In the spring of 1783, after the annexation of Crimea to Russia, Empress Catherine II signed a decree establishing the Black Sea Fleet. Nowadays, after the re-annexation of Crimea to Russia, this day again becomes significant and historically connected with the present. I sincerely congratulate the sailors of the Black Sea Fleet on their holiday and dedicate this article to the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet - the missile cruiser Moskva. Although the reason for writing the article is not a holiday, but a different publication. On the pages of the patriotic Internet resource "Free Press", which I respect, not so long ago, a noteworthy material appeared on the issue of the confrontation between the Russian and American fleets. This topic has become relevant for a long time in connection with the aggravation of relations between Russia and the United States and the war in Syria. The author of the material, a respected military expert Konstantin Sivkov, claims that the so-called "aircraft carrier killers" of the Russian cruisers of Project 1164 (the flagships of the Pacific and Black Sea fleets, the missile cruisers "Varyag" and "Moscow" belong to this project) are not really such are. In other words, they cannot compete with American aircraft carriers in the event of a direct military collision. Of course, we are not talking about a "one-on-one" duel, in reality such ships go only accompanied by other, less powerful, but carrying important functions of ships, that is, about groups of ships that complement each other functionally and form sufficiently protected and stable real combat connection. For aircraft carriers, such groups are called AUG - carrier strike group. There is no special name for our cruisers, and the composition of such groups is much more variable and depends on the specific situation. Most often, our "aircraft carrier killer" is accompanied by anti-submarine ships, performing the role of additional protection against submarines. They are like inseparable couples. Other ships are included in the order only to enhance the overall strike force or to carry out some additional functions (such as landing ships, rescuers and tankers). In principle, the cruiser itself, unlike the aircraft carrier, has a fairly large functionality, the ship carries the most extensive set of weapons capable of protecting the cruiser from a variety of threats - both from surface ships and from aircraft and submarines. It's just that special ships can do it a little better and allow the flagship not to do everything at once. Separation of threats is also an important factor in their successful response.
Flagship of the Black Sea Fleet missile cruiser Moscow
In general, it will still not be about a duel, but about the confrontation between two likely opponents, accompanied by their most ordinary assistants. This is how Konstantin Sivkov, Doctor of Military Sciences, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Missile and Artillery Sciences, Captain of the First Rank, First Vice President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, considered the situation. And he made a disappointing conclusion - "our ship formation will not even be able to come within the range of rocket fire." In other words, our heavy cruisers are not any "aircraft carrier killers". It seems like a myth, aircraft carriers are stronger. And we have no choice but to build our own … Otherwise, things are bad. This is the main message of the article, which, to put it mildly, angered me. And not even a conclusion, with which I cannot agree, but an almost complete absence of argumentation. It is clear that the article was intended for the general public, which is often not interested in technical details … However, this style of presentation is generally strange for a military specialist. General phrases about the fact that the enemy has "superiority in the range of use of carrier-based aircraft" and "air strikes with up to 40 aircraft" cannot serve as arguments. After all, this is not a lecture for schoolchildren, a more detailed justification is needed. And without obvious errors. And the mistakes of the doctor of military sciences in the article are very serious. We can say that they are shameful to me, as an analyst without a military education (behind my back there is only a university military department), even a little ashamed to point to them. But let's assume that I can be wrong. Perhaps. But I still have to point out them to a specialist. Since the topic is relevant and is being written about in the media. I would be glad if they answered me and found errors already in my hands … Such a discussion will be useful in any case and will draw attention to the problems of military development. Are experts always right in such matters? Let's figure it out.
American aircraft carrier Nimitz
Let's start simple. With the statement that "our ship formation will not even be able to come within the range of rocket fire." What is the distance? It would be reasonable to indicate the range of this fire and show that "airstrikes of up to 40 vehicles" will destroy our unit before the cruiser reaches this distance from the aircraft carrier. By the way, the author did not forget to indicate the range of action of the aircraft carrier's wing - it "is capable of controlling the air and surface space to a depth of 800 km." This is the only specifics. Although it could be indicated a little more specifically - the aircraft carrier's air wing uses F / A-18 Hornet (or F / A-18E / F Super Hornet) fighters with a combat radius of 726 km. This radius should be compared with the missile range of our cruisers. There is no such comparison. Only it is said about "superiority in the range of use of carrier-based aircraft." It would seem that it is easier to compare the range of the weapon and point out the difference. That would be a real argument. He is not here. And we will study it. So, our cruisers are famous precisely for their missile armament - "16 launchers for the powerful missile system" Basalt "or" Volcano "". I have already analyzed the missile armament of the cruiser Moskva in my article "How Moscow Saved Syria." The article was just devoted to the issue of the confrontation of this cruiser with the American AUG operating in the Mediterranean Sea. "Moscow" then simply drove the American aircraft carrier away from Syria. And if the cruiser's missiles did not threaten the aircraft carrier, then he would not have left. The cruiser's armament was discussed in more detail in the article "Russia is creating the Mediterranean fleet". There I explained:
"A supersonic missile weighing 5 tons and an official range of 700 km (the real one may be more) poses a very serious threat to the entire American fleet, its warhead with 500 kg of explosives can destroy an aircraft carrier, and with a nuclear filling of 350 kt - the entire order of the enemy Air defense against missiles flying at a speed of Mach 2.5 is not very effective, especially at ultra-low altitudes of the order of 5 meters, at which the missiles attack their target."
So what scared the aircraft carrier? And the fact that the cruiser's missiles have a range of up to 700 km (officially) and this practically coincides with the Hornet's combat radius! And if such a missile is equipped with a tactical nuclear warhead, then one such missile would be enough for the entire AUG. And the cruiser has 16 of them. And it is unlikely that they were supplied with only a conventional land mine. Of course, options for a non-nuclear conflict can also be considered, but 500 kg of conventional explosives will be enough to punch a wide hole in an aircraft carrier that can sink it. And the only question is that aviation is still operating a little further - a couple of tens of kilometers. Will this be enough to stop our ships at a distance greater than the missile launch range? This is the whole essence of the issue, and the specialist should have discussed it in detail. We'll have to do it for him.
Firstly, the respected Wikipedia informs us that the P-1000 "Vulcan" anti-ship missile system, with which the cruiser "Moskva" is armed, has a range of not 700, but 1000 km, that is, higher than our official data. And this is logical: even the name of the missiles contains the real range in kilometers. And since the P-1000 Vulcan rocket is a modernization of the P-700 Granit rocket with a range of 700 km, it is simply difficult to assume otherwise. Otherwise, what would the modernization be like? In management? Then they would just add the letter "M" at the end. No, the new missile was qualitatively different from the previous one and its name reflected - after all, almost all missiles with the "P" index have a range corresponding to the name (More precisely, close: the P-70 "Amethyst" has a range of 80 km, the P-120 "Malachite" - 150, P-500 "Basalt" - 550 km. However, the range depends on the flight profile and the maximum range indicated in the characteristics does not apply in battle, besides the rule is not absolute - the P-15 "Termit" has a range of not 15, but 35-40 km). In our tradition, there is a tendency to somewhat underestimate the official capabilities of weapons (so the military is calmer - "let the enemy think that we are weaker, but we are like zhahn!"). The Americans, on the other hand, have the opposite tradition - to overestimate a little. So their military-industrial complex rubs glasses on the Congress in order to knock out extra money. And it's easier to scare the world with its invincibility…. In general, I believe that Wikipedia is right here. She lies on humanitarian issues, and gives the latest spy information about weapons. Perhaps spies are directly transmitting their information - through Wikipedia? A joke (or maybe not …). But it turns out that the "Moscow" can, without going into the area of action of enemy aircraft, attack the aircraft carrier. And in order to avoid such a threat, one has to leave Moscow. So CVN-69 "Eisenhower" was forced to leave the Mediterranean in 2012, when there was a threat of US bombing in Syria. The United States had to try to remove Bashar al-Assad in a different, longer way. And so far without success. And if it were not for such capabilities of our weapons, then the meaning of the events of 2012 in the Mediterranean would be completely incomprehensible. The maneuvers of the Russian and American fleets would be pointless. And it is strange that a military policy specialist, a naval officer, does not understand this. Or grossly mistaken, asserting that the enemy has "superiority in the range of use of carrier-based aircraft."
Let's go further. About "airstrikes with up to 40 aircraft":
"Solving the problem of fighting enemy surface ships, an aircraft carrier strike group is capable of delivering strikes of carrier-based aircraft of up to 40 aircraft at a distance of 600-800 km and Tomahok missiles at a distance of 500-600 km from the center of the order, having up to several dozens of these missiles."
Let's clarify right away - the F / A-18 Hornet fighters are used against the ships of the Harpoon missile (AGM / RGM / UGM-84 Harpoon) with a range of up to 280 km (the most long-range version). Tomahawks have a significantly longer range, but cannot be launched from F / A-18s, only from ships. But the most interesting thing is that the anti-ship version of the Tomahawk - TASM (Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile) was withdrawn from service in the early 2000s! That is, mentioning the Tomahawks as a weapon against our cruisers, the doctor of military sciences was again mistaken. Only the Harpoon remained in service as a long-range anti-ship missile system, which Sivkov did not even mention. It should be added here that in 2009, due to a change in views on the value of long-range anti-ship missiles in the modern geopolitical situation, the US Navy initiated a program to develop a new long-range anti-ship missile, made using stealth technology and designated LRASM - Long Range Anti-Ship Missile. And initially, even two missiles were developed under this abbreviation:
LRASM-A is a subsonic anti-ship missile with a range of up to 800 km based on the JASSM-ER aircraft missile. LRASM-B is a supersonic anti-ship missile conceptually close to the Soviet P-700 Granit.
LRASM-B - would be a really serious missile, since according to the project it should have a range of up to 1000 km. That is, it is an analogue of our Volcano, created in Soviet times. However, its development did not work out and now only the subsonic version of the LRASM-A is being finalized. Its adoption is planned for 2018. Why it is better than the decommissioned Tomahawk is not very clear, apparently, it is simply "invisible". It has become very popular with the US military to call planes and missiles "invisible". For a radiophysicist, such a concept does not exist. There is a concept of small ESR (ESR is the effective scattering area, the ability of an object to reflect radio waves). EPR strongly depends on wavelength and an object invisible in one wavelength range can always be seen in another. And the Americans' fascination with stealth technologies only made our radars more broadband … But this applies only to the future missile, but for now our cruisers are threatened by much weaker and quite visible "Harpoons" with a range of 150-280 km. And in order for them to reach our cruiser before its salvo at the American AUG, they must be launched from aircraft. The same, respectively, should be able to fly up to the "Moscow" at the launch distance of the "Harpoon". And the missile ships with "Harpoons" and "Tomahawks", which are guarded by the "Nimitz", remain out of work at all, due to the short range of their anti-ship missiles. Moscow will sink them without entering the zone of action of their weapons. Therefore, we will discuss the option with airplanes.
Can the entire Nimitz wing at the same time attack Moscow? In theory, Nimitz-class aircraft carriers can carry up to 90 aircraft of various types. The air wing usually consists of exactly 45-48 fighters, the rest are scouts, refuellers and others. But these 48 cannot act at the same time. Why? Because it is impossible to launch them at the same time - there are only 4 catapults and preparation for launch takes considerable time. Moreover, it is also impossible to prepare all the aircraft for launch at the same time - for this there are special zones with limited capacity. A detailed description of the capabilities of aircraft carriers is described in the article "ESTIMATING THE BATTLE POWER OF AIRCRAFT CARRIERS: LAUNCH CYCLE". In particular, it says that:
"… an aircraft carrier of the" Nimitz "class without hindrance to flight operations of all types using all launches can simultaneously hold on deck up to 2 flights (8 vehicles), of which one can be in a 5-minute readiness, and the rest are in readiness from 15 to 45 minutes Using the elevator area and blocking the runway allows you to increase the number of cars in readiness up to 20, while ensuring a 5-minute readiness of a pair. This is the maximum number of cars in one start cycle."
That is, not 48, but only 20 cars. But the aircraft carrier will also launch these 20 vehicles for at least 45 minutes. Such is the duration of the startup cycle, it cannot be faster. And if he starts the second launch cycle, it will interfere with taking on board the aircraft that he launched in the first. Hornet can stay in the air for no more than 2.5 hours - its fuel is also limited. What does all this mean? This means that only 20 aircraft can attack an aircraft carrier, and the first launched aircraft will have to wait for the rest, circling over the aircraft carrier, spending precious fuel. Almost an hour until the whole group starts up! And this significantly reduces the range of their flight. Almost doubled! Only the latter can immediately fly to the target at the maximum range. The first ones are forced to hang additional fuel tanks in order to be able to return later. The author of this much more reasoned article comes to a conclusion opposite to what Sivkov does:
"The superiority of the Nimitz-class ships over any other aircraft carriers in the world is undeniable. It is especially clearly manifested in the solution of strike missions. Of the modern aircraft carriers, only the Nimitz are capable of lifting a balanced strike force into the air, which will include a strike squadron, a cover group and vehicles support…. At the same time, the advertised outrageous combat power of American aircraft carriers turns out to be a myth. The 90 aircraft of the aircraft wing, declared in the characteristics, spend most of their time on the shore, being assigned to the aircraft carrier only formally. A 20-second take-off interval turns out to be 5 minutes in practice. The maximum volume of the air group being lifted is no more than 20 aircraft, or rather one strike squadron with attached departure support facilities. The rise of this compound into the air takes more than an hour and a half, which means that it is impossible to use the full combat load. At least the first 6 aircraft in the launch cycle are forced to use outboard tanks in order to operate in conjunction with aircraft that take off later at the same range. From a tactical point of view, this means that the range of the strike force can never reach its theoretical maximum, and the combat load will, at best, be half of that stated in the characteristics of the aircraft."
If all this is brought into the framework of our situation of confrontation with a Russian missile cruiser of the "Moscow" type, then it turns out that a grouping of a maximum of 20 aircraft can fly up to it. Moreover, the range of this group is significantly less than the maximum due to the launch cycle, during which the first aircraft spend their fuel. It is possible to estimate the reduction in range by about a third (by the ratio of the waiting time to the maximum flight time). Then this group will fly up to the "Moscow" after it fires a volley at the AUG. This group will simply have nowhere to return. Or, one should assume that a group with a smaller number of aircraft operates at the maximum range - up to a maximum of 6. If we seriously consider the possibility of an aircraft carrier to attack Moscow, then this is the option that will have to be chosen - only a small group of aircraft with additional fuel tanks has a chance to reach cruisers at a distance of over 700 km. That is, 4-6 aircraft with one Harpoon on board (maximum 2 missiles can be taken, but additional fuel tanks have reduced this number to 1). This means that Moscow will have to repel an attack of only 6 missiles (launched from different sides to make interception more difficult). In this second case, the air defense of the cruiser, for which he is also famous, may well cope with a small number of missiles. But the defensive capabilities of “Moscow” we will discuss in more detail in the next part …
WHAT IS "NIMITZ" AGAINST "MOSCOW"? PART 2
In the first part of the article, I noted two gross mistakes of the doctor of military sciences: the first is that our missile cruisers are threatened by long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles (the anti-ship version has been removed from service), the second is that the aircraft carrier is capable of delivering massive strikes with aircraft up to 40 machines (maximum 20 due to the long start-up cycle). And there was a third mistake, the most important - about "superiority in the range of use of carrier-based aircraft." There are still interesting details that are worth understanding … Sivkov was definitely mistaken, considering only the fighter part of Nimitz's air wing. The F / A-18E / F Super Hornet fighter has a small combat radius of 720 km, and the Moskva cruiser has every chance of approaching the aircraft carrier within its missile launch range (which is about 1000 km) without being subjected to a massive strike from these aircraft (the possibility of an attack a small group of up to 6 aircraft was negotiated). But there is one previously unaccounted for detail - the aircraft carrier, in addition to these attack aircraft, carries several other types, among which there is a very dangerous one for the "Moscow". We are talking about anti-submarine (!) Aircraft Lockheed S-3 "Viking". It looks like a very unprepossessing and completely harmless slug, designed to deal exclusively with enemy submarines. But he has one feature - a large combat radius. Its combat radius is 1530 km (with 4 × Mk.46 torpedoes and 60 sonar buoys). With additional tanks - up to 1700 km! At the same time, it can carry up to 4 tons of weapons. Initially, it was not intended to attack surface targets, but the Americans nevertheless thought of making a special modification - S-3B, capable of carrying the Harpoon anti-ship missile system. 2 pieces on pylons. And this really gave the aircraft carrier "superiority in the range of use of carrier-based aircraft." An anti-submarine slow-moving vehicle with a long-range "Harpoon" becomes a wonderful attack aircraft and a most dangerous enemy for "Moscow" - it can attack it at a great distance from its aircraft carrier without entering the cruiser's air defense zone! This is the longest arm of the American AUG.
Anti-submarine S3 Viking
Although not only our doctor of military sciences, but also the Americans themselves did not appreciate the Viking's abilities too much - there were only a dozen of them on the aircraft carrier. Until 2009. In 2009, they were removed from service altogether. Only 187 unique and really useful aircraft were produced between 1974 and 1978. Have grown old and removed. And no worthy replacement was found. And they were excellent scouts and even tankers … After the Viking, the longest-range of carrier-based aircraft was the Grumman F-14 Tomcat - its combat radius is 926 km. But it was removed from service even earlier - in 2006! The Tomcat is a good fighter-interceptor and is the only aircraft capable of carrying the AIM-54A Phoenix long-range air-to-air missile. This $ 500,000 missile is capable of striking targets at a distance of 185 km, the longest-range missile the Americans have. Along with the resignation of Tomcat, the rocket became useless … The US Air Force is degrading before our eyes in the hope of the newest F-35, which in reality is much worse than these withdrawn from service models of American technology. But we are not talking about that yet. And the fact that our military expert was seriously mistaken - now only Hornet is in service with attack aircraft, and all our arguments about the range of action of the aircraft carrier's wing remain in force. That is, Sivkov's statement about the "superiority in range" of the aircraft carrier is absolutely erroneous.
RCC Harpoon under the Viking wing
And now we will continue our discussion of the most probable variant of the Moscow attack from the aircraft carrier - these are 6 Hornet fighters at maximum range with additional fuel tanks. Can carry 6 Harpoon missiles. Hornet is armed with other anti-ship missiles, but much less powerful and long-range (AGM-65 Maverick has, for example, a range of only 30 km). To attack a cruiser without going into the area of its air defense, you need a "Harpoon" with a range of 150-280 km. Only AGM-88 HARM, an American high-speed anti-radar missile, can pose a threat. It can be used against Moscow's radars from a range of up to 100 km. Without radars, Moscow will become defenseless. And then her defeat even with 6 Harpoons will become very likely. However, in order to launch this missile, American pilots will have to take a risk and enter the cruiser's air defense zone - it is also about 100 km in range. And since the "Harpoons" have a much higher range, the US pilots will still attack with the "Harpoons" first. One can only assume a slightly more risky option for an attack - without additional fuel tanks, but with refueling in the air on the way back. Then there may be more missiles - 12 pieces. This is also not too much for an air defense cruiser. In addition, it will not be alone, let's not forget that we are talking about a warrant, where together with the "Moscow" there will be a couple of quite serious warships, with their own air defense systems. But let's discuss for now the possibilities of "Moscow" against the attack with missiles "Harpoon" …
Hornet with Harpoon and additional fuel tanks
The "Harpoon" rocket has a low speed - Mach 0.6 and is perfectly detected by radars (if it is in line of sight). The flight speed of the rocket is so low that it is less than the speed of ordinary passenger aircraft, which, as history has shown, are easily knocked down by the old air defense systems of Ukraine. And the fact that the rocket is still smaller than the Boeing is unlikely to help it survive, especially since the air defense systems of the Moskva cruiser are somewhat more perfect than the Ukrainian ones. The air defense of the cruiser includes 8 launchers of the S-300F long-range air defense system, 2 launchers of the Osa-M close-range air defense system and 6 AK-630 anti-aircraft artillery mounts. The naval version of the S-300 has a slightly shorter range than the land one, but still provides defense at a distance of up to 100 km (for 5V55RM missiles - 75 km). And although the complex can also shoot down anti-ship missiles, its main purpose is to keep enemy aircraft from getting closer. It is not very effective against anti-ship missiles, since the lower height limit for missiles of the complex is 25 meters, and modern anti-ship missiles fly lower. The same "Harpoon" of the latest modifications flies at a height of 2-5 meters. "Osa-M" operates at a range of up to 15 km and can already shoot down low-flying anti-ship missiles - for it the minimum target height is 5 meters. It is she who will most likely be entrusted with the task of shooting down anti-ship missiles at distant lines (10-15 km). Although the probability of defeat is again not absolute (experts estimate its effectiveness at 70%, that is, up to 30% of anti-ship missiles during massive attacks can break into the ship's close air defense zone up to a distance of 2-3 km). And although anti-aircraft missile systems of anti-ship missiles can go astray, the last echelon of defense, which is 6 AK-630M installations, will most effectively do this. This is a 30-mm six-barreled automatic shipborne artillery installation AO-18, created under the leadership of V. P. Gryazev and A. G. Shipunov. In the name "6" means 6 barrels, 30 - caliber. Unique weapon. This installation is remarkable in that it releases up to 5000 shells per minute. Range - up to 4 km. Creates a steel cloud of projectiles in the path of a detected missile. The installation is fully automatic, guided by the automated control system MR-123 "Vympel" to the target seen by the radars with the highest accuracy. The efficiency is the highest.
Battery AK-630M on board Moscow
The western counterpart of this installation is the Goalkeeper low-altitude air defense / missile defense system (Netherlands-USA), which has a 30-mm seven-barreled GAU-8 cannon with a rate of fire of 4200 rounds / min. There are no examples of testing the effectiveness of the AK-630M in our publications. But they meet about the "Goalkeeper":
"In April 1990, US Navy specialists installed the Goalkeeper system on the hullboat of the decommissioned destroyer Stoddard, and in August 1990 began testing this system against an anti-ship missile system at the Point Magu Missile Center on the US Pacific coast. The system showed a 100% result. during the salvo launch of three Exocet missiles, three Harpoon missiles and three moving at a speed corresponding to 3M, Vandal targets, all of them were destroyed by the Goalkeeper system. because the debris of one of the damaged Harpoon missiles, continuing to move by inertia, hit the target ship."
Our anti-aircraft complex is not inferior in characteristics to the western one, but rather surpasses it. This means that its effectiveness is not less. The probability that 6 "Harpoons" (or even 12) will overcome all three lines of the cruiser's defense is very low. Low-speed targets such as the Harpoon anti-ship missile system are fairly easy targets for all modern air defense systems. Several missiles from a very massive attack - several dozen missiles - could overcome the cruiser's defenses. Then the reaction of anti-aircraft complexes and their guidance automation might simply not be enough. It was this situation that Konstantin Sivkov was counting on, arguing that the cruiser has no chance of surviving … But such a situation is not possible in reality - the aircraft carrier will not be able to provide such a massive attack of the cruiser. The expert was mistaken in this. And Moscow will repel a dozen low-speed missiles. And don't forget about escort ships. They will also take part in the destruction of missiles at the close range of the defense. It is in our order that the escort ships will play their role in protecting the cruiser, but not as part of the American AUG - there they will be practically useless. Why? Because the Vulcan missile is many times faster than the Harpoon and this makes it practically invulnerable to air defense. Here it is worth assessing the capabilities of American ships to repel the attack of our "Volcanoes". The picture will be completely different.
First, we note that the air defense of American ships is significantly weaker than ours. This is confirmed by the experience of military operations that the United States has been conducting for many years around the world "for the sake of democracy." So, the frigate of the US Navy USS Stark (FFG-31) of the "Oliver Hazard Perry" type (project SCN 207/2081) on May 17, 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, was severely damaged as a result of hitting two anti-ship missiles "Exoset "AM.39" fired by the Iraqi fighter "Mirage" F1. The frigate barely managed to stay afloat, 37 sailors were killed. The frigate could use the Mk13 launcher as an air defense system (a universal installation with one guide for launching Tartar, Standard SM-1, Harpoon missiles) and the Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS anti-aircraft complex, which is a 6-barreled automatic cannon M61A1 with a caliber of 20 mm (rate of fire 3000 rounds per minute). The Iraqi fighter jet was, of course, spotted by radars, as was the launch of its missiles. But the reaction time was not enough to shoot down a couple of subsonic missiles. And our anti-ship missiles "Vulcan", which fly at a speed of 2, 5 above the speed of sound, they will not have time to notice.
Of course, the aircraft carrier's escort group includes ships with more powerful weapons. The Americans are very proud of the latest Aegis Combat System (ACS). This name refers to both the ship's multifunctional combat information and control system (BIUS) and the air defense missile system, which is controlled by this system. As the omniscient Wikipedia reports:
According to the US Navy website, as of November 2013, the United States had 74 ships equipped with the Aegis system, of which 22 were cruisers and 52 destroyers. The long-term shipbuilding program of the Navy, which will be implemented in the 2011-2041 financial years, provides for the modernization of up to 84 such ships for the specified system. The main element of the system is the AN / SPY-1 all-round radar of modifications A, B or D with four passive phased antenna arrays of a common with an average radiated power of 32-58 kW and a peak power of 4-6 MW. It is capable of automatic search, detection, tracking of 250-300 targets and guidance to the most threatening of them up to 18 missiles. The decision to engage targets threatening the ship can be made automatically. Missiles can be launched from oblique launch launchers of the Mk 26 type (removed from service) and universal vertical launch launchers Mk 41, located under the main deck of cruisers and destroyers used to accommodate the system.
SAM "Aegis" uses missiles Standard missile 2 (SM-2) and more modern Standard missile 3 (SM-3). In terms of capabilities, the system resembles our S-400 in the naval version. Even the SM2 rocket is close in parameters to our 48N6 with a range of 150 km. However, Aegis is more focused on missile defense missions - to intercept ballistic targets, that is, our strategic missiles. Or aerodynamic high-altitude targets like airplanes. As for low-flying targets, that is, cruise missiles with a low flight profile, the system is not very effective. And the problem here is purely physical - because of the curvature of the Earth, anti-ship missiles fall into the line of sight of the radar of the system already on approach to the target - at a distance of 30-35 km. Until this moment, they are simply beyond the horizon and therefore not visible. And if the target is high-speed, then there is very little time left for the system to react. If the anti-ship missile also maneuvers quickly, then heavy long-range missiles simply won't keep up with it. Close-range air defense systems with small, but fast and maneuverable missiles are more effective against anti-ship missiles. And, of course, rapid-fire anti-aircraft artillery systems - ZAK. Our ideal weapon against cruise missiles is Pantsir-S, the Americans have no analogue …
In general, the topic of the American AUG's ability to repel an attack by our supersonic anti-ship missiles like Granit or Vulcan has become not only popular on the Internet, but also the subject of a whole information war. For example, the online edition topwar.ru has published an article by Oleg Kaptsov "A blow from under the water. How strong are American AUGs?" A wonderful and very informative article, which itself was a response to an article by a certain "shipbuilding engineer" A. Nikolsky "The Russian fleet goes under water." Nikolsky wrote in the spirit of the same Sivkov about the invincibility of the American fleet. And already another engineer had to explain a lot of technical details in order to refute a bunch of false statements. Among them is the fact that "AUG air defense in the early 1980s, depending on the tactical situation, could shoot down 70-120 Granit or Kh-22 missiles." Kaptsov very colorfully and in detail explained how deeply Nikolsky was mistaken. I will not give all of Kaptsov's arguments, but I will quote only one point about the newest Aegis system:
"Aegis, even in theory, is not capable of simultaneously firing hundreds of air targets. The AN / SPY-1 multifunctional radar is capable of programming the autopilots of up to 18 anti-aircraft missiles on the marching leg of the trajectory and simultaneously firing at up to 3 air targets - according to the number of AN / SPG illumination radars. -62. The reality turned out to be even worse - the Orly Burk's radars are grouped as follows: - one radar covers the heading corners; - two protect the stern; - in an ideal situation, strictly perpendicular to the destroyer board, all three SPG-62s can participate in repelling an air attack As a result, "Burk" in a real battle has only 1-2 guidance channels for anti-aircraft missiles when attacking from one direction. The duration of the "illumination" of the target, required to guide the missile - 1-2 seconds. The probability of destroying the target of one missile is considered within 0, 6 … 0, 7. Further, while the Aegis BIUS receives confirmation of the destruction of the target, while transmitting a new task to the SPG-62, while the radar turns around and directs the beam to the specified sector sky (for SPG-62, the azimuth and elevation angle are changed mechanically - the platform rotation speed is 72 ° / sec). It would seem that five to ten seconds for the whole process … but this is at that critical moment, when the destroyer's crew has less than half a minute in reserve! And over the surface of the gray ocean, almost cutting off the tops of the waves, three or four dozen supersonic missiles rush."
Kaptsov considered a slightly different situation - the possibility of an attack by the American AUG of our nuclear submarine, armed with the Granit anti-ship missile system, the younger brother of the Vulcan. This situation is slightly different, but not too much. The fact is that the Russian group, headed by a cruiser like "Moscow" or "Varyag", should almost certainly include an attack nuclear submarine. This is exactly the case when the order members functionally complement each other. I must say that with all its advantages, the submarine's secrecy is blind, that is, it does not have the ability to detect the enemy at great distances - it is difficult to do this under water. She listens to the ocean with her acoustic systems and this allows her to detect ships for tens of kilometers, but "Granite" flies 700 km. That is, it needs external intelligence to attack. It is possible to somehow receive data from a satellite, but it is easier to receive data from nearby ships, while hiding in their "shadows", their propeller noise drowns out the noise from the submarine itself. That is, if we are talking about an attack by the American AUG, then the nuclear submarine may well participate in this attack - simply by going forward and striking with its Granites simultaneously with the Moscow salvo. And then the probability of survival of the aircraft carrier will become almost zero.
Here it is appropriate to note about another advantage of our anti-ship missiles over the American "Harpoons" in addition to speed and range. This is their "intelligence". The homing device does not just stupidly track the target and direct the missile at it, but together (!) With other missiles in a salvo distributes targets in the enemy's order, transmits information about detected targets to other missiles and chooses attack tactics. They, like a pack of wolves, drive the "prey". The attack tactics provide that only one of the missiles can fly above the horizon, tracking targets and transmitting information to other missiles hidden behind the horizon. Thus, all but one missiles fly up to the AUG unnoticed and organize a simultaneous attack from different directions on different ships. On the way to the target, the missiles make quick evasion maneuvers from air defense systems. That is, "Granites" and "Volcanoes" attack very coherently and cunningly, as do herd predators like wolves. American "Harpoons" in this regard are very primitive and require external control from the carrier almost until the very end of the attack. This gives great opportunities for electronic warfare up to the interception of control. This is another aspect that we do not consider due to the complexity of the topic …
Anti-aircraft artillery installation Phalanx
Lack of space does not allow us to consider absolutely all aspects of the topic under discussion, and besides, we may not know all the technical details. But even a superficial analysis reveals the general technical backwardness of the air defense systems of the American Navy, as well as the backwardness in anti-ship weapons. Our rockets fly farther, faster, and are more intelligent. Our air defense systems are more advanced and effective. All this together makes our Project 1164 missile carriers "aircraft carrier killers", their superiority in armament is undeniable. Although the Internet is full of "experts" who claim the opposite. The same Sivkov devoted more than one publication to this. In the article "The chances of a Russian missile cruiser of hitting an American aircraft carrier formation are negligible," he even tries to equate our cruiser "Moskva" with an American missile cruiser:
"Comparison of the performance characteristics of American cruisers of the Ticonderoga class and URO destroyers of the Orly Burke class with our ships shows that they are at least as good as the Russian cruiser of Project 1164 and, if inferior, then slightly to the cruiser of Project 1144."
I wonder what data the "specialist" compared besides the displacement? The combat capabilities of ships must be compared according to the weapons they carry. And here it is not even the quantity that matters, but the quality. Yes, there are more missiles on the Ticonderoga. But they are qualitatively much worse than ours. "Harpoons" cannot be compared with our "Volcanoes" and the same "Ticonderoga" simply will not approach "Moscow" at the distance of launching its missiles. Even if there are a thousand of these missiles, it will not save her. Air defense systems, the Aegis system, will not save her either. The most effective weapon against cruise missiles is the rapid-fire automatic cannon. How many of these cannons does the Ticonderoga have? These are 2 6-barreled 20 mm Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS. The same Falanx that could not shoot down a couple of Iraqi Exocets. "Moskva" has 6 much more powerful installations. And "Tikanderoga" has only 6 "Harpoons" against 16 "Volcanoes". All the power of the Tikanderoga is a hundred Tomahawks designed for ground targets. How can these ships be compared? "Ticonderoga" in comparison with "Moscow" is just a barge loaded with missiles (perhaps it was supposed - the idea of an arsenal ship with a bunch of missiles, but without serious means of defense is very popular with the Americans).
Much is seen in a completely different light when delving into the technical details that a doctor of military sciences should know better than any civilian analyst. However, judging by the number and intensity of passions in articles on this topic, it is unlikely that the expert wanted to convey to us some of his knowledge on this subject. Rather, it is about the formation of an appropriate public opinion. Advantageous for our overseas "partner", which is more powerful in information wars, but not in military technologies.
