From news agency reports for the last year
Despite a clear threat off its coast, the Islamic Republic of Iran has cold-bloodedly announced the launch of 180 uranium enrichment centrifuges. American aircraft carrier groups turned helplessly off the coast of the Middle East and headed for their native Norfolk naval base …
Whenever US Navy aircraft carriers flex their muscles in public, they inevitably get spit on their decks from those they should have scared. The "undemocratic regimes" seem to ignore the terrible 100,000-ton ships and are pursuing their independent policy, not at all embarrassed by the nuclear powered Nimitzes on the roadstead.
- What is the strength in, brother?
- Power is in the truth.
Why isn't anyone afraid of Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers? How does the United States sweep entire states off the face of the earth? Does Iran really know any secret that allows itself to react so lightly to the presence of American aircraft carrier ships?
Misconception # 1. Let's drive five "Nimitz" to the coast and …
And American pilots will be washed in blood. All the arguments about the power of the US Navy carrier-based aviation - "projection of force", "500 aircraft", "at any time, anywhere in the world" - are in fact the fantasies of impressionable ordinary people.
Misconception # 2. Five hundred planes! This is not a pound of raisins
Let's start with the most famous myth: 80 … 90 … 100 (who is more?) Carrier-based aircraft can be based on the decks of a nuclear aircraft carrier, which, of course, can blow a small country to shreds.
The reality is much more prosaic: if the entire space of the flight and hangar decks is cluttered with aircraft, then, theoretically, 85-90 aircraft can be “crammed” onto the Nimitz. Of course, no one does this, otherwise there will be great difficulties with the movement of aircraft and their preparation for departures.
In practice, the size of the Nimitz air wing rarely exceeds 50-60 aircraft, among which there are only 30-40 F / A-18 Hornet (Super Hornet) fighter-bombers. Everything else is support aircraft: 4 electronic warfare aircraft, 3-4 E-2 Hawkeye early warning and control aircraft, possibly 1-2 Greyhound C-2 transport aircraft. Finally, a squadron of 8-10 anti-submarine and search and rescue helicopters (evacuating downed pilots is not an easy task).
As a result, even five Nimitz super-aircraft carriers are hardly capable of deploying more than 150-200 strike vehicles and 40 combat support aircraft. But is that not enough?
Misconception # 3. Aircraft carriers have conquered half the world
250 combat vehicles is an insignificant amount. Operation "Storm in a Glass of Desert" involved … 2600 combat aircraft (not counting thousands of rotary-wing aircraft)! This is exactly how much aviation it took to bomb Iraq "a little".
Let's take a smaller operation - Yugoslavia, 1999. In total, about 1000 aircraft of NATO countries took part in the bombing of Serbia! Naturally, against the background of this incredible amount of equipment, the contribution of carrier-based aircraft from the only aircraft carrier "Theodore Roosevelt" turned out to be simply symbolic - only 10% of the tasks completed. By the way, the super-powerful aircraft carrier "Roosevelt" began to perform combat missions only on the 12th day of the war.
An attempt to resolve any local conflict with the forces of several aircraft carriers will end tragically - carrier-based aircraft are not able to provide the necessary density of bomb strikes, they will not have enough strength to independently organize a decent cover. Some of the fighter-bombers will have to be used as air tankers, which will further reduce the already small number of strike vehicles. As a result, when meeting with a more or less prepared enemy (Iraq of 1991), enemy aircraft and air defense systems will kill the Nimitz aircraft on the very first day of the war.
Misconception # 4. Floating nests of aggression and robbery
1,300 sorties a day - the intensity of the airstrikes during Operation Desert Storm is mind-boggling. Every few hours, deadly waves of 400-600 planes swept across Iraqi territory. Obviously, not even 10 Nimitz-class supercarriers are capable of doing that much work; they are as weak as puppies against the power of ground-based tactical aircraft.
In 1997, during the international exercise JTFEX 97-2, aircraft from the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Nimitz set a record of 197 sorties per day. However, as always happens in exercises, the "achievement" of the aircraft carrier "Nimitz" turned out to be a banal window dressing, arranged in front of the high authorities. Departures were made to a distance of no more than 200 miles, and some of the aircraft simply took off from the aircraft carrier, circled the foremast and immediately landed on the deck. There is every reason to believe that these "sorties" were carried out empty - really, why cling tons of bombs and anti-tank weapons under the wings if the goal of the exercises is not strikes, but the coveted figure of 200 sorties (by the way, it has not been achieved).
In practice, in combat conditions, Nimitz aircraft rarely perform more than 100 sorties per day. Just "cheap show-off" against the backdrop of thousands of combat missions of the Multinational Force during Operation Desert Storm.
But that's not all. The key problem of aircraft carriers is that carrier-based aircraft are inferior in performance to "land" aircraft - the Hornet fighter-bomber is just a laughing stock against the backdrop of the multipurpose F-15E Strike Eagle. The unfortunate Hornet is unable to lift even a large-caliber bomb (limitation when flying from the deck!), While the F-15E prances in the sky with four 900-kg ammunition (not counting outboard fuel tanks, sighting containers and missiles " air-to-air ").
Well, it becomes clear why the super-aircraft carriers of the US Navy did not dare to intervene and prevent the Iraqi army from occupying Kuwait in the summer of 1990. In general, carrier-based aircraft then showed amazing passivity and never even tried to overcome the Iraqi air defense system. "Invincible" aircraft carriers patiently waited six months until the millionth grouping of the International Coalition was formed in the Persian Gulf zone with the support of 2,600 combat aircraft and 7,000 armored vehicles.
Truly - the great "conquerors" and "robbers". The contribution of the US Navy aircraft carriers to world conflicts is simply invaluable: Iraq - 17% of the total number of combat missions of aviation, Yugoslavia - 10% of all combat missions of aviation, Libya - 0%. Shame.
In 2011, the Americans hesitated to invite Nimitz to the Mediterranean, Colonel Gaddafi was "pressed" by 150 aircraft from air bases in Europe.
Misconception # 5. A nuclear reactor turns the Nimitz into a superweapon
The reason for the appearance of a nuclear reactor on aircraft carriers is simple - the desire to raise the rate of aircraft production and, thereby, increase the intensity of the work of carrier-based aircraft. The trick is that in order to effectively perform strike missions, aircraft must take off in groups of 15-20 (or even more) aircraft in a short period of time. It is unacceptable to extend this process - the minimum delay will lead to a situation when the first pair will be already above the target, and the last pair of aircraft will only be preparing for takeoff from the catapult.
As a result, in a short period of time it is required to provide the catapult with a huge amount of superheated steam. To disperse two dozen 20-ton combat vehicles to a speed of 200 km / h - so much energy is required that an aircraft carrier with a conventional power plant slows down to a complete stop - all the steam "flies" from the catapults, there is nothing to rotate the turbines. The Yankees tried to solve the problem by placing a nuclear steam generating plant on the aircraft carrier.
Alas, despite the increased productivity of the NPPU, instead of an effective "floating airfield", the Americans received a "wunderwaffe" with a life cycle of $ 40 billion in modern prices (for promising aircraft carriers of the "Ford" type, this amount will increase by 1.5-2 times). And that's just the cost of building, repairing and operating the ship! Excluding the cost of aircraft, aviation fuel and aviation ammunition.
Even a twofold increase in the number of sorties - up to 197 per day (a record!), Did not help to correct the situation - carrier-based aviation was a dismal sight in any of the local conflicts of the last 50 years.
The nuclear power plant, along with its many circuits, a biological shielding kit and an entire plant for the production of double-distilled water, takes up so much space that any talk of saving space due to the lack of fuel oil tanks is simply irrelevant.
The increase in the capacity of aviation fuel tanks (from 6,000 tonnes for the non-nuclear AB type Kitty Hawk to 8,500 tonnes for the nuclear powered Nimitz) is largely due to the significant increase in displacement - from 85,000 tonnes of Kitty Hawk to more than 100,000 tonnes for the nuclear aircraft carrier … By the way, a non-nuclear ship has more ammunition storage capacity.
Finally, all the benefits of unlimited autonomy in terms of ship fuel reserves are lost when operating as part of a squadron - the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier "Nimitz" is accompanied by an escort of destroyers and cruisers with a conventional, non-nuclear power plant.
A nuclear reactor aboard American aircraft carriers is an expensive and useless excess that negatively affects the survivability of the ship, but has no fundamental significance. Despite all the efforts of the Americans, the striking power of the US Navy aircraft carriers still remains at the plinth level.
Misconception # 6. An aircraft carrier is essential for a war on foreign shores
There is more than enough evidence of the insignificance of the military significance of aircraft carriers. Actually, the inhabitants of the Pentagon understand this much better than we do, because in local conflicts they completely rely on US military bases in the amount of 800 units on all continents of the Earth.
But how can a war be waged in the absence of foreign military bases? The answer is simple: nothing. If you do not have air bases in South America, it is impossible to wage a local war on the other side of the earth. No aircraft carriers and landing "Mistrals" will replace the heels of normal airfields with a two-kilometer "concrete".
The unique Falklands War (1982) is not an argument. British Marines landed on virtually uninhabited islands amid sluggish air opposition from the Argentine Air Force. The Argentines could not disrupt the landing - the Argentine fleet was completely incapable of combat and hid in the bases.
Another interesting myth: the modern aircraft carrier serves as the colonial cruiser of the British Empire in Zanzibar
Still, 100,000 tons of "diplomacy" suggest that the imperial appearance of the aircraft carrier "Nimitz" should cause horror and trembling in the hearts of the unfortunate natives. The atomic wunderwaffle, entering any overseas port, attracts the attention of all local media and instills respect for America in Aboriginal people, demonstrating the technical superiority of the United States to the world.
Alas, even the role of the "symbol of the military power of the United States" was beyond the power of the aircraft carriers!
Firstly, aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type are simply lost against the background of other important events: the deployment of the American missile defense system in Europe, the deployment of the Patriot air defense system on the border with Syria - all this causes a much greater global resonance than another senseless trip of the US Navy aircraft carrier to Arabian Sea. For example, the citizens of Japan are much more concerned about the incessant atrocities of the American marines from the Futenma base on the island. Okinawa than the aircraft carrier George Washington, rusting quietly at the pier in Yokosuka (an American naval base in the suburbs of Tokyo).
Secondly, the aircraft carriers of the US Navy simply cannot perform the role of a "colonial cruiser in Zanzibar" due to … the absence of aircraft carriers in Zanzibar. Paradoxically, but it is a fact - for the main part of life, atomic giants sleep peacefully at the piers in their rear bases in Norfolk and San Diego, or stand in a half-disassembled state at the docks of Brementon and Newport News.
The operation of aircraft carriers is so costly that the admirals of the US Navy will think seven times before sending the giant on a long voyage.
After all, in order to "set up a show-off" it is not necessary to burn expensive uranium rods and keep 3000 sailors - sometimes a visit of one cruiser or destroyer is enough to "demonstrate the flag" Sevastopol).
Conclusion
The problems of carrier-based aviation began with the advent of jet engines. The growth in size, mass and landing speeds of jet aircraft caused an inevitable increase in the size of aircraft carriers. At the same time, the size and cost of aircraft carrier ships grew much faster than the combat effectiveness of these monsters. As a result, by the end of the twentieth century, aircraft carriers turned into monstrous ineffective "wunderwales", useless both in local conflicts and in a hypothetical nuclear war.
The second blow to carrier-based aircraft was inflicted during the Korean War - the aircraft learned to deftly refuel in the air. The advent of air tankers and refueling systems on tactical aircraft has led to the fact that modern fighter-bombers can operate effectively at a distance of thousands of kilometers from their home airfield. They do not need aircraft carriers and "jump airfields" - powerful "Strike Needles" are capable of flying over the English Channel in one night, rushing over Europe and the Mediterranean Sea, pouring four tons of bombs onto the Libyan desert - and returning to an airbase in Great Britain before dawn.
The only "narrow" niche in which modern aircraft carriers can be used is the air defense of the squadron in the open ocean. But for the solution of defensive tasks, the power of "Nimitz" is excessive. A light aircraft carrier with a pair of fighter squadrons and AWACS helicopters is sufficient to ensure the air defense of a ship's connection. Without any nuclear reactors and complex catapults. (A real example of such a system is the British aircraft carriers under construction of the Queen Elizabeth class).
But most importantly, such conflicts are extremely rare - in the 70 years that have passed since the end of World War II, a naval war happened only once. This is the Falklands War in the South Atlantic. By the way, at that time the Argentine side did without aircraft carriers - having a single refueling aircraft and a single AWACS aircraft ("Neptune" sample of 1945), Argentine pilots on outdated subsonic "Skyhawks" successfully operated at a distance of hundreds of kilometers from the coast and, in As a result, a third of Her Majesty's squadron was almost "killed off".
