The "real combat conditions" in which the aircraft carrier operates compare favorably with the training ground in the Barents Sea.
The Kuznetsov air wing flies in the heavenly conditions of the Mediterranean Sea. With good visibility and low waves, only during daylight hours. With minimal combat load. In the complete absence of opposition from the enemy - neither echeloned air defense, nor even MANPADS, the use of which is only rare rumors. Basmachi machine guns do not reach sky-high heights. The enemy lacks missiles capable of reaching TAVKR in the open sea. During all this time, the aircraft-carrying cruiser has never been exposed to electronic warfare by ISIS (the group is prohibited in Russia).
Despite all the blessings, in less than a month of combat work, the Kuznetsov's air wing lost two of the 12 fighters on board in accidents.
For an objective comparison: the Russian Aerospace Forces group at the Khmeimim airbase did not lose a single aircraft in a year due to piloting errors or equipment failure. Despite for much more intense combat work and the potential threat of sabotage and shelling during takeoff from a Syrian airfield.
Why do the naval aviation aces hit planes over and over again, trying to board the slippery deck of the ship?
In such conditions, neither experience, nor training, nor flying skills can save. Landing is pure lottery. One awkward movement of the engine control knob, a gust of wind or small tech. malfunction - and the plane inevitably goes to the bottom. In more severe cases, the entire squadron goes to the bottom, into which the crashed fighter crashed into.
Do not boil everything down to the strength of the cable. An aerofinisher is not just a rope across the deck. This is a whole system of compensators that allow the cable to gradually unwind, smoothly absorbing the energy of the jerk from the caught plane (20 tons at a speed of 240 km / h). One faulty valve is enough - and the jammed cable will burst, it is not designed for such dynamic loads. And save you at that moment to stand next to him. It is known that snatches of a cable can cut even the wings of a parked aircraft.
If someone believes that the author is overly biased and doubts in vain about the flight skills of the heroes, then let him find another explanation for the abundance of aircraft carrier accidents.
However, this does not prevent the “sofa experts” from dreaming of hundreds of combat missions and a “clockwork” system of air patrols, continuously on duty in the air throughout the entire voyage of the aircraft carrier.
Humor is out of place here. All in all seriousness. If you force the "palubniks" to fly in an emergency mode, they will get entangled in the cables and lose a good half of the wing. Those who manage to survive in this hell, having lost the ability to fly from the ship, will go to the coastal airfield. Just as the few Kuznetsov planes did when they flew out of harm's way to the Khmeimim airport (according to Western news agencies, claiming that Kuznetsov's planes are “visiting” on the shore on a rotational basis, because constantly flying from the deck is unreasonably risky and costly).
But what about the heroes of the past? Why, during WWII, aircraft carriers managed to lift entire air armies into the air (a raid on Pearl Harbor - 350 carrier-based aircraft!). Without the radio drive systems and optical landing assistance systems that modern pilots have.
Aircraft of that era had half the landing speed and six times less mass . Those. they had to extinguish 24 less energy. That is why they took off and landed without any problems.
The dimensions of the flight decks of aircraft carriers have not significantly increased since then. For comparison: the deck of the Japanese AV "Shokaku" had a length of 242 meters - against 306 meters at the "Admiral Kuznetsov". With those colossal differences in speed, weight and dimensions of landing planes!
As a result, modern carrier-based aircraft has become a deadly circus. Unjustified risk at colossal costs and dubious combat capabilities. The reliability of such a system is too low to rely on it in battle. Here, as if not to get entangled in the cables …
Fact # 1
It has already been said more than once that in an era when airliners fly over the ocean in a matter of hours, there is no need for an additional airfield in the middle of the ocean.
What seemed important in the era of low-speed piston aircraft has now lost all meaning.
With transonic cruising speeds and the combat radius of modern fighters, it becomes possible to strike and air watch over almost any selected area of the seas and oceans.
Modern in-flight refueling technologies make it possible to stay in the air for an extremely long time. And just do not fill in about the fatigue of the pilots.
Afghanistan, 2001. Average duration of F / A-18 sorties from aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea was 13 hours. Multipurpose fighters "hung" over the mountains for hours, waiting for a request for fire support. What would have changed if instead of mountains under their wing, they had an ocean?
Another example? During the bombing of Yugoslavia, the duration of Turkish F-16 sorties was 9 hours - and this is for light front-line fighters! This is how all modern aviation works: strikes are delivered from a "watch in the air" position, which forces aircraft to hang over the combat area for long hours. Which is located thousands of kilometers from their home airfield.
Distance is not a problem. An air tanker will always come to the rescue.
This we remembered about combat fighters, which have a crew of 1-2 people. and always a limited supply of fuel. And what the rest are doing - scouts, AWACS, electronic warfare and ELINT aircraft based on passenger Boeing. They are not afraid of any distance.
The long-range radar detection aircraft E-3 "Sentry" has a flight duration without refueling of 11 hours. Yes, he will fly to the other end of the Earth during this time!
Time for drones is approaching. The watch of the MC-4Q "Triton" marine unmanned reconnaissance aircraft lasts more than 30 hours! Why would he squirm while trying to sit on the rocking deck of the ship ?! 23,000 kilometers - during his shift, he will fly the ocean several times back and forth.
Fact # 2
Whenever you have to fight on foreign shores, an airfield is found somewhere nearby. As soon as the question of Syria arose, Khmeimim immediately appeared.
Europe, the Middle East - urbanized regions, where many military facilities are located at every step, incl. airbases and civilian airports (can be mobilized for military needs).
What will happen if you have to fight at the end of the world? A famous example is the Falklands. Little-known answer - the British in that region had the Aqua Fresca airbase, carefully provided by A. Pinochet. British scouts and electronic warfare planes flew from there throughout the war. The British were ashamed to place combat "Phantoms" in Chile, not wanting an unnecessary escalation of the conflict, but they always had the opportunity.
By the way, when landing on the island, they built an ersatz airfield Harrier FOB in a couple of days, and after winning the war, they built a full-fledged Mount Pleasant airbase with a 3000-meter strip in the Falklands.
Well, what if you have to fight where no one will provide an airfield? Now, if the Syrians refused.. The answer is obvious. Why protect those who are not waiting for us? Climb where we have no friends, no support, or even potential allies.
Fact # 3
The General Staff knows this better than you and me.
In view of the unnecessary danger to the health of pilots and sailors, as well as the threat to the military budget, the military is trying not to use the services of aviation.
The United States has a huge fleet of 10 nuclear powered Nimitzes. Someone thanks to them occupy their admiral's position, shipyards have a constant source of income, continuous profit.
But if there is a war, you won't get aircraft carriers. None of the American Nimitzs participated in the operation against Libya (2011). No one! Although the rest of the fleet and the NATO Air Force frolicked there.
1999, Yugoslavia. The only American aircraft carrier ("T. Rezvelt") deigned to appear on the 12th day of the war. They sent at least a couple for the sake of decency, but no …
Iraq? Yes, all the same, over 80% of sorties fell on the aircraft of the air force.
Vietnam? American "Phantoms" were based on a / b Cam Ranh (later our base will appear there) and dozens of other airfields in Thailand and South Vietnam. They flew from decks much less often, because it is dangerous, expensive, and, in truth, no one needs it.
Syria? The Russian Aerospace Forces somehow coped with the whole year without the help of their deck colleagues. And they would have coped further if they had not decided to send an unprepared TAVKR in disrepair to the Syrian shores.
Fact # 4 (follows directly from item 3)
The American carrier fleet is not an indicator. The Yankees maintain their pelvis for the sake of tradition and the aircraft carrier lobby at the Pentagon. This is a whole system, big contracts and high positions, but the real facts of the use of "Nimitz" do not confirm their declared capabilities.
The military themselves are cautious about this. These findings are confirmed by calculations of the Pentagon's own OFT department (Office of Force Transformation). Retired US Navy Captain Henry D. Hendricks said this bluntly: the cost of each bomb dropped from an aircraft carrier is more than $ 2 million. That's a lot even for the United States.
The composition of the US Navy confirms the guess. 10 aircraft carriers are lost against the backdrop of an armada of six dozen destroyers and 70 nuclear submarines. Unlike the "Nimitzes" standing at the piers, these ships constantly carry base stations around the world.
Epilogue
The aircraft carrier was not needed by Russia either in the last century, and even more so now.
There are no goals or adequate tasks for him. There is not even a simple understanding of what such a ship is for. There is no understanding because it is useless to look for meaning where there is none.
The presence or absence of an aircraft carrier does not affect the country's defense in any way.
Prestige? Yes, such prestige in the furnace! Many of the most developed countries have never had aircraft carriers, but this does not prevent them from developing, being ahead and feeling great. An example is Germany. Or the USSR, which was not particularly fond of aircraft carriers, but the prestige was - wow!
Funds spent on development, carrying out a full range of R&D, procurement of materials and assembly of a 300-meter nuclear giant can be used to re-equip the entire Pacific Fleet with destroyers and titanium submarines.
Ships for which there are clear tasks, and which at the decisive moment will not get entangled in the cables.
