In the near future, an aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant may enter the balance sheet of the Russian Navy. It will complement the combat "park" of the fleet, on the balance of which so far only the aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" is listed. According to experts, the aircraft carrier "Storm" can become a prototype for the ship. How the combat "novelty" will look like and whether it can compete with the American fleet, "360" found out.

Vladimir Tryapichnikov, head of the shipbuilding department of the Russian Navy, said that the fleet is working on a new generation aircraft carrier project. According to Rear Admiral, now domestic enterprises are preparing a nuclear power plant for the new ship.

Tryapichnikov noted that the specialists of the design bureaus of the United shipbuilding corporation and representatives of the largest shipyards are working on a project that will require significant production capacity. AT this program research centers of the Navy are also involved. According to the rear admiral, one of these institutes is already developing a nuclear engine for a future aircraft carrier. In the near future, representatives of the fleet will decide on the concept of a promising power plant.

The military stressed that the ship will meet all latest requirements construction of ships of this class. “Yes, it is expensive, but the ship must be modern, perform the appropriate tasks,” he said in an interview with the Zvezda TV channel.

"Storm" in the ocean

Representatives of the Russian Navy have not yet disclosed on the basis of which aircraft carrier a ship with a nuclear engine on board will be created. Military experts interviewed by 360 are inclined to believe that the Storm project can serve as a prototype. Its development is carried out by scientists from the Krylov State scientific center together with the engineers of the Nevsky Design Bureau.

According to the project plan, the new ship will be 330 meters long, 40 meters wide and 11 meters deep. The speed of the aircraft carrier will reach 30 knots. The ship will be driven by a mixed-type power plant, consisting of nuclear and gas turbine units.

He will be able to "carry" up to 90 aircraft and helicopters, as well as receive aircraft long-range radar patrol. The Russian fifth-generation fighter Su-57 will be able to be based on board the aircraft carrier, the designers say.

The capacity of the ship will allow transporting up to 6,000 tons of fuel and transporting up to 4,000 officers. At the same time, the Russian aircraft carrier will be equipped with the latest weapons. So, for the "Storm" they plan to develop ship versions of the promising S-500 anti-aircraft missile systems. They are designed to detect aerodynamic and ballistic targets at ranges up to 800 kilometers and at speeds up to 7,000 meters per second.

Russia has access to two oceans, so the issue of creating a full-fledged fleet of aircraft carriers for the country is quite relevant, military expert, Captain 1st Rank Vasily Dandykin noted in an interview with 360.

Objectively, without a sufficient number of aircraft carriers, Russia cannot be considered a great maritime power. The fleet needs them to cover nuclear submarines during operations in different areas of the oceans. Now the Americans are leading in this segment, so following their path and creating an extensive group of destroyers is unreasonable, and it makes sense to equip the destroyer with nuclear reactors

Vasily Dandykincaptain of the 1st rank.

However, for him effective use The Russian Navy will have to assemble or re-build a full-fledged aircraft carrier group. It must include at least two missile cruisers, three destroyers, two nuclear submarines and several supply ships. Also, the aircraft carrier group will require the construction of all the infrastructure necessary for it, military expert Alexei Leonkov noted in an interview with 360.

“The main problem in the construction of aircraft carriers now is the lack of a full-fledged site for its construction. We have a slipway in the Far East - Zvezda, but so far it is not loaded with ships of this size. In addition, you need to have the appropriate training for carrier-based aviation, which can take off from an aircraft carrier. Plus, the construction of even one aircraft carrier costs billions of dollars. Therefore, the military needs to set tasks with the utmost precision in order to develop the best option for a new aircraft carrier, ”the military expert emphasized.

Currently, only one aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is on combat duty. It was built on the Black Sea shipyard in Nikolaev and launched back in 1991. In February last year, the ship made the longest voyage in its history - to the Mediterranean Sea to participate in a military operation in Syria. After a business trip, the aircraft carrier, by decision of the Ministry of Defense, was sent for renovation.

Global competitors

Although the Russian navy is now building up its combat "park", the forces in terms of aircraft carriers with the United States are unequal. On combat duty in the US Army are 11 ships of this class. The last of them - Gerald R. Ford - was launched in 2017. Its construction cost the US Treasury $13 billion. Another aircraft carrier should appear in the US by 2023.

In addition to the Americans, aircraft carriers and the Chinese are also actively building. Moreover, in March of this year, the PRC announced the creation of the first warship with a nuclear power plant in its fleet. Engineers promise to build an aircraft carrier by 2025. Now the Chinese Navy has only one aircraft carrier - or rather, the aircraft-carrying cruiser Liaoning. This ship was built on the basis of the unfinished Soviet aircraft-carrying cruiser Varyag bought from Ukraine in 1998.

Great Britain is also constantly modernizing its fleet. For example, in 2014, the largest aircraft carrier in the history of the English fleet was built. queen elizabeth. The country spent about three billion pounds on its construction. The ship will make its first voyage this Saturday.

people shared an article

The Ministry of Defense called the new British aircraft carrier "a convenient large-sized sea target", hinting at its defenselessness against Russian strike weapons. Russia does have missiles designed just to destroy such ships. But the Ministry of Defense should have known why they are all powerless against aircraft carriers - both American and even British.

The official representative of the Ministry of Defense, Major General Igor Konashenkov, could not get past the statement by the head of the British military department, Michael Fallon, that Russia would look at the new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth with envy. The words of the British Konashenkov were exalted, and also accused him of ignorance of naval science.

“With aircraft carriers and in general with maritime affairs, it is necessary to contact“ you ”

Of course, you can't deny Fallon's impudence, and it is logical that his caustic statements caused irritation in the Russian Ministry of Defense. In a desire to show off his newest ship, the Briton allowed himself to speak not only about the envy of Russia, but also about the dilapidated aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov.

Probably, the Russian military department really should not have left such audacity without any reaction at all. Konashenkov logically hinted to Fallon that external beauty is far from being the main characteristic of a warship, and also reproached him for not understanding the differences between an “airplane”, which is essentially the Queen Elizabeth, and an aircraft-carrying cruiser like the Admiral Kuznetsov.

At the same time, having entered into a polemic with the British, the representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense also went too far. He stated that "the British aircraft carrier is a 'handy large sea target'. And here Konashenkov is not quite right. It is the aircraft carrier strike groups that have long caused and still cause the greatest headache for military specialists not only in the USSR and Russia, but throughout the world.

Don't underestimate "Queen Elizabeth"

“Any aircraft carrier is the most protected part of a grouping of ships at sea,” Mikhail Nenashev, head of the All-Russian Fleet Support Movement, told the VZGLYAD newspaper. An aircraft carrier can be a springboard for attacking not only sea and ocean targets, but also entire countries, this is the most serious type of weapon, the source explained.

“Any aircraft carrier has a whole range of anti-aircraft, anti-missile, anti-submarine defense, electronic warfare, cyber defense equipment,” the expert added.

“The strongest thing at sea is the unity of aviation and directly sea power,” Admiral Vladimir Komoyedov, former commander of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Navy, told the VZGLYAD newspaper.

Aircraft carriers are always surrounded by escort ships, which also provide him reliable protection. The main striking power of such a ship is its air wing. Due to this, the radius of destruction of such ships is very large. For example, for modern American models, it can reach up to 1.2 thousand km, but they also want to increase this figure to 2–2.5 thousand km through the use of refueling drones.

Russia lacks long-range anti-ship weapons

“Any aircraft carrier - take, for example, 11 US nuclear aircraft carriers - if it goes out in battle order, then its defense depth is 1.5 thousand km. Let him (Konashenkov - approx. VIEW) study the performance characteristics of our missiles and see that they will be in the active defense zone, ”said Vladimir Komoyedov.

Indeed, striking an aircraft carrier from distances exceeding its radius of destruction faces serious difficulties. Russia has high-precision Kalibr missiles with a range of more than 2,000 km and Kh-101 with a range of more than 4,000 km, but they are designed to fire at stationary ground targets and are not suitable for combating extremely mobile AUGs. The main anti-ship missile remains the Granit, which was put into service in the 1980s. The Admiral Kuznetsov is also armed with these missiles, as Igor Konashenkov also spoke about.

Here are just 12 launchers missile system"Granite" is unlikely to be enough to disable an entire aircraft carrier. In addition, the range of this missile is a little over 600 km.

As for other anti-ship weapons, Russia has more than 60 Tu-22M3 supersonic long-range missile carriers that can be equipped with anti-ship missiles. However, if in the USSR some of them were at the disposal of the Naval Aviation of the Navy, then by 2011 they were all transferred to the Air Force. Do not forget about such a tool to combat aircraft carriers as submarines. The Russian Federation has at its disposal six SSGNs (nuclear submarine with cruise missiles) of the Antey project, which are also equipped with Granites.

The missile must first be aimed at the target

But here another - and extremely important - nuance emerges. It's not enough just to launch a rocket. It must first be aimed at the target, which, in turn, must be detected. And this should be done before entering the zone of destruction of the aircraft carrier. In other words, the military needs not only a "fist" (strike means) - that is, missiles. "Eyes" are also necessary - means of guidance and target designation, without which a "fist" of any power is nothing more than an expensive toy.

To combat aircraft carrier groups in the USSR, for this purpose, in the 1960s, the Tu-95RTs reconnaissance-target designator aircraft with the Uspekh aviation complex was developed (now decommissioned a long time ago). However, to combat the AUG and it was not enough. In this regard, in the 1980s, the Legenda marine space reconnaissance and target designation system (MCRC) (of more than 40 satellites) was put into service, which made it possible to detect and direct strike weapons at surface targets anywhere in the World Ocean. However, it finally ceased to exist in 2007.

Yes, in recent times Russia is taking a number of steps to correct this situation. In particular, a new Ka-35 radar patrol helicopter was recently put into service, the detection range of which has significantly increased compared to its predecessor, the Ka-31.

However, the problem with early warning helicopters (AWACS) is that their altitude ceiling is very limited, which reduces visibility and increases vulnerability. In addition, a new Russian Tu-214R AWACS aircraft capable of detecting targets at a distance of more than 400 km was spotted over Syria last year. But it is designed to work on ground, and not on surface targets. Accordingly, neither the Ka-35 nor the Tu-214R can be opposed, for example, to the E-2D Hawkeye AWACS aircraft, which are based on US aircraft carriers.

More encouraging is the information that the newest ICRC Liana is being developed in Russia to replace the Legend. There is very little information about her so far, and most of them are classified. However, it is known that, compared with its predecessor, it has increased resolution, detection efficiency, service life, and also the ability to catch information transmitted by the enemy through various channels (including closed ones). The Ministry of Defense says that Liana is planned to be put into service next year, but so far only four satellites have been launched.

Don't be fooled by hats

Thus, the Russian armed forces simply do not have (or have only a rudimentary degree of) systems capable of directing strike weapons at targets such as aircraft carriers. Not to mention the need to update and increase the range of the anti-ship missiles themselves. In view of all this statement by the official representative of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation about what an easy target the British aircraft carrier is, they look, to put it mildly, unconvincing.

And this is even though the Queen Elizabeth can hardly be called a model of aircraft carrier power. Here it is more like our good old "Admiral Kuznetsov". It is not equipped with a catapult to launch aircraft and a nuclear power plant, and also has a not very large air wing - 40 aircraft (24 F-35B fighters) and helicopters. If we talk about modern US nuclear aircraft carriers with an air wing numbering under 70-90 units, then Russia has practically nothing to fight with them.

“The Atlantic, where Great Britain stands and not far from the United States, is their zone of dominance, both in the air, both on water and under water. Unfortunately, we don't even have anything to grab on to. Therefore, we need to somehow calm down,” Vladimir Komoyedov emphasized.

Mikhail Nenashev, on the contrary, believes that in general Russia has something to oppose to the British fleet. However, this does not mean that you need to engage in capping. “There is no need for our country to take part in competitions based on ridiculous statements. We must respond with dignity or ignore the provocations, the stupidity of the British minister,” the interlocutor emphasized. “All these competitions from the press services - all this only serves to escalate tension, and among professionals it doesn’t even cause an ironic smirk, but just a shrug,” he added.

Vladimir Komoyedov pointed out that such questions should be handled very carefully. “With aircraft carriers and in general with maritime affairs, it is necessary to address“ you ”. You need to have a deep knowledge of naval affairs in order to make any statement,” he said.

As a long time ago, we discussed with you what is and. Five years have passed since then, and a lot has changed. Today, for example, the Russian submarines "Veliky Novgorod" and "Kolpino" of project 636.3 launched seven sea-based cruise missiles "Caliber" from a submerged position at terrorist targets in Syria

Let's discuss with you the current state of affairs in the process of confrontation between the Russian Navy and the enemy's AUG.

Articles and opinions on this topic appear with enviable regularity in the Russian media when some major events take place in the activities of the Russian Navy (for example, campaigns of Russian large surface ships to the coast of Syria), or the Navy of other countries.

For example, the recent completion of the construction of the newest British aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth (the largest aircraft carrier and warship in the history of the British Navy) and its release to sea for sea trials on June 26, 2017, again drew media attention to the topic of the Russian Navy's ability to counter the AUG . Especially taking into account the peculiar correspondence "skirmish" between the British Minister of Defense Michael Fallon and the official representative Russian Ministry Defense, Major General Igor Konashenkov. The first said that Russia would "look with envy" at the new British aircraft carrier, to which the official representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense said that the newest British aircraft carrier is only "a convenient large-sized naval target." Let's try to figure out how effective modern conditions Can the Russian Navy counteract aircraft carrier strike groups, and is this even possible?

In most articles relating to the possibilities of combating the AUG of a potential enemy, the thesis is actually put forward (or at least "traced" by a refrain) that it is completely impossible to counter the AUG with conventional weapons - the strike radius of carrier-based aircraft and the "line of defense" do not even allow surface ships, submarines to go out boats and aviation to the line of launching anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCs), and even in the event of great luck and the launch of anti-ship missiles on an aircraft carrier, cover ships, according to the authors of numerous articles, can easily destroy all attacking anti-ship missiles.

As a rule, absolutely enormous values ​​are given for the "defense line" of an aircraft carrier - 600-700, 1000 and even 1500 kilometers. No less huge values ​​are indicated for the strike radius of carrier-based aircraft and the anti-submarine defense line. The "line of defense" numbers, as a rule, correspond to the maximum range of detection of air targets by an aircraft carrier formation, provided by carrier-based early warning aircraft. So the ability to detect air targets by AWACS E-2 "Hawk Ai" aircraft is estimated at up to 700 kilometers, for the target of the "bomber" class, which has an effective scattering surface (ESR) of at least 25 square meters and flying at an altitude of 10 kilometers, while the AWACS aircraft is at a comparable height (the patrolling altitude of the American carrier-based AWACS aircraft E-2 "Hawk Eye" is 9.5-10 km). AWACS aircraft are patrolled at a distance of up to 300 kilometers from the aircraft carrier. Thus, an aerial target of the "bomber" class at high altitude can indeed be detected at a distance of up to 1000 kilometers from an aircraft carrier, which provides a certain margin of time for fighters to rise from the deck of an aircraft carrier - however, by the time they are detected, they must already be on the flight deck, refueled and equipped with ammunition.

Accordingly, on the deck of an aircraft carrier, fighters must be in maximum readiness for take-off in advance in the number required to fend off a possible threat. However, the range of fighters is highly dependent on the speed limit. So, for example, the American F-14 Tomket carrier-based interceptor fighter (withdrawn from service in 2007, to the great displeasure of American admirals), which still remains the unsurpassed US Navy interceptor fighter in terms of range and duration of combat patrols, had the range in the "normal" flight mode is over 920 kilometers. However, when intercepted exclusively at supersonic speed (which is very necessary when intercepting enemy aircraft attacking an aircraft carrier), its range was reduced to about 320 and 250 kilometers, depending on the speed limit. Thus, the gigantic values ​​\u200b\u200bof the "line of defense" of the AUG given in many articles do not reflect the actual situation and only refer to the maximum distance from the aircraft carrier at which a large air target can be detected at high altitudes.

Perhaps the most true "popular" argument regarding the possibilities of combating AUGs is the extremely low probability for large surface ships of approaching an aircraft carrier within the range of their anti-ship missiles. Indeed, even the most long-range anti-ship missiles in service with the ships of the Russian Navy, such as Granit and Vulkan (the maximum flight range along the combined trajectory is about 500 and 700 kilometers, respectively). While the practically achievable maximum strike radius of an American aircraft carrier air wing in the implementation of a massive one is approximately 700 kilometers, taking into account the time required to lift a group of 30-35 aircraft (the number of aircraft that, with timely preparation in advance, is able to raise an aircraft carrier to strike at a maximum radius action), flight to the target, direct strike and landing of the entire group (which takes quite a long time).

Taking into account the flight range of modern aviation anti-ship missiles, this distance increases. By the beginning of the next decade, this distance is expected to increase further as in 2019, the US Navy should begin deploying new long-range aviation anti-ship cruise missiles LRASM. However, this applies to a situation where opponents are initially separated by a huge distance. The main "scenario" for an anti-ship missile strike by large surface ships is a strike from a "close tracking" position in the event of an escalation of the conflict, when the opponents are initially separated by no more than a few hundred kilometers and both sides maintain "contact" with each other by various means.

Such "direct tracking", for example, is constantly carried out during the operation of Russian warships in the Mediterranean, when formations of Russian and NATO ships maneuver at a short distance from each other. In the years cold war for large surface ships of the USSR Navy, such a strike from the "direct tracking" position was the main method of their combat use. Especially considering the fact that the squadrons of the USSR and the USA are practically all year round carried out patrols in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea and constantly kept each other under "close surveillance".

In other situations, the most "effective" means of combating aircraft carrier strike groups of a potential enemy in the Russian Navy have been and remain submarines with cruise missiles - at the moment these are Project 949A Antey submarines and the latest 4th generation multi-purpose submarine Severodvinsk of the project 885 Yasen (in the near future, the Russian Navy will receive submarines of the improved project 885M. The first submarine of this project, Kazan, was launched at the end of March 2017). In very many articles concerning the assessment of the capabilities of countering the AUG of a potential enemy, statements are made about the almost complete impossibility of submarines to reach the line of launching their anti-ship missiles on an aircraft carrier. Two main arguments are given - the impossibility of obtaining target designation for anti-ship missiles when firing at a long range and the line of anti-submarine defense of an aircraft carrier, which practically cannot be overcome by submarines. Let's consider these statements in detail.

In order to ensure the possibility of firing anti-ship missiles at a long range, it is necessary to provide them with target designation, i.e. receive information about the location of the enemy’s AUG, so that the anti-ship missiles, having flown to a given area and turning on their homing heads, could find the target and aim at it. In the Soviet Union, to solve this problem, the system of marine space reconnaissance and target designation (MKRTS) "Legend" was deployed. This system consisted of an orbital constellation consisting of two types of satellites - "US-A" for conducting radar reconnaissance and "US-P" for conducting electronic intelligence. Due to the technology of the 1970s, US-A radar reconnaissance satellites operated in very low orbits and, therefore, due to the impossibility of obtaining sufficient energy from solar panels, they were equipped with nuclear power batteries. Only a large group of ships could confidently detect these satellites, but that was exactly what was required of them - to detect the AUG of a potential enemy. With the help of this system, for example, effective tracking of the expeditionary force of the British fleet during the Falklands War was carried out.

Satellites "Legends" examined most of the waters of the World Ocean and, upon detection of an enemy AUG, immediately broadcast information about its location to coastal command posts fleets and carriers of heavy anti-ship missiles, for which this information was actually intended. Due to the exhaustion of the resource of the "Legenda" satellites, they were deorbited. In 2006, the last US-P electronic intelligence satellite was decommissioned. However, at the moment, a new one is being deployed, an order of magnitude more advanced and effective system ICRC "Liana". With a smaller number of satellites, it is capable of "covering" an area comparable to the former "Legend" of the World Ocean and detecting any objects in the ocean with the highest accuracy, which makes it possible to provide reliable target designation for anti-ship missiles.

In most articles devoted to the possibilities of combating the AUG of a potential enemy, the possibility of obtaining submarines with anti-ship target designation missiles using its sonar system. Perhaps this is due to the widespread assertion that a submarine is practically unable to overcome the anti-submarine defense line of the AUG. At the same time, the figures for the radius of this "line" of the ASW, as a rule, are called very different - from 400 to 700 or more kilometers. The "ASW boundary" itself is presented as a kind of circular zone, entering which a submarine is almost immediately detected by anti-submarine aircraft and helicopters.

As a rule, these figures are based on the capabilities of the American AUG during the Cold War, when the air wings of aircraft carriers had a squadron of S-3 Viking carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft. But these aircraft were withdrawn from service in 2009, as a result of which the PLO capabilities of even American AUGs were significantly reduced. The often cited figures for the "ASW line" reflect only the range of these aircraft - the distance at which the Vikings could conduct an anti-submarine search. However, it is worth noting that anti-submarine search is an extremely difficult operation. You need to search for a submarine in a vast area, which is very difficult, even if it has a fairly high noise level. The PLO aircraft, being in the allotted area, drops into the sea (or, as it is called, "sets up") passive and active sonar buoys, which descend to a certain depth, after which it receives and analyzes the information received from them via the radio channel. If any of the buoys detected the noise of a submarine (passive) or received a sound echo reflection (active buoy), additional very laborious actions are required to "localize" the location of the submarine.

The PLO plane sets up sonar buoys already in a much smaller area around the place of "contact" with the submarine, and waits for several buoys to give information about the submarine. Then the PLO aircraft, using a magnetometer, finally establishes the position of the submarine and releases torpedoes. However, the problem is that the area in which to search for a submarine is gigantic, even if there is preliminary intelligence or an estimated area where the submarine is located, determined by analytical methods. Most importantly, NATO's ASW capabilities have declined significantly since the Cold War. Because Since the S-3 Viking anti-submarine aircraft were decommissioned in 2009, the AUG anti-submarine warfare is provided only by carrier-based helicopters and hydroacoustic means of escort ships.

And the capabilities of PLO helicopters are much more "modest" than those of aircraft - they have several times less speed, several times fewer sonar buoys and a very small range. It is more or less effective to provide the PLO boundary with the forces of helicopters only at a distance of about 100 kilometers. The capabilities of the AUG PLO are increasing with the support of anti-submarine aircraft of the base patrol aviation. However, their number has also been significantly reduced since the Cold War, which, however, is largely compensated by the new P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft, which are being re-equipped with base patrol aviation squadrons of the United States and its allies. For example, Great Britain, in the "zone of responsibility" of the fleet of which a significant part of the North Atlantic is located, does not have anti-submarine aircraft - the last aircraft of the Nimrod ASW were decommissioned in 2011.

But the main thing is that the noise level of modern submarines is extremely low and makes it extremely difficult to detect them. In addition, the range and effectiveness of submarine detection is highly dependent on hydrological conditions, which, as a rule, change dynamically and are rarely optimal for the operation of sonar facilities. At the same time, the noisiness of surface ships exceeds the noise of modern submarines by hundreds and thousands of times, which makes it possible to detect them with sonar means of submarines at a great distance. For example, the detection range of large surface ships by the sonar complex of the latest Russian submarine Project 885 Severodvinsk, according to open sources, is up to 240 kilometers. Probably, the new sonar system installed on submarines with Project 949A cruise missiles during the ongoing overhaul and modernization has similar characteristics.

Thus, the submarine has the ability to detect a large enemy naval formation at a great distance, while detecting it for the enemy is a very non-trivial task. At present, for all developed fleets of the world, the issue of protecting ship formations from torpedo attacks from enemy submarines is very relevant, not to mention the detection of modern submarines at more remote frontiers. Given all of the above, Russian submarines with cruise missiles have every chance of approaching the AUG of a potential enemy at a distance from which it is possible to obtain "autonomous" target designation for anti-ship missiles using their own sonar system and launch a salvo of anti-ship missiles at enemy ships.

A separate topic that causes the most heated debate is the question of how many supersonic anti-ship missiles attacking an aircraft carrier formation can shoot down its guard ships, mainly cruisers and destroyers equipped with multifunctional system Aegis weapon control. AT this issue opinions of the authors of various articles on this topic, as a rule, radically diverge - from the complete impossibility of hitting heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles with ship-based air defense systems, to, on the contrary, the colossal effectiveness of ship-based air defense systems of a potential enemy and the inability to "penetrate" the air defense of an aircraft carrier group with any adequate amount of anti-ship missiles. However, to put an end to this discussion in the absence of " practical experience"It's hardly possible.

On the one hand, the air defense capabilities of modern large ships, such as, for example, ships equipped with the Aegis system, British Daring-class destroyers and modern frigates and destroyers of NATO countries are huge and are constantly being improved. For example, the active proliferation in recent years of anti-aircraft missiles with active radar homing heads and the improvement of tactical information exchange systems (for example, the introduction of the Cooperative Engagement Capability system in the US Navy, which allows the exchange of target data between all ships and aircraft of a ship formation) is already in in the very near future, they will allow the interception of low-flying air attack weapons, including anti-ship missiles, beyond the radio horizon. Combined with very large quantity target channels of modern shipborne air defense systems, this makes it possible to repel even massive missile and air strikes.

On the other hand, supersonic anti-ship missiles, which are the main weapons of the Russian fleet, continue to be extremely difficult targets for air defense systems. Huge flight speed (for the Granit anti-ship missiles 750 m / s at high altitude and about 500-550 m / s at low altitude and 850 and 650 m / s, respectively, for the Onyx anti-ship missiles; almost 1000 m / s in the final flight section, with a length of 25-40 km for the 3M54 anti-ship missiles - one of the anti-ship missiles that is part of the Caliber complex), the ability to maneuver (for the Granit anti-ship missiles at high altitudes), and "intelligent" guidance systems that provide information exchange between anti-ship missiles in flight , lining up missiles in front, searching for a target by sources of radar radiation, aiming at a source of interference, as well as jamming stations that create decoy interference make it extremely difficult to combat them.

In general, one of the problems of discussions on the possibility of confronting the Russian Navy with aircraft carrier groups of a potential enemy is that for Russian weapons, in particular anti-ship missiles, all "non-advertising" characteristics and nuances of their combat use are pedantically listed, while the capabilities of weapons of a potential enemy are judged solely on the basis of "advertising" characteristics. For example, the probability and area of ​​destruction of shipborne air defense systems of a potential enemy are assumed to be the same for both subsonic anti-ship missiles and supersonic ones, and it is concluded that it is necessary to use a huge amount of anti-ship missiles to break through the air defense of the AUG, which often exceeds any reasonable limits and, accordingly, it is concluded that almost total invulnerability.

However, it is worth noting that the characteristics of air defense systems and anti-aircraft missiles (as well as any other types of weapons) published in open sources are rather "evaluative" and are given for "polygon" targets - as a rule, this is a "fighter" class target flying at a speed 300-350 m / s at high altitude, with a zero parameter (i.e. flying directly at the air defense system) and not maneuvering. Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles, on the other hand, have a huge flight speed, especially at high altitude, which in itself significantly "cuts" the zone of destruction of the air defense system. The possibility of intensive maneuvering, coupled with the setting of distracting interference, significantly reduces the likelihood of their being hit by a single anti-aircraft missile. Actually, in Western sources, the number of anti-aircraft missiles of the "Standard" family, which form the basis of the ammunition load of "Aegis" ships, required for guaranteed destruction of subsonic anti-ship missiles, is estimated at 3, and for the destruction of supersonic - at least 4-5. The only case of real combat use of the Aegis system in October 2016 of the year (the Mason destroyer off the coast of Yemen repelled 3 attacks of single anti-ship missiles launched from the coast by Yemeni rebels during the week) partially confirms these figures - according to available data, according to subsonic anti-ship missiles , attacking the ship, 3 anti-aircraft missiles were fired, although their target was extremely simple to intercept - not maneuvering and moving at subsonic speed.

In general, any wars often demonstrate a discrepancy between the "advertising" characteristics of a particular weapon and the real one. So, for example, during the Falklands War, the best at that time British naval air defense system "Sea Wolf" had a probability of hitting "polygon" targets of 0.85, and even intercepted artillery shells during tests, but during the fighting its effectiveness turned out to be almost 2 times below. From a theoretical point of view, if we consider the given characteristics of the British air defense systems, the very approach of Argentine aviation to British ships was absolutely impossible. However, the Argentine attack aircraft not only bombed the British ships with unguided bombs, but also inflicted extremely sensitive losses on the British fleet, putting it very close to the brink of defeat.

There are also many factors that it is hardly possible to assess, in particular the impact of electronic countermeasures on both sides.

With a high degree of certainty, it can be argued that the capabilities of the modern Russian Navy make it possible to confidently fight against one aircraft carrier strike group of a potential enemy and inflict damage on its aircraft carrier, ensuring its incapacitation or at least a significant decrease in its combat capability. Effective opposition to an aircraft carrier formation with 2-3 AUGs is possible only under very favorable circumstances.

At the same time, the qualitative growth of combat capabilities and the emergence of new AUGs of a potential enemy in the short term do not go unnoticed by the Russian Ministry of Defense. Creation of new means of reconnaissance and target designation, new submarines and large surface ships equipped with supersonic anti-ship missiles "Onyx" and "Caliber", actively ongoing modernization of submarines of project 949A (during which the ammunition load of anti-ship missiles will be increased by 3 times - instead of the existing 24 anti-ship missiles "Granit ", on the upgraded submarines there will be 72 Onyx anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles of the Caliber family"), as well as ongoing tests of a fundamentally new hypersonic anti-ship missile "Zirkon" will allow in the foreseeable future not only to maintain the existing "status quo", but also to increase by an order of magnitude the capabilities of the Russian Navy in combating AUGs are to ensure not only the incapacitation of an enemy aircraft carrier, but also the defeat of the entire AUG, as well as the ability to resist an entire aircraft carrier formation much more “confidently”.

To counter an aircraft carrier group is a most difficult task, requiring the involvement of a huge amount of a wide variety of forces and means, which only the most powerful powers can do. The active development and improvement of the Russian "anti-aircraft" forces clearly demonstrates that, despite all the difficulties, the Russian Navy still remains an extremely difficult adversary and is one of the most advanced fleets in the world.

As mentioned above, it is hardly possible to answer the question "how effectively the Russian fleet can withstand the AUG of a potential enemy" due to the lack of any practical experience. The improvement of the "anti-aircraft" forces of the Russian Navy will make it possible with great probability to guarantee in the future that this question will remain unanswered.

magazine "New Defense Order"

The United States is called the hegemon of the oceans - this status is provided to them by aircraft carrier strike groups. All the great powers are developing a system to counter them, but counteraction is not equal to an alternative, much less a challenge. However, such a challenge could be the Russian nuclear submarine aircraft carrier. And this idea is not as paradoxical as it seems at first glance.

In the Main Headquarters of the Russian Navy, portraits of great Russian naval commanders are hung on the walls. These people opened for our country such territories as the Cook Islands, the Marshall Islands, French Polynesia, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Hawaii, Truk and much more. Now these resorts belong to the USA, France or the British Commonwealth, but they could and even wanted to become part of Russia.

But Alexander I refused to accept the king of the Hawaiian Islands as a subject. Alexander II gave away Alaska for next to nothing. Alexander III did not want to occupy land in New Guinea. The Russian emperors avoided contacting such territories for one simple reason: Russia did not have and still does not have a really powerful navy that could, if necessary, blockade any country in the world in any corner of the globe, as the Americans can do.

The experience of world wars showed that the Black Sea and Baltic Fleet they are easily blocked not even by cruisers or battleships, but by ordinary boats. The operation in Syria proved that without a powerful fleet it is extremely difficult to help overseas allies. However, Russia continues to build mainly frigates, corvettes, combat boats, assault boats, auxiliary vessels, that is, ships for swimming in shallow water. At the exit - a fleet for deaf defense.

To dominate the world, you need space. It is necessary to have at least one classic aircraft carrier strike group in a combat campaign in each sea-ocean - or something that could replace it. One of the most ambitious and breakthrough projects in this sense can be considered the idea of ​​an underwater nuclear aircraft carrier.

Rodents for Uncle Sam

The first to think about submarine aircraft carriers were in samurai Japan. In 1932, the I-2 submarine of the J-1M project was launched from the stocks, inside which there was a sealed hangar for the Caspar U-1 reconnaissance aircraft.

Despite a number of failures and difficulties associated with this know-how, the Japanese sailors came to the conclusion that the submarine aircraft carrier was not so absurd idea. By 1935, the improved submarine I-6 had been completed. However, the military was extremely displeased that the plane had to be launched all the time with a special crane.

Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Navy received three advanced reconnaissance boats at once - I-9, I-10 and I-11. It was the I-9 submarine that eventually launched the plane into the sky to film the results of the attack on the American base. And on September 9, 1942, an even more advanced Project B1 submarine delivered the first blow directly to the United States: the Yokosuka E14Y plane dropped several incendiary bombs on a forest in Oregon, but the Americans were saved by luck and rainy weather - the fire did not flare up.

The crown of Japanese thought was the I-400 boat, about 120 meters long. The submarine carried 20 torpedoes and four aircraft armed with two 250-kilogram bombs. The Japanese even wanted to dump special containers with rodents infected with cholera and anthrax into the United States. Did not work out. But the I-400 series submarines have become the largest submarines in the world.

At the end of the war, naval samurai possessed dozens of aircraft-carrying submarines of various classes and modifications. This submarine fleet could deliver over fifty aircraft with biological or chemical weapons to the US coast. And then history would have gone in a completely different direction.

The American military was shocked when they realized what a disaster had bypassed their prosperous continent. And the conclusions were exhaustive.

In March 1946, in full accordance with the agreements reached before, Moscow demanded that Soviet specialists be given access to Japanese submarine aircraft carriers. After that, the Americans simply drowned all the Japanese submarines. This is another fateful turn of history that never happened: if the Soviet Union had received samurai technology in those years, the hegemony of the United States and Britain in the oceans would have come to an end sooner or later.

Germany, England and France also tried to create submarine aircraft carriers, but they did not advance further than experimental models with a small reconnaissance aircraft. After a series of failures, the Europeans spit on the ambitious project and took up the surface fleet.

Deadly Russian "Pheasant"

Today, rumors are actively circulating on the Internet that Russia is also creating a nuclear submarine aircraft carrier. At the same time, the messages are illustrated by a picture of a huge submarine with an airfield on its back, where modern fighters are preparing to launch.

Critics have already poured on this project - every kingston of a nuclear submarine was ridiculed. But the question is, where does the information come from that the submarine aircraft carrier will look like this? It is clear that the backbone airfield simply will not allow the submarine to either swim under water or float to the surface. It's just an artist's fantasy.

The airfield should be streamlined, under the hull of the boat itself. Instead of the take-off fighters invented by the designer, sailors will most likely use tailsitter vertical take-off attack drones, that is aircraft capable of taking off and landing in a vertical position. It is reliably known that such an apparatus is already being developed for the Russian Ministry of Defense, and its name is “Pheasant”.

After breaking away from launch pad this machine gains altitude, speed and then goes into the usual level flight mode. At the same time, the Pheasant can carry on board not only reconnaissance equipment, but also strike systems. Its estimated speed is 350-400 kilometers per hour, flight range is two thousand kilometers.

A nuclear submarine can have several dozen of these machines on board - a lot will fit right upright. The same applies to ammunition for the weapons of the "Pheasant".

By firing these machines from missile silos or launching a flock from the surface, the nuclear submarine aircraft carrier quickly retreats to the place of the intended assembly. Meanwhile, a swarm of drones suddenly attack an American group of ships, a naval base, or rush to strike deep into the continent for 500 kilometers. After that, the remnants of the detachment can return to the assembly point for repairs, maintenance and replenishment of ammunition.

The Russian military will not have to spend money on expensive training and no less expensive maintenance of naval aviation pilots. Moreover, the cost of the Pheasant is much less than a modern fighter, and the loss of a drone will not be perceived by anyone as a tragedy.

But the main advantages of a nuclear submarine aircraft carrier are its secrecy and the sudden appearance of combat drones over the enemy. Any American aircraft carrier with a group of ships is like a graveyard orchestra, heard a mile away. And tracking a nuclear submarine is almost impossible. It can appear almost anywhere off the coast of the United States and strike.

From the East to the West coast of the United States, on average, about 4,500 kilometers. Two submarine aircraft carriers will be able to attack the continent from different sides to its entire depth. That is, in fact, there will be no place left where the population of America would feel completely safe.

If such a project can be implemented, Russia will become the most powerful maritime power.

But the classic aircraft carriers have already outlived their lives.

There are many cases when, in a training battle, such ships were hit with impunity by submarines of various classes. The Americans were successfully "drowned" by the Swedes, Canadians, French, British and even Czechs and Chileans.

According to experts, in a modern war, any aircraft carrier will live no more than two hours, and pilots, taking off from their floating airfield, can look for an alternate landing site in advance.

And the day is not far off when US aircraft carriers will remind not of the formidable and deadly weapons, but of the elusive Joe from the joke - who needs him?

Alexey Overchuk