Russian submarine aircraft carrier. The Russian Navy will receive a nuclear aircraft carrier. He will cover the submarines in the oceans. Rodents for Uncle Sam

The model of the atomic aircraft carrier of the project 23000E "Storm" impresses both professionals and ordinary people. Photo by Artem Tkachenko

This theme, like a sea wave, then runs, then rolls back. This refers to the aircraft carrier theme, which is so popular with us not only among professional sailors and shipbuilders, but also among the public, which is very far from naval activities.

We have already spoken about the possibility of building aircraft carriers in Russia ("", "NVO" dated 03/08/13). In order not to repeat the plot of that publication, we will briefly list only the circumstances that will not allow our country to acquire full-fledged aircraft carriers in the foreseeable future.

Firstly, this is the lack of qualified personnel necessary for the design and construction of such complex ships and service on them.

Secondly, in our country, alas, there is no necessary scientific and technical potential for the successful assembly of modern aircraft carriers at shipyards, just as there is no industrial base capable of supplying such complex ships as aircraft carriers with all the necessary range of components and weapons.

Thirdly, new aircraft carriers will require new aircraft, including those that are in Russian Federation never created, for example, carrier-based long-range radar patrol and control aircraft, tanker aircraft. According to preliminary estimates, the development of the AWACS aircraft alone will require approximately $7 billion.

Fourth, it will be necessary to build naval bases to receive and service aircraft carriers.

To date, there are no such bases. Our only heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser, Admiral Kuznetsov of the Fleet of the Soviet Union, received a permanent residence permit at the pier of the 35th shipyard in Rost, from where it occasionally goes to sea.

Fifthly, in order to launch an aircraft carrier at sea, it must be provided with an escort consisting of very expensive surface ships of a class no lower than “frigates” and nuclear submarines, which we build with great creak and take years to fine-tune.

Finally, sixthly, Russia simply does not have the money to build modern aircraft carriers, and even more so multi-purpose nuclear aircraft carriers comparable to American ships of this class. Direct and indirect costs for the creation of such a lead ship will require about a billion dollars for every thousand tons of its displacement. These expenses will not only "eat up" the budget of the Navy, but also significantly "gnaw" the finances of other branches of the Armed Forces.

Of course, I would very much like to have nuclear floating airfields in the Russian fleet. But this is only possible by pike command", that is, in a fairy tale.

ABOUT COMPETENCES AND NUANCES

Maybe something has changed in our country since the publication of the previous material in 2013? Only that optimism among supporters of Russian aircraft carriers has increased. Here is what Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who is in charge of the defense industry in the government, told Interfax correspondents in March this year: “We can build everything, we have the competencies for this. If a decision is made on the need to equip our Navy with an aircraft carrier, it will be implemented. We have an understanding of how to do it. There is aviation technology, which can be equipped with a ship, strike weapons. From a technical and production point of view, all this is realizable, there is no doubt.

Alexei Rakhmanov, President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, echoes him: “My deep conviction is that we are able to create such a ship. The rest is nuance." Finally, on July 30, Frants Klintsevich, First Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security, on the air of the program “Sunday Evening with Vladimir Solovyov” on the Russia 1 TV channel, referring to aircraft carriers, said: “In the near future we will lay six,” most involuntarily recalling the hero of Gogol's unfading comedy The Inspector General.

However, I am sure that all statements of this kind are erroneous. Russia still does not have the necessary competencies (this is a word in the sense of “qualification”, if I am not mistaken, it was Dmitry Rogozin who launched it first) and will not lay down a single aircraft carrier in the near future. But the "nuances" with which there is no way to cope will be through the roof.

Shipbuilders and the Ministry of Defense, meanwhile, are on the alert. Only this year, thanks to their efforts, the carrier wave rose high several times. The Krylov State Research Center (KGNTs), which back in 2015 at the Army forum for the first time presented the concept of a promising nuclear aircraft carrier of project 23000E Storm, continues to demonstrate its offspring at various arms exhibitions. It was not without him at the St. Petersburg International naval saloon current year.

This leviathan with a displacement of 95 thousand tons, a length of 330 m, a hull width of 42 m, a draft of 11 m and a flight deck width of 85 m with an unlimited cruising range is capable of carrying up to 90 aircraft. Simply breathtaking! However, Storm, as it was a preliminary project, that is, a sketch, remained so. Such concepts can be made even by students of the “shipbuilder”, as St. Petersburg State Maritime Technical University is commonly called. Before technical project a miracle ship, not to mention working design, is still very far away. And there will not be enough specialists, and these stages of work will require a lot of money.

That is why, already in the second half of this year, the emphasis began to shift towards more easy option aircraft carrier. At the MAKS-2017 air show, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said that in 2025 it is planned to lay the foundation stone for a new heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser with the ability to accommodate short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft (SUVVP). At the Army-2017 forum, Borisov once again confirmed this information, saying that the Ministry of Defense is discussing with aircraft manufacturers the creation of a promising aircraft that will become the development of a line of aircraft vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) company "Yakovlev". It is worth recalling here that at the dawn of the post-Soviet era, the fleet began to deny, like hell, from the Yak-141 supersonic VTOL aircraft, which set 12 world records for speed and carrying capacity, under the pretext that Americans prefer conventional carrier-based aircraft. After the US Marine Corps and the United Kingdom Navy received the F-35B Lightning II SUVs, created with extensive use of the Yak-141 developments, interest in vehicles of this class woke up again. Only work in this area will require a lot of time and money.

And at the beginning of November of this year, the KGNTs announced that in the near future it would present the concept of a promising light multi-purpose aircraft carrier (LMA), the development of which is being carried out by the Center on its own initiative. It should be "cheaper and faster to build". Its approximate displacement should be in the range of 30-40 thousand tons, and the number of aircraft that the LMA will carry is 40-50. Among them are carrier-based fighters Su-33, as well as MiG-29K. Light aircraft carrier should also be able to receive radar patrol aircraft. The construction of such a ship is possible at the Severodvinsk Sevmash or at the Zaliv plant in Kerch. Nothing is said about the power plant of the ship. But in order to reduce the cost, it will be necessary to abandon the nuclear power plant (NPP), which, among other things, requires the deployment of biological protection systems that significantly increase the weight of ships with this type of power plant. But the domestic industry has not yet produced diesel and gas turbine plants of high power, and it makes no sense to install antediluvian and capricious steam turbine power plants.

THE TORTURE OF THE "COURAGEOUS"

The pursuit of cheapness hides a lot unpleasant surprises. Let's illustrate this statement on the example of the Indian aircraft carrier "Vikrant" (translated from Sanskrit "Courageous") with a displacement of 40 thousand tons, on which up to 40 aircraft, including MiG-29K fighters with springboard takeoff, should be based. The development of his project started in 1999, and the laying took place at a shipyard in Kochi in February 2009. The implementation of Project 71, created with the participation of the Nevsky Design Bureau (NPKB), the Italian company Fincantieri and the French concern DCNS (now the Naval Group), was then estimated at a ridiculous $ 0.5 billion. The Americans also participated in the project, which supplied four LM 2500 + gas turbine engines, Western European electronic profile companies and Israel, which supplied the Barak-1 and Barak-8 anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM).

Here it should be noted that the designers and builders of modern warships abroad are in much more favorable conditions compared to their Russian counterparts. It is enough for them to open a directory to choose for their offspring gas turbine engines of American, British, Ukrainian or Chinese production, diesel engines of German, American, French or the same Chinese companies. Then it remains only to agree on the price and delivery time. The same applies to electronic equipment and various weapons. Our shipbuilders have to deal with contractors only within the country. Sometimes they don’t even really understand what is required of them. Because of this - long lead times and high prices.

But back to Courageous. Despite international assistance, the ship hung on the slipway until August 2013, when it was finally launched. By that time, the estimate had been exceeded several times. Today it is $3.765 billion, and the ship is expected to be handed over to the fleet in 2023, that is, 14 years after the laying. Despite the motto "I conquer those who fight me", the aircraft carrier failed to overcome the low qualifications, oh, sorry, the competence of Indian shipbuilders.

Previously, the Indian Navy wanted to acquire three Vikrant-class aircraft carriers. Now those plans have been forgotten. Now next in line is the creation of a project for the heavy aircraft carrier Vishal (Giant) with a displacement of about 65,000 tons and an air group of 50–55 aircraft. It is possible that it will be equipped with a nuclear power plant. However, there is an obstacle to this - the development of nuclear power plants will require 10-15 years. Meanwhile, the Indians, not without reason, fear that the Chinese will overtake them in an aircraft carrier race and turn the Indian Ocean into their lake.

Indeed, the PLA Navy will soon have a second aircraft carrier built, albeit on the basis of a slightly enlarged Soviet project 11435, but exclusively on its own. And the appearance in the seas and oceans of nuclear aircraft carriers under the flag of the PRC is not as long to wait as many people think. Beijing needs them not so much to project power into remote areas, how much for purely practical purposes - to ensure the security of communications, through which the constantly growing economy of the country is supplied with raw materials. And although Beijing is now increasingly focused on Russian gas and oil, it is unlikely to put all its eggs in one basket, but will continue to consume raw materials from the Middle East and other regions.

That's why Indians are in a hurry. And now, apparently, their main partners in the field of aircraft carrier construction will be the undoubted leaders and authorities in this field of shipbuilding - the Americans. Washington has already offered its services to Delhi for the supply and licensed production of EMALS electromagnetic catapults. Negotiations are now underway between the Boeing Corporation and the Indian state-owned aircraft manufacturer HAL on the possibility of joint production of F / A-18E / F “Super Hornet” carrier-based fighters, since, according to various sources, the Indian fleet has become disillusioned with the Russian MiG-29K / KUB fighters due to frequent breakdowns.

WHAT IS HE LOOKING FOR IN A FAR LAND

What tasks the promising Russian aircraft carriers will have to solve is not very clear. In any case, from the point of view of the criterion "cost - efficiency". Russia has all necessary resources for successful development. Because of the sea-ocean, we have nothing to import in large volumes. Then why compose floating airfields? Compete with the Americans? There is no point in such a confrontation, since we cannot catch up with them. To be no worse than the Chinese? But compared to China, Russia simply does not have a shipbuilding industry.

Now they often refer to the Syrian campaign of the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" at the end of last year. The following figures are often cited: in two months of participation in hostilities, the pilots of the Russian aircraft carrier completed 420 sorties, 117 of them at night. Obviously, that's the way it is. Although the Americans, who followed every "sneeze" of our ship, claim that 154 aircraft launched from the deck of the Kuznetsov to carry out combat missions. Probably, both figures are correct - after all, part of the aircraft from the Russian TAVKR immediately after arriving on the coast of Syria flew to the Khmeimim airbase, from which they carried out combat work.

But it's not that. The normal intensity of flights from the decks of American aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type is 120 sorties per day. The "productivity" of the latest aircraft carrier "Gerald R. Ford" with electromagnetic catapults EMALS is 160 sorties per day, and if necessary, it can be increased to 220 sorties. Newest British aircraft carrier The Queen Elizabeth, on which the American F-35B Lightning II short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft will be based, must produce 24 fighters in 15 minutes, 110 aircraft in a day, and 420 in five days, that is, the same number that rose from the deck of the Russian TAVKR in two months.

The work of Kuznetsov did not make a big impression on our Western "partners". The Syrian grouping of the Aerospace Forces (VKS) would have coped with it without the participation of the carrier-based Su-33 and MiG-29K. But this operation required a lot of money. As calculated by the RBC agency, it cost the state 7.5-10 billion rubles. These figures seem to be underestimated, since they do not include preparations for the campaign: ship repairs, training trips to the sea and pilot training, which took place over several months.

We must not forget that aircraft carriers and other large-tonnage warships are tasty targets for the enemy. The Russian fleet has excellent anti-ship missiles (ASM) "Caliber" and "Onyx" sea-based and Kh-32 air-based. Soon, hypersonic anti-ship missiles "Zirkon" will be added to them, the blow of which cannot be repelled by all currently existing air defense and missile defense systems. China has DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles with a range of up to 2,000 km, which are rightfully called "aircraft carrier killers." The Americans are not idle either. Starting next year, the US Navy will be armed with a new version of the Tomahawk cruise missiles of the MST modification, that is, the Sea Attack Tomahawk, to strike not only coastal, but also sea targets at ranges up to 1000 km. The low-profile LRASM anti-ship missiles are also on the way, which will be able to destroy enemy surface ships located at a distance of up to 800 km when dropped from an aircraft and 300 km when fired from destroyers and cruisers. We should also not forget about the heavy torpedoes of submarines, which sneak up quite close to aircraft carriers.

The current second cold war is not for a day or two. It will last a long time. And in the confrontation with the United States and NATO, aircraft carriers will not help us, but will only ruin us. In order to make the right impression on the opposing side, the Russian fleet needs more submarines - nuclear and with air-independent power plants equipped with cruise missiles. They are quite capable of "pressing" the American fleet to the shores of the United States. The constant combat duty of Russian submarines in the waters adjacent to America will require the lion's share of surface and submarine forces to be pulled to the East and West coasts of the United States.

Meanwhile, as USC President Alexei Rakhmanov recently lamented, there is not enough money to complete the construction of the Project 955A strategic submarine missile carrier Knyaz Oleg at the Severodvinsk Sevmash. But how can they be enough if the modernization of the "prestigious" nuclear cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov" requires more and more billions of rubles? By the way, this year the Russian Navy has not received and will not receive a single new submarine, either nuclear or diesel-electric. As it became known last October, there are no funds for the modernization of the TAVKR "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov." Instead of the previously planned 50 billion rubles. no more than half of this amount will be released. It will only be enough to replace the boilers and parts of the electronics. That is, the combat potential of the ship will not noticeably increase.

WHO IS BEHIND THE AIR CARRIER WAVE

Those who do not get tired of driving an aircraft carrier wave, it seems, are well aware that Russia is not capable of aircraft carriers, and there is no need to. Then why do they tirelessly raise this topic? What if it turns out to lay such a ship with a multi-billion dollar budget. Using the mechanism of scrolling money through hundreds and even thousands of counterparties, there will be an amazing opportunity to “saw” endlessly public funds and "roll back" them. At least, there is no other intelligible explanation for the active injection of an aircraft carrier wave from representatives of the fleet and industry.

Does the Navy need aircraft carriers? Certainly yes. Only you need to start not with the complex and expensive, but with the simple and more necessary. The workhorses of the Syrian campaign have become large landing ships (LDS), which carry weapons, ammunition and equipment. Some of these BDKs are under the "fifty dollars", that is, they have been serving for a very long time. They need a replacement. Such a replacement can be, for example, universal landing ships (UDC) of the "Priboy" type with a displacement of 23 thousand tons, a length of 200 m and a width of 34 m. Their cruising range should be 6 thousand nautical miles, and autonomy - 30 days. In addition to the landing of 500-900 marines, armored vehicles and landing craft, up to 15 helicopters of various classes can be based on such a UDC. In the future, they will also be able to receive vertical take-off and landing fighters, if any, of course, are created.

The special value of such ships lies in the fact that they are able to take part in low-intensity conflicts, transport equipment and display the flag in the seas and oceans. It is no coincidence that ships of this class are becoming increasingly popular. Following the United States, they are replenished by the fleets of Spain, Australia, Turkey, and soon the UDC will also appear in the Chinese Navy.

The hidden confrontation between steel giants - nuclear submarines did not stop with the end of the Cold War. On the contrary, both the United States and the Russian Federation began to appreciate the capabilities of the submarine fleet more. This is especially true for multi-purpose submarines equipped with cruise missiles. Special hopes are placed on such submarines in Russia - along with strategic missile submarines, multi-purpose submarines will have to perform the most difficult tasks of deterring any, even the most serious, aggression at sea and, if necessary, strike back at surface and underwater targets, as well as destroy enemy targets on land. Threat assessment No matter how much experts discuss the protection of aircraft carriers and consider escort ships from the carrier strike group, invariably, any dispute in the professional community comes to the question of how such forces can be neutralized if necessary. Is it a joke - a ship, 70 aircraft with missiles, and a dozen auxiliary vessels, including an escort with missile weapons - a serious force that you can’t take for fear. boats, has long been noted by foreign colleagues. Realizing that the submarine, recently commissioned, armed with cruise missiles and unique torpedoes, could turn a huge ship into a sieve, the Americans began to noticeably worry. For almost 30 years, the command of the US Navy did not make harsh statements about the danger of Russian submarines.

However, the long-term silence was broken by Harry Harris, Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Command. Harris said that the program of modernization and construction of new submarines poses a serious danger to the Pacific region and "signals the seriousness with which Moscow views this region." Experts note that the "recognition" of success in rearmament and modernization of the Russian fleet indicates that the command of the Navy considers every modernized and even more so new submarine dangerous, and third-generation submarines fade into the background at the mere mention of Russian nuclear submarines of the fourth project. four yards

In fairness, it should be noted that the Americans approached the formation and maintenance of their own submarine fleet thoroughly. In addition to the strategic missile submarines of the Ohio type, multipurpose nuclear submarines of the Virginia type have been built and put into operation. True, the Americans decided to build new multi-purpose submarines for a reason. At a certain stage of the naval confrontation, after weighing all the pros and cons, and simultaneously evaluating the data on the Soviet Project 971 nuclear submarines, the US military issued technical task for the development of a multi-purpose nuclear submarine.
The specialists of the Electric Boat company and dozens of specialized companies developed a project for a multi-purpose nuclear submarine with advanced equipment and weapons, called the Seawolf (eng. Seawolf, “sea wolf”). Everything in the Sivulf design was subordinated to one goal: to detect the enemy and not be detected, much less destroyed. In order to ensure the secrecy of the submarine while moving, the developers went for such non-standard solutions as the rejection of the traditional propeller. Instead, a water jet was used, originally developed for the British Trafalgar submarines, and the hull was made using a special sound-absorbing coating.
A hydroacoustic complex, surveillance equipment and a total ammunition load of 50 torpedoes and missiles were supposed to turn the Seawulf into a real master of the depths, but the dream of military engineers was not destined to come true. The culprit, as usual, was money. Research work, the study of materials, the development of electronics and other systems cost the US military department exactly one billion dollars. Almost another four and a half billion (4.3 to be exact) had to be paid for each submarine built. Having recalculated the costs of building, maintaining, repairing and modernizing, the US military decided to limit itself to only three submarines, and on this the issue of mass production of the Seawolf was closed. Virginia vs. Ash
In terms of the amount of money spent on construction and maintenance, the Virginia-class submarine that was put into service instead of the Seawolf turned out to be significantly cheaper, but this submarine did not succeed in becoming a relatively inexpensive ship. The recently launched USS Illinois cost the US Navy nearly three billion dollars ($2.7 to be exact). Similar to the submarines of the previous generation, the tasks of the Virginia multi-purpose nuclear submarine included all the same activities - the fight against enemy submarines, coastal operations (meaning the destruction of objects on land) and, if necessary, the landing of landing units. One of important aspects the study of multi-purpose submarines (and submarines in general) is armament. And just here the most interesting begins - a comparison of the capabilities of the American "Virginia" and the Russian "Ash" as the main competitors. The first versions of the Virginia (Block I and Block II series) are armed with 12 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and from the Block III version, the submarine is equipped with a revolver-type launcher of 6 cruise missiles each.

Despite the fact that the main competitor of Virginia, the Russian multi-purpose nuclear submarine of project 885 Yasen, due to well-known political and economic reasons, entered service much later, the level of solutions regarding the power plant, weapons, on-board electronics and controls is such that for sure, after studying some of the parameters, gray-haired generals will be added to the headquarters of the US Navy. Perhaps we should start with the main thing - the Yasen's armament consists mostly of cruise missiles, of which as many as thirty-two can be accommodated in the submarine's hull. In order to understand whether this is a lot or a little, one should turn to the practical side of the issue - combat (albeit hypothetical) shooting.
“If we take into account the number of missiles and compare this figure with the number of ships in the aircraft carrier strike group, then it can be determined by calculations that one Yasen SSGN with a salvo of 32 anti-ship missiles can hit an AUG of three aircraft carriers. True, such a salvo has not yet been worked out in order to test it in practice, ”military expert Alexei Leonkov notes in an interview with the Zvezda TV channel. Of course, a grouping always (if necessary) works on the AUG and a single operation of a nuclear submarine for a dozen ships is unlikely, but as the experts explain, there is a technical possibility to carry out such an “event”. Many of those who watched the world-famous video of the firing of Caliber missiles by the Caspian flotilla for one and a half thousand kilometers do not even suspect that a Russian submarine can also use similar missile weapons. "Ash" can launch anti-submarine torpedo missiles 91RE1 "Caliber", which are capable of destroying submarines of any displacement.
Experts immediately note that the American Virginia also has similar weapons, while omitting one important circumstance - the speed characteristics of Tomahawks fired from torpedo tubes and anti-submarine Calibers differ significantly. “The first stage of the 91RE1 torpedo ensures its movement under water, then it emerges from under the water and climbs at a speed of 2-2.5 M due to the operation of the second stage. The missile flies along a controlled trajectory towards the detected target. Hitting a target at a distance of 40-50 km occurs almost instantly,” explains Alexey Leonkov. But that's not all. Yasen launchers can be equipped with X-101 cruise missiles with a range of more than five thousand kilometers. Considering that the tests of these missiles from aircraft carriers were successful, we can conclude that there are practically no obstacles to equipping a submarine with such weapons. The number of launchers, as well as the characteristics of the rocket, also suggest that the issue of destroying any, even a well-protected enemy, can be solved "from the neighboring sea" without appearing on the horizon. In addition, according to the developers, the design of the launch silos of the Project 885 Yasen submarine is such that they can be loaded with any sea-based cruise missiles in service with the Navy. Transition boats or technology hunters Wins "Ash" from "Virginia" and differently important indicator: the maximum diving depth is 488 meters for an American submarine versus 600 for a Russian submarine. And although the key characteristics of the American and Russian boats, such as speed, the exact number of crew, forces and means of detection, and other data will not be available to the public for a long time (and most likely never at all), it should be understood that Ash and Virginia » are not at the top of technological progress. The thing is that from the very moment when the active construction of submarines and their use began, work and research aimed at detecting submarines started at the same time. Experts note that this is why such a thing as an “acceptable noise level” for modern submarines simply ceased to exist - each next generation of nuclear submarines, whether they are "strategists" with nuclear missiles "behind their backs" or naval fighters like the "Ash" should be inaudible to the enemy's hydroacoustics. Hundreds of dissertations have been written on the part of reducing the noise of a submarine, and the specialized research institutes have probably been struggling for several years over the layout of equipment inside the hull. A breakthrough solution, according to experts, could be the rejection of the use of turbines in nuclear submarines and their exclusion as a source of noise on board with a passing transition to electric motors. The “electrical” circuit, as experts explain, will solve several problems at once.
First, it will be possible to reduce the noise level and in fact make the huge submarine inaudible to modern sonar stations. Secondly, it will be possible to “play” with the space inside the submarine itself and place other mechanisms and devices in the vacated space. The Americans are already actively working in this direction - in particular, the Block V version of Virginia-class submarines is being developed precisely with an electric drive of the main shaft, without the use of turbines and compressors. However, according to experts, there are certain difficulties in the implementation of this program that American engineers cannot yet overcome. Both Ash and Virginia in this sense are laboratories for testing new technologies, and it would be completely fair to think about refusing to build " Ash" and focus on more technologically advanced nuclear submarines. But here, as they say, there is a peculiarity. “On average, a new project requires at least 7-8 years to develop. And we need to put something into service now, ”said military expert Viktor Murakhovsky in an interview with the Zvezda TV channel website. Then there is pure mathematics. Or rather, the economy.
Considering the opinion of experts that the cost of production of the lead submarine of project 885 "Ash" is at least half the production of American multi-purpose nuclear submarines, and the price of production of all subsequent submarines of project 885M with improved characteristics will decrease by another third, we can conclude that the Russian Navy will receive only modern multi-purpose nuclear submarines, but it will also spend much less money on it than the American "colleagues". A huge help in this case will be the list of technical solutions already implemented in Yasen and planned for use in the construction of fifth-generation multi-purpose nuclear submarines. According to CEO St. Petersburg Marine Engineering Bureau "Malachite" Vladimir Dorofeev, it was the work on the project 885 "Ash" that largely determined the appearance of the fifth generation submarines, the production of which is scheduled after 2020. Despite the fact that the Russian Navy has only one Project 885 submarine at its disposal, one can clearly observe the nervousness of the American military. The task that the US military will have to solve after the entire series of project 885 submarines enters service will be formulated approximately as follows: “Calculate how many ships can be destroyed by one submarine of project 885, if in the planned series of six (and according to other sources, eight ) submarines each carry 32 missiles. Judging by the level of attention paid to the latest submarines, if we compare the range of weapons used on Project 885 submarines and add to this the level of cooperation completely lost several decades ago and restored, then the Ash is not only a component of the non-nuclear deterrence of a potential adversary, but also demonstrates the readiness of the industry to create not just test ships, but to build warships that are ready to perform the assigned tasks immediately after the tests. Apparently, it was no coincidence that American experts dubbed the submarines

Russia is reportedly planning to build "the world's largest aircraft carrier" to bolster its defenses and compete with the US in this area.

The aircraft carrier "Storm" will be able to carry 90 combat aircraft on its board and will cost about $17.5 billion, the British edition notes, citing Russian media.

This ship, now known as Project 23000, could be ready by 2030. However, whether it really will become the largest aircraft carrier in the world, as Moscow claims, is a moot point.

His specifications, the article notes, are similar to the characteristics of American Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. And one of the experts even told the media that the design of the American aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford will be taken as the basis of the ship, the publication claims.

According to the project, the deck of the new aircraft carrier will be the size of three football fields, and the crew will be up to 4,000 people. The ship will become so large that, according to The Independent, it will have its own zip code.

Currently, Russia has only the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, which was launched back in 1985. In terms of its capabilities, it is seriously inferior to the Storm ship.

Russian aircraft carrier of the future. Project 23000 Storm

A promising multi-purpose heavy supercarrier of the future - Shtorm (project 23000), is being developed in the Russian state scientific center them. Krylov (St. Petersburg) in cooperation with the Nevsky Design Bureau.

The ship is aimed at performing various tasks in the far ocean and sea zones. It will be capable of delivering strikes against enemy ground and sea targets with the help of its own weapons and aircraft of the aviation group, as well as providing air defense.

The main requirements presented by the High Command of the Navy to the new Russian aircraft carrier is autonomy and mobility. The ship must transfer all the necessary equipment and equipment to the right place and in a short time. And the air group must provide patrols and quickly increase its presence in a given region.

At the same time, Storm should have ample opportunities both in terms of the use of carrier-based aircraft and in terms of the combat effectiveness of operations as part of heterogeneous forces. On the newest aircraft carrier the tasks of detecting and destroying enemy submarine and surface assets, attacking enemy infrastructure facilities on land and protecting their own fleet will be assigned.

The concept of a new multifunctional aircraft carrier

The concept of a new multifunctional aircraft carrier provides for the placement of up to 100 aircraft on board. Aircraft and helicopters of five different types will be placed and secured at the stern and bow of the aircraft carrier.

The aircraft carrier will have a practically “bare” deck. Instead of a massive tower, there are two "islands" of control (two island superstructures). This will save space on the deck and reduce the radio visibility of the ship at sea.

The aircraft carrier will be equipped with a RITM-200 two-reactor power plant with a capacity of 175 MW.

Storm will have a hybrid aircraft launch system - two electromagnetic catapults (EMALS) to accelerate aircraft and two springboards (a total of 4 launch positions on the flight deck). The length of the runway of one of the springboards will exceed 250 meters. The landing of aircraft will be provided by one arrester (a device based on a cable that dampens the landing speed). To save space, the aircraft lifts will be of vertical and swing type.

Storm will be equipped with an integrated combat control system. The electronic complex of the aircraft carrier will include integrated sensors, including radar stations with an active phased antenna array (radar with AFAR).

The aircraft carrier will ensure the takeoff and landing of the latest generation aircraft and helicopters even in a storm. Under the takeoff deck and in optimized control superstructures, the latest nuclear power plant, effective missile and electronic weapons will be placed. Usage missile weapons- this is one of the most interesting moments in determining the appearance of the future ship.

Four S-500 Prometheus modules will be responsible for the air defense of the ship at once. With such an air defense quartet, an aircraft carrier will be able to simultaneously detect, fire and destroy up to 10 airborne aerodynamic or supersonic ballistic targets at once at a distance of 800 kilometers. Air defense targets can be aircraft, helicopters, UAVs, medium-range missiles, supersonic cruise missiles and intercontinental ballistic missile warheads, as well as objects flying at speeds up to 7000 meters per second. Plus, the aircraft carrier will be equipped with two anti-torpedo protection systems.

The single-seat MiG-29K and the two-seat MiG-29KUB (4++ generation fighters) will solve the problem of air defense and gaining air supremacy, hitting targets with guided precision weapons at any time of the day and in any weather.

The placement of anti-ship missiles on the ship (on a basic permanent basis) is not planned. But this by no means prohibits the placement on an aircraft carrier (according to a good tradition), 4-8 20-foot removable containers with the Club-K missile system, or Zirkon hypersonic anti-ship missiles. The placement of 8 containers with Club-K on board the aircraft carrier means that it is armed with 32 high-precision attack cruise missiles. Container Club-K - will ensure the defeat of both surface and ground targets. The complex is a modification of the well-known missile system Caliber. Inside the containers of the complex, launchers with 3M-14, Kh-35 or 3M-54 missiles are hidden, capable of hitting both land and large surface targets at a long distance. For example, the 3M-54 missile is capable of destroying even an aircraft carrier, and the flight range of the KR 3M14 with nuclear warheads / FBCHs is 2650 and 1600 km, respectively.

The task of collecting information about the enemy and monitoring air, ground and surface space, as well as guiding aircraft to detected targets will be provided by a radar control point and a radar patrol and guidance point based on the Yak-44E aircraft. The submarines will be fought by Ka-32/Ka-27 helicopters armed with torpedoes, depth charges, missiles and mines.

The hull of the ship will be optimized so that the water resistance will be reduced by 20-30%. The latter will provide significant energy savings and the ability to increase the speed and autonomy of the ship. Note that the movement of the vessel with a drag of 30% less than that of the traditional hull contour means that with conventional power it will be possible to have a cruising range of 30% more and the fuel consumption will also decrease.

As you can see on the Storm they will use the best developments domestic and Western schools for the creation of ships of this class. In the project, great importance is given to the possibilities for providing aeronautics for carrier-based aviation. For example, according to the project, the maximum width of the flight deck will exceed 80 meters, the composition of the double deck was adopted from the UK. At the same time, it is planned to create a smooth flight deck.

As an innovation, an improved aircraft carrier hull design can be singled out, which can significantly reduce water resistance and increase its efficiency and seaworthiness.

The military power of the ship is significantly enhanced by the deployment and use of an airborne early warning and guidance aircraft (AWACS) on it.

In general, it can be noted that Storm will become a multi-purpose aircraft carrier that will serve as a sea airport. In Soviet times, carrier-based aircraft performed anti-submarine, defensive and air defense missions, and the aircraft carrier was positioned as a military cruiser designed for sea attacks at long distances.

TTX aircraft carrier Storm:

Hello. Add to friends)

In the media, some ships of our fleet are called "aircraft carrier killers." In different interpretations, this nickname walks through the pages of newspapers, sounds in various TV shows. It seems that such a ship or submarine is capable of almost single-handedly "killing an aircraft carrier", and for our fleet, the defeat of an aircraft carrier group (aircraft carriers do not go alone, they are always guarded by a group of ships that form an aircraft carrier strike group - AUG) is a sufficient task simple. However, this is not quite true.

First of all, about the "killers of aircraft carriers" themselves. Such a nickname "stuck" to the Project 1164 missile cruisers, which are often referred to in the press that way. Obviously for their menacing appearance with 16 launchers for a powerful missile system"Basalt" or "Volcano". In addition to this ship, heavy missile cruisers of project 1144 (the most famous of which is Peter the Great), as well as missile submarines of project 949A (became known to the general public in connection with the tragedy of the Kursk submarine) can be attributed to the number of “killers”.

So, is such a missile cruiser, acting as part of a group of 2-3 ships (as is the case today when our ships perform various tasks of supporting Russian diplomacy and demonstrating the flag) or a single submarine, pr. building an American aircraft carrier?

The typical composition of an aircraft carrier strike group includes one aircraft carrier (the main Nimitz class in the United States), 6-8 surface ships covering, including 2-3 Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers, the same number of Orly Burke-class URO destroyers and 2- 3 nuclear submarines, mostly of the Los Angeles type.

The typical composition of an aircraft carrier air wing is 48 F / A-18C and D attack fighters, 10 Viking anti-submarine aircraft, 4-6 tanker aircraft, the same number of electronic warfare aircraft, 4 reconnaissance aircraft, 4 radar patrol and E-type control aircraft. 2C Hawkeye, 10-16 anti-submarine and search and rescue helicopters.

Missile cruisers and destroyers URO are the basis of the defense system of an aircraft carrier group, having powerful air defense, anti-aircraft defense and electronic warfare.

Solving the problem of combating enemy surface ships, an aircraft carrier strike group is capable of delivering strikes by carrier-based aircraft consisting of up to 40 aircraft at a distance of up to 600-800 km and Tomahawk missiles at a distance of up to 500-600 km from the center of the warrant, having up to several dozen in a salvo such missiles.

The anti-submarine defense of an aircraft carrier strike group is built to a depth of 600 or more kilometers from the aircraft carrier, and the anti-aircraft defense is up to 700 km from the center of the warrant.

In general, the US aircraft carrier strike group is a single combat system in which heterogeneous forces and assets operate under the control of a single automated system management of a ship formation, solving in a single complex all the tasks of defense and offensive assigned to it.

What does it consist of sea ​​battle with an aircraft carrier.

In order to hit an aircraft carrier from an aircraft carrier strike group, our ship group led by a missile cruiser or a missile submarine must: provide timely detection of the aircraft carrier group and classify it, get close to the range of missile weapons, while maintaining combat capability, receive target designation with location determination aircraft carrier in order and launch missiles, which, having overcome the opposition of air defense and electronic warfare, should hit the aircraft carrier.

Let's consider the possibilities of implementing this whole complex of events.

The own capabilities of a ship group consisting of a missile cruiser and 1-3 security and reconnaissance ships are actually limited by the limits of the radio horizon. That is, several tens of kilometers.

The helicopters on board the ships for searching for the enemy in large areas are of little use due to the small number of these machines on board the ships of the formation (maximum 2 helicopters on the largest ship) and the short range. They can be effectively used only in the interests of issuing target designation, and then only for an incomplete range of missile weapons.

The capabilities of the 949A missile submarines of the reconnaissance project are much wider. They are capable of detecting the noise of aircraft carrier groups with their hydroacoustics at a distance of more than a hundred nautical miles. That is, when a submarine is located in the far zone of the anti-submarine defense of an aircraft carrier group, where there is a certain (albeit small) probability of its destruction.

However, it is impossible to classify and even more so to determine the battle formation of an enemy formation with the identification of the main order from such a distance. It will be necessary to approach the enemy at a distance of several tens of nautical miles. That is, to enter the middle zone of the anti-submarine defense of the enemy formation, where the probability of its destruction is already very significant.

In Soviet times, the actions of our fleet against enemy aircraft carrier forces were supported by a powerful and developed reconnaissance and target designation system, including a space component. It made it possible to identify and track American carrier formations literally from the moment they left the base.

Today, out of all this power, in fact, only a limited number of nuclear submarines, single reconnaissance aircraft and a significantly reduced radio-electronic reconnaissance system have remained, which, moreover, has lost all its foreign centers. These forces do not allow for effective reconnaissance of operationally important areas of the seas and oceans, all the more so to provide our formation with the required amount of intelligence data for an effective strike on the AUG.

A different picture emerges for an aircraft carrier formation, which alone is capable of controlling air and surface space to a depth of 800 km or more. Having such superiority, an aircraft carrier formation will be able to prevent our missile cruisers from reaching the distance of a missile salvo, delivering strikes with carrier-based aircraft and long-range missiles with impunity (even without being detected).

However, even if our small naval formation is provided with proper reconnaissance information, it will need to get close to the aircraft carrier formation at the distance of firing missile weapons.

Having superiority in the range of use of carrier-based aircraft, the enemy will launch air strikes on our formation with up to 40 vehicles, of which about 25 will be equipped with two Harpoon missiles - up to 40-50 missiles in total. Attack aircraft and missiles will be covered by electronic warfare aircraft.

Under these conditions, the most powerful air defense systems of our ship formation - "Fort", will be able to destroy only a few missiles each. The means of self-defense of each of the ships will, at best, destroy one or two missiles, some will be taken away for interference. As a result, more than a dozen missiles will hit their targets. We can confidently say that in the end, our ships, including the missile cruiser, will be sunk with a high probability.

If this is not enough, the blow can be repeated.

That is, our ship formation will not even be able to approach the distance of rocket fire.

The conditions for overcoming enemy opposition for the Project 949A missile submarine are much better. However, in this case, the probability of her death before reaching the position of the use of weapons is significant.

If we assume that our missile cruiser or missile submarine entered the salvo position and fired it or carried out a missile attack from a weapon tracking position (that is, holding a position in which the AUG is within the range of a missile weapon), then there is still no chance of hitting an aircraft carrier a little.

Volley of 16 (cruiser project 1164), 20 ( heavy cruiser pr. 1144) or 24 (NPS pr. 949A) missiles, against a ship formation saturated with multi-channel air defense systems, covered by combat air patrol fighters, with powerful electronic warfare equipment, is unlikely to reach the target.

2-3 missiles can be destroyed by fighters. Each of the missile cruisers and destroyers of the URO will be able to destroy several missiles. If we take into account that the number of such ships that can take part in repelling a missile attack can be 3-4 or even more, it becomes clear that literally a few missiles can remain undamaged. They will be destroyed by anti-aircraft self-defense weapons or taken away from the target electronic interference.

The chances of achieving a hit with even one missile are very small.

Thus, in this way, it can be stated that even with the successful launch of their missiles at an American aircraft carrier formation, the chances of a Russian missile cruiser to hit it are negligible. And taking into account other factors, they are practically reduced to zero.

So it’s impossible to call our missile cruisers and cruise missile submarines “aircraft carrier killers”.

In order to defeat the AUG, our fleet must oppose it with an adequate operational formation. Its number should be comparable to the AUG: 2-3 missile cruisers 1164 and 1144 projects in the protection of 5-8 surface ships of the destroyer class, a large anti-submarine ship, a frigate, 3-4 missile submarines of project 949A, 4-5 multi-purpose submarines, with the support of a division of two or three regiments of naval missile-carrying or long-range aviation, a squadron of at least reconnaissance aircraft of the oceanic zone. In the Northern Fleet, the aircraft carrier pr. 1143.5 can be included in the strike force. With its inclusion, the combat strength of the strike force of surface ships can be reduced by 20-30%.

Such a formation will be able to defeat the American AUG and destroy an aircraft carrier from its composition. At the same time, it itself will suffer very tangible losses and will need to restore its combat capability. So you can’t shower AUG with hats.

Each of our ocean fleets will be able to create only one such formation (and only if the combat capability of the ships is restored). And the Americans will be able to put up at least 4 aircraft carrier groups against each of them. That is, today our fleet cannot solve the problem of parrying an aircraft carrier threat, unlike the Soviet Navy, whose combat strength made it possible to maintain the parity of naval weapons with the United States at an acceptable level. Such is the price of "market reforms".

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 Caliber cruise missiles 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, once again attracted media attention to the topic of the Russian Navy's capabilities to counter the AUG . Especially taking into account the peculiar correspondence "skirmish" between the British Minister of Defense Michael Fallon and the official representative of the Russian Ministry of 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 possibility of detecting air targets by AWACS E-2 "Hawk Ai" aircraft is estimated up to 700 kilometers, for the purpose 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, when the AWACS aircraft is at comparable altitude (the patrol 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 during 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 position of "direct tracking" was at all the main method of their combat use. Especially taking into account the fact that the squadrons of the USSR and the USA carried out patrols in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean almost all year round and continuously kept each other under "close observation".

In other situations, the most "effective" means of combating the aircraft carrier strike groups of a potential enemy in the Russian Navy were and remain submarines with cruise missiles - on this moment These are Project 949A Antey submarines and the latest 4th generation multi-purpose submarine Severodvinsk of 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 possibilities 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 receiving target designation by submarines with anti-ship missiles with the help of their hydroacoustic complex remains completely ignored. 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), additionally 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 for the submarine, 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.

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 the 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 fierce debate is the question of how many supersonic anti-ship missiles attacking an aircraft carrier formation can shoot down its escort ships, mainly cruisers and destroyers equipped with the Aegis multifunctional weapon control system. On this issue, the 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 impossibility of "breaking through" the air defense of an aircraft carrier group in any way an adequate amount of RCC. However, to put an end to this discussion in the absence of "practical experience" is 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. So, for example, active distribution in last years anti-aircraft missiles with active radar homing heads and improving 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) in the very near future will allow intercepting low-flying air assets attacks, including anti-ship missiles, outside the radio horizon. In combination with a very large number of 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 meticulously 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 "estimated" 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 British naval air defense system "Sea Wolf" at that time 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.

FROM big share confidence, it can be argued that the capabilities of the modern Russian Navy make it possible to confidently fight with 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 Zircon anti-ship missile 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 daunting 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"