justification is needed. Moreover, there are no obvious errors. But the mistakes of the doctor of military sciences in the article are very serious. It can be said that shameful and I, as an analyst without a military education (behind me, only a university military department), are a little ashamed to point them out. But we assume that I can be wrong. Perhaps. But I still have to point them out to a specialist. Since the topic is relevant and about she writes in the media. I would be glad if I they will answer and find mistakes already with me ... Such a discussion will be useful in any case and will draw attention to the problems of military construction. Are specialists always right in such matters? Let's figure it out.
American aircraft carrier Nimitz
Let's start with the simple. With the statement that "our ship connection cannot even reach the missile firing distance". What is this distance? It would be reasonable to indicate the range of this shooting and show that "airstrikes with a compound up to 40 machines" will destroy our connection before the cruiser approaches this distance to the aircraft carrier. By the way, the author did not forget to indicate the range of the aircraft carrier’s wing - it is “capable of controlling air and surface space to a depth of 800 km”. This is the only specifics. Although it would be possible to specify a bit more specifically - the F / A-18 Hornet fighter (or F / A-18E / F Super Hornet) with a combat radius of 726 km is used as part of the aircraft carrier wing. Its radius should be compared with the range of missiles of our cruisers. There is no comparison. Only said about "superiority in the range of use of carrier-based aviation." It would seem that something easier - compare the range weapons and point out the difference. That would be a real argument. He is not here. And we will study it. So, our cruisers are famous precisely for their rocket weapons - the 16 th PU for the powerful Basalt or Vulcan rocket complex. The missile armament of the cruiser "Moskva" I have already dealt with somehow in my article "How Moscow Saved Syria." The article was just devoted to the issue of confrontation of this cruiser with the American AUG operating in the Mediterranean. "Moscow" then simply drove the American aircraft carrier from Syria. And if the cruiser missiles did not threaten the aircraft carrier, then he would not have left. The cruiser armament was discussed in more detail in the article “Russia is creating the Mediterranean fleet”. There I explained:
So what scared the aircraft carrier? And the fact that cruiser missiles have a range of up to 700 km (officially) and this almost coincides with Hornet’s combat radius! And if such a missile is equipped with a tactical nuclear warhead, then one such missile would be enough for the entire AUG. And their at the cruiser 16 pieces. And it is unlikely that they were supplied only with a conventional mine. Of course, variants of a non-nuclear conflict can also be considered, but 500 kg of conventional explosives will be enough to pierce a wide hole in the aircraft carrier that can sink it. And the only question is that aviation still acts a little further - a couple of dozen kilometers. Is this enough to stop our ships at a range, a greater missile launch distance? This is the whole essence of the issue, and the specialist should have discussed it in detail. We have to do it for him.
Firstly, by all respected Wikipedia, we are informed that the anti-ship missile P-1000 "Vulkan", which is armed with the cruiser "Moscow", has a range not 700, but 1000 km, that is, above our official data. And this is logical: even the name of the missiles contains a real range in kilometers. And since the Vulkan P-1000 rocket is an upgrade of the P-700 Granit rocket with a range of 700 km, it is simply difficult to assume otherwise. Otherwise, what would be the modernization? In the management? Then they would add just the letter "M" at the end. No, the new rocket was qualitatively different from the previous one and its name reflected - after all, almost all missiles with an “P” index have a range corresponding to the name (More precisely, a close one: P-70 Amethyst has a range 80 km, P-120 “Malachite” - 150, P-500 "Basalt" - 550 km. However, the range depends on the flight profile and the maximum range specified in the characteristics does not apply in combat, and the rule is not absolute - the P-15 "Termite" has a range not 15, but 35-40 km ). We have a tradition in our tradition to somewhat underestimate the possibilities of armaments (so calmly to the military, “let the enemy think that we are weaker, but how are we zhahnem!”). For Americans, the tradition is the opposite - somewhat overstate. So their military-industrial complex is rubbing glasses to the congress in order to beat out extra money. And the world is easier to frighten by its invincibility .... In general, I believe that Wikipedia is right here. She is lying on humanitarian issues, and in terms of armaments she gives the latest spy data. Perhaps spies directly transmit their information through Wikipedia? Joke (or maybe not ...). But it turns out that the “Moscow” can, without entering the area of operation of enemy aircraft, attack an aircraft carrier. And in order to avoid such a threat, we have to move away from the “Moscow”. So CVN-69 "Eisenhower" was forced to withdraw from the Mediterranean Sea in 2012, when the threat of the beginning of US bombings in Syria was hanging. The United States had to try to shift Bashar Assad in a different, longer way. And so far without success. And if it were not for the capabilities of our weapons, the meaning of the 2012 events of the year in the Mediterranean would have been completely incomprehensible. The maneuvers of the Russian and American fleets would be meaningless. And it is strange that a military policy specialist, a naval officer, does not understand this. Or he is grossly mistaken, claiming that the enemy has "superiority in the range of use of carrier-based aviation."
We go further. About "airstrikes up to 40 machines":
We’ll immediately clarify that F / A-18 Hornet fighters are used against ships of the Harpoon rocket (AGM / RGM / UGM-84 Harpoon) with a range of up to 280 km (the most long-range version). Tomahawks have a significantly longer range, but cannot be launched from F / A-18, only from ships. But the most interesting thing is that the anti-ship version of Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM) was removed from service at the beginning of 2000's! That is, having mentioned the Tomahawks as a weapon against our cruisers, the doctor of military sciences was mistaken again. Only the “Harpoon” remained in service as long-range RCC, about which Sivkov did not even mention. It is worth adding that in the 2009 year, in view of the changing views on the value of long-range anti-ship missiles in the modern geopolitical setting, the US Navy initiated a program to develop a new long-range anti-ship missile made using the Stealth technology and was designated LRASM - Long Range Anti-Ship Missile. And initially, under this abbreviation, even two missiles were developed:
LRASM-A is a subsonic anti-ship missile with a range of up to 800 km based on a JASSM-ER aircraft missile. The LRASM-B is a supersonic anti-ship missile conceptually close to the Soviet Granite P-700.
LRASM-B would be a really serious rocket, since according to the project it should have a range of 1000 km. That is, it is an analogue of our Vulcan, created in Soviet times. However, it did not work out with its development and now only the subsonic version of the LRASM-A is being finalized. Its adoption is planned in 2018 year. How is it better than the decommissioned Tomahawk is not very clear, apparently, it is simply "invisible." It has become very popular with the US military - to call planes and rockets "invisible". There is no such thing for radiophysics. There is the concept of small EPR (EPR - effective scattering area, the ability of the object to reflect radio waves). The EPR strongly depends on the wavelength and an object invisible in one wave band can always be seen in another. And the American enthusiasm for stealth technology only made our radars more broadband ... But this applies only to the future rocket, but for now our cruisers are threatened by much weaker and quite visible "Harpoons" with a range of 150-280 km. And in order for them to reach our cruiser before the moment of its volley on the American AUG, they must be launched precisely from airplanes. Those, respectively, should be able to fly up to the “Moscow” on the launch distance of the “Harpoon”. And rocket ships with "Harpoons" and "Tomahawks", which are under the protection of "Nimitz", are completely out of work, due to the short range of their anti-ship missiles. Moscow will sink them without entering the zone of action of their weapons. Therefore, we discuss the option with the aircraft.
Can the entire wing of the Nimitz in full force attack Moscow at the same time? Theoretically, Nimitz-type aircraft carriers can carry up to 90 aircraft of various types. The wing is usually 45-48 fighters, the rest - the scouts, tankers and others. But these 48 cannot act simultaneously. Why? Because it is impossible to start them at the same time - the catapult is only 4 and preparation for launch takes considerable time. And at the same time, it is also impossible to prepare all aircraft for launching - there are special zones with limited capacity for this. In detail about the capabilities of aircraft carriers describes the article "EVALUATION OF THE COMBAT POWER OF AIRLINES: THE LAUNCH CYCLE". It specifically states that:
That is, no longer 48, but the entire 20 machines. But these aircraft 20 machines will launch at least 45 minutes. This is the duration of the start-up cycle, it can not be faster. And if he starts the second launch cycle, it will prevent taking on the aircraft that he released in the first one. Hornet can be in the air no more than 2,5 hours - its fuel is also limited. What does all of this mean? This means that the aircraft carrier can only attack 20-th aircraft, and the first launched aircraft will have to wait for the rest, circling over the aircraft carrier wasting precious fuel. Almost an hour until the whole group starts! And this significantly reduces the range of their flight. Almost double! Only the latter can immediately fly to the target to the maximum range. The first are forced to hang additional fuel tanks, then to be able to return. The author of this, much more reasoned article, concludes the opposite of what Sivkov does:
If all this is brought into the framework of our confrontation with the Russian missile cruiser of the Moscow type, then it turns out that a group of maximum 20 aircraft can fly up to it. Moreover, the range of this group is much less than the maximum due to the launch cycle, during which the first aircraft spend their fuel. You can estimate the reduction of the range by about a third (by the ratio of the waiting time with the maximum time in flight). Then this group will fly to the “Moscow” after it makes a volley on the AUG. Return to this group will simply nowhere. Alternatively, it should be assumed that at the maximum range there is a group with a smaller number of aircraft - a maximum of 6. If we seriously consider the possibility of an aircraft carrier to attack the "Moscow", then this option will have to be chosen - only a small group of aircraft with additional fuel tanks have a chance to reach the cruiser at a distance over 700 km. That is, 4-6 airplanes that have one Harpoon on board (they can take 2 rockets as much as possible, but additional fuel tanks reduced this number to 1). This means that Moscow will have to repel the attack of all of the 6 missiles (launched from different sides to make it difficult to intercept). In this second case, an air defense of a cruiser, for which he is also famous, can quite easily handle a small number of missiles. But we will discuss the defensive capabilities of "Moscow" in more detail in the next part ...
WHAT IS "NIMITS" SUPPRESSING "MOSCOW"? PART 2
In the first part of the article, I noted two gross mistakes of the doctor of military sciences: the first is that our missile cruisers are threatened by long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles (the anti-ship version is out of service), the second is that the aircraft carrier is capable of delivering massive strikes of up to 40 aircraft machines (maximum 20 due to a long startup cycle). And there was a third mistake, the most important one - about "superiority in the range of use of carrier-based aviation." There are still some interesting details that need to be understood ... Sivkov was clearly wrong if only the fighter part of the Nimitz wing was taken into account. The F / A-18E / F Super Hornet fighter has a small combat radius of 720 km and the Moscow cruiser has every chance of approaching an aircraft carrier for a missile launch range (which is about 1000 km) without being subjected to a massive strike of these aircraft a small group of 6 planes was negotiated). But there is one detail previously unaccounted for - the aircraft carrier, besides these strike airplanes, carries several other types, among which there is also a very dangerous one for Moscow. We are talking about anti-submarine (!) Lockheed S-3 "Viking" aircraft. It looks very clumsy and completely harmless slug, designed to deal exclusively with enemy submarines. But he has one feature - a large combat radius. Its combat radius is 1530 km (with 4 × torpedoes Mk.46 and 60 hydroacoustic buoys). With additional tanks - up to 1700 km! It can carry up to 4 tons of weapons. Initially, it was not intended to attack surface targets, but the Americans still thought of making a special modification - S-3B, capable of carrying the Harpoon anti-ship missiles. 2 pieces on pylons. And it really gave the aircraft carrier "superiority in the range of use of carrier-based aircraft." Anti-submarine with long-range "Harpoon" becomes a wonderful attack aircraft and the most dangerous enemy for "Moscow" - he can attack her at a great distance from his aircraft carrier without entering the range of the air defense of the cruiser! This is the "longest hand" of the American AUG.
Anti-submarine S3 Viking
Although not only our doctor of military sciences, but the Americans themselves didn’t appreciate the Viking abilities very much - there were only one dozen of them on the aircraft carrier. Until 2009 year. In 2009, they were completely removed from service. Unique and truly useful aircraft produced the entire 187 units in the period from 1974 to 1978 years. Aged and removed. A worthy replacement was not found. And they were excellent scouts and even tankers ... After the Viking, the most long-range of deck-based aircraft was the Grumman F-14 Tomcat - its combat radius 926 km. But it was removed from service even earlier - in 2006 year! Tomkat is a good fighter-interceptor, he is the only aircraft capable of carrying an AIM-54A Phoenix long-range air-to-air missile. This rocket, worth 500 thousand dollars, is capable of hitting targets at a distance of 185 km, the most long-range missile of the Americans. Together with the resignation of Tomkata and the rocket became useless ... The US Air Force is degrading in front of his eyes in the hope of the newest F-35, which in reality is much worse than the models removed from service of American technology. But it is not about that. And about the fact that our military expert was greatly mistaken - now only Hornet, armed with strike aircraft, and all our arguments about the range of the aircraft carrier wing remain in force. That is, Sivkov's statement about the "superiority in range" of an aircraft carrier is absolutely erroneous.
PKR Harpoon under the Viking wing
And now we will continue our discussion of the most likely variant of the attack of “Moscow” by the aircraft carrier - these are 6 Hornet fighters at maximum range with additional fuel tanks. Can carry 6 missiles "Harpoon". There are other anti-ship missiles in Hornet’s arsenal, but much less powerful and long-range (AGM-65 Maverick, for example, has a range of only 30 km). In order to attack a cruiser without entering its air defense zone, it is the “Harpoon” with a range of 150-280km that is needed. The danger can only be another AGM-88 HARM - the American high-speed anti-radar missile. It can be used against the radar "Moscow" from a distance to 100 km. Without radar "Moscow" will be defenseless. And then her defeat even 6 Harpoons will be very likely. However, in order to launch this missile, American pilots will have to take a chance and enter the cruiser’s air defense zone - it is also approximately 100 km in range. And since the “Harpoons” have a significantly higher range, then the US pilots will still attack the “Harpoons” first. You can only assume a slightly more risky attack option - without additional fuel tanks, but with refueling in the air on the way back. Then there may be more missiles - 12 pieces. This is also not too much for an air defense cruiser. In addition, he will not be alone, let's not forget that we are talking about a warrant, where together with the "Moscow" there will be another couple of quite serious warships, with their own air defense weapons. But while we are discussing the possibilities of "Moscow" against the attack of the Harpoon missiles ...
Hornet with Harpoon and additional fuel tanks
Rocket "Harpoon" has a low speed - 0,6 mach and perfectly detects radar (if it is in direct visibility). The speed of the rocket is so small that it is lower than the speed of ordinary passenger aircraft, which, as shown story, easily strayed by the old air defense systems of Ukraine. And the fact that the size of the rocket is still smaller than the Boeing is unlikely to help it survive, especially since the air defense weapons of the cruiser Moskva are somewhat more perfect than the Ukrainian ones. The air defense of the cruiser includes 8 launchers of the C-300F long-range air defense missile systems, 2 launchers of the Osa-M near-line defense systems Osa-M, and 6 anti-aircraft guns AK-630. The naval version of the C-300 has a slightly smaller range than the ground, but still provides defense at a distance of up to 100 km (for 5В55РМ missiles - 75km). And although the complex can shoot down the anti-ship missiles, its main purpose is to keep the enemy’s planes closer. Against anti-ship missiles, it is not very effective, since the lower limit of height for the complex’s missiles is 25 meters, and modern missiles fly lower. The same "Harpoon" of the latest modifications flies at an altitude of 2-5 meters. "Osa-M" operates at a distance of up to 15 km and can already shoot down low-flying anti-ship missiles - for it the minimum target height is 5 meters. It is on her most likely that the task will be assigned to knock down the anti-ship missiles on long-range borders (10-15 km). Although the probability of defeat is again not absolute (experts estimate its effectiveness as 70%, that is, up to 30% RCC with massive attacks can break into the near zone of the ship’s anti-aircraft defense to the distance 2-3 km). And although the anti-aircraft missile complexes of the anti-ship missiles can be strayed, the last echelon of defense, which is the 6 of AK-630М installations, will do it most effectively. These are the 30-mm six-barreled automatic ship-mounted artillery AO-18, created under the direction of V. P. Griazev and A. G. Shipunova. The name "6" means 6 trunks, 30 - caliber. Unique weapon. This installation is remarkable in that it releases up to 5000 projectiles per minute. Range - to 4 km. Creates a steel cloud of projectiles in the path of the detected rocket. The installation is fully automatic, it is guided by the automated control system MP-123 "Vympel" on the target spotted by radars with the highest accuracy. Efficiency is the highest.
Battery AK-630М aboard Moscow
The western counterpart of this installation is the low-altitude barrage shipboard air defense / missile defense system “Goalkeeper” (Netherlands-USA), which incorporates 30-mm seven-barreled GAU-8 cannon with 4200 fire rate / min. In our publications, there are no examples of AK-630M effectiveness testing. But there are about the “Goalkeeper”:
Our anti-aircraft complex is not inferior in its characteristics to the western one, rather surpasses it. And that means its effectiveness is not less. The likelihood that 6 "Harpoons" (or even 12) will overcome all three lines of defense of the cruiser is very low. Such low-speed targets like the Harpoon anti-ship missiles are fairly easy targets for all modern air defense systems. To overcome the defense of the cruiser could be several missiles from a very massive attack - a few dozen missiles. Then the reaction of anti-aircraft complexes and their automatic guidance could simply not be enough. It was precisely this situation that Konstantin Sivkov hoped for, arguing that the cruiser had no chance of surviving ... But such a situation is not possible in reality - the aircraft carrier will not be able to provide such a massive attack of the cruiser. In this expert was wrong. A dozen low-speed missiles "Moscow" reflect. And do not forget about escort ships. They will also take part in the destruction of missiles at the near line of defense. It is in our warrant that escort ships will play their part in defending the cruiser, but not as part of the American AUG - there they will be practically useless. Why? Because the Vulcan rocket is many times greater than the Harpoon in speed and this makes it practically invulnerable to air defense. Here it is worthwhile to evaluate the capabilities of the American ships to repel the attack of our “Volcanoes”. The picture will be completely different.
First, we note that the defense of American ships is significantly weaker than ours. This is confirmed by the experience of military actions that the US has been conducting for many years all over the world "for the sake of democracy." For example, the USS Navy frigate USS Stark (FFG-31) of the Oliver Hazard Perry type (project SCN 207 / 2081) 17 in May 1987 of the year, during the Iran-Iraq war, suffered heavy damage as a result of two Exocset missiles "AM.39, released by the Iraqi Mirage fighter F1. The frigate barely managed to keep afloat, 37 sailors died. The frigate as a means of air defense could use the Mk13 launcher (universal installation with one guide for launching Tartar, Standard SM-1, Garpun missiles) and the Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS anti-aircraft system, which is an 6-automatic gun. M61A1 with a caliber of 20 mm (rate of fire 3000 shots per minute). The Iraqi fighter was certainly spotted by radar, as was the launch of its missiles. But the reaction time was not enough to shoot down a pair of subsonic rockets. And our anti-ship missiles Vulkan, which fly at speed in 2,5, will not even be able to notice the speed of sound.
Of course, the aircraft carrier group includes ships with more powerful means. Americans are very proud of the latest Aegis Combat System - ACS. By this name is meant both the ship’s multifunctional combat information management system (BIUS) and the air defense missile system, which is controlled by this system. As the omniscient Wikipedia reports:
The Ajis ADMS uses Standard missile 2 (SM-2) and more modern Standard missile 3 (SM-3) missiles. According to its capabilities, the system resembles our C-400 in the fleet version. Even the SM2 rocket is close in parameters to our 48H6 with a range of 150 km. However, Aegis is more focused on missile defense tasks - to intercept ballistic targets, that is, our strategic missiles. Or aerodynamic high-altitude targets, like airplanes. As for low-flying targets, that is, cruise missiles with a low profile of flight, the system is not very effective. And the problem here is purely physical - due to the curvature of the earth, the anti-ship missiles fall into the zone of direct visibility by the radar of the system already on the way to the target - at a distance of 30-35 km. Up to this point, they are just beyond the horizon and therefore not visible. And if the goal is high-speed, then the reaction of the system is very little time. If the anti-ship missile also maneuvers quickly, then the heavy long-range missiles behind it will simply not be stolen. Against anti-ship missiles are more effective short-range air defense missiles with small, but fast and maneuverable missiles. And, of course, anti-aircraft rapid-fire artillery systems - ZAK. We have an ideal weapon against cruise missiles is the "Shell-S", the Americans have no analogue ...
In general, the topic of the possibility of American AUG to repel an attack by our supersonic anti-ship missiles like "Granite" or "Vulcan" has become not just popular on the Internet, but also the subject of a whole information war. Here, for example, the Internet publication topwar.ru published an article by Oleg Kaptsov, “A blow from under the water. How strong are American AUGs?”. A remarkable and very informative article, which itself was a response to the article by A. Nikolsky, a certain “shipbuilding engineer”, “The Russian fleet goes under water.” He wrote Nikolsky in the spirit of the same Sivkov about the invincibility of the American fleet. And another engineer had to explain a lot of technical details to refute a bunch of false statements. Among them is the fact that "AUG air defense at the beginning of the 80-s, depending on the tactical situation, could have shot down the 70-120 of the Granit or X-22 missiles." Kaptsov explained in a very colorful and detailed way how deeply Nikolsky was mistaken. I will not give all the arguments of Kaptsov, but I will quote only one moment about the latest Aegis system:
Kaptsov considered a slightly different situation - the possibility of an attack by the American AUG of our submarine, armed with the PKR Granit, the younger brother of Vulkan. This situation is slightly different, but not too much. The fact is that the Russian grouping, headed by a cruiser of the type Moscow or Varyag, should almost certainly include a shock submarine. This is the case when the order members functionally complement each other. It must be said that, with all its advantages, the secrecy of the submarine is blind, that is, it does not have the ability to detect the enemy at long distances - under water it is difficult to do. She listens to the ocean with her acoustic systems and this allows her to detect ships over tens of kilometers, but Granit flies 700 km. That is, it needs external intelligence data to attack. You can somehow receive data from the satellite, but it is easier to get data from your closest ships while simultaneously hiding in their “shadows”, their sound of screws drowns out the noise from the submarine itself. That is, if we are talking about the attack of the American AUG, then the nuclear submarine in this attack may well take part - just stepping forward and hitting with its Granits at the same time as the volley of Moscow. And then the probability of survival of the aircraft carrier will be almost zero.
Here to the place to notice about another advantage of our anti-ship missiles to the American "Harpoons" except speed and range. This is their "intelligence". The homing device does not just stupidly track the target and directs a rocket at it, but jointly (!) With other missiles in the salvo, it distributes targets in the enemy’s warrant, transmits information about the detected targets to other missiles, and selects the attack tactics. They are like a pack of wolves pounding "prey." The tactics of attack provides that only one of the missiles can fly above the horizon, tracking targets and transmitting information to other missiles hidden behind the horizon line. Thus, all missiles except for one fly up to the AUG unnoticed and organize a simultaneous attack from different sides on different ships. On the approach to the goal of the rocket make quick maneuvers of deviation from air defense weapons. That is, "Granites" and "Volcanoes" attack very smoothly and slyly, as the pack predators like wolves do. The American "Harpoons" in this regard are very primitive and require external control by the wearer almost to the very end of the attack. This gives great opportunities for electronic warfare, up to control interception. This is another aspect that we do not consider due to the complexity of the topic ...
Lack of space does not allow to consider absolutely all aspects of the topic under discussion, besides not all the technical details we can know. But even a superficial analysis allows us to notice the general technical backwardness of the air defense systems of the US Navy, as well as the backwardness in anti-ship assets. Our rockets fly farther, faster and more intelligent. Our air defense systems are more developed and effective. All this together makes our 1164 missile carriers "aircraft carrier killers", their advantage in armament is indisputable. Although the Internet is full of "experts" who claim the opposite. The same Sivkov dedicated not one publication to this. In the article “The chances of the Russian missile cruiser hitting the American aircraft carrier compound are insignificant” even try to equate our cruiser “Moscow” with the American missile cruiser:
I wonder what kind of data the “expert” compared except for the displacement? The combat capabilities of ships need to be matched by the weapons they carry. And here not even the quantity is important, but the quality. Yes, there are more missiles on Tikonderoge. But they are qualitatively much worse than ours. "Harpoons" can not be compared with our "Volcanoes" and the same "Ticonderoga" simply does not fit the "Moscow" at a distance of launching their missiles. Even if there are a thousand of these missiles, it will not save her. Do not save her and air defense, the same system "Aegis". The most effective means against cruise missiles is a rapid-fire automatic gun. How many such guns have "Tikondery"? These are the 2 6-stem 20-mm Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS. The same Phalanx that could not bring down a couple of Iraqi "Exosets". Moscow has 6 much more powerful installations. And "Tikanderoga" has only 6 "Harpoons" against 16 "Volcanoes". All the power of Tikanderogi is a hundred Tomahawks designed for land use. How can you compare these ships? Tikonderoga, in comparison with Moscow, is just a barge loaded with rockets (perhaps it was supposed to be the idea of an arsenal ship with a bunch of missiles, but without serious means of defense is very popular among Americans).
Much is seen in a completely different light, if one delves into the technical details that the doctor of military sciences should know better than any civilian analyst. However, judging by the number and intensity of passions in articles on this topic, it is unlikely that the expert wanted to convey to us some of his knowledge on this subject. It is rather about the formation of an appropriate public opinion. Profitable for our overseas "partner" who is stronger in information wars, but not in military technology.
Flagship of the Black Sea Fleet missile cruiser Moscow
In general, the discussion here is still not about a duel, but about a confrontation between two likely opponents, accompanied by their most common assistants. That is how the situation was considered by the doctor of military sciences, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Missile and Artillery Sciences, captain of the first rank, first vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems Konstantin Sivkov. And he made a disappointing conclusion - "our ship’s formation will not even be able to approach the distance of missile firing." In other words, our heavy cruisers are not any “killer aircraft carriers”. It seems like a myth is, aircraft carriers are stronger. And we have no choice but to build our own ... Otherwise, things are bad. This is the main message of the article, which, to put it mildly, outraged me. And not even a conclusion that I cannot agree with, but an almost complete absence of argumentation. It is clear that the article was intended for the general public, who is often not interested in technical details ... However, this style of presentation is generally strange for a military specialist. General phrases about the fact that the enemy has "superiority in the range of application of the deck aviation"and" airstrikes of up to 40 machines "cannot serve as arguments. After all, this is not a lecture for schoolchildren, a more detailed justification is needed. Moreover, there are no obvious errors. But the mistakes of the doctor of military sciences in the article are very serious. It can be said that shameful and I, as an analyst without a military education (behind me, only a university military department), are a little ashamed to point them out. But we assume that I can be wrong. Perhaps. But I still have to point them out to a specialist. Since the topic is relevant and about she writes in the media. I would be glad if I they will answer and find mistakes already with me ... Such a discussion will be useful in any case and will draw attention to the problems of military construction. Are specialists always right in such matters? Let's figure it out.
American aircraft carrier Nimitz
Let's start with the simple. With the statement that "our ship connection cannot even reach the missile firing distance". What is this distance? It would be reasonable to indicate the range of this shooting and show that "airstrikes with a compound up to 40 machines" will destroy our connection before the cruiser approaches this distance to the aircraft carrier. By the way, the author did not forget to indicate the range of the aircraft carrier’s wing - it is “capable of controlling air and surface space to a depth of 800 km”. This is the only specifics. Although it would be possible to specify a bit more specifically - the F / A-18 Hornet fighter (or F / A-18E / F Super Hornet) with a combat radius of 726 km is used as part of the aircraft carrier wing. Its radius should be compared with the range of missiles of our cruisers. There is no comparison. Only said about "superiority in the range of use of carrier-based aviation." It would seem that something easier - compare the range weapons and point out the difference. That would be a real argument. He is not here. And we will study it. So, our cruisers are famous precisely for their rocket weapons - the 16 th PU for the powerful Basalt or Vulcan rocket complex. The missile armament of the cruiser "Moskva" I have already dealt with somehow in my article "How Moscow Saved Syria." The article was just devoted to the issue of confrontation of this cruiser with the American AUG operating in the Mediterranean. "Moscow" then simply drove the American aircraft carrier from Syria. And if the cruiser missiles did not threaten the aircraft carrier, then he would not have left. The cruiser armament was discussed in more detail in the article “Russia is creating the Mediterranean fleet”. There I explained:
"A supersonic missile with a mass of 5 tons and an official range of 700 km (real may be more) represents a very serious threat to the entire US fleet, its warhead with 500 kg of explosives can destroy an aircraft carrier, and with nuclear stuffing in 350ct an entire enemy order Air defense against rockets flying at a speed of 2,5 mach is not very effective, especially at ultra-low altitudes of the order of 5 meters, at which the rockets attack their target. "
So what scared the aircraft carrier? And the fact that cruiser missiles have a range of up to 700 km (officially) and this almost coincides with Hornet’s combat radius! And if such a missile is equipped with a tactical nuclear warhead, then one such missile would be enough for the entire AUG. And their at the cruiser 16 pieces. And it is unlikely that they were supplied only with a conventional mine. Of course, variants of a non-nuclear conflict can also be considered, but 500 kg of conventional explosives will be enough to pierce a wide hole in the aircraft carrier that can sink it. And the only question is that aviation still acts a little further - a couple of dozen kilometers. Is this enough to stop our ships at a range, a greater missile launch distance? This is the whole essence of the issue, and the specialist should have discussed it in detail. We have to do it for him.
Firstly, by all respected Wikipedia, we are informed that the anti-ship missile P-1000 "Vulkan", which is armed with the cruiser "Moscow", has a range not 700, but 1000 km, that is, above our official data. And this is logical: even the name of the missiles contains a real range in kilometers. And since the Vulkan P-1000 rocket is an upgrade of the P-700 Granit rocket with a range of 700 km, it is simply difficult to assume otherwise. Otherwise, what would be the modernization? In the management? Then they would add just the letter "M" at the end. No, the new rocket was qualitatively different from the previous one and its name reflected - after all, almost all missiles with an “P” index have a range corresponding to the name (More precisely, a close one: P-70 Amethyst has a range 80 km, P-120 “Malachite” - 150, P-500 "Basalt" - 550 km. However, the range depends on the flight profile and the maximum range specified in the characteristics does not apply in combat, and the rule is not absolute - the P-15 "Termite" has a range not 15, but 35-40 km ). We have a tradition in our tradition to somewhat underestimate the possibilities of armaments (so calmly to the military, “let the enemy think that we are weaker, but how are we zhahnem!”). For Americans, the tradition is the opposite - somewhat overstate. So their military-industrial complex is rubbing glasses to the congress in order to beat out extra money. And the world is easier to frighten by its invincibility .... In general, I believe that Wikipedia is right here. She is lying on humanitarian issues, and in terms of armaments she gives the latest spy data. Perhaps spies directly transmit their information through Wikipedia? Joke (or maybe not ...). But it turns out that the “Moscow” can, without entering the area of operation of enemy aircraft, attack an aircraft carrier. And in order to avoid such a threat, we have to move away from the “Moscow”. So CVN-69 "Eisenhower" was forced to withdraw from the Mediterranean Sea in 2012, when the threat of the beginning of US bombings in Syria was hanging. The United States had to try to shift Bashar Assad in a different, longer way. And so far without success. And if it were not for the capabilities of our weapons, the meaning of the 2012 events of the year in the Mediterranean would have been completely incomprehensible. The maneuvers of the Russian and American fleets would be meaningless. And it is strange that a military policy specialist, a naval officer, does not understand this. Or he is grossly mistaken, claiming that the enemy has "superiority in the range of use of carrier-based aviation."
We go further. About "airstrikes up to 40 machines":
"Solving the task of fighting enemy surface ships, the carrier-based strike group is capable of striking deck aircraft consisting of up to 40 airplanes at a distance of 600 − 800 km and Tomahawk missiles at a distance of 500 − 600 km from the center of the warrant, having up to several dozens of such rockets. "
We’ll immediately clarify that F / A-18 Hornet fighters are used against ships of the Harpoon rocket (AGM / RGM / UGM-84 Harpoon) with a range of up to 280 km (the most long-range version). Tomahawks have a significantly longer range, but cannot be launched from F / A-18, only from ships. But the most interesting thing is that the anti-ship version of Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM) was removed from service at the beginning of 2000's! That is, having mentioned the Tomahawks as a weapon against our cruisers, the doctor of military sciences was mistaken again. Only the “Harpoon” remained in service as long-range RCC, about which Sivkov did not even mention. It is worth adding that in the 2009 year, in view of the changing views on the value of long-range anti-ship missiles in the modern geopolitical setting, the US Navy initiated a program to develop a new long-range anti-ship missile made using the Stealth technology and was designated LRASM - Long Range Anti-Ship Missile. And initially, under this abbreviation, even two missiles were developed:
LRASM-A is a subsonic anti-ship missile with a range of up to 800 km based on a JASSM-ER aircraft missile. The LRASM-B is a supersonic anti-ship missile conceptually close to the Soviet Granite P-700.
LRASM-B would be a really serious rocket, since according to the project it should have a range of 1000 km. That is, it is an analogue of our Vulcan, created in Soviet times. However, it did not work out with its development and now only the subsonic version of the LRASM-A is being finalized. Its adoption is planned in 2018 year. How is it better than the decommissioned Tomahawk is not very clear, apparently, it is simply "invisible." It has become very popular with the US military - to call planes and rockets "invisible". There is no such thing for radiophysics. There is the concept of small EPR (EPR - effective scattering area, the ability of the object to reflect radio waves). The EPR strongly depends on the wavelength and an object invisible in one wave band can always be seen in another. And the American enthusiasm for stealth technology only made our radars more broadband ... But this applies only to the future rocket, but for now our cruisers are threatened by much weaker and quite visible "Harpoons" with a range of 150-280 km. And in order for them to reach our cruiser before the moment of its volley on the American AUG, they must be launched precisely from airplanes. Those, respectively, should be able to fly up to the “Moscow” on the launch distance of the “Harpoon”. And rocket ships with "Harpoons" and "Tomahawks", which are under the protection of "Nimitz", are completely out of work, due to the short range of their anti-ship missiles. Moscow will sink them without entering the zone of action of their weapons. Therefore, we discuss the option with the aircraft.
Can the entire wing of the Nimitz in full force attack Moscow at the same time? Theoretically, Nimitz-type aircraft carriers can carry up to 90 aircraft of various types. The wing is usually 45-48 fighters, the rest - the scouts, tankers and others. But these 48 cannot act simultaneously. Why? Because it is impossible to start them at the same time - the catapult is only 4 and preparation for launch takes considerable time. And at the same time, it is also impossible to prepare all aircraft for launching - there are special zones with limited capacity for this. In detail about the capabilities of aircraft carriers describes the article "EVALUATION OF THE COMBAT POWER OF AIRLINES: THE LAUNCH CYCLE". It specifically states that:
"... the Nimitz class aircraft carrier without interference for flight operations of all types using all launches can simultaneously hold on deck up to 2's links (8 machines), of which one can be in 5-minute readiness, and the rest are in readiness from 15-ti to 45-ti minutes. Using the elevator area and blocking the runway allows you to increase the number of machines in readiness to 20-ti, while ensuring a pair's 5-minute readiness. This figure is the maximum when the aircraft carrier is working on lifting aircraft intensity. This is the maximum number of machines in one run cycle. "
That is, no longer 48, but the entire 20 machines. But these aircraft 20 machines will launch at least 45 minutes. This is the duration of the start-up cycle, it can not be faster. And if he starts the second launch cycle, it will prevent taking on the aircraft that he released in the first one. Hornet can be in the air no more than 2,5 hours - its fuel is also limited. What does all of this mean? This means that the aircraft carrier can only attack 20-th aircraft, and the first launched aircraft will have to wait for the rest, circling over the aircraft carrier wasting precious fuel. Almost an hour until the whole group starts! And this significantly reduces the range of their flight. Almost double! Only the latter can immediately fly to the target to the maximum range. The first are forced to hang additional fuel tanks, then to be able to return. The author of this, much more reasoned article, concludes the opposite of what Sivkov does:
"The superiority of the Nimitz class ships over any other aircraft carriers of the world is indisputable. It is particularly pronounced in solving shock missions. Of the modern aircraft carriers, only the Nimitz can lift into the air a balanced strike force, which will include a strike squadron, a cover group and vehicles of support ... At the same time, the advertised prohibitive combat power of the US aircraft carriers turns out to be a myth. The stated in the characteristics of the aircraft wing 90 machines spend most of the time on the coast, I will In practice, the 20-second take-off interval turns out to be 5-minute in practice.The maximum volume of the raised air group is no more than 20 machines, or rather, one strike squadron with attached departure aids. , which means that it is impossible to use the full combat load. At least the first 6 vehicles in the launch cycle are forced to use outboard tanks to operate in conjunction with airplanes taking off late her, at the same range. From a tactical point of view, this means that the range of the strike connection can never reach its theoretical maximum, and the combat load will be at best half of the declared in the characteristics of the aircraft. "
If all this is brought into the framework of our confrontation with the Russian missile cruiser of the Moscow type, then it turns out that a group of maximum 20 aircraft can fly up to it. Moreover, the range of this group is much less than the maximum due to the launch cycle, during which the first aircraft spend their fuel. You can estimate the reduction of the range by about a third (by the ratio of the waiting time with the maximum time in flight). Then this group will fly to the “Moscow” after it makes a volley on the AUG. Return to this group will simply nowhere. Alternatively, it should be assumed that at the maximum range there is a group with a smaller number of aircraft - a maximum of 6. If we seriously consider the possibility of an aircraft carrier to attack the "Moscow", then this option will have to be chosen - only a small group of aircraft with additional fuel tanks have a chance to reach the cruiser at a distance over 700 km. That is, 4-6 airplanes that have one Harpoon on board (they can take 2 rockets as much as possible, but additional fuel tanks reduced this number to 1). This means that Moscow will have to repel the attack of all of the 6 missiles (launched from different sides to make it difficult to intercept). In this second case, an air defense of a cruiser, for which he is also famous, can quite easily handle a small number of missiles. But we will discuss the defensive capabilities of "Moscow" in more detail in the next part ...
WHAT IS "NIMITS" SUPPRESSING "MOSCOW"? PART 2
In the first part of the article, I noted two gross mistakes of the doctor of military sciences: the first is that our missile cruisers are threatened by long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles (the anti-ship version is out of service), the second is that the aircraft carrier is capable of delivering massive strikes of up to 40 aircraft machines (maximum 20 due to a long startup cycle). And there was a third mistake, the most important one - about "superiority in the range of use of carrier-based aviation." There are still some interesting details that need to be understood ... Sivkov was clearly wrong if only the fighter part of the Nimitz wing was taken into account. The F / A-18E / F Super Hornet fighter has a small combat radius of 720 km and the Moscow cruiser has every chance of approaching an aircraft carrier for a missile launch range (which is about 1000 km) without being subjected to a massive strike of these aircraft a small group of 6 planes was negotiated). But there is one detail previously unaccounted for - the aircraft carrier, besides these strike airplanes, carries several other types, among which there is also a very dangerous one for Moscow. We are talking about anti-submarine (!) Lockheed S-3 "Viking" aircraft. It looks very clumsy and completely harmless slug, designed to deal exclusively with enemy submarines. But he has one feature - a large combat radius. Its combat radius is 1530 km (with 4 × torpedoes Mk.46 and 60 hydroacoustic buoys). With additional tanks - up to 1700 km! It can carry up to 4 tons of weapons. Initially, it was not intended to attack surface targets, but the Americans still thought of making a special modification - S-3B, capable of carrying the Harpoon anti-ship missiles. 2 pieces on pylons. And it really gave the aircraft carrier "superiority in the range of use of carrier-based aircraft." Anti-submarine with long-range "Harpoon" becomes a wonderful attack aircraft and the most dangerous enemy for "Moscow" - he can attack her at a great distance from his aircraft carrier without entering the range of the air defense of the cruiser! This is the "longest hand" of the American AUG.
Anti-submarine S3 Viking
Although not only our doctor of military sciences, but the Americans themselves didn’t appreciate the Viking abilities very much - there were only one dozen of them on the aircraft carrier. Until 2009 year. In 2009, they were completely removed from service. Unique and truly useful aircraft produced the entire 187 units in the period from 1974 to 1978 years. Aged and removed. A worthy replacement was not found. And they were excellent scouts and even tankers ... After the Viking, the most long-range of deck-based aircraft was the Grumman F-14 Tomcat - its combat radius 926 km. But it was removed from service even earlier - in 2006 year! Tomkat is a good fighter-interceptor, he is the only aircraft capable of carrying an AIM-54A Phoenix long-range air-to-air missile. This rocket, worth 500 thousand dollars, is capable of hitting targets at a distance of 185 km, the most long-range missile of the Americans. Together with the resignation of Tomkata and the rocket became useless ... The US Air Force is degrading in front of his eyes in the hope of the newest F-35, which in reality is much worse than the models removed from service of American technology. But it is not about that. And about the fact that our military expert was greatly mistaken - now only Hornet, armed with strike aircraft, and all our arguments about the range of the aircraft carrier wing remain in force. That is, Sivkov's statement about the "superiority in range" of an aircraft carrier is absolutely erroneous.
PKR Harpoon under the Viking wing
And now we will continue our discussion of the most likely variant of the attack of “Moscow” by the aircraft carrier - these are 6 Hornet fighters at maximum range with additional fuel tanks. Can carry 6 missiles "Harpoon". There are other anti-ship missiles in Hornet’s arsenal, but much less powerful and long-range (AGM-65 Maverick, for example, has a range of only 30 km). In order to attack a cruiser without entering its air defense zone, it is the “Harpoon” with a range of 150-280km that is needed. The danger can only be another AGM-88 HARM - the American high-speed anti-radar missile. It can be used against the radar "Moscow" from a distance to 100 km. Without radar "Moscow" will be defenseless. And then her defeat even 6 Harpoons will be very likely. However, in order to launch this missile, American pilots will have to take a chance and enter the cruiser’s air defense zone - it is also approximately 100 km in range. And since the “Harpoons” have a significantly higher range, then the US pilots will still attack the “Harpoons” first. You can only assume a slightly more risky attack option - without additional fuel tanks, but with refueling in the air on the way back. Then there may be more missiles - 12 pieces. This is also not too much for an air defense cruiser. In addition, he will not be alone, let's not forget that we are talking about a warrant, where together with the "Moscow" there will be another couple of quite serious warships, with their own air defense weapons. But while we are discussing the possibilities of "Moscow" against the attack of the Harpoon missiles ...
Hornet with Harpoon and additional fuel tanks
Rocket "Harpoon" has a low speed - 0,6 mach and perfectly detects radar (if it is in direct visibility). The speed of the rocket is so small that it is lower than the speed of ordinary passenger aircraft, which, as shown story, easily strayed by the old air defense systems of Ukraine. And the fact that the size of the rocket is still smaller than the Boeing is unlikely to help it survive, especially since the air defense weapons of the cruiser Moskva are somewhat more perfect than the Ukrainian ones. The air defense of the cruiser includes 8 launchers of the C-300F long-range air defense missile systems, 2 launchers of the Osa-M near-line defense systems Osa-M, and 6 anti-aircraft guns AK-630. The naval version of the C-300 has a slightly smaller range than the ground, but still provides defense at a distance of up to 100 km (for 5В55РМ missiles - 75km). And although the complex can shoot down the anti-ship missiles, its main purpose is to keep the enemy’s planes closer. Against anti-ship missiles, it is not very effective, since the lower limit of height for the complex’s missiles is 25 meters, and modern missiles fly lower. The same "Harpoon" of the latest modifications flies at an altitude of 2-5 meters. "Osa-M" operates at a distance of up to 15 km and can already shoot down low-flying anti-ship missiles - for it the minimum target height is 5 meters. It is on her most likely that the task will be assigned to knock down the anti-ship missiles on long-range borders (10-15 km). Although the probability of defeat is again not absolute (experts estimate its effectiveness as 70%, that is, up to 30% RCC with massive attacks can break into the near zone of the ship’s anti-aircraft defense to the distance 2-3 km). And although the anti-aircraft missile complexes of the anti-ship missiles can be strayed, the last echelon of defense, which is the 6 of AK-630М installations, will do it most effectively. These are the 30-mm six-barreled automatic ship-mounted artillery AO-18, created under the direction of V. P. Griazev and A. G. Shipunova. The name "6" means 6 trunks, 30 - caliber. Unique weapon. This installation is remarkable in that it releases up to 5000 projectiles per minute. Range - to 4 km. Creates a steel cloud of projectiles in the path of the detected rocket. The installation is fully automatic, it is guided by the automated control system MP-123 "Vympel" on the target spotted by radars with the highest accuracy. Efficiency is the highest.
Battery AK-630М aboard Moscow
The western counterpart of this installation is the low-altitude barrage shipboard air defense / missile defense system “Goalkeeper” (Netherlands-USA), which incorporates 30-mm seven-barreled GAU-8 cannon with 4200 fire rate / min. In our publications, there are no examples of AK-630M effectiveness testing. But there are about the “Goalkeeper”:
“In April, the US Navy installed the Goalkeeper system on 1990 for the blockade of the Stoddard decommissioned destroyer and in August 1990 launched the test of this system against the anti-ship missile system in the US Point Pacific missile center. The system demonstrated the 100% result. the time of salvo launch of three Exocset missiles, three Harpoon missiles and three Vandal targets moving at a speed corresponding to 3M, they were all destroyed by the Goalkeeper system. However, the US Navy believed that the result was not 100% - because fragments of one of orazhonnyh missiles "Harpoon", continuing to move by inertia, hit the target ship. "
Our anti-aircraft complex is not inferior in its characteristics to the western one, rather surpasses it. And that means its effectiveness is not less. The likelihood that 6 "Harpoons" (or even 12) will overcome all three lines of defense of the cruiser is very low. Such low-speed targets like the Harpoon anti-ship missiles are fairly easy targets for all modern air defense systems. To overcome the defense of the cruiser could be several missiles from a very massive attack - a few dozen missiles. Then the reaction of anti-aircraft complexes and their automatic guidance could simply not be enough. It was precisely this situation that Konstantin Sivkov hoped for, arguing that the cruiser had no chance of surviving ... But such a situation is not possible in reality - the aircraft carrier will not be able to provide such a massive attack of the cruiser. In this expert was wrong. A dozen low-speed missiles "Moscow" reflect. And do not forget about escort ships. They will also take part in the destruction of missiles at the near line of defense. It is in our warrant that escort ships will play their part in defending the cruiser, but not as part of the American AUG - there they will be practically useless. Why? Because the Vulcan rocket is many times greater than the Harpoon in speed and this makes it practically invulnerable to air defense. Here it is worthwhile to evaluate the capabilities of the American ships to repel the attack of our “Volcanoes”. The picture will be completely different.
First, we note that the defense of American ships is significantly weaker than ours. This is confirmed by the experience of military actions that the US has been conducting for many years all over the world "for the sake of democracy." For example, the USS Navy frigate USS Stark (FFG-31) of the Oliver Hazard Perry type (project SCN 207 / 2081) 17 in May 1987 of the year, during the Iran-Iraq war, suffered heavy damage as a result of two Exocset missiles "AM.39, released by the Iraqi Mirage fighter F1. The frigate barely managed to keep afloat, 37 sailors died. The frigate as a means of air defense could use the Mk13 launcher (universal installation with one guide for launching Tartar, Standard SM-1, Garpun missiles) and the Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS anti-aircraft system, which is an 6-automatic gun. M61A1 with a caliber of 20 mm (rate of fire 3000 shots per minute). The Iraqi fighter was certainly spotted by radar, as was the launch of its missiles. But the reaction time was not enough to shoot down a pair of subsonic rockets. And our anti-ship missiles Vulkan, which fly at speed in 2,5, will not even be able to notice the speed of sound.
Of course, the aircraft carrier group includes ships with more powerful means. Americans are very proud of the latest Aegis Combat System - ACS. By this name is meant both the ship’s multifunctional combat information management system (BIUS) and the air defense missile system, which is controlled by this system. As the omniscient Wikipedia reports:
According to the US Navy website, as of November 2013, the United States had an 74 ship equipped with the Aegis system, of which 22 cruisers and 52 destroyer. The long-term naval naval program, which will be implemented in 2011 — 2041 fiscal years, provides for upgrading such ships to 84 under these systems. The main element of the system is the AN / SPY-1 radar of the A, B or D modifications with four passive phased antenna arrays of total the average radiated power of 32 — 58 kW and the peak power of 4 — 6 MW. It is capable of automatically searching, detecting, tracking 250 — 300 targets and targeting the most threatening of them before 18 SAMs. The decision to defeat the targets threatening the ship can be made automatically. Missiles can be launched from Mk 26 type inclined launch launchers (removed from service) and universal X-NUMX Mk vertical launch systems, located under the main deck of cruisers and destroyers used to locate the system.
The Ajis ADMS uses Standard missile 2 (SM-2) and more modern Standard missile 3 (SM-3) missiles. According to its capabilities, the system resembles our C-400 in the fleet version. Even the SM2 rocket is close in parameters to our 48H6 with a range of 150 km. However, Aegis is more focused on missile defense tasks - to intercept ballistic targets, that is, our strategic missiles. Or aerodynamic high-altitude targets, like airplanes. As for low-flying targets, that is, cruise missiles with a low profile of flight, the system is not very effective. And the problem here is purely physical - due to the curvature of the earth, the anti-ship missiles fall into the zone of direct visibility by the radar of the system already on the way to the target - at a distance of 30-35 km. Up to this point, they are just beyond the horizon and therefore not visible. And if the goal is high-speed, then the reaction of the system is very little time. If the anti-ship missile also maneuvers quickly, then the heavy long-range missiles behind it will simply not be stolen. Against anti-ship missiles are more effective short-range air defense missiles with small, but fast and maneuverable missiles. And, of course, anti-aircraft rapid-fire artillery systems - ZAK. We have an ideal weapon against cruise missiles is the "Shell-S", the Americans have no analogue ...
In general, the topic of the possibility of American AUG to repel an attack by our supersonic anti-ship missiles like "Granite" or "Vulcan" has become not just popular on the Internet, but also the subject of a whole information war. Here, for example, the Internet publication topwar.ru published an article by Oleg Kaptsov, “A blow from under the water. How strong are American AUGs?”. A remarkable and very informative article, which itself was a response to the article by A. Nikolsky, a certain “shipbuilding engineer”, “The Russian fleet goes under water.” He wrote Nikolsky in the spirit of the same Sivkov about the invincibility of the American fleet. And another engineer had to explain a lot of technical details to refute a bunch of false statements. Among them is the fact that "AUG air defense at the beginning of the 80-s, depending on the tactical situation, could have shot down the 70-120 of the Granit or X-22 missiles." Kaptsov explained in a very colorful and detailed way how deeply Nikolsky was mistaken. I will not give all the arguments of Kaptsov, but I will quote only one moment about the latest Aegis system:
"Aegis" even in theory is not able to provide simultaneous firing of hundreds of aerial targets. Multifunctional radar AN / SPY-1 is able to program autopilots up to 18 anti-aircraft missiles on the flight path of the trajectory and conduct simultaneous bombardment of air targets AN / SPG to 3 -62. The reality turned out to be even more terrible - the Orly Burke radars are grouped as follows: - course angles cover one radar; - protect the stern two; - in an ideal situation, strictly perpendicular to the side of the destroyer, in reflection of the air attack and all three SPG-62 can participate. As a result, Burke "in a real battle of the entire 1-2 guidance channel for anti-aircraft missiles when attacking from one direction. Duration of target illumination required for missile guidance is 1-2 seconds. Probability Destruction of a single missile target is considered to be within 0,6 ... 0,7.Further, until BIUS "Aegis" receives confirmation of the destruction of the target, while transmitting a new task to SPG-62, the radar will unfold and direct the beam to the indicated sky sector (for SPG-62 the change in azimuth and elevation angle occurs mechanically - soon st rotation 72 ° / sec) platform. It would seem that five to ten seconds for the whole process ... but, this is at that critical moment when the destroyer crew has less than half a minute left! And above the surface of the gray ocean, nearly cutting off the tops of the waves, three or four dozen supersonic rockets rush. "
Kaptsov considered a slightly different situation - the possibility of an attack by the American AUG of our submarine, armed with the PKR Granit, the younger brother of Vulkan. This situation is slightly different, but not too much. The fact is that the Russian grouping, headed by a cruiser of the type Moscow or Varyag, should almost certainly include a shock submarine. This is the case when the order members functionally complement each other. It must be said that, with all its advantages, the secrecy of the submarine is blind, that is, it does not have the ability to detect the enemy at long distances - under water it is difficult to do. She listens to the ocean with her acoustic systems and this allows her to detect ships over tens of kilometers, but Granit flies 700 km. That is, it needs external intelligence data to attack. You can somehow receive data from the satellite, but it is easier to get data from your closest ships while simultaneously hiding in their “shadows”, their sound of screws drowns out the noise from the submarine itself. That is, if we are talking about the attack of the American AUG, then the nuclear submarine in this attack may well take part - just stepping forward and hitting with its Granits at the same time as the volley of Moscow. And then the probability of survival of the aircraft carrier will be almost zero.
Here to the place to notice about another advantage of our anti-ship missiles to the American "Harpoons" except speed and range. This is their "intelligence". The homing device does not just stupidly track the target and directs a rocket at it, but jointly (!) With other missiles in the salvo, it distributes targets in the enemy’s warrant, transmits information about the detected targets to other missiles, and selects the attack tactics. They are like a pack of wolves pounding "prey." The tactics of attack provides that only one of the missiles can fly above the horizon, tracking targets and transmitting information to other missiles hidden behind the horizon line. Thus, all missiles except for one fly up to the AUG unnoticed and organize a simultaneous attack from different sides on different ships. On the approach to the goal of the rocket make quick maneuvers of deviation from air defense weapons. That is, "Granites" and "Volcanoes" attack very smoothly and slyly, as the pack predators like wolves do. The American "Harpoons" in this regard are very primitive and require external control by the wearer almost to the very end of the attack. This gives great opportunities for electronic warfare, up to control interception. This is another aspect that we do not consider due to the complexity of the topic ...
Anti-aircraft gun mount Phalanx
Lack of space does not allow to consider absolutely all aspects of the topic under discussion, besides not all the technical details we can know. But even a superficial analysis allows us to notice the general technical backwardness of the air defense systems of the US Navy, as well as the backwardness in anti-ship assets. Our rockets fly farther, faster and more intelligent. Our air defense systems are more developed and effective. All this together makes our 1164 missile carriers "aircraft carrier killers", their advantage in armament is indisputable. Although the Internet is full of "experts" who claim the opposite. The same Sivkov dedicated not one publication to this. In the article “The chances of the Russian missile cruiser hitting the American aircraft carrier compound are insignificant” even try to equate our cruiser “Moscow” with the American missile cruiser:
"Comparison of the performance characteristics of the American Ticondeurogus cruisers and destroyers of the Orly Burk-type URO with our ships shows that they are at least as good as the Russian 1164 cruiser and if they are inferior, then slightly the 1144 cruiser."
I wonder what kind of data the “expert” compared except for the displacement? The combat capabilities of ships need to be matched by the weapons they carry. And here not even the quantity is important, but the quality. Yes, there are more missiles on Tikonderoge. But they are qualitatively much worse than ours. "Harpoons" can not be compared with our "Volcanoes" and the same "Ticonderoga" simply does not fit the "Moscow" at a distance of launching their missiles. Even if there are a thousand of these missiles, it will not save her. Do not save her and air defense, the same system "Aegis". The most effective means against cruise missiles is a rapid-fire automatic gun. How many such guns have "Tikondery"? These are the 2 6-stem 20-mm Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS. The same Phalanx that could not bring down a couple of Iraqi "Exosets". Moscow has 6 much more powerful installations. And "Tikanderoga" has only 6 "Harpoons" against 16 "Volcanoes". All the power of Tikanderogi is a hundred Tomahawks designed for land use. How can you compare these ships? Tikonderoga, in comparison with Moscow, is just a barge loaded with rockets (perhaps it was supposed to be the idea of an arsenal ship with a bunch of missiles, but without serious means of defense is very popular among Americans).
Much is seen in a completely different light, if one delves into the technical details that the doctor of military sciences should know better than any civilian analyst. However, judging by the number and intensity of passions in articles on this topic, it is unlikely that the expert wanted to convey to us some of his knowledge on this subject. It is rather about the formation of an appropriate public opinion. Profitable for our overseas "partner" who is stronger in information wars, but not in military technology.
Information