The ship goes through a veil of vacuum. Ideas are born in its spherical streams. Bold guesses destroy stereotypes. For example, what if …
What if the entire Nimitz air wing is loaded to capacity with anti-ship missiles and takes off. Without any defensive weapons, only offensive weapons are the AGM-158C LRASM anti-ship missiles. The spherical vacuum promotes and even encourages such tactical insanity.
How many missiles can planes launch?
Answer: 40 Hornet fighters (typically three fighter squadrons) will be able to carry off on their final flight 80 anti-ship missiles.
The abeam destroyer also carries no weapons other than the LRASM. In this case, he will be able to fire a volley from 96 anti-ship missiles.
Quite unexpected result, isn't it?
Local experts will find it incorrect (and even outrageous) to compare the strike potential of ships in terms of the number of missiles in a salvo. Where are the detection capabilities and launch limits for various carriers taken into account?
Where the time required to ensure the takeoff of three squadrons (many hours) and the promptness of the launch from the destroyer's launchers are taken into account. In theory, “Burke” is capable of firing off its ammunition load in a couple of minutes. In practice, a little longer.
These are the realities of the modern Navy. Ships of different classes use weapons with similar characteristics. And the missile flight range (hundreds and thousands of kilometers) finally erases the clear line between the carriers.
A hypothetical example with the number of RCCs is only a formidable hint of what opportunities lie in the bowels of a missile destroyerequipped with dozens of silos and the latest generation of combat control systems.
It is this circumstance that gives the right to talk about comparing AB and a destroyer ten times smaller in size.
* * *
With the development of rocket weapons, aviation lost one of the main "trump cards" - the use of heavy ammunition.
During the attack on Pearl Harbor, primitive by today's standards, Nakajima B5N bombers (max. Takeoff weight - 4 tons) attacked the enemy with 800-kg bombs! In fact, instead of bombs, 356-mm shells with welded stabilizers were used. Under normal conditions, an artillery gun weighing 86 tons was required to fire a 356 mm projectile, of course, without taking into account the mass of drives and ammunition supply systems. For handling such a bulky art. the system required a calculation of dozens of sailors. These are battleships' weapons. Ships that have in the distribution of weight loads, more than 5 thousand tons were allocated for armament.
The installation of guns of this caliber on ships with a standard displacement of less than 30 thousand tons was out of the question.
During the Second World War, not every ship could fire even 150-kg shells. This required guns with a caliber of at least 8 inches (203 mm), which were intended to arm heavy cruisers. The most modest of which ("Washingtonians") had a standard displacement of 10 thousand tons.
What do we have today?
With a standard armament configuration, a Berk-class destroyer is capable of having fifty cruise missiles on alert without compromising its defensive capabilities (50-60 medium and long-range anti-aircraft missiles as a means of defense).
50 "tomahawks" or anti-ship LRASM, equipped with a 450-kg warhead.
This is the equivalent of the 460 kg Mk.83 bombs containing 202 kg of tritonal. As one of the main types of NATO aviation munitions, they are used as warheads for laser-guided bombs (GBU-16 "Payway") and GPS-guided bombs GBU-32 JDAM.
In modern conditions, even such ammunition is considered redundant. The bulk of the strike weapons is represented by 227 kg (500 lb) ammunition and Mavrik-class air-to-surface missiles. More modern designs are even smaller, for example, the 119-kg gliding SDB.
In terms of the power of high-precision weapons, naval weapons have long been equal to aviation ammunition and in some cases are superior to them.
As for the launch range, yes, you are absolutely right. Compared to art. systems of the past, there is a 50-fold increase in the firing range. At the same time, without loss of accuracy: the KVO "Caliber" and "Tomahawk" is calculated in a few meters.
Conventional "Ax" - 1600 km. The launch range of "Caliber" is within the same limits. Which is comparable to the maximum combat radius of fighters.
The declared launch range of the anti-ship LRASM is 300 nautical miles (560 km). In this case, a launch from a ship or aircraft will no longer have the catastrophic difference that was observed in the era of Yamato and piston Corsairs.
500 km is a considerable distance. Being in the central part of the Mediterranean Sea, it is possible to shoot with such a rocket any area of the water area from the coast of Africa to Europe, including the territory of Greece, Italy and Tunisia. In practice, it is unlikely that there will ever be a need to fire at maximum range.
This idea has already been voiced more than once in various sources. A destroyer with guided missile weapons is most effective for inflicting punitive strikes with the use of 200-300 precision weapons in order to disrupt the operation of an airbase / training camp for militants / warehouse or the residence of the next king.
Efficiency, accuracy, surprise factor. Without unnecessary noise and "air parades" of dozens of aircraft. In the absence of the risk of losing aircraft worth half the destroyer. And in general, any risk for the attacking side.
To fit for these purposes a nuclear trough with a crew of 5,000 people. and an honorary escort of ships, with the costs of providing combat missions, training pilots and the cost of the planes themselves … It must be beautiful. But it would be cheaper to shoot a blaster from an orbital station: pew-pew.
For serious combat work, the presence or absence of floating airfields does not matter. Practice has shown that in the event of a full-scale war with a country like Iraq (1991), tens of air bases, thousands of aircraft and tens of thousands of sorties are required. If you have nowhere to put your money, you can drive the five "Nimitz". If there is no such option, no one will notice the difference.
The value of AB in naval combat
I will not rewrite hackneyed truths. A typical dispute on that topic looks like this: the destroyer always acts in splendid isolation. He makes desperate attempts to locate the enemy's AUG. Deck aircraft, of course, are the first to detect the target and strike.
Gentlemen, this is fundamentally unfair. Why was the destroyer alone? An integrated approach is needed always and everywhere. What options are there other than the Nimitz building?
For example, for a small part of the savings, you can purchase a squadron of unmanned reconnaissance aircraft.
Let the experts explain how the Global Hawk high-altitude UAV or the MQ-4C Triton marine UAV differ in capabilities from the carrier-based AWACS aircraft. Only by the fact that from a height of 18 kilometers the "Triton" will see more and further than the "Hawkeye" flying at 9 km?
According to the developer, during one combat shift (30 hours), the scout explores an area of 7 million square meters. kilometers - 3 times the area of the Mediterranean Sea.
The equipment of the drone, in addition to the radar with AFAR, includes optical and infrared cameras and electronic reconnaissance equipment. It is naive to believe that the enemy AUG, being in Mediterranean or the South China Sea, will be able to avoid detection by such a drone for a long time.
The option with a counter engagement of the AUG leaving Los Angeles and the KUG leaving Vladivostok, somewhere in the central part of a completely deserted ocean, is not being considered, because of its absurdity.
When the fight starts. A modern 10 thousand ton destroyer, even when using part of the cells for the deployment of defensive weapons, is capable of firing dozens of cruise missiles in one salvo. Let's put it more correctly: the number of anti-ship missiles, comparable in number with the air attack weapons of the strike group of carrier-based aircraft.
In this righteous fire, everyone will be consumed. The aircraft carrier will be finished off by the surviving escort ships. His opponent, a KUG from a pair of destroyers, will repeat the feat of "Varyag" and "Koreyets". Scout "Triton" will be shot down. Hornets from the combat air patrol will crash into the sea with empty tanks.
Basically a fair exchange.
* * *
Before starting the discussion, I will try to answer the first question of the readers. And "Nimitz" and "Burke" and "Triton" - all the funds available in one country. What should we do?
As part of the debate "Who to be: rich and healthy or poor and sick?" the answer is quite obvious. I chose Burke and LRASM as an example to study naval weapons based on the most promising technologies.
I believe that the day will come, and some sea UAV "Chameleon" designed by RSK MiG will rise into the sky.
The main thing is not to waste funds on the rapidly aging concept of “floating airfields”.
