In previous articles, we outlined the basics of tactics of carrier-based aviation and briefly "ran" through the characteristics of its aircraft, thereby obtaining the necessary data to analyze the capabilities of the ships we are comparing, that is, the aircraft carriers Gerald R. Ford, Charles de Gaulle, Queen Elizabeth "And the aircraft carrier" Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov "or simply" Kuznetsov ".
Without a doubt, the Gerald R. Ford air group has the best capabilities to provide air defense for the formation and solve strike missions against ground and sea targets, if only because its air wing is the most balanced in comparison with the air groups of other ships. Only among the Americans, along with multipurpose fighters, AWACS and electronic warfare aircraft are included in their composition.
As we saw from the analysis of tactics, electronic warfare aircraft are an extremely important means of illuminating the situation and combating air and sea targets; their presence gives the air group a significant advantage. At the same time, to date, only American aircraft carriers have electronic warfare carrier-based aircraft. Theoretically, probably, nothing prevents France from acquiring a squadron of "Growlers" from the United States, they may well be based on "Charles de Gaulle", but in practice, given the relatively low European costs of the armed forces, such a step seems absolutely incredible. Let's not forget that all the French air forces have only two electronic reconnaissance aircraft converted from the military transport aircraft C-160, and in these conditions, the replenishment of the air group of the only French aircraft carrier with electronic warfare aircraft looks like an obvious waste.
In the domestic fleet, the creation of such an aircraft has not yet been announced, and, frankly, this is unlikely to happen in the near future, but on the deck of the Queen Elizabeth it is impossible to land the Growler in principle - it needs a catapult and aerofinishers, which the British there is no aircraft carrier. Accordingly, it can be assumed that the British will have electronic warfare aircraft only after such an aircraft is created on the basis of the F-35, as at one time the "Growler" was created on the basis of the F / A-18. However, there are no such plans yet, and if they do arise, then most likely the electronic warfare aircraft will be created on the basis of the ejection F-35C, and will not be suitable for use on the Queen Elizabeth.
As for AWACS aircraft, apart from Gerald Ford, only Charles de Gaulle has them, which undoubtedly significantly expands the capabilities of the French aircraft carrier. In total, the French Navy has three E-2C aircraft, and, subject to their technical serviceability, they may well be based on a French aircraft carrier at the same time.
Thus, the rating for solving air defense problems is distributed as follows:
1st place - of course, "Gerald R. Ford".
Most aircraft are on the flight deck, the maximum climb speed of the air group and, of course, the most balanced air group. The ability to provide round-the-clock duty of one, and, if necessary, even two air patrols, which include AWACS and EW aircraft. True, the "Super Hornets" currently in service with the F / A-18E / F are perhaps inferior to both the Rafals and the MiG-29KR in terms of their combat "fighter" capabilities, but nevertheless, this lag can be compensated for by a larger number and better situational awareness provided by AWACS and electronic warfare aircraft, and in addition, F-35Cs are expected on the deck of the Gerald R. Ford in the near future.
2nd place - "Charles de Gaulle" - occupying the third place in terms of the speed of ascent of the avagroup, he, nevertheless, has excellent "Raphael M", which in terms of their fighting qualities of a fighter are not much inferior to, and in some ways are superior to, the MiG-29KR …
But its most important trump card, of course, is the presence of AWACS aircraft.
3rd place, according to the author of this article, should be given to "Kuznetsov".
Let us consider the capabilities of Queen Elizabeth and Kuznetsov in relation to two possible tasks for their carrier-based wing - providing air defense of the allied forces at a considerable distance from the aircraft carrier and ensuring the combat stability of the AMG (aircraft carrier multipurpose group), which includes the aircraft carrier (TAKR).
So, in the case of remote cover (for example, the search area of an enemy submarine by a land-based anti-submarine aviation group, or support for an attack by missile-carrying aircraft of an enemy group of ships), Kuznetsov, perhaps, has an advantage due to the fact that MiG-29KR with suspended tanks have more than two-fold superiority in combat radius than the F-35B. The latter can also use PTBs, but in this case their advantage in "invisibility" is significantly reduced, and in addition, even with suspended tanks, their combat radius will still be significantly smaller. The MiG-29KR has 2,000 km of practical range without PTBs, 3,000 with three PTBs and 4,000 with five. The F-35B, as far as the author knows, cannot carry more than 2 PTBs (the data needs to be clarified), and in this case, its fuel supply increases by less than 38%, which obviously cannot provide the aircraft with a two-fold increase in range, which is the case from the MiG-29KR. True, one should not forget that the MiG-29KR with PTB can only take off from the third (farthest) take-off position, and with such a start, the advantage of Kuznetsov over Queen Elizabeth in the speed of the air group's ascent is completely leveled. In addition, we must not forget that the F-35B have more powerful radars and, perhaps (but far from the fact), means of observation in the infrared range, which gives them certain advantages, however, according to the author of this article, the flight range in in this case, it is still decisive.
As for ensuring the combat stability of the AMG, here the British aircraft carrier has a certain advantage due to the basing on it of 4-5 Sea King ASaC Mk7 AWACS helicopters, and in the future - the newest Crowsnest AWACS helicopters. However, the latter, for reasons of budgetary savings, will receive an obsolete Thales Searchwater 2000AEW radar. Nevertheless, this is noticeably better than the state of affairs at Kuznetsov - the only Ka-31 pair in the Russian Federation has not been assigned to its air group, and there is no information about the development of a new deck-based AWACS helicopter.
However, the limited capabilities of AWACS helicopters seriously reduce the usefulness of this weapon system. So, for example, the presence of 4-5 such helicopters in general allows the British to provide, if not round-the-clock air patrol, then close to it. But is it really necessary for the connection of British ships? What is good about the AWACS E-2C or E-2D "Hawkeye" or "Edvanst Hawkeye"? First of all - the huge duration of the flight, which allows him to patrol for hours at a distance of 250-300 km from the aircraft carrier. Here, the command also has a choice - to use the aircraft in passive mode (fortunately, its capabilities for electronic intelligence are very large) or in active mode. But even an active search for the radar does not unmask the AUG too much - the enemy, no doubt, is able to detect the radiation of the most powerful station "Edvanst Hokaya", but this will give only very rough information about the location of the American order. The same applies to the French Charles de Gaulle.
But the AWACS helicopter, due to a much shorter patrol time and lower speed, can only effectively work directly above the decks of the ship group, or at the very insignificant distance from it. Moreover, its radar is much weaker than that of the AWACS aircraft. Thus, identifying the coordinates of a helicopter with a working radar will tell you the location of the enemy AMG / AUG very accurately, but the chances that this helicopter will find something there are rather doubtful. As a matter of fact, being guided by the radiation of the radar of the AWACS helicopter, a modern strike group, which includes AWACS and EW aircraft, will probably be able to plot the flight route so as to launch an attack bypassing the air patrol with the AWACS helicopter.
Nevertheless, and in spite of all of the above, the presence of opportunities is always better than their absence, even if these opportunities do not boggle the imagination. And therefore, the presence of 4-5 AWACS helicopters must be recorded as the merits of the British aircraft carrier: it is simply not worth exaggerating their usefulness - such an air group still will not provide any overwhelming tactical advantage over a pair of Ka-31s.
But further on, “Queen Elizabeth” begins to have solid shortcomings. The rate of climb of its air group is the worst among all the aircraft carriers we compare. According to our calculations, "Kuznetsov" is capable of lifting on average up to 1 aircraft per minute, while the British aircraft carrier has this figure at least one and a half times worse. So, in the absence of reliable and "long-range" means of detecting an air threat (which, alas, both Kuznetsov and Queen Elizabeth are guilty of) there is a huge risk of detecting enemy aircraft preparing for an attack, when there is very little time left before the attack. under these conditions, the rate of rise of fighters into the air becomes an arching characteristic. And here, as we can see, the British aircraft carrier loses to Kuznetsov with a bang.
You can, of course, remember that British aircraft are capable of taking off in full combat load, but at Kuznetsov only one aircraft out of three can do this, because the MiG-29KR can take off from the first and second starting positions not from the maximum, but only with normal takeoff weight. However, strange as it may sound, in the event of a repulse of an enemy air attack on the ship's order, this will not be a disadvantage of our aircraft carrier. The thing is that a full supply of fuel (and, moreover, PTB) leads to a drop in the maneuverable characteristics of a multipurpose fighter, and if suddenly the means of radio reconnaissance of a ship formation find that the "enemy is at the gate" and an air battle will begin in a quarter of an hour, then there is no point in raising planes with a full fuel supply - on the contrary, incomplete refueling will allow them to fight in the best "weight configuration".
As for the quality of multipurpose aircraft, the author of this article would venture to assert that in air combat the F-35B and the MiG-29KR are roughly equivalent.
On the one hand, of course, "stealth" and powerful radar give the F-35B an undoubted advantage at long and medium-range air combat. However, long-range air combat (DVB) has not yet become the main form of warfare in the air, and this is despite the fact that American and European multipurpose fighters, as a rule, fought in range conditions, when their actions were supported by AWACS aircraft and electronic warfare, but the enemy had nothing of the kind. In addition, as a rule, hostilities were conducted under the conditions of the overwhelming superiority of the US (European) Air Force, both in the number of aircraft and in the quality of pilot training, despite the fact that their aircraft were equipped with the best equipment (for example, as a rule, the fighters of their opponents did not had modern means of electronic warfare). At the same time, the MiG-29KR is equipped with sufficiently modern equipment (electronic warfare, OLS, etc.), and they are piloted by real professionals in their field, and this, in the author's opinion, means that the chances that the brainchild of the American aviation industry “overlap” »MiG-29KR long-range airborne missiles tend to zero from afar.
At the same time, in close air combat (BVB) MG-29KR will have a tangible advantage over the F-35B due to better maneuverability. Thus, we can assume that, all other things being equal, at the stage of the exchange of missile strikes from long and medium distances, the F-35V will have a certain advantage and, for sure, will achieve greater success than the MiG-29KR, however, when moving to the BVB, the advantage will be gained already domestic fighters. The author of this article believes (without insisting on his opinion as the only correct one) that the indicated advantages and disadvantages mutually compensate each other and make it possible to speak about the parity of these aircraft in air combat.
And, finally, as the British say: "Last but not least" (last but not least) is the ship's ability to defend itself: here, again, the advantage of Kuznetsov over Queen Elizabeth is simply overwhelming. The aircraft carrier is armed with the Kinzhal air defense system, numerous Kortik air defense systems and AK-630 - according to rumors, during the current repair the ship will receive the Poliment-Redut and Pantsiri. All this, of course, does not make it invulnerable to enemy aircraft attacks, but it provides excellent anti-missile defense capabilities (meaning, of course, protection from anti-ship and anti-radar, and not from ballistic intercontinental missiles). At the same time, Queen Elizabeth's armament is represented only by artillery - these are three 20-mm Vulcan-Falanx installations and, in general, everything, since the remaining means: 4 30-mm DS30M Mk2 assault rifles and a number of machine guns are unable to intercept missiles, and are focused, by and large, at repelling "alternative" threats (say, terrorist attacks using boats).
I must say that during an air attack of the warrant, the aircraft carrier (TAKR) will be the priority target, it will be they who will try to destroy or incapacitate in the first place. And here, the developed anti-aircraft (primarily anti-missile) defense will allow the aircraft carrier (TAKR) to hold out longer, maintain its combat effectiveness and the ability to lift and receive carrier-based aircraft. Of course, the usefulness of all this cannot be overemphasized.
Interestingly, contrary to popular belief, French and American aircraft carriers have fairly decent air defense systems. So, for example, "Charles de Gaulle" is armed with two 6-charge launchers of Sadral air defense systems, two 16-charge vertical missile launchers A50 of the Aster-15 air defense system and eight single-barreled 20-mm gun mounts GIAT-20F2. Data on "Gerald R. Ford" are somewhat different: according to one of the options, its air defense consists of two RAM systems, the same amount of RIM-162 ESSM air defense systems; as well as two CIWS Phalanxes. In general, the air defense of the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov" is the most powerful among the other aircraft carriers (according to some reports, there are problems with aiming the "Daggers" at the target, but they are likely to either be corrected during the modernization, or the complex itself will be replaced by the "Polyment- Redoubt "), but this does not mean that there is no air defense on the French and American ships: in fact, only Queen Elizabeth stands out among the other ships we compare with extreme weakness in this regard. There is no doubt that this weakness is dictated by budgetary restrictions, and by no means by the concept of using a British aircraft carrier.
All of the above allows us to "award" the honorable third (or the least honorable penultimate, it really depends on the point of view) place "Kuznetsov" and consider the British "Queen Elizabeth" the weakest ship in terms of performing air defense missions.
As for the performance of shock functions, the rating here will greatly depend on what kind of combat means are taken into account. Let us first consider the capabilities of carrier-based aircraft of the aircraft carriers we are comparing.
Undoubtedly, the American aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford should be awarded the palm in the performance of strike missions. The reasons are the same - the ability to send on a mission the maximum number of aircraft in comparison with other aircraft carrying ships, the balance of the air group (AWACS and EW aircraft).
The second place (as in the previous rating) is held by "Charles de Gaulle" - its air group has a comparable number with that of the British aircraft carrier and the Russian aircraft carrier payload), and the presence of AWACS aircraft makes it possible to plan and carry out an attack much better than the aircraft of a British aircraft carrier can do.
The third place will be occupied by the British "Queen Elizabeth". Despite the limited range of the F-35V, thanks to its latest avionics and stealth, they will have a definite advantage in finding enemy surface forces (or attacking ground forces) over the domestic MiG-29KR. The best maneuverability of the RSK MiG aircraft will not be a significant factor when performing strike missions and will not be able to compensate for the advantages of the F-35V.
Accordingly, we can state that the Kuznetsov air group gets the last, fourth place. However, at the disposal of the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov" there is a "joker in the sleeve" - a dozen anti-ship missiles "Granit".
More precisely, according to the information available to the author of this article, Kuznetsov does not have "Granites", but "had", since the missile system control was disabled during the operation of the ship (this is absolutely certain) and up to the present not put into operation (but this information needs to be clarified). If the complex is currently not operational, then the chances of returning it to operation during the ongoing modernization are more than doubtful - whatever one may say, but this is a costly business, and the Granites expire and new missiles of this type are not being produced. The information that Calibers will be installed on the ship instead of Granites, alas, in the memory of the author of this article never came from serious sources. But even if such a replacement was originally planned, now, due to the reduction in military expenditures, this "option" will definitely not be included in the cost of repairing our only aircraft carrier ship.
Thus, it is extremely doubtful that Kuznetsov has, or will have in the future, strike missile weapons, but … let's still try to figure out for the sake of completeness what advantages it could give (and did until Granit was withdrawn out of order), and also consider how and what the presence of the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov" will affect in a battle against a typical US AUG.
