In the previous article, we compared the aircraft carrier Kuznetsov with the aircraft carriers of NATO countries in such important parameters as the maximum number of aircraft in readiness for departure and the rate of climb of air groups. Recall that according to the analysis, Gerald R. Ford was expected to take the first place (it would be difficult to count on a different result), the second place was shared by the Frenchman Charles de Gaulle and the British Queen Elizabeth, the third place was taken by the TAKR "Kuznetsov". However, thanks to the feedback received from readers and competent comments on the article (a separate and very big thanks to the respected find2312), it became possible to revise and refine the resulting rating.
Earlier we estimated the climb rate of the Gerald R. Ford air group (from the position in which the aircraft located on the deck initially block one of the four catapults) at least 35 aircraft in 25 minutes and up to 45 aircraft in half an hour. According to our calculations, Charles de Gaulle is capable of lifting 22-24 aircraft in 30 minutes - all these indicators remain unchanged. But the author's earlier opinion that Queen Elizabeth is capable of taking off twenty-four F-35Bs in half an hour from one runway was most likely overly optimistic for the British, and the point is this.
In order for the F-35B to take off, it, like the carrier-based aircraft of other aircraft carriers, needs to take place at the starting position. At the same time, it can do this much faster than the Super Hornet or the Su-33, because the VTOL aircraft does not need to taxi exactly to the catapult or to the delays preventing the premature launch of Russian aircraft. That is, it is easier to take the starting position of the F-35B, but then, it must stop, get permission to start and, most importantly, "accelerate" the "propeller" that replaces the American VTOL aircraft with lifting engines. So, the author of this article believed that this was a matter of seconds, but looking more closely at the shooting of the F-35B takeoff from the springboard or with a short takeoff run, he discovered that this may not be the case at all. It seems that when filming VTOL takeoff, the time it takes to “spin up” the propeller is simply cut out of the frame so as not to tire the viewers - here the plane gets to the starting position, opens the hatches … and then the angle changes dramatically and rppraz! The plane takes off. However, in the only video that the author managed to find and where the process of preparing for takeoff at the starting position is captured, let's say, in a more complete volume (it looks like clippings are present there as well), it takes not seconds, but tens of seconds.
Accordingly, it should be assumed that the real takeoff rates may be significantly lower than the expected ones and amount to one takeoff in 1.5 minutes or more. And this gives us the rise of 20 planes in 30 minutes, or even less of them, thus "Queen Elizabeth", apparently, is still inferior to the "Charles de Gaulle".
So, in the previous article we overestimated the results of the British aircraft carrier, but the capabilities of the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov" were underestimated. We assumed that Kuznetsov could send three planes into the air in 4.5-5 minutes, this assumption was based on two assumptions:
1. It was assumed that the time from the start of taxiing to the moment the aircraft starts (that is, the start of its movement after the delayers holding the aircraft with the engine running at the starting position) for the Su-33 and MiG-29K is approximately equal to the time that passes for the American and French aircraft at the ejection start. But this turned out to be an erroneous assumption - the fact is that it is still easier to take the starting position during a springboard start (that is, taxiing the plane to the detainees) than with an ejection one - the plane should be directed there with greater accuracy. At the same time, the very procedure of "hitching" to the catapult is more complicated and longer than putting the engine on afterburner during a springboard start. Thus, the procedure for taking off from a springboard is still somewhat faster than from a catapult;
2. It should be borne in mind that, although the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov" has as many as three starting positions, there is only one springboard, so the aircraft will have to take off from it in turn. We assumed that if three planes took their starting positions, it would take at least one and a half minutes from the moment the first plane took off, before the third one took off from the springboard. But that turned out to be an erroneous assumption. Films taken during the combat service of the aircraft carrier in 1995-1996 in the Mediterranean Sea demonstrate a similar takeoff twice (see video from 2:46:46), while the first time it took 33 to lift three aircraft into the air, and the second times - 37 seconds.
We assumed earlier that Kuznetsov was capable of sending 3 planes into flight every 4.5-5 minutes, which made it possible to lift only 18-20 planes in half an hour. However, taking into account the above, the above time should be reduced to a maximum of 3-3.5 minutes (2.5 minutes for taxiing to the launch pad, "warming up" of the engines and other preparation for the launch of three aircraft simultaneously, and 35-40 seconds on their sequential start), which means that the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov" is quite capable of lifting up to 30 aircraft into the air in half an hour. Consequently, the "table of ranks" in terms of the rate of climb of the air group changes as follows:
First place - alas - Gerald R. Ford - up to 45 aircraft in 30 minutes.
Second place - "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" - up to 30 aircraft in 30 minutes.
Third place - "Charles de Gaulle" - 22-24 aircraft in 30 minutes.
Fourth place - Queen Elizabeth - 18-20 aircraft in 30 minutes.
However, one should not forget that the high "rate of climb" of the aircraft group of the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov" was achieved thanks to the use of all three starting positions, despite the fact that from the first two of them the aircraft cannot take off at maximum load. Both the Su-33 and the MiG-29KR can take off with a maximum take-off weight only from the third, "long" position (195, according to other sources - 180 m). The first and second launch positions, providing for a takeoff run of only 105 (or 90) m, provide for the takeoff of the Su-33 and MiG-29KR / KUBR only with a normal takeoff weight. If it is necessary to lift aircraft with a full supply of fuel, then only the third position will have to be used for this. As we have already said, the steam catapult of aircraft carriers of the "Nimitz" type is capable of sending one aircraft into the sky every 2, 2-2, 5 minutes, but even if we assume that the aircraft carrier will be able to lift an aircraft from one position every two minutes, then in this case too (subject to the advance placement of one aircraft at the starting position) in half an hour, it will be possible to ensure the takeoff of no more than 16 aircraft.
In the previous article, we determined the maximum number of aircraft that can be accommodated on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov" in 18-20 aircraft. This is probably a fair estimate for the Su-33, but it should be borne in mind that the MiG-29KR and KUBR are much more modest in size. So, for example, in the photographs we see that on the flight deck, in one of the "technical" zones located in the stern of the second aircraft lift, it is possible to "ram" four Su-33s with folded wings
At the same time, they are located there quite densely. At the same time, the MiG-29KR / KUBR in the same place "feels" much freer
And this is even despite the fact that two of the four aircraft have wings that are not folded! In addition, in the previous article, concern was expressed about the possibility of placing an aircraft ready for takeoff on the first aircraft lift, that is, in fact, immediately behind the gas shield of one of the bow launch positions. Judging by the photo
It's still possible.
In other words, with appropriate training, the Kuznetsov aircraft carrier is quite capable of ensuring the "operation" of the MiG-29KR / KUBR air regiment consisting of 24 aircraft, or a smaller number of them, but with additional Su-33s, placing them completely on the flight deck and without resorting to This is for the storage of fueled aircraft with weapons in the hangar of the ship.
At the same time, talking about the British aircraft carrier, we came to the conclusion that its flight deck is quite enough to accommodate all 40 aircraft of its air group. This was due to the fact that Queen Elizabeth did not have a large landing strip required for aircraft carriers with horizontal take-off and landing aircraft - for a VTOL landing a rather small area of the site, on domestic aircraft carriers it was 100 square meters. m (10x10 m). But we lost sight of the fact that such a site should still have a significant safety zone, because when a VTOL aircraft lands, anything can happen - sometimes it happens that a plane landing vertically, after touching the deck landing gear, does not stop, but begins to move along it. In view of the above, we can not accurately estimate the area required for the landing of VTOL aircraft, and hence the number of aircraft that can be placed on the deck of the Queen Elizabeth. However, there is no doubt that their number will exceed that of the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov" - even if the runway and the central part of the flight deck are completely vacated, only on the right and left sides (to the left of the runway and to the right - in the area of superstructures) by more than enough room to accommodate 24 F-35Bs.
Well, the work on the mistakes of the previous part is over (you can start producing new ones). Now let's pay a little attention to landing operations. In principle, the landing speed of aircraft on the decks of Gerald R. Ford, Charles de Gaulle and Kuznetsov is quite similar, because all three ships land according to the same scenario and using the same equipment - the plane enters the ship, touches the deck and engages the air arrestor, which slows down its speed to zero, and then taxies from the landing strip into the technical area. At the same time, only one aircraft can land at a time. Trained pilots are quite capable of landing their squadrons at a speed of one plane per minute, in bad weather conditions - in one and a half minutes, and, in general, even taking into account the inevitable errors in piloting (repeated calls), these aircraft carriers are quite capable of accepting 20-30 aircraft for half an hour. But questions remain about the British aircraft carrier.
On the one hand, it has two seats, and in theory, it is probably capable of receiving two aircraft at the same time (whether this is possible in practice is a big question). But the procedure for landing a VTOL aircraft itself is much more time-consuming than landing a conventional aircraft using an aerofinisher. The latter makes a landing at a speed of just over 200 km per hour, and the landing lasts a few seconds, after which the plane leaves the landing strip. At the same time, the VTOL aircraft must slowly fly up to the aircraft carrier, equalize its speed with the speed of the ship, and then slowly descend to the deck, after which it, like the horizontal takeoff aircraft, clears the landing site. It is possible, of course, that the two landing sites will provide a landing speed comparable to that of classic aircraft carriers, but the author is not sure of this.
Let's consider another aspect of takeoff and landing operations - their simultaneous implementation. American "Gerald R. Ford" has the ability to simultaneously receive and release aircraft - of course, two catapults located on the left side cannot work, but it retains the ability to use two bow catapults - of course, except for those cases, of course, when they " stuffed with "planes. The aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov" is also quite adapted to such work, but it will have certain difficulties with the use of starting positions. The one located on the starboard side (next to the superstructure and the aircraft lift) can be used unselected, but in order for the aircraft to take the second "short" position, it must briefly enter the runway, which is hardly acceptable during landing operations. Nevertheless, and with certain reservations, the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov" is capable of simultaneously receiving and producing aircraft. The same is true for Queen Elizabeth - there is no reason why the F-35B could not simultaneously take off from the springboard and land on the appropriate sections of the flight deck.
But "Charles de Gaulle", alas, is unable to simultaneously receive and release aircraft. The small size of their ship played against the French here (of all the aircraft-carrying ships we compare, it is the smallest). The need to have a landing strip "like on large" aircraft carriers and large "technical" areas, where the planes will prepare for departure or wait for their turn, did not leave the designers with free space for catapults. As a result, both launch sites had to be located on the landing strip, which does not allow their use when performing landing operations.
But, of course, not by single takeoff and landing operations … Let us consider the ability of each aircraft carrier to support the operations of its air groups.
As you know, the number of the crew of a modern aircraft carrier is divided into two categories: this is the ship's crew, which ensures the normal functioning of all its systems, and the air personnel responsible for the maintenance and operation of aircraft based on it. We are, of course, interested in the air personnel. The number of the latter on the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford reaches 2,480 people. On the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov" - 626 people. Queen Elizabeth employs 900 people, Charles de Gaulle - 600 people. If we recalculate the number of aircraft personnel per aircraft (rounded to the nearest integer), we get:
Gerald R. Ford (90 aircraft) - 28 people / aircraft;
Queen Elizabeth (40 aircraft) - 23 persons / aircraft;
Charles de Gaulle (40 LA) - 15 persons / LA;
"Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" (50 aircraft) - 13 people / aircraft.
It must be said that, although according to the project the Kuznetsov air group included 50 aircraft, this figure may have been overestimated and the actual number of aircraft and helicopters that the ship can effectively operate does not exceed 40-45. In this case, the number of aircraft personnel per aircraft will roughly correspond to that of Charles de Gaulle … provided that it, in turn, is really capable of effectively using exactly 40 aircraft and helicopters, and not a smaller number of them. But in any case, the advantage of Gerald R. Ford and Queen Elizabeth over the French and Russian aircraft carriers is quite obvious.
How important is this indicator? As you know, a modern aircraft is a very complex engineering structure, which, among other things, requires a lot of time for pre- and post-flight maintenance, preventive maintenance, etc. Typically, the need for an aircraft in specialists of the appropriate profile is calculated in man-hours per flight hour: the value of this indicator for aircraft of various types can range from 25 to 50 man-hours (sometimes even more). Taking an average of 35 man-hours per flight hour, this means that to provide one hour, it will take three people to work a 12-hour day each. Accordingly, in order to ensure that the aircraft remains in the air for five hours a day (that is, two combat sorties at full range), 15 people need to work for 12 hours!
Taking into account the fact that the number of air personnel includes not only specialists servicing planes and helicopters, but also pilots, who, of course, physically cannot, in addition to combat missions, also “turn the screws” 12 hours a day, we come to the conclusion that the air personnel of "Charles de Gaulle" and "Kuznetsov" can provide a somewhat long and hard work of an air group of 40 aircraft and helicopters only at the cost of extremely hard work, while for "Queen Elizabeth" and "Gerald R. Ford" such work of 40 and 90 aircraft, respectively, is, in general, regular for the aircraft personnel of the ship.
Now let's look at the ammunition supplies for the air groups. Unfortunately, the author of this article does not have data about Gerald R. Ford, but most likely its stocks of aircraft and aviation fuel are comparable to those that were placed on aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type. For the latter, alas, there are no exact figures either - from 10, 6 to 12, 5 million liters of aviation fuel (with a density of 780-800 kg / cubic meter, this is approximately from 8, 3 to 10 thousand tons) 2 570 tons of aviation fuel ammunition. In other words, one aircraft of an American aircraft carrier accounts for something about 100 tons of fuel and 28 tons of ammunition. Alas, the author of this article could not find data on Queen Elizabeth, but according to our assumptions (we will discuss them in more detail below), they are probably comparable to the American "supercarrier" - of course, not in terms of total reserves, but in terms of for one aircraft.
Combat reserves of "Charles de Gaulle" are much more modest: the fuel supply is 3,400 tons, ammunition - 550 tons, taking into account the smaller number of its air group, this gives 85 tons of aviation fuel and 13, 75 tons of ammunition per aircraft. As for the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov", its reserves of aviation fuel are 2,500 tons, the mass of ammunition, alas, is not present, but there is only information that they were twice as high as those of the aircraft carrier of the previous type.
The aircraft carrying capacity of the Baku-based aircraft carrier in the aircraft version consisted of 18 RN-28 special aviation bombs, 143 Kh-23 guided missiles, 176 R-3S missiles, 4800 S-5 unguided missiles, 30 tanks with ZB-500 incendiary liquid and 20 RBK single-shot cluster bombs -250 (with PTAB-2, 5 bombs), while it was argued that anti-submarine ammunition (for helicopters) was taken instead of aircraft. Let's try to calculate at least the approximate weight of this ammunition. It is known that the C-5 has a weight of 3.86 kg, the X-23 - 289 kg, the P-3S - up to 90 kg, the RN-28 weighed 250 kg, and taking into account the fact that cluster bombs probably had the same weight, and the number "500" in the abbreviation ZB-500 "hints" at half a ton, the total weight of ammunition of the TAKR "Baku" was only about 100, 3 tons. On the other hand, it would probably be wrong to take exclusively pure weights of ammunition - after all in the package, and again - we counted the mass of C-5 unguided rockets, and the mass of launchers for them? Perhaps there are some other nuances unknown to the author, but in any case, it is extremely doubtful that the total mass of Baku air ammunition was more than 150, well, if you really dream, 200 tons. And doubling this stock on the Kuznetsov aircraft carrier "Will give us a very modest 300-400 tons. By the way, if we assume that the mass of aviation ammunition carried by Kuznetsov decreases in comparison with 550 tons of Charles de Gaulle in the same proportion as fuel (3400 tons / 2 500 t = 1.36 times), then the mass of our aircraft carrier ammunition will be 404 tons. aviation. As a result, with an air group of 50 aircraft, our aircraft carrier has only 50 tons of fuel and 6-8 tons of weapons per aircraft.
What conclusions can be drawn from the above?
The American Gerald R. Ford is the classic and most versatile type of strike aircraft carrier. It provides the best conditions for carrying out takeoff and landing operations; in a "fleet against fleet" battle, its air group is capable of simultaneously providing cover for its own order from enemy air attacks, and at the same time delivering air strikes against enemy ships. At the same time, "Gerald R. Ford" to the greatest extent of all the aircraft-carrying ships compared, it is adapted to conduct long-term combat operations against the coast. To this end, it has the largest reserves of aviation fuel and ammunition, as well as the most numerous air personnel - both in absolute and relative (in terms of aircraft) terms.
Apparently, the British in their project "Queen Elizabeth", tried to create a ship to solve the same tasks as "Gerald R. Ford", but at a significantly lower price, and as a result - with much less efficiency. The availability of air personnel for the British ship hints that Queen Elizabeth is intended for long and systematic "work" along the coast. Unfortunately, the stocks of aviation fuel and aviation ammunition on it are unknown, but if we assume that they (in terms of the aircraft) roughly correspond to the American aircraft carrier, then we get about 4,000 tons of aviation fuel and 1,150 tons of ammunition - quite acceptable values for a ship at 70,600 t of full displacement. However, the rejection of catapults and the use of the F-35B shortened take-off and vertical landing, with only one runway, significantly limit the speed of takeoff operations - according to this indicator, Queen Elizabeth can be safely considered the worst of all four aircraft carriers compared.
Charles de Gaulle is another attempt at a compromise between functionality and cost of a warship, but in this case the French chose a different direction - they maintained a fairly high rate of takeoff and landing operations by reducing other opportunities, including the number of aircraft personnel and aviation fuel reserves and the armament of the air group.
As for the aircraft carrier "Kuznetsov", its air group is obviously "sharpened" for use in naval combat (which differs in its relative short duration in comparison with the operations "fleet against coast") - with the smallest number of air personnel and supplies for its aviation, he, nevertheless (and with certain reservations) it has a very high rate of air group ascent into the air, which is extremely important for ensuring air defense. According to this indicator, it is second only to the American supercarrier Gerald R. Ford, which is much larger and more expensive than the domestic aircraft carrier.
But, of course, all of the above conclusions are only the beginning of a comparison of four ships - the flagships of their fleets. Now we have assessed their capabilities in carrying out takeoff and landing operations, as well as servicing and supplying the air group. Now we have to analyze and compare many other parameters, including the tactical and technical characteristics of these ships, their non-aviation armament, try to understand and evaluate the capabilities of their individual aircraft and air groups, and, of course, understand their true capabilities in solving the tasks facing them.
