PART 1. SHIP - ARSENAL
Bloody oil
On January 14, 1991, the US Navy strike force enters the Red Sea, which includes 2 newest Arsenal-class warships. The grouping takes a position abeam n.p. El Wajh (Saudi Arabia) 1000 km from the border with Iraq. On January 17, at midnight GMT (3:00 AM Baghdad time), the multinational force's war machine goes into action - Operation Desert Storm begins.
… Indicators of the status of weapon systems lit up with blood-red lights. The commander and senior officer of the ship turned the launch keys - the missiles were in combat platoon. The guidance systems of all 500 "Tomahawks" woke up, the coordinates of the launch point flowed into their onboard computers (the coordinates of targets and digital "pictures" of previously captured areas of the terrain along the flight route are entered into the memory of the "Togmagavks" in advance).
- Start! - hundreds of rockets, one after another, soar upward, the flashes of their engine torches are reflected in hellish flames on the surface of the Red Sea. The launching boosters lift the Tomahawks to a height of three hundred meters. There, on the descending branch of the launch site, 4 km long, the wing consoles open, the air intakes are extended, the cruise engines are turned on. Cruise missiles, guided by a semi-inertial guidance system, go on a given course.
This is the coast of Saudi Arabia. At an altitude of 20 meters at a speed of 880 km / h, the Tomahawks enter the first correction area. On-board radars come to life, kamikaze robots compare the received data with the satellite "pictures" of the underlying relief stored in their memory.
… Flocks of "Battle-axes" rush with a roar over the uninhabited stone wastelands of the Great Nefud Desert. Saudi air defense periodically sees flashes on radar screens, but it is not possible to establish stable contact with low-flying targets. The Saudis have been alerted to an impending attack and have kindly opened their airspace to cruise missiles.
… 40 minutes of flight, under the wing of the territory of Iraq. The fuel tanks are half empty - the speed of the Tomahawks who have improved by the order exceeds 1000 km / h. The missile flocks are divided, and the Tomahawks, invulnerable to the Iraqi military defense, one by one follow their targets.
The main threat to the Coalition is posed by Iraqi air defense radar stations, anti-aircraft missile launchers, nuclear and chemical weapons production centers; airfields and military bases, fuel depots, launching positions for tactical missiles "Scud". Missile strikes against command and communications centers destroyed the Iraqi army's command and control system. Saddam Hussein and his generals have lost control of the situation.
Subsequent waves of Tomahawks hit important Iraqi industrial facilities, demolished power plants and set fire to oil wells … After a week of "missile blitzkrieg" Iraq agreed to comply with all the requirements of the UN resolution, Saddam Hussein's troops left Kuwait …
Of course, all this is just a parody of the "War in the Gulf", nothing of the kind in reality HAS BEEN and COULD NOT have happened in the winter of 1991. Arsenal-class warships do not exist. Nevertheless, it was Operation Desert Storm that once again inspired dreams of such a missile system.
Arsenal-ship project
It is reliably known that work in this direction has been carried out in the USSR since the beginning of the 70s. Blueprints of a missile cruiser pr.1080 - a kind of attempt to create an analogue of American aircraft carrier strike groups as a means of military solution of political problems in zones of local conflicts.
The Soviet cruiser was supposed to place 200 Elbrus-M operational-tactical missiles in four 50-charge vertical launchers (it is important not to get confused - the famous R-17 Elbrus liquid-propellant ballistic missile, the GRAU 8K14 index has nothing to do with Project 1080). As a result, the ship had an unusual architecture with two superstructures spaced apart in the bow and stern and a smooth deck in the middle. The armament complex of pr. 1080 included 2 artillery systems AK-726 of 76 mm caliber, an anti-aircraft missile system of self-defense "Dagger" and two batteries of "metal cutters" AK-630. In the aft part, it was planned to place a helicopter hangar and a runway. With a full displacement of 16,000 tons, the speed reached 32 knots. The only snag - the Elbrus-M operational-tactical complex with a flight range of 1700 km did not exist. It was just a dream.
In the mid-90s, the heads of American admirals were suddenly struck by the idea of creating a cheap ship with monstrous striking power. When creating the "arsenal ships" the Americans went even further than the Soviet designers: "To hell with all the extra systems! The only combat mission is to launch missile strikes along the coast."
According to the Jesuit concept of its creators, the most important and expensive element of the "arsenal ship" is its missile weapon. As soon as the ship fires all its Tomahawk ammunition, it loses its combat value, turning into a self-propelled barge, which makes its subsequent destruction meaningless for the enemy. Brilliant? After assessing the prospects for this approach, engineers began to develop the idea:
First, it was decided not to equip the "arsenal ship" with the most complex combat information and control system "Aegis" - the ship was to receive target designation from external sources - AWACS aircraft and space satellites. In addition to drastically reducing the cost of the entire system, this made it possible to abandon the advanced superstructure with bulky antenna devices, which made the hull of the "arsenal ship" extremely low and flat.
Secondly, based on clause 1, during the design, a bet was made on stealth. Stealth technologies, which are based on elementary technical solutions (after all, everything ingenious is simple) made it possible to create an "invisible" ship. A "smooth" deck, on which only the most necessary equipment remained, a wide and low superstructure "from side to side", gaps having a "sawtooth" shape, the parallelism of most surfaces and lines of the hull, radio-absorbing coatings, known since the 50s for a long time before the appearance of the "Stealth" program.
Some of the developers went even further, proposing such truly original ideas as a "breakwater" bow (which allowed the "arsenal ship" not to climb the crests of waves), piled up "inside" the side (as a result, radio waves were reflected into the sky, and not on the water surface, which under normal conditions gives a complex interference pattern that unmasks the ship). All this, in theory, made the "arsenal ship" practically indistinguishable on the border of two environments.
Thirdly, in accordance with the concept of radical cost reduction, the "arsenal ship" was armed exclusively with cruise missiles (in total, there were 500 Tomahawks in vertical launchers). The placement of any other weapon was not intended!
Due to the "simplifications" and high automation of all systems, the crew of the "arsenal ship", according to calculations, did not exceed 20 people.
The total cost of this offshore launch platform was in the range of $ 1.5 billion, and the cost of the ship itself did not exceed 800 million, the remaining 700 … 800 million fell on the Tomahawk missiles.
So what's the result? The US Navy has received a unique ship that has no equal in terms of firepower? And the creators of the "arsenal ship" were awarded the Congress Medal for their outstanding contribution to the country's defense?
On October 24, 1997, funding was denied for the Arsenal project while planning its budget for fiscal 1998. The development team was dispersed, and the results of their research, which cost the budget 35 million dollars (not too much for the Pentagon), were handed over to Bath Iron Works and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding corporations, which are developing a new generation destroyer under the DD-21 project (“Zumwalt ).
So what is the reason for such an inglorious collapse of an ingenious project? Underestimated? Or did Arsenal become a victim of the undercover intrigue at the Pentagon? Where did the developers go wrong? We will try to answer these questions today.
PART 2. AIRCRAFT CARRIER
Bloody oil. Reality
On January 14, 1991, an aircraft carrier strike force of the US Navy enters the Red Sea, consisting of 2 AUG: CVN-71 "Theodore Roosevelt" and CV-66 "America". The grouping takes a position abeam n.p. El Wajh (Saudi Arabia) 1000 km from the border with Iraq. On January 17, at midnight GMT (3:00 AM Baghdad time), the multinational force's war machine goes into action - Operation Desert Storm begins.
On the first day of the war, the aviation of the multinational forces flew 1,300 sorties; the number of Tomahawks produced on the first day is 114 units.
In total, over the period of the 30-day campaign, the aviation performed more than 70,000 sorties (of which 12,000 sorties were carried out by carrier-based aircraft). For the same time, the number of Tomahawk launches, according to various sources, ranges from 700 to 1000 units. (only 1% from aviation actions)!
Here are other surprising figures: the mass of the Tomahawk warhead is 450 kg. Those. in 30 days, cruise missiles delivered 0.45 x 1000 = 450 tons of ammunition to their targets. At the same time, the deck wing of one aircraft carrier, on average, unloaded 1,700 tons of bombs and precision weapons on the heads of the Iraqis per day!
In other words, the participation of "smart and terrible" cruise missiles in Operation Desert Storm was almost symbolic. Sophisticated and expensive "Tomahawks" can be used to strike key air defense posts, as well as the most important military targets, well protected from air strikes. Assigning all aviation tasks to them is too expensive, ineffective and unreliable.
Key mistakes of the developers of the "ship-arsenal"
Attentive readers have probably already guessed what I am getting at the conversation: the cost of a "cheap" arsenal ship, upon close examination, becomes simply colossal.
The cost of the Tomahawk cruise missile is $ 1,500,000. Yes, exactly 1.5 million. Warhead - 450 kg, can be presented in semi-armor-piercing, high-explosive fragmentation, cluster or even nuclear version.
At the same time, the cost of one hour of flight of a carrier-based attack aircraft, depending on the type of vehicle, ranges from 10 to 15 thousand dollars. And the cost of an hour of flight for a small F-16 Block 52 is even less - about $ 7,000.
Did we miss something? The cost of the aircraft itself is sometimes very high - $ 55 million for the F / A-18 SuperHornet. But the F / A-18 is designed for 2000 deck landings. From this it is easy to calculate that the depreciation for each flight of the attack aircraft is 55 million / 2000 = 27,500 dollars. Quite a decent amount.
Below are the prices of the most common ammunition:
- Here is a 227 kg laser guided aircraft bomb GBU-12 Paveway II. The baby costs $ 19,000.
- A much more serious ammunition - a heavy 900 kg guided bomb GBU-24 - costs 55,000 dollars.
- One of the most expensive aviation ammunition for "local wars" is the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon tactical planning bomb. Dropped from a great height, the 700 kg stealth robot can fly 60 miles. The warhead contains 450 kg of explosives. The cost of the gizmos ranges from 280,000 to 700,000 dollars, depending on the "filling". But! This is still several times less than the cost of the Tomahawk.
Of course, our calculations are very approximate, but the general tendency is easily guessed - the use of cruise missiles like the Tomahawk is justified only in exceptional cases. Launching a rocket costs an order of magnitude more expensive than a combat flight of an aircraft.
Someone might add that expensive planes tend to fall and crash, and pilots sometimes miss their targets. Well, the Tomahawk rocket is also not distinguished by intelligence and ingenuity.
The next important point is that aviation has a much greater flexibility of use; there are hundreds of combat load combinations for combat aircraft. Finally, aviation can deliver strikes from the "air watch" position, which is absolutely impossible for a disposable cruise missile.
Finally, the objective disadvantages of "arsenal ships":
- 500 cruise missiles - too few for a "local war"
- the "arsenal ship" is defenseless against any means of destruction, and an attempt to equip it with powerful self-defense systems leads to the loss of the meaning of the "arsenal ship", turning it into an expensive heavy missile cruiser
- extremely low survivability, 500 huge missiles are not protected by anything, and 20 crew members are unlikely to be able to cope with an emergency on their own
Considering all the pros and cons, the American admirals recoiled in horror and disgust from the "arsenal ship" project: a monstrously expensive, ineffective and extremely vulnerable means of striking the coast.
However, there are currently several types of warships that can be loosely called an "arsenal ship". For example, the Russian heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser Peter the Great. Alas, it implements a completely different concept - a gigantic cruiser "to the eyeballs" is saturated with fire weapons and electronic systems, is equipped with nuclear reactors and has a crew of 6 hundred people. Instead of cruise missiles of the only type, the entire range of weapons of our Navy is concentrated on the decks of the "Petr".
Another similar case is the modernized Ohio-class submarines. 22 missile silos instead of SLBMs are occupied by 154 Tomahawks. All the same, this is by no means like an "arsenal ship" with 500 missiles on board, especially since the modernized "Ohio" are positioned as multifunctional nuclear submarines: with a torpedo weapon and a module for combat swimmers. Such modernization of "Ohio" is a necessary measure, 4 strategic missile submarines "did not fit" into the START treaty.
Somewhat reminiscent of the "arsenal ship" Aegis cruisers "Tykonderoga" and Aegis destroyers "Orly Burke". Alas, upon closer inspection, they have more differences than similarities. Of the 90 launch cells of the destroyer, only 7 eight-charge modules can be loaded with Tomahawks (no more than 56 cruise missiles). Moreover, the priority task of these ships is air defense, hence the standard ammunition load of the destroyers looks like this: 74 Standard SAM missiles, 8 anti-submarine missile-torpedoes and only 8 Tomahawks.
Simple answers to complex questions
Probably, I tired the readers with my numbers, so I will allow a little lyrics now. The very name AUG - an aircraft carrier strike group - is a figment of the imagination of Soviet translators. The original name of this structure is the carrier battle group (a battle group that includes an aircraft carrier) without placing any accents - "shock" or "defensive". Indeed, the AUG is multifunctional, it has an enormous strike and defensive potential, it has high mobility and is capable of controlling the sea and air situation hundreds of miles from its order.
The only unique component of the AUG is the aircraft carrier, and all its destroyers, cruisers and submarines are standard components of any navy, so the question "How much does the AUG cost?" - is incorrect. It would be more correct to speak of an increase in the Navy's expenditures when aircraft carriers are included in its composition.
AUG is just a tactic, the result of the close interaction of its ships. AUG summarizes the capabilities of all surface and submarine ships included in its composition, while all components of the AUG receive new properties and multiply their combat qualities. Ships and carrier-based aircraft cover each other, creating defense in depth in all directions.
Hence, the answer to another question follows - why, along with the "invincible" aircraft carrier, there is a numerous escort everywhere (4-5 destroyers and URO cruisers, as well as several multipurpose nuclear submarines). Weakness of an aircraft carrier?
Not at all. The US Navy works only in a "bundle", and really - why should the ships go alone, if you can form a decent squadron? Everyone benefits from this. The aircraft carrier receives air defense and anti-aircraft defense in the near zone, and escort ships receive cover from carrier-based aircraft. As the Russian proverb says: "One is not a warrior in the field."
Perhaps, with the development of air defense systems in the near future, it will become too risky to appear over the battlefield in the cockpit. Does this imply a decline in the role of aviation?
The trend can be traced well now - more and more often the tasks of manned aviation are duplicated by unmanned aerial vehicles. The primitive RQ-1 Predator has been taking part in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for 10 years. Predator started his career with simple reconnaissance missions, but now new modifications of the MQ-1 are already ruthlessly beating the Taliban with Hellfires.
On July 2, 2011, the F / A-18 Hornet fighter-bomber landed on the deck of the Eisenhower aircraft carrier in unmanned mode.
Finally, do not forget that 70% of the world's population lives no more than 500 km from the coastline.
Russian way
If Russia wants to become the "ruler of the sea", controlling the situation in all 5 oceans. If Russia wants to become a "world policeman", projecting its power anywhere in the world.
If it becomes necessary to constantly monitor the US Navy aircraft carrier groups in the World Ocean (as it was in the Soviet years), in all these cases it will be necessary to build an ocean-going fleet, the backbone of which will be aircraft carriers. All other options and "asymmetric answers" are obviously losing. The Soviet missiles P-700 "Granit" were good, but … they need the Maritime Space Reconnaissance and Targeting System, the operation of which requires half a billion dollars a year (ideally), in reality it could well have gone off scale for 1 billion!
More about this problem -
If Russia is ready to confine itself to its "defensive" concept of the development of the Armed Forces, then the reader will forgive me for the seditious thought, but maybe the Russian Navy does not need such a powerful tool as an aircraft carrier at all? The construction of 1-2 aircraft-carrying ships is pointless, America has 12 units, incomparably more. Moreover, in this case, the whole meaning of the ocean-going fleet is lost, without an aircraft carrier it is pure profanation. There is no need to build cruisers and other large ships. To demonstrate the flag and support the World community in the fight against piracy, a few ships of the "frigate" and "destroyer" classes are enough, and to ensure Strategic nuclear deterrence - a dozen submarine missile carriers of the "Borei" class.
After all, do the Russians want wars? The answer was always a resounding "No!"
