Today's article, being a continuation of the topic “How are Kamikaze and P-700“Granite”similar, will be built in the mode of dialogue with readers. I will try to answer some of the most interesting, in my opinion, questions to the best of my competence.
For example, one of their questions sounded like this: "… a full-fledged military airfield (with shelters for aircraft, stocks of weapons and fuels and lubricants, with air defense cover) is expensive … how many airfields can be built instead of one aircraft carrier?"
Since October 2010, the issue of building a third runway for the Moscow Domodedovo airport has been under consideration. The announced price of the new strip was $ 1 billion. A similar runway-3 project at Sheremetyevo Airport is even more expensive - about $ 1.5 billion. Despite the seeming irrationality, such a high cost is justified - this is a common world practice, it is not cheaper to build a good runway. Runway-3 project of Sheremetyevo airport is much more expensive, because provides for the transfer of the village of Isakovo and the construction of water overflow structures for the river. Klyazma. What is the WFP-3 project in technical terms? No, it is not covered with gold - an ordinary reinforced concrete strip 3200 … 3600 meters long, with markings and lighting equipment applied on it. I hope, after the announcement of these numbers, the enthusiasm of the fans of land airfields and asymmetric responses will diminish a little.
But maybe a military airfield doesn't need such a long and expensive runway? Trying to figure it out. So, the Su-27 fighter: takeoff / run range - 600 … 800 meters. Supersonic bomber-missile carrier Tu-22M3: take-off length 2000 meters, run - 1300 m. Long-range bomber-missile carrier Tu-95: run length 2700 meters, run - 1700 m. So it will hardly be possible to radically reduce the length of the runway …
How much more taxiways, caponiers or closed hangars will cost (no one is going to leave planes to rust in the open air, right?), Ammunition storage, spare parts and lubricants, premises for personnel, airfield equipment, command post, radio and electronic equipment, system We can only guess at the protection of the airfield … Indirectly, the huge cost of such objects is indicated by their relatively small number - airbases can be counted on one hand. And the cost of operating airfields somewhere in Kamchatka or the Kuril Islands will be compared with the cost of servicing the AUG.
Well, a few general phrases to complete the chapter. I am not an insane fan of carrier-based aircraft and do not propose to place an aircraft carrier in the Moscow River instead of building RWY-3 at Domodedovo airport. The point is, for some tasks, in some cases, the cost of an aircraft carrier may be preferable to a land airfield.
In the water … drowning
Many readers wondered why carrier-based aircraft so easily destroy any non-aircraft carrier, while the aircraft carrier itself remains immune to the same weapons. The answer is simple - first, it's all about size. Even the largest non-aircraft-carrying ships in the world - TARKR pr. 1144 have a total displacement of about 26,000 tons, which is only 25% of the displacement of an aircraft carrier of the "Nimitz" class. This determines the capabilities of the ship in the fight for survivability.
How, then, did the giant Yamato or Musashi die? It is even easier with them - they could not reach the range of using their weapons, having fallen under the blows of deck bombers. With each attack, battleships' damage accumulated until they reached a critical level.
Of course, everything is not so simple. Much depends on the design of the ship, its technical condition and crew training. Here's a great example:
On the night of November 29, 1944, the USS Archer-Fish attacked Shinano, the largest aircraft carrier of the Second World War, with a total displacement of 70,000 tons. The target was hit by 4 torpedoes, after 7 hours the Japanese aircraft carrier sank. Only 17 hours passed since he went out on his first military campaign (!)
After the torpedo attack, the Shinano retained its speed and combat effectiveness. But the water began to quickly spread throughout the aircraft carrier's premises, the ship lost power and began to lurch to one side. Everything is explained by the fact that "Shinano" was urgently introduced into the Imperial Navy, despite the mass of imperfections (for example, the sealed bulkheads were not pressurized). The personnel first stepped on the deck of the ship a few days ago - the sailors were not familiar with the plan of the interior and did not know what to do. To put it simply, the unfinished and untested aircraft carrier was not ready.
On fire … burning
Many were surprised by the possibility of comparing modern weapons with kamikaze attacks during World War II. Let's return to this story again. What was a standard kamikaze? A worn-out "Zero" with a 250 kg bomb under one wing and a PTB under the other. Soon, an "advanced" version of the kamikaze appeared - the Yokosuka MXY7 "Oka" jet projectile: 1000 … 1500 kilograms of explosives at transonic speed. The control system is nowhere more reliable. A living person means both target selection, anti-aircraft maneuvers, and a rocket leader …
After the first attacks by the kamikaze, it became clear that the attack aircraft carrier could not be sunk by a suicidal attack. Japanese pilots changed their tactics - now strikes were delivered to the most sensitive places: aircraft lifts and congestions of aircraft on the deck. As a result, Bunker Hill became the only major aircraft carrier to be seriously affected by the kamikaze attack. Two kamikaze, exploding in the midst of aircraft on the deck, caused many hours of fire and three hundred killed sailors.
In Leyte Gulf, the kamikaze were more fortunate - they still managed to sink the aircraft carrier Saint-Lo. What is the secret of success? The Saint Lo was an 8,000-ton escort aircraft carrier. The Japanese did not manage to destroy the strike aircraft carrier, despite numerous attempts.
It should be noted that the first American aircraft carrier with an armored deck (the Midway class) appeared only in 1946. Therefore, some kamikazes pierced the flight deck and disappeared in a blinding flash inside the ship's hull. There is no doubt about the penetrating power of the same Oka: on April 12, 1945, the destroyer USS Stanley was pierced through by such a "trick" - which saved him - the Oka, having flown out of the hull, detonated at some distance from the destroyer.
Zippo
Sometimes an example of the unsatisfactory survivability of an aircraft carrier is the case of a fire on the aircraft carrier Forrestal. On July 29, 1967, at about 10:50 am local time, a 127 mm Mk 32 "Zuni" rocket went off unexpectedly due to a power surge when switching from an external power source to an internal one. The missile flew over the flight deck and hit the PTB under the wing of the A-4 Skyhawk attack aircraft. The tank was ripped off the wing and the JP-5 fuel ignited. The fuel tanks of other aircraft exploded from overheating, and the flames spread across the deck. 9 bombs detonated, flying shrapnel killed the fire brigade. Explosions punched holes in the armored deck through which burning fuel began to drain into the interior and onto the hangar deck. The fire was extinguished 14 hours later. 134 people were killed. The fire destroyed the stern of the aircraft carrier, out of 90 aircraft, 21 burned down and were thrown overboard.
The main culprit of the fire is always called the Zuni unguided rocket - indeed, I wonder how this little thing caused such damage. Although, this is not entirely true. If you look in detail at ANY major accident, the cause will always be some trifle - a spark, a microcrack, someone's negligence. Suffice it to recall the fire at the Yekaterinburg SSBN - a broken ceiling and a safety violation led to billions of dollars in damage. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that only “Zuni” is to blame. This is the specifics of the work of carrier-based aviation, so sometimes such cases occur.
Brisance
Most of us find it difficult to imagine the explosion of hundreds of kilograms of explosives. An extremely tenacious myth is that the detonation of such an amount of a hellish mixture is like a universal apocalypse, burning everything in its path. Let's turn to facts from the history of military conflicts.
For example, the triumphant sinking of the destroyer Eilat. On the evening of October 21, 1967, the destroyer received a P-15 "Termit" anti-ship missile system, fired from an Egyptian boat, into the superstructure. A second later, a second missile pierced the side and destroyed the engine room. The blazing destroyer lost speed and power. A minute later, the third rocket crashed into the stern, and the crew left the doomed ship. As soon as the rafts rolled away from the capsizing ship, the fourth rocket hit the bottom and the Eilat went to the bottom to feed the fish. Of the 200 crew members, 47 sailors were killed.
The P-15 Termit is a Soviet-made anti-ship missile. The starting weight is 2.5 tons. Cruising speed - 0.95M. Warhead weight - 500 kg. "Eilat" - former British destroyer HMS Zealous, built in 1944, displacement - 1700 tons.
The result is very strange: to sink a ship with a displacement of 1700 tons, it took at least 2 hits from anti-ship missiles with a 500-kg warhead!
The following story took place on August 30, 1974 in the Sevastopol region. As a result of the fire in the aft rocket cellar, the Otvazhny BPK died. In total, there were 15 Volna missiles in 2 drums. What is the B-600 anti-aircraft missile? The first stage is a PRD-36 powder jet engine, equipped with 14 cylindrical powder bombs, with a total weight of 280 kg. The second stage is a rocket made according to the aerodynamic "canard" configuration with cruciform wings and rudders. The second stage engine is equipped with a 125 kg powder bunk. The warhead of the rocket is high-explosive fragmentation, with ready-made submunitions. The total weight of the warhead is 60 kg, of which 32 kg are an alloy of TNT with hexogen and 22 kg are damaging elements.
As a result, 6,000 kg of gunpowder and 480 kg of explosives were detonated almost simultaneously in the BOD's aft cellar! But the ship with a displacement of 5,000 tons did not turn into dust or even fall apart. More than 5 hours passed from the moment of the explosion to the sinking of the ship, all this time the crew fought for the survivability of the ship. The fire spread through the compartments until it reached the depth charges and the aviation kerosene tank.
BOD "Brave", despite the fact that it was doomed, showed excellent survivability. As a result of a terrible in-vessel explosion, only 19 people from the ship's crew were killed.
Based on these facts, we can draw the following conclusion: the explosions of anti-ship missile warheads containing hundreds of kilograms of explosives, despite their colossal power, cannot inflict guaranteed critical damage even to small ships.
Final theme
Judging by the numerous reviews, many readers in their arguments repeated the mistake of the Soviet naval command. After all, the main thing for which the Fleet was created is not the destruction of the AUG. And not even the fight against submarine strategic missile carriers.
The main task of the Navy, in the broadest sense, has always been to promote the success of the ground forces. Tsar Peter still understood this when he took Azov. And the most efficient way to cope with this task is the fleet, which includes aircraft carrier ships.
Aircraft carriers are not omnipotent, with the proper approach, at the cost of serious losses, they can be destroyed. And in the Third World War, aircraft carriers are likely to be useless (for example, the Americans always deny the presence of atomic weapons on their decks, and the last specialized carrier-based carrier of thermonuclear charges A-5 Vijlente was created in the late 50s.) AUG is a tool for everyday life. use, the best means for local wars, the protection of sea communications, and the solution of other, equally important tasks, in the interests of their country.
Indeed, as one of the readers rightly noted, in today's realities it is preferable for the Russian Navy to have 10 frigates than 1 aircraft carrier. But Russians have a future. Isn't it time to start thinking about him today?
