Recently, an extremely interesting article appeared on VO - "Dear Khrushchev or how dangerous American aircraft carriers will be for Russia." The conclusions were that, taking into account modern detection systems and the presence of the latest cruise missiles, the Russian Federation has the ability to reliably protect its shores from the encroachments of the AUG. Let us express a different point of view on this issue.
It should be admitted that a conflict between the United States and the Russian Federation is extremely unlikely, and if it comes to hostilities, then most likely it will be a conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO. Such a military conflict can take two forms - nuclear or non-nuclear.
Unfortunately, "on the Internet" we constantly have to deal with remarks on the topic "We will be attacked, and we are the whole world to dust!" Alas … Neither the Russian nor the American arsenal has long been enough to turn this very world into dust. For example, according to the US State Department's data on the implementation of START-3 from January 1, 2016, the United States has 762 deployed nuclear warheads in service, Russia has 526. The number of warheads on deployed carriers in the United States is 1538, in Russia - 1648 But this is only for deployed ones. According to other sources, the United States has 1,642 deployed and 912 mothballed warheads; for Russia - 1643 and 911, respectively. Roughly speaking, so are we. and the Americans are capable of delivering a single strike using about 1500-1600 warheads (according to other sources, the United States is weaker - about 1400 warheads) and … what does this mean? Alas, for the Russian Federation - nothing good.
Our country has approximately 1100 cities. Of course, one standard 100 Kt warhead will not be enough to destroy some of them, but nevertheless. As for the United States, they have about 19,000 cities. And hitting them all by hitting 1,600 warheads is completely impossible. And besides … there will not be 1600 of them. It never happens that absolutely all missiles launch normally - there will still be a certain percentage of failures. Perhaps not all strategic missile submarines will be able to strike - someone may die before they have time to shoot. Something will reflect the US missile defense, not that the author seriously believes in the ability to repel the strikes of ballistic missiles, but some cruise missiles launched from strategic missile carriers may well "win". It is unlikely that even all this taken together will take away a large percentage, but still it should be understood that some part of our warheads will not reach the enemy.
When a megaton warhead explodes, no more than 5% of the population located there will die 10 kilometers from the epicenter. True, another 45% should receive injuries of various levels of severity, but this is only if the blow falls on unsuspecting citizens. But if they are ready and take at least the simplest protection measures, then the losses will be significantly, if not even multiple, reduced. And we have far from all of the 1,600 warheads of the megaton class, there are 10 times weaker, and there are many of them.
Radioactive contamination? It is worth noting that the Japanese, after the nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, began to rebuild and populate these cities after some two or three years. Yes, of course, there were consequences - for example, an abnormally high level of leukemia (exceeding the norm by at least twice), but nevertheless, the infection did not threaten the death of the society located in its very center. The Japanese estimate the scale of environmental contamination in Chernobyl to be at least 100 times greater than the consequences of a bomb explosion over Hiroshima. And it should also be borne in mind that thermonuclear ammunition, under certain conditions, does not give too significant environmental contamination.
Nuclear winter? In the USA, USSR, France, Great Britain and China, a total of at least 2,060 tests of atomic and thermonuclear charges were carried out, including 501 tests in the atmosphere. It cannot be said that the world did not notice this at all, but no consequences, at least somewhat close to fatal ones, did not come.
In other words, having used up all of our deployed strategic nuclear potential today, we are not that peace - we cannot even dare to dust the United States. We will inflict terrible losses, we will destroy a significant number of the urban population - yes. We will liquidate most of the industrial potential - of course. Let's drop the development into the region of the Central African countries - perhaps, although even this is no longer a fact.
"The whole world in dust" - this is from the times of the USSR. When we had not 2,550-2,600 warheads, but 46,000 (Forty Six Thousand) - then - yes, we really could "sow" them on the territory of the United States, and, probably, all of Europe, if not until the complete destruction of all intelligent life, it's very close to that. Now, alas, we do not have such power. For a long time, we have no longer the ability of the USSR to wipe out the United States, Europe and NATO's military potential combined with thermonuclear power alone.
At the same time, we ourselves, if the Americans choose our cities as a priority, will find ourselves in an extremely difficult situation. The overwhelming majority of the urban population will perish. In essence, our losses are unlikely to exceed the American ones, but you need to understand that they have much more cities and populations than ours, and they will suffer losses of equal size much easier than we do. More than 326 million people live in the United States, which is 2.22 times more than in the Russian Federation. But having an approximate parity in warheads, we cannot expect to inflict 2.22 times more damage on the Americans.
We can strike a blow that will kill tens of millions of Americans all at once, and as many more - subsequently, from injury, disease, infection and as a result of the destruction of their country's infrastructure. And we ourselves, having received a "full-scale response", will not die out to the last person. We will simply remain in the ashes of a once great country in the face of a consolidated Europe untouched by nuclear fire. This is not in our interests, so a certain amount of nuclear weapons will most likely be spent on defeating military targets on the European continent. And this, again, weakens our attack on US territory.
But … If our position in the nuclear conflict is obviously worse than that of the United States, this does not mean at all that the United States is doing well. The thing is that the United States, apparently, also does not have the ability to destroy the human, industrial and military potential of the Russian Federation by using nuclear weapons alone.
Cruise missiles are not doing very well at disabling modern airfields. And if you spend nuclear ammunition on them, then … well, yes, we are not the RSFSR with its approximately 1,450 civilian airfields. We have about 230 of them, and after Serdyukov's reforms, out of 245 military personnel, only 70 remained in operation, but … But this is already 300 airfields, which will require at least 300 warheads for their destruction. And how many are there really? Could it be that the insidious Russians quietly restored some of the previously abandoned airfields? Or maybe they are not too abandoned? Maybe just canned? And biding their time? Maybe so, maybe that way, but how to check for sure? CIA? No, here it is not enough to climb on Instagram and VKontakte, Jen Psaki will also not be able to cope, it is necessary to work here, and the James Bond remained in the films of the 20th century …
And what about the location of the ground forces? After all, they also need to be taken out of the game. Well, how will the Russians, who already have nothing to lose anyway, take, and give up on an excursion to the English Channel? Who will stop them? Bundeswehr? Pardon me, this was in 1985 the Bundeswehr with a capital "B", consisting of 12 divisions, including 6 tank, 4 motorized infantry, one mountain infantry and one airborne. Despite the fact that the number in peacetime was 75% of the staff, and the staff in the tank division then consisted of as many as 24 thousand people (that is, in fact, it is a tank corps). And there were also the “Heimatschutz” territorial troops in the amount of 12 brigades and 15 regiments, which, although they were squadron and had no more than 10% of the regular number in peacetime, but a full set of heavy weapons awaited them in the warehouses. The Bundeswehr had 7 thousand tanks, 8, 9 thousand infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, 4, 6 thousand guns, mortars and MLRS, from the air they were supported by a thousand aircraft … And now - what? Three divisions, and on all - as many as 244 tanks, of which 95 are combat-ready, 44 are for modernization, 7 are for certification (whatever that means) and 89 are "conditionally out of order" and cannot return to it due to lack of spare parts …
The ground forces of the Russian Federation are, of course, also far from the USSR, but….
In addition, our army has a small deck of trump cards up its sleeve, which is called "tactical nuclear weapons" (TNW). A modern Russian brigade on the offensive is unpleasant in itself, but when this brigade at any moment can hit with ammunition, about five kilotons of commercials, but not one … But if there is absolutely nothing to lose, the actual army units can be “propped up” by the National Guards. With its own armored personnel carriers, artillery and helicopters. They would, in an amicable way, also be somehow excluded from the system of equations before the conflict. And the command posts? Air defense and missile defense facilities? And the reconnaissance system, all these over-the-horizon radars and so on? Naval bases? Areas of storage of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, because not all of them are deployed in our country and the United States does not want them to be used? Stockpiles of conventional weapons so that there is nothing to equip the reservists with? And what about transport hubs and junctions?
And again, it must be remembered that not all US warheads will reach the territory of our country. For American missiles, the same laws apply as for ours - some will not start, some will not reach for technical reasons, some will intercept Russian missile defense systems. And after all, for American generals, this is not even bad, but another - that in order to defeat the most important targets, the number of attacking warheads will have to be duplicated, which entails an increased consumption of nuclear weapons.
If you spend nuclear weapons on all this, then not so much will remain for the destruction of the industrial potential of the Russian Federation. And if you direct the blow to the destruction of cities and industries, then the Russian Federation will be able to maintain a hefty military potential.
Of course, as we said earlier, the US nuclear arsenal is by no means limited to "first strike weapons." The Americans have both non-deployed nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear weapons (mainly in the form of free-fall bombs). And, for example, they may well, directing a strike of strategic forces to defeat stationary targets, "crush" our armed forces with non-deployed warheads and tactical nuclear weapons. But for this they themselves will need to maintain a certain military potential at our borders.
In other words, even the United States and NATO cannot get by with nuclear weapons alone to completely crush the Russian Federation. They will also need the massive use of conventional weapons - we are talking about aviation, cruise missiles, they will need ground forces and everything else that is usually used in wars with "conventional" weapons.
A nuclear war under current conditions is by no means the end of all that exists, and it does not at all exclude further hostilities with conventional weapons.
And then the question arises. What role can American aircraft carriers play in a nuclear war?
On common sense - colossal. The fact is that strategic nuclear weapons have one feature - they are designed for stationary targets with known coordinates. They cannot hit aircraft carriers that have gone to sea. Well, let's imagine a situation: the world froze on the brink of a nuclear war. The Americans are putting their aircraft carriers out to sea - not all ten, of course, because some of their ships will be under repair and in the event of a rapidly flaring up conflict they simply will not have time to put them into operation. For example, out of ten American aircraft carriers, only six can go to sea. But these six aircraft carriers are filled to the brim with planes - a nuclear aircraft carrier is quite capable of carrying off 90 planes, and even more. Of course, he will not be able to fight at the same time, having turned, in fact, into air transport, well, nothing else is required of him.
Aircraft carriers go out into the ocean … and get lost in its vastness.
And then Armageddon happens. Both we and the United States are using nuclear arsenals to the fullest. We are in a more vulnerable position, but let's say that we succeeded. And we struck not only on the territory of the United States, but also managed to cover the main military targets in Europe with a nuclear strike. Including the enemy airbases before the aircraft located there had time to disperse.
What is the result? Military vehicles of the Russian Federation and NATO suffered heavy damage. A significant part of both our and NATO's military potential burned out in an atomic flame. And at this moment those same six US nuclear-powered aircraft carriers emerge from the sea haze. With five hundred and forty aircraft on board.
Come on - only planes. It's no secret that airplanes require maintenance, the most unassuming of modern machines "ask" 25 man-hours of technical work for each hour of flight. These are special tools, trained people, etc., but all of this is on the American aircraft carriers. But in Europe, whose military bases have been subjected to nuclear strikes, none of this may already exist.
Many authors have written, are writing and will write about the fact that the military potential of American aircraft carriers is not too great against the background of the might of the air forces of Western countries. And this is certainly true. But they do not at all take into account the fact that in a full-scale nuclear conflict, the potential of the Air Force will suffer grave damage, but aircraft carrier aviation can be preserved. We have neither reconnaissance means capable of quickly identifying enemy aircraft carriers in the vastness of the world's oceans, nor weapons capable of destroying them there. The idea that "we will see them through Google Maps and shy away with 'Satan'" are great, if you do not take into account that the correction of the flight of ballistic missiles is done using astrocorrection. And in order to change the coordinates of the impact, it is necessary to calculate and prescribe the reference positions of the stars so that the rocket can navigate along them in flight, and this is a completely difficult and, most importantly, not a quick matter, which completely excludes the possibility of attacking moving targets. It is also clear that no one will seed hundreds of square kilometers of sea space with megaton-class warheads, hoping to hit the area where the enemy aircraft carrier is located. If only because in the case of Armageddon, the Russian Federation will already face the fact that the number of targets that need to be hit is many times greater than the number of available strategic warheads.
Perhaps, the Russian Federation accumulates enough non-nuclear high-precision weapons, and by using TNW to the fullest in Armageddon, we will be able to neutralize a significant part of NATO's military potential in Europe. But we are definitely not capable of disabling the European (and even more so - the American) airfield network. In Germany alone, there are 318 paved airfields. The Turks have 91, France 294, and there are 1,882 in Europe. There are 5,054 in the United States.
Undoubtedly, one of the main targets of nuclear strikes will be port cities in order to prevent the transfer of anything from the United States to Europe. But the United States is quite capable of dispersing and preserving the bulk of transport aircraft on its own territory, and then …
Then, upon arrival of aircraft carriers to European shores, their planes will fly to the airfields that survived after Armageddon. The supply of fuel and ammunition can be carried out both from European stocks and from the Metropolis, i.e. from the territory of the United States by means of transport aircraft. Repair and maintenance will be carried out directly on aircraft carriers located somewhere far from the fighting.
Yes, in the described "alignment", US aircraft carriers will not engage in combat with any enemy at all. They will play the role of air transports at the first stage of the conflict, and air workshops at its subsequent stages. But half a thousand combat aircraft, capable of conducting hostilities after Armageddon, will most likely turn out to be an ultimatum argument in the confrontation between the Russian Federation and NATO. With a high degree of probability, we will have nothing to defend against this threat. Moreover, as mentioned above, a significant part of American tactical nuclear weapons are free-fall bombs.
Of course, the above method of using aircraft carriers is completely utilitarian and extremely far from any heroics. And yes, someone can laugh: "Mighty lords of the seas in the role of a floating workshop ?!" But the main thing in war is not beautiful postures, but victory, and, under certain conditions, aircraft carriers in the conditions of a modern full-scale nuclear missile conflict are quite capable of giving it.
But there is one more nuance.
Perhaps the nuclear retaliation of the Russian Federation will not throw the United States back into the Stone Age, but the economic losses of the "hegemon" will be so great that the superpower status will have to be forgotten for a very long time, if not forever. The economic power of the United States will be undermined. But if at the same time the Americans retain their naval potential, which allows them to unconditionally control sea transportation (and, accordingly, the world's foreign trade, since 80% of its cargo turnover goes by sea), then they will have the opportunity to stay in their rank, even if not at the expense of economic, and at the expense of military force.
Or does someone think that such an approach is immoral and unacceptable for the United States?
