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 - nuclear multi-purpose, 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 possible only "at the behest of the pike", 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 equipment that 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. Krylov State science Center(KGNTs), which back in 2015 at the forum "Army" 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 the St. Petersburg State Maritime Technical University. The technical design of the miracle ship, not to mention the 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 a lighter version of the 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, stating that the Ministry of Defense is discussing with aircraft manufacturers the creation of a promising aircraft that will become the development of the line of vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL) of the Yakovlev company. 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. Once in service with the Corps marines The USA and the United Kingdom Navy appeared SUVVP F-35B Lightning II, created with extensive use of developments on the Yak-141, 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. The light aircraft carrier must 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 is fraught with many 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 anti-aircraft missile systems(SAM) "Barak-1" and "Barak-8".
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 force in remote areas, but for purely practical purposes - to ensure the security of communications, which are used to supply the country's constantly growing economy 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. The newest British aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth, on which the American F-35B Lightning II short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft will be based, should produce 24 fighters in 15 minutes, 110 aircraft per day, and 420 aircraft in five days, that is the same amount 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 Does Admiral Nakhimov need 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 endlessly "cut" 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 are big landing ships(BDK), which transport 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.
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 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 effectively in modern conditions the Russian Navy can counteract aircraft carrier strike groups and is it 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. During the Cold War, for large surface ships of the USSR Navy, such a strike from the position of "direct tracking" 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 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 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, the US-A radar reconnaissance satellites operated in very low orbits and therefore, due to the impossibility of obtaining enough energy from solar panels equipped with nuclear power. 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 the coastal command posts of the fleet and carriers of heavy anti-ship missiles, for which it was actually intended this information. 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, in currently a new, much more advanced and efficient system of the ICRC "Liana" is being deployed. With a smaller number of satellites, it is able to "cover" the area of the World Ocean comparable to the former "Legend" and detect any objects in the ocean with highest precision, which allows you 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. IN 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 inability to "break through" 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" 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. 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 naval 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. 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 topic of the possibilities of confronting the Russian Navy with the aircraft carrier groups of a potential enemy is that for Russian weapons, in particular anti-ship missiles, meticulously list all "non-advertising" characteristics and nuances of their combat use, while the potential enemy's armament capabilities are evaluated 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. Available the only case the real combat use of the Aegis system in October 2016 of the year (the Mason destroyer located 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 speeds.
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.
WITH 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 the most difficult task that requires the involvement of huge amount 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 him as a subject. Alexander II. Alexander III did not want to borrow. The Russian emperors avoided contact with 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. that without a powerful fleet it is extremely difficult to help overseas allies. However, Russia is still building mainly frigates, corvettes, combat boats, assault boats, auxiliary vessels, that is, ships for swimming in shallow water. At the exit - .
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, Japanese sailors came to the conclusion that the submarine aircraft carrier was not such an 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 struck the first blow directly on US territory: a 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.
British submarine HMS M2, 1933 (photo: The Air and Sea Co) |
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 for the Russian Ministry of Defense, and its name is “Pheasant”.
After taking off from the launch pad, this machine gains altitude, speed and then switches to 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 "Pheasant" is much less 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.
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?
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 contact with 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 has shown that the Black Sea and Baltic fleets 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 is still building 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, Japanese sailors came to the conclusion that the submarine aircraft carrier was not such an 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 struck the first blow directly on US territory: a 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 designer's takeoff fighters, the sailors are likely to use tailsitter VTOL attack drones, that is, an 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 taking off from the launch pad, this machine gains altitude, speed and then switches to 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
The first submarine nuclear aircraft carrier of Project 941-bis will be built in Russia, according to Internet rumors...
The point is not in rumors - whether an underwater aircraft carrier will be built or not, but in an idea that could only be born in Russia. For the Anglo-Saxons, the very idea of taking off and landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier that floats under water contradicts the logic of the English language.
Project 941bis ATAVKRP was created under the leadership of a group of senior officers of the fleet and the KGB of the USSR. In 1991, they did not want to break the oath given to a country that ceased to exist. They, like many thinking people, hoped that this was a temporary insanity and the country would be restored.
However, it was clear that the oligarchy would not give up its positions just like that and, moreover, would certainly call for help from its Western friends. Based on this, it was necessary to create an armed formation that, at the right time, could take the side of the supporters of the reconstruction of the country. It would be nice to have a certain reserve of the general rate as part of the destroyer division and a couple of SSBNs.
The unprecedented level of corruption and betrayal in the highest echelons of power and leadership of the Navy did not leave hope that at least one ship would not go under the knife or be plundered. In addition, the total control on the part of NATO within the framework of observations under the program of joint threat reduction did not allow to “hide” or mothball a single combat-ready ship, not to mention the connection.
The only solution was to create something new. The main problem of such construction was money and secrecy. Moreover, secrecy had to be taken to a new level - it was necessary to hide the construction site not only from strangers, but also from our own.
The idea of the possibility of building an underwater aircraft carrier was based on the Rubinovsky project of transport submarines based on pr 941. The main customer of the TPL was Norilsk Nickel.
To finance the 941bis project, new Russian customers were found who liked the idea of carrying used cars from Japan to Europe. part of the country year-round Sevmor by.
A small group of designers from Rubin finalized the TPL project, using the developments of projects 621 (amphibious transport submarine cruiser), 717 (amphibious transport submarine, minelayer), 748 and 664. The designers worked in two groups: one thought that it was creating an underwater ro-ro ship for new Russians, and only the second, very small, knew about the real purpose of the project.
The hull structures of the TK-210, which were allegedly previously dismantled, were taken as a basis. Upon completion of the construction of the civilian part of the cruiser, he moved under the ice to the Far East, as part of the "sea trials". Even in the middle of the transition, the customer was told that there were serious omissions in the project and that the boat could not be operated as it was. Needs a long term renovation. Due to the fact that the life expectancy of the new Russians at that time was short, there was simply no one to make claims.
The Americans somehow languidly watched the Zvezda at that time, and the cruiser was put there for armament and the installation of a flight deck. There, disassembled at low speed, under the guise of a color-met, a steam throwing device was brought from the Crimea, or, more simply, a catapult.
By 1995, the cruiser was ready. The air wing was selected from the Far East squadrons, Sushki were simply bought.
The building attracted attention. And no means of disguise and misinformation could prevent the leakage of information. The only salvation for secrecy was going to sea. The crew was selected exclusively from volunteers, and the vast majority of them did not know about the existence of the “Soviet Union” until the moment they boarded.
November 18, 1995 at 00:00 local time, the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser submarine "Soviet Union" gave up the moorings and went on combat duty, the length of which, as it is now clear, is life ....
-----------------
As always, the model is made according to authentic drawings, all millimeters are adjusted, and all rivets are counted.
