Semi-catamaran aircraft carrier as an asymmetric response of Russia to the US Navy

July 6 2021 22

Reportedly, the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation is considering the feasibility of including aircraft carriers in the armament program for the coming years. If a positive decision is made, then up to three aircraft-carrying ships, the lead one and two serial ones, can be built in Russia. But is it worth our country to follow the beaten track by another path?

According to publicly available data, the RF Ministry of Defense may be interested in an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 65 to 70 thousand tons, with a nuclear power plant, and the cost of building such a ship is estimated at 300-400-500 billion rubles each. Plus the cost of an air wing and other inevitable expenses. At the same time, it is announced that in the development of such a project, drawings of the unfinished Soviet heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Ulyanovsk can be used. Sounds like a good idea, but it might be worth considering other options.

First of all, let's answer the question, does the Russian Navy need aircraft carriers? Still as needed. The aircraft carrier is required to provide anti-aircraft and anti-submarine protection for Russian naval formations in the far ocean zone. Our recent naval exercise near Hawaii is political gesture, but let's be honest, without serious carrier-based aircraft in reality, such a military campaign would be a 100% gamble. An aircraft carrier is the strong core of a naval strike force. Without it, the fulfillment of the combat mission of strategic nuclear submarines reaching the deployment site to strike ICBMs will be an extremely difficult task. In other words, without aircraft-carrying cruisers, the effectiveness of our nuclear triad as a means of deterring the offensive potential of the United States and NATO is significantly reduced. For this reason, arguments about the "uselessness" of ships of this class are naive or openly sabotage.

Yes, there are quite serious arguments against the construction of aircraft carriers right here and now. Firstly, it is very, very expensive, which means that some other defense programs will have to be cut. Secondly, to protect such a ship, which is a fairly simple target, a whole group of other escort warships is needed, which has yet to be built. Thirdly, with the loss of Ukraine, we lost the opportunity to use the Nikolaev shipyards, where all TAVRKs were built during the Soviet era, and Sevmash is busy with orders. Regarding the last two arguments, it seems quite obvious the need to build a new shipyard with docks of the appropriate size, which will accommodate both the TARK and the TAVRK. This will relieve other shipyards and allow accelerating the implementation of shipbuilding programs, including the escort ships needed for AUG, create new jobs and increase the tax base. This will be a good investment in the development of domestic industry.

But back to the aircraft carriers. Ulyanovsk? Yes, a deep modernization of this project would be a completely adequate response to the modern challenges facing the Russian Navy. But there are also alternatives.

For example, two years ago, at the Army-2019 forum, an interesting concept of a semi-catamaran aircraft carrier was presented. Its bow should be single, and the stern should be bifurcated. According to the idea of the main developer of the project, Valentin Belonenko from the Krylov State Scientific Institute, such an unusual design will give the aircraft carrier a number of important advantages. The displacement of the semi-catamaran is noticeably less than that of the "Admiral Kuznetsov", only 44 thousand tons, but its air wing will be comparable to it, amounting to 40 aircraft. The speed of 27 knots will be given to such an aircraft carrier by gas turbine installations with a total capacity of 80 MW. Thus, the developers propose to abandon the atom, which will simplify the design, reduce its size and displacement, and hence the cost and construction time. Yes, the autonomy will be significantly less, but its survivability will increase and there will be no problems with the entry of the aircraft carrier into the ports. The semi-catamaran design will provide the ship with a more comfortable and wider runway, which will be equipped with a springboard and an accelerating catapult. Consequently, the deck wing will be able to carry an increased combat load, which will have a positive effect on its effectiveness.

Understandably, such an innovative approach has caused a lot of criticism. Still, we need to build our own analogs of the "Nimitz", and here we come up with some kind of semi-catamarans! But, perhaps, it is precisely such asymmetric responses that will be most effective, given the colossal difference in the size of the military budget and the industrial potential of the United States and the Russian Federation? We do not need to arrange multi-day battles for atolls in the Pacific Ocean with American AUGs, from a light aircraft carrier with its 40 aircraft and helicopters, we will only need anti-aircraft and anti-submarine cover for the exit to the deployment site of strategic nuclear submarines, as well as the honorary function of displaying the flag. Both in terms of money and the size of the ship, our military-industrial complex and the defense budget may well be able to pull such a project. Should I think again?

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Pishenkov

+1

6 July 2021 13: 32

An interesting concept. And definitely more suitable in modern conditions, if we talk about aircraft carriers at all. From the point of view of strategic confrontation with the same United States (there seems to be no one else seriously), AUG, as it seems to me, has long lost its significance, and as a kind of cover for the approach of nuclear submarines with strategic weapons, they are hardly applicable at all. This is generally a rather strange concept, based on the fact that the main thing in the Premier League is that it can carry out an attack unexpectedly from a hidden position. Why, then, to have a whole AUG dangling above it? So no surprise will definitely come out. After all, the entire space of presence of this AUG by the enemy will be precisely actively monitored on the water, under water and in the air.
And for the "demonstration of presence" and various local conflicts no "Nimitz" is definitely needed, much more practical would be lighter aircraft-carrying cruisers or something like "Mistrals". In addition, they are cheaper in construction and operation, and also do not require such a powerful escort group.
1. sH, arK
  
  0
  
  7 July 2021 13: 16
  
  Yes, perhaps that's right! What is needed is not an AUG, but an expeditionary corps, based on a maximum of 1 aircraft carrier, and that is not a fact. But the landing fleet is needed more, but also limitedly 2-4 helicopter-carrying universal ships 30-40 thousand tons. This is enough to solve all real issues.
Tektor

+3

6 July 2021 14: 14

An aircraft carrier is an arsenal, first of all. This is the material and technical support of an operation of any scale far from its shores. The aircraft can take only a limited set of weapons, and the aircraft carrier is capable of supplying weapons and consumables to a significant operation of diverse forces, including landing forces, air cover and a submarine base.
Petr Vladimirovich

0

6 July 2021 14: 35

It would be nice to hear naval officers ...
Marzhecki

+2

6 July 2021 14: 47

Quote: Pyshenkov
This is generally a rather strange concept, based on the fact that the main thing in the Premier League is that it can carry out an attack unexpectedly from a hidden position. Why, then, to have a whole AUG dangling above it? So no surprise will definitely come out. After all, the entire space of presence of this AUG by the enemy will be precisely actively monitored on the water, under water and in the air.

All regions where nuclear submarines are deployed have long been known and are under constant monitoring. If a real war starts, it will really be necessary to fight through there in order to bring the Borei to an acceptable position for a missile strike. There will be no surprise, there are all suicide bombers - both the AUG and the nuclear submarine. This is if we talk about a full-fledged war with the United States.
1. sH, arK
  
  0
  
  7 July 2021 08: 55
  
  I, in the past, immediately after graduating from college, received a senior league and got into military service, (VUS - the commander of the warhead-4) at 667 BDRM. And I agree that the SSBN does not need an orgder of either the AUG or the KPUG at all! I cannot say about the Pacific Fleet's boats, but only about the Northern Fleet - but the SSBN is primarily the Northern Fleet - and it does not need any cover at all - because the launch vehicle and launch is carried out from the territory of the Arctic, from under the ice cap! And the enemy can only be there, under the hat! But it is extremely difficult to catch a boat, especially in winter, under the ice of an ultralight;) Hydroacoustics are complex, the speeds are low and the noise is also ... So the aircraft carrier is NOT FUCKED FOR SSBNs! But for the projection of power for the Papuans - of course! Only here we do not have pocket Papuans except for Ukrainians and rodents, and they can be pressed with a fingernail even without an avino carrier! Why waste money, which is so little, on a useless trough? For the USA - it is clear, if you look at the map, but what about us ???
  1. Marzhecki
    
    +1
    
    7 July 2021 12: 14
    
    A little background:
    
    What was Ulyanovsk built for?
    The main objectives for ATAKR, according to the design task were:
    
    1. Giving combat stability to the connections of surface ships, missile submarines of strategic purpose, naval missile-carrying aircraft in combat areas.
    2. Reflection of enemy carrier strikes and the conquest of superiority in the air.
    3. Destruction of enemy ships and submarines.
    
    In addition, the auxiliary tasks of the ATAKR were listed:
    
    1. Ensuring the landing of amphibious assault forces.
    2. The overlap of enemy missile volleys with EW aircraft.
    3. Providing long-range radar detection and targeting for heterogeneous fleet forces.
    
    https://topwar.ru/160122-atomnyj-tjazhelyj-avianesuschij-atakr-proekta-11437-uljanovsk.html
    Was the Soviet naval commanders stupider than you, comrade stars?
    
    ATAVKR "Ulyanovsk" was planned as the first of four ships of the same type.
    
    Why did the USSR want to build 4 "unnecessary" aircraft carriers at once?
    1. sH, arK
      
      0
      
      7 July 2021 13: 07
      
      Strange ... You yourself described the tasks for the AUG, and then you ask? The USSR had interests in different parts of the world with the need to apply force, on the one hand, on the other hand, money in the USSR was spent very often not just ineffectively, but thoughtlessly! Now, with the development of anti-ship missile systems, the range of operation of the BRAV and coastal aviation - the AUG is no longer such a cake! And the development of the CD already creates good opportunities for the projection of power. Limited, of course, but when have others been needed in the last 70 years? AUG is already a war of small forms. Yes, for the USA this is the only option, there is simply no other option ... But why does Russia need this? We are not going to land troops in the USA or Brazil?
      
      For a flag demonstration? Isn't it too expensive? Aircraft carriers for a land power like Russia - NOT NECESSARY! Maximum - 1 for minor conflicts like the Syrian or Georgian ... Well, on Urkaina - there are no fleets or BRAV ... But the question is - why, when we spend half in the Air Force we get many times more?
2. Pishenkov
  
  -1
  
  7 July 2021 13: 38
  
  In the event that a real war begins, it will actually be necessary to fight through there in order to bring the Borey into an acceptable position for a missile strike.
  
  Sergei, here you are fundamentally wrong. The submarine is so far the only extremely difficult-to-track means of striking, and this is its main value. Why do you think the United States is so impressed with the Poseidon complex, the projects of deep-sea boats (a la grandfather Losharik), etc.? Excuse me and with all due respect, but this phrase of yours, which I quoted above, is an absolute nonsense, from a military point of view.
  1. Volkonsky
    
    +2
    
    12 July 2021 17: 23
    
    I agree, Lesha, it also hit me - no logic! underwater launch with all ammunition - and half of America is gone!
    
    In 1991, on the K-407 "Novomoskovsk" cruiser under the command of Captain 2nd Rank S.V. Yegorov, special tests were carried out (Operation Begemot) with the preparation and launch of the entire ammunition load in one salvo (as in real combat firing). From the cruiser K-407 "Novomoskovsk" 16 R-29RM missiles were launched, the entire ammunition load, with an interval of 14 seconds. According to eyewitnesses, "the boat fired like a machine gun." The launch of the full ammunition load was repeated in 1998, when tests were carried out in the Northern Fleet, during which a "simultaneous" launch of 20 R-39 missiles was made. The best result of the Ohio nuclear submarine is 4 Trident-2 missiles.
    
    this is the same type of SSBN (SSBN) of the one on which the respected shark served, with which Marzhetsky argues, just Marzhetsky is not in the subject, to put it mildly, but the crown does not allow him to admit his mistake (forgive him, he also has good texts), he does not understand that it is not possible to block the entire World Ocean, but we can launch our own ballistic missile submarines both from the south and from the north, of course, from under the water. Nafig SSBN cover AUG? Rave!
Binder

-3

6 July 2021 19: 29

It seems that in the current situation, the creation of full-fledged AUG for the Russian Federation is a pipe dream. There is no shipyard, there is no project, there is no any suitable deck-based aircraft, there is no trained flight and technical personnel, there is not the slightest experience of real combat operations (one cannot consider the sad campaign of the old trough smoking all over the world to the shores of Syria). And, if in essence, what is the RF AUG for? Mr. Marzhetsky's arguments in the text are not convincing.
1. sH, arK
  
  0
  
  7 July 2021 13: 11
  
  Are you sure you are not confusing dream and delirium? It is reasonable to always assume what and for what money we get! Russia can create, like the USSR, full-fledged AUG - but at what cost? The goal of the state is the development and maintenance of normal life and the protection of its interests, and not the realization of senseless sick fantasies!
steelmaker

-2

6 July 2021 21: 07

Thus, the developers propose to abandon the atom, which will simplify the design, reduce its size and displacement, and hence the cost and construction time.

I completely agree. All ingenious is simple! And with the money saved, you can build escort ships. Only there are no builders in our government, only hucksters. And surrounded by President Kudrin, yes Kiriyenko, and these are still advisers and "no enemies". So we will dream until 2036 for sure.
Marzhecki

+1

7 July 2021 07: 37

Quote: Bindyuzhnik
It seems that in the current situation, the creation of full-fledged AUG for the Russian Federation is a pipe dream. There is no shipyard, there is no project, there is no any suitable deck-based aircraft, there is no trained flight and technical personnel, there is not the slightest experience of real combat operations (one cannot consider the sad campaign of the old trough smoking all over the world to the shores of Syria). And, if in essence, what is the RF AUG for? Mr. Marzhetsky's arguments in the text are not convincing.

Nobody is interested in the arguments of the Ukrainian-American Israeli. Not on this or any other topic. From the word at all.
Sergey Latyshev

0

7 July 2021 09: 07

It would be more correct to call:
Semi-catamaran aircraft carrier as another Russian concept for the sake of fashion.
There is not even a photo or a cartoon.
The comment was deleted.
avm

+1

7 July 2021 11: 17

Well, for another ten years they will think and figure then for ten years, design for another ten years or more ... but you still need escort ships and not what kind ... in short, all this is utopia ... there are no statesmen in Russia, but there are Chubais and company ...
Marzhecki

+1

8 July 2021 07: 14

Quote: sH, arK
Strange ... You yourself described the tasks for the AUG, and then you ask? The USSR had interests in different parts of the world with the need to apply force, on the one hand, on the other hand, money in the USSR was spent very often not just ineffectively, but thoughtlessly!

First, answer yourself the question whether Russia has interests in different parts of the world and if they are foreseen. If not, then in general the oceanic fleet is not needed, let it be a mosquito to cover the coast. If they are, then the aircraft carriers should have been built the day before yesterday, the only question is which ones.
As for the fact that in the USSR money was spent thoughtlessly ... Sorry, but in the Russian Federation there is now a fountain with this.
Okay, I don't see any reason to argue, it's impossible to argue against the anti-aircraft carrier. Your opinion is right. I adhere to something else and will defend mine in the future.
Marzhecki

0

8 July 2021 07: 16

Quote: Pyshenkov
In the event that a real war begins, it will actually be necessary to fight through there in order to bring the Borey into an acceptable position for a missile strike.

Sergei, here you are fundamentally wrong. The submarine is so far the only extremely difficult-to-track means of striking, and this is its main value. Why do you think the United States is so impressed with the Poseidon complex, the projects of deep-sea boats (a la grandfather Losharik), etc.? Excuse me and with all due respect, but this phrase of yours, which I quoted above, is an absolute nonsense, from a military point of view.

Are you aware of US technological advances in submarine tracking? Read at your leisure. There are many materials on VO on this topic, and not only there.
As for the military nonsense, well, let's open the goals and objectives set by the Soviet command to the TAVRK Admiral Kuznetsov:

The main tasks of the aircraft carrier ships of the USSR differed significantly from the aircraft carrier orders of the United States:
ensuring the security of strategic nuclear submarine missile cruisers in areas of combat patrol;
air defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;
Search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;
detection, guidance and destruction of enemy surface forces;
ensuring the landing of naval landing.

At ATARK Ulyanovsk:

1. Giving combat stability to the formations of surface ships, strategic missile submarines, naval missile aviation in combat areas.

Apparently, the narrow-minded Soviet admirals understood much less than modern Russians.
Okay, let's close this discussion, and so something completely dispersed here, although earlier I decided to avoid participating in commenting as much as possible. I invite everyone to remain unconvinced. Maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe he’s right.
1. Pishenkov
  
  +2
  
  8 July 2021 19: 49
  
  well, I do not especially on naval affairs!
  First, a lot has changed since the days of the USSR. What you are quoting, in real life, implies a conventional conflict with a nuclear submarine with nuclear weapons at the ready, so to speak. I will not comment on the concepts of about 50 years ago. At the time this was written, the US Navy was in service and battleships were still in service, while we had artillery cruisers. And theories, they were different then, by the way. At the moment, the Russian Federation does not have a single AUG in fact, and the nuclear submarines nevertheless ply all over the world, and they greatly irritate the enemy, precisely because no one really knows where and when they are. Why do you think recently three boats from under the ice took and surfaced in the area of the joint venture? So, the strength of the felling fence try? It is possible to effectively monitor the submarine a priori only by detecting it, and then leading it. To do this, just the tactics you described is very unsuccessful from the point of view of the secrecy of the submarine itself. The AUG, as a rule, does indeed include one or two submarines, possibly with strategic weapons on board, but in this case it is more likely a cover for this AUG itself than vice versa. It is, in fact, the Americans themselves who developed this concept, as the main users of these very AUG.
  Everyone has all sorts of means of tracking, but somehow they cannot track everything that is needed and that one would like. So what about the senselessness in our time of "cover" with the help of the AUG to enter the strategic nuclear submarine into position, I retain my opinion. I strongly hope that the couch naval experts gave me disadvantages for this, and not those who are currently actually wearing epaulettes and making decisions. Otherwise we have problems
  
  PS By the way, not all concepts, including military ones, were correct in the USSR either. Otherwise, what happened would not have happened to the USSR ...
Jacques sekavar

+1

8 July 2021 15: 56

An order for an aircraft carrier for a united shipbuilding company is a guarantee of long-term sustainable operation. The question is whether it will be able to lobby for the order or whether the War Department will stand. Everything will depend on the availability of funds and strategy.
If you build an aircraft carrier, then only a nuclear and not one, but also a support and support fleet, not to mention aircraft, helicopters, piers, docks and other infrastructure, and all this on the coast of the Arctic Ocean, where besides Murman there are no other suitable bases ... ...
Mikhail Ya_2

0

11 July 2021 13: 06

Various sources periodically write on this topic, it is always interesting to read, dream .. But if we return to the harsh truth of life, then for us it is not permissible and most likely unnecessary luxury. Firstly, they wrote once that we do not have modern experience in building large (more than 10 thousand tons) ships. If they start building, the construction may take more than 10 years, and by the time it is put into operation, either the war will end along with life on earth, or it will be technically and morally obsolete. Cost, even without the air group and weapon systems, including ammunition and specials. ammunition would be astronomical. And we also need a coastal infrastructure. And the cost of this complex will also be astronomical. it is not known whether the economy of the second quarter of the 21st century will pull such a toy. By the way, the Chinese already have missiles that the Americans are afraid of; they can destroy an aircraft carrier at a distance of several thousand kilometers. Here's what we need to get started, 120-150 pieces of such missiles - killer aircraft carriers, and maybe more, so that there is enough margin for all cruisers and destroyers, and to place them in all directions. This will cost about 20-25 percent of the cost of the aircraft carrier. The rest of the funds will be used to build the most modern air defense systems and place them in the most threatening areas.
By the way, do not forget that the aircraft carrier travels the seas and oceans as part of a warrant protecting it. And this, in terms of total cost, is commensurate with the cost of an aircraft carrier. Plus, the order also needs onshore infrastructure. I don’t know what those at the top are discussing this project think, but this is something in between utopia and a scam! It would be better to do something useful that increases the security of our country!
Cat

0

11 August 2021 11: 56

The problem of entering the open Ocean is, of course, both for the nuclear submarine and for the BNK. It is clear that the strategists who graze in their "bastions" do not need to go to the Americans, they will get it from anywhere in the World Ocean. But to protect these bastions, in the Okhotsk, in the Barents Sea, only the fleet can. At the same time, nuclear submarines should go everywhere, especially in the Caribbean. That is, the forces of the fleet have already been divided into strategic and operational tactical. Here is a multipurpose nuclear submarine and it is necessary to periodically appear and "exert pressure on IM" as opposed to THEIR pressure on our shores. What is the best way to do this? Yes, probably to have an AUG, as part of a light air defense / anti-aircraft defense and a serious shock escort, and plus a division of nuclear submarines carriers of SLCM under water. Then a stable naval grouping is obtained, where BNK armed with Onyx anti-ship missiles can destroy enemy anti-submarine ships, nuclear submarines, in which case, they can strike at the continental part of a hostile state, and AV cover all this splendor from the air. We have nothing to do in the Ocean without air defense fighters. There will not be enough missiles. At the same time, the best anti-aircraft missile is a PA fighter at a distance of 500 km with a dozen explosive missiles. And the shock functions of the compound should be redistributed from the AB to the escort ships. Since our anti-ship missile systems located on the BNK are undoubtedly the best and long-range in the world. We just need ships like the Chinese 052D with 30-40 anti-ship missiles and SD SAMs, (four per cell), since the best anti-aircraft missiles are the MiG-29/35.