Jerry Hendrix and Dave Majumdar were not the first to raise the topic of the advisability of further building aircraft carriers for the US Navy. Discussions on this topic have been conducted by naval specialists for several years. But, as a rule, disputes were limited to a narrow circle of persons, since aircraft carriers are not only the "sacred cows" of the American fleet, but also the country's foreign policy. Moreover, they are one of the brightest national symbols of the United States.
There were grounds for such "deification". It was thanks to the floating airfields that the United States was able to break the back of Imperial Japan and win the war in the Pacific. First, in 1942, they stopped the advance of the Land of the Rising Sun in a battle at Midway Atoll (see National Defense magazine # 6/2012). In the battles near the island of Guadalcanal (see the magazine "National Defense" №1 / 2013) they won a number of important victories. True, the Americans themselves suffered serious losses near Midway Atoll and Guadalcanal, including in aircraft carriers. However, the powerful American industry not only made up for the loss, but also in a short time supplied the fleet with about one and a half hundred (!) Heavy and light, as well as escort aircraft carriers. Among them, it is especially worth highlighting 24 Essex-type heavy, high-speed strike amphibious airfields. With a total displacement of about 38,500 tons, they developed an almost 33-knot course and carried about 100 bombers, torpedo bombers and fighters. These were the most expensive ships ever built in the United States. Each unit cost $ 60-70 million, that is, more than $ 1.2 billion at today's exchange rate. But first of all, thanks to them, in October 1944, it was possible to almost completely defeat the once strongest Imperial fleet in the largest naval battle in world history off the Philippine island of Leyte (see National Defense magazine No. 10/2014).
The American aircraft carrier Hornet (CV 8) sinks under Japanese bombs in the battle off Santa Cruz Island. 1942 year.
The Essex-class aircraft carriers formed the core of the US Navy's flood force in the early postwar years, as well as during the early years of the Cold War, up to the time when they were replaced by nuclear ships. Then the strategy of the aircraft carriers made it possible to establish the almost complete dominance of the US Navy in the oceans. However, already in the 70s of the last century, the commanders of aircraft carrier strike groups received the strictest instructions not to come close to the shores of the USSR, since the Soviet Union by that time already had a wide range of means of destroying them. Among them were naval missile-carrying aircraft, submarines with cruise missiles, which were called "aircraft carrier killers", missile surface ships and boats, coastal missile systems. All of them, combined and individually, could sink or seriously damage and disable any American aircraft carrier. Even the P-15 anti-ship cruise missiles with a penetrating high-explosive warhead with an explosive mass of 375 kg could be used against them. And what can we say about the P-6 anti-ship missile submarines of project 675 and diesel-electric submarines of project 651. They were capable of hitting surface targets at a distance of up to 300 km. Their 560-kilogram high-explosive warhead was capable of "overwhelming" any surface ship. In addition, they could be equipped with a nuclear warhead with a capacity of up to 20 kt.
Heavy aircraft carrier Essex during testing.24 of these ships were built at five American shipyards during the Second World War. They formed the backbone of the US Navy's carrier forces in the early decades of the Cold War.
Of course, means of protection were sought against Soviet cruise missiles, but no one could be sure that they were 100% effective. In addition, the first generation anti-ship missiles were replaced by even more advanced products (see the table of modern anti-ship missiles from the Naval Graphics Internet resource, from which it is clear that domestic anti-ship missiles today surpass all foreign counterparts in firing range and charge power), the fight with whom it became extremely problematic. It is no coincidence that the Americans secured a ban on the deployment of Soviet anti-ship ballistic missiles 4K18 (R-27K), which launched from a submarine could hit surface targets, primarily aircraft carriers, at ranges of up to 900 km. The United States threatened, under the Soviet-American SALT Treaty, to include these PKBMs and their carriers in the total number of strategic weapons, which could weaken the USSR's nuclear missile potential.
Not all anti-ship missiles of the Russian Navy are indicated on the diagram of the Naval Graphics Internet resource. But it also shows that domestic anti-ship missiles have the longest firing range.
After the end of the Cold War, which the United States seemed to have won and after which the Russian Navy began to rapidly decline, the American aircraft carriers had a "second wind." They took an active part in the wars against Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and in a number of other crises. This continued until the problem of "access / area-denial A2 / AD" emerged. It was created by the Chinese (see the National Defense magazine No. 1/2015), deploying long-range anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles on their coast and on their ships, as well as creating the PLA naval aviation groupings, the core of which are Russian Su-30MKK fighters and their Chinese counterparts. The PRC also possesses powerful air defense systems, including the Russian-made S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems and Chinese replicas created on their basis. The anti-missile and air defense shield of the People's Republic of China will be further strengthened after the entry into service of the PLA of several divisions of the S-400 Triumph air defense system, the supply contract for which was signed with Moscow in September last year.
This is how a Chinese artist depicted an attack on American ships by warheads of DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles.
There is no way for American aircraft carriers and their aircraft to overcome such a powerful missile and aviation barrier. That is why American naval experts are more and more inclined to replace the useless floating airfields in the US Navy, which require astronomical funds for construction and operation, equipping with aircraft and weapons, with submarines with large ammunition of cruise missiles. They, they say, are able to covertly get under the Chinese coast and strike at the Celestial Empire.
Certainly, there is a certain reason in such judgments. In stealth, aircraft carriers are not comparable to submarines. Nuclear submarines with submarine-to-surface cruise missiles are indeed a very powerful weapon. But it is unlikely that, following Jerry Hendrix, it is worth arguing that they are "capable of acting with impunity within the" blocking / blocking the zone "space. In any case, in this particular area of the world - off the coast of China. This country is surrounded from the east by a chain of islands stretching from Sakhalin to Indonesia. These islands are separated by straits that make it difficult for the PLA to enter the ocean. But they also impede the passage of American ships and submarines to the shores of China. Therefore, it is worth agreeing with Brian Clarke, who believes that one should not "discount the ability of the Chinese Armed Forces to conduct an effective anti-submarine campaign in their coastal waters", which "just need to prevent submarines from taking their positions in order to effectively carry out their tasks."
At one time, the United States achieved a ban on the deployment of Soviet anti-ship ballistic missiles 4K18 (R-27K).
Indeed, China until recently lagged behind the Western powers in the area of anti-submarine defense. But the situation is changing rapidly. The newest Chinese destroyers of type 052D, frigates of type 054A and corvettes of type 056 are equipped with modern hydroacoustic stations, including towed-lowered ones, which more effectively detect submarines beyond the temperature jump. From this year, the PLA naval aviation will begin to replenish with GX-6 anti-submarine aircraft. According to the Global Times, they will allow the PRC to push the country's anti-submarine borders 1000 km from its shores. Undoubtedly, in the People's Republic of China, stationary underwater GASs have developed, which, for sure, are already being deployed. Low-noise non-nuclear submarines of the Yuan type are perfectly adapted for hunting American nuclear-powered ships.
And this is how an American artist saw this attack. Impressive too.
As for the Chinese nuclear submarines and nuclear submarines with cruise missiles, they, like Russian submarines, have significant advantages in planning and organizing attacks on the territory of the United States, where a significant part of the most important military and civilian objects, industrial enterprises and major cities are located in 500 kilometer coastal zone. And the approach to them from the side of the oceans is open from almost any direction. The PLA Navy and the Russian Navy will be able to deploy not 3-4, but several dozen nuclear and non-nuclear submarines with auxiliary air-independent power plants (VNEU).
China has already taken the next step. According to the newspaper "People's Daily", in the NII-711 (Shanghai Marine Diesel Research Institute) of the Chinese shipbuilding corporation CSIC, a new VNEU has been developed on the basis of the Swedish 75 kW Stirling engines, copies of which are equipped with Yuan type nuclear submarines. Only its capacity was increased by 117% - up to 160-217 kW. The newest Chinese submarines with four such engines with a total capacity of 640-868 kW will be able to charge their batteries without surfacing at the same speed as the Kilo-type submarines, that is, project 877/636, recharge using diesel generators in the RDP mode … "Thus," notes the People's Daily, "the Chinese submarine will have unique capabilities compared to other modern non-nuclear submarines equipped with VNEU, since they still need to periodically recharge the batteries using the RPD device." In other words, this boat will be able to make very long voyages without surfacing, which is extremely important for ensuring stealth when sailing off foreign shores.
From this year, the PLA Navy will begin to replenish the latest anti-submarine aircraft GX-6.
Therefore, it can be argued that in the cruise missile submarine race, the PLA Navy and the Russian Navy will receive significant priority. And the United States will only add a headache (see National Defense magazine # 12/2014).
We are aware of the critical attitude of American naval analysts to the anti-submarine capabilities of the PLA Navy. But in the USA, the situation in the field of anti-aircraft weapons is not in the best way. This is confirmed by the practice of naval exercises. On them, submarines, as a rule, demonstrate high combat resistance and the ability to defeat the enemy.
Russian nuclear submarine Severodvinsk with cruise missiles.
Now the United States is trying to introduce promising anti-aircraft weapons. For example, it is planned to adopt in the future unmanned surface vehicles (NNA), which are now being created by the American Agency for Advanced Defense Projects (DARPA) under the ACTUV (Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel) program. According to the developers, these autonomous NVA of the trimaran type with 52-meter main hulls made of lightweight composite material for 60-90 days using hydroacoustic sensors will be able to monitor the depths and, if an enemy is detected, transmit data about it to the MQ-4C Triton marine reconnaissance UAVs (for more details see the magazine "National Defense" No. 6/2013), patrol aircraft P-8A Poseidon, American ships and the headquarters of the fleet. Each such device, allegedly, will cost $ 40 million. The construction of the head NPA is being carried out at the Oregon Iron Works shipyard, which is known for the creation of the most secret ships of the US Navy - the Sea LION-class semi-submersible special forces boats.
Launch of the Kalibr-PL cruise missile from the Severodvinsk nuclear submarine.
But one can hardly share the optimism of the developers regarding the ACTUV program. It has been going on for many years and to date it has cost by no means $ 40 million, but a much larger amount. Initially, it was planned to use autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles - NPA (see the magazine "National Defense" №1 / 2012). However, this idea was not implemented - both for reasons of technical complexity and because of the high cost. Therefore, DARPA switched to a more "economical" surface variant. But even in this case, $ 40 million per unit is clearly an underestimated amount. In addition to highly sensitive GAS, the device will be equipped with a compact radar, thermal imagers, communications and automation. To ensure the 60-90-day autonomy of the NPA, highly economical and at the same time powerful engines are needed, which are not yet available. Therefore, we can say with confidence that each full-fledged serial device will cost no less than $ 130-150 million. And then with a favorable set of circumstances - if things go quickly and all systems will be obtained the first time. But this does not happen when creating a new technique. Therefore, Washington should not rely on autonomous NPA especially.
It is unlikely that it will be possible to quickly create and strike uninhabited underwater vehicles (that is, submarines-robots), which Brian Clark speaks of. This will take many years. For a number of reasons, including the geographic location of the United States, Washington's opponents will be able to develop such naval weapons faster and cheaper.
As for Jerry Hendrix's proposal for the simultaneous construction of eight nuclear submarines with cruise missiles and twelve SSBNs for the US Navy under the ORS program, it seems difficult to implement. Yes, missile launchers on promising American "boomers" can be used not only to transport and launch Trident II D5 SLBMs, but also Tomahawk cruise missiles. However, the deployment of the latter on the additional eight nuclear submarines will undoubtedly be regarded by Moscow as a violation of the strategic offensive arms treaties, since it will be impossible to distinguish a submarine with an SLBM from a submarine with cruise missiles. The ORS program itself is monstrously expensive. It will cost $ 347 billion and will seriously cut funding for other programs in the US Navy. Eight more such submarines, albeit at a slightly lower price, simply cannot be sustained by the American budget.
Scheme of the operation of an unmanned surface vehicle, created by the ACTUV program, to search for a submarine.
And what about aircraft carriers? Perhaps the attack unmanned aerial vehicles will give them a "second wind"? US Navy Secretary Ray Maybus has already announced that the F-35C fighter-attack aircraft will become the last manned carrier-based aircraft of the American fleet, and UAVs will replace them. Of course, the United States has achieved undoubted success by creating an experimental heavy deck UAV X-47V, which can land on the deck of an aircraft carrier and take off from it (see National Defense magazine # 5/2013). But the development of truly combat UAVs will require many more years and huge funds. At the same time, as stated in the report of the Office of Accountability of the American Administration on May 4 this year, the US Navy still does not have a clear idea of what the future UCLASS (Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike) carrier-based attack drone should be. The naval commanders did not resolve the main significant question - should the drone focus on performing reconnaissance functions with a limited strike potential or an attack UAV with a limited set of reconnaissance equipment? But in any case, as indicated in the message, the development of such a UAV will require significantly more funds than previously envisaged. Probably, its creation will turn out to be even more expensive than the F-35 program.
The time of the "sacred cows" of the American fleet, apparently, is irretrievably leaving. In this regard, let us cite an extensive quote from an article by one of the leading American naval theorists, Professor of the Department of Strategy at the US Naval War College, James Holmes, published in the Japanese English-language Internet publication The Diplomat. “The Cold War ended too well for us. In the words of President Reagan, we won, the Soviets lost. Yuhuu! Hooray! Let's make a lap of honor! However, have we really "won" the naval confrontation? - writes Holmes. - The Cold War ended without its Battle of Leyte Gulf, a naval battle that subsequent generations could rely on for their research. We have never subjected our hypothesis that an aircraft carrier strike force can withstand a Soviet attack to the only test that really matters - the test by force. Therefore, all these disputes about aircraft carriers, carrier-based aircraft and anti-ship weapons are taking place in a kind of Neverland, where we can compare various "hardware", but we have no idea what the clash would turn out to be in specific strategic conditions. So let's not argue that aircraft carriers keep pace with the threats posed by today's battlefields and will remain relevant for the rest of time, amen. Projecting the past into the future is unreliable. Especially if we're not sure exactly what that past was."
