How Five Container Ships Could Defeat a U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Strike Group


In just a few days, the intrigue will be resolved, what exactly is hidden there under the black case at the MAKS-2021 air show: a light single-engine fighter or an upgraded version of the Yak-141 vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft, the need to revive which was announced several years ago by Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov. And it would be very cool if a supersonic vertical takeoff and landing fighter was hiding under the curtain. Despite the fact that in certain circles this aircraft is considered almost the most useless, this is not entirely true, and in the case of Russia, the VTOL aircraft can almost make a revolution. Of course, this is an exaggeration, but the revived Yak-141 will solve several very important tasks.


At first, The RF Ministry of Defense can get a multi-purpose all-weather supersonic fighter capable of taking off and landing without a specially prepared runway. This can play a role if the runways are destroyed by preemptive strikes in the event of an armed conflict. We in Russia, alas, are no strangers to a dastardly war without a declaration. Obviously, the military aerodromes of the Aerospace Forces will be among the first targets for the NATO bloc and any other enemy, and without the runways smashed by the Tomahawks, our pilots will be able to count only on the highways, which, naturally, will be packed with cars scared to death. people. The presence of "vertical" as an unpretentious front-line fighter will allow to a certain extent to neutralize the consequences of such a disarming missile strike.

Secondly, the emergence of VTOL aircraft will solve the problems of not only the army, but also the navy. For many years, there have been fierce discussions about whether Russia needs aircraft carriers. The experience of World War II and subsequent armed conflicts with the participation of the US Navy has convincingly proved that powerful aviation is an absolute prerequisite for victory at sea. This was well understood by the Soviet admirals, who consistently developed the theme of aircraft-carrying ships, starting with helicopter carriers of the "Condor" class, then moving on to the TAVRK series. If the collapse of the USSR had not occurred, our fleet by now would have had at once four nuclear-powered aircraft carriers of the Ulyanovsk class, which were ordered by the Navy and were quite competitive with the American Nimitz.

For this reason, the fierce arguments against aircraft carriers for the modern Russian Federation are either a consequence of a lack of understanding of the essence of the issue, or outright sabotage. Yes, there are a lot of problems with building berths, with coastal infrastructure for aircraft carriers, with a lack of experience among deck-based aviation pilots, with funding, that's all. But this does not negate the main message: aircraft carriers, or rather aircraft-carrying ships, are needed by the Russian Navy, and how. The only question is what exactly they should be. And then in the comments, some kind of "woman's tantrums" begin: either give them a heavy nuclear aircraft carrier for 100 thousand tons, like "Nimitz", or better, "Gerald Ford", or none at all! Like, we can handle it with anti-ship missiles alone. Yeah, we'll handle it. The fact that a potential adversary in the person of the US Navy has its own anti-ship and cruise missiles, and in addition to them, an effective carrier-based aircraft, is somehow overlooked. We will fight a lot here at sea, in case of it ...

At this point, let's clarify. Yes, Russia is a great land power, and we certainly do not foresee air battles for atolls in the Pacific Ocean. But somewhere in the depths of the oceans, American nuclear submarines are floating right now, whose ICBMs with nuclear warheads are aimed at our cities. The Russian Navy should be able to catch them even far from its shores, for which, in fact, they began to build the first series of helicopter-carrying cruisers of the Condor project. Events in Syria showed that Russia could at any moment find itself drawn into a war across the three seas, which requires a strong navy and supply fleet. Who knows, perhaps in the foreseeable future we will have to somehow "designate our presence" somewhere overseas, for example, in Venezuela, to support a friendly regime. Recent events with the destroyer Defender have shown that the Russian Aerospace Forces and the Russian Navy have a real prospect of colliding with the AUG of the British Navy. God knows what other challenges we face, in which our small surface fleet may be involved, while the potential enemy in the person of the Anglo-Saxons has its own carrier-based aircraft and experience in its use, and we, so smart, do not need aircraft carriers for nothing. Or are they still needed?

Of course we do. We already reasoned on this topic, concluding that the optimal solution would be the construction of a series of 2-3 light non-nuclear aircraft carriers with a displacement of 40-45 thousand tons and an air wing of 40 carrier-based aircraft, one for the Northern Fleet for reinforcement to the "Admiral Kuznetsov" and two for the Pacific ... And then the "aircraft carrier" exclaim: well, what can these few light aircraft carriers do against a dozen heavy "Nimitz" and even more so "Gerald Ford"! So they will hide near our own shores, afraid to go out into the ocean in the event of a war.

However, this is not quite the correct argument. Firstly, this dozen and a half American AUGs are dispersed throughout the World Ocean, so at the same time all of them will definitely not oppose the Northern or Pacific Fleets of the Russian Federation. Secondly, the tasks of the Russian aircraft carriers will definitely not include duels with the Nimitz, they will only need air and anti-submarine cover for their own ship formation, for which 40 fighters will be quite enough, and if we are talking about two light aircraft carriers, then this is already 80, that is, more than standard on one "Nimitz". Thirdly, with a rational approach, the RF Ministry of Defense has the ability to quickly increase the number of its naval aviation in a specific theater of operations.

So we are smoothly returning from "unnecessary" aircraft carriers to "unnecessary" VTOL aircraft. Yes, in terms of its performance characteristics, the "vertical" is somewhat inferior to the usual horizontal take-off aircraft, but its colossal advantage is the ability to take off and land on almost any patch. He does not need any catapults, aerofinishers and other pribluda. The VTOL aircraft transforms virtually any barge with a straight deck into an aircraft carrier. In the last article, we in detail told about the American-British program ARAPAHO, which allows literally in a week and a half to turn any large dry cargo ship into a light escort aircraft carrier. For this, special container-type modules have been prepared in advance, where hangars, fuel tanks, ammunition storage, crew quarters, etc. are located. They are simply loaded onto a civilian ship according to a predetermined program, essentially turning it into a makeshift warship. The British thus converted and actively used three dry cargo ships at once under their VTOL "Harrier" during the Falklands War. Moreover, the United Kingdom eventually managed to achieve victory precisely because the British were able to concentrate a large number of military aviation in a remote theater of operations, ensuring their dominance in the air. And all this without a prearranged military base in South America!

This successful experience of the Anglo-Saxons could well have served Russia a useful service. The development of its own analogue of the ARAPAKHO program will allow, in the presence of a VTOL aircraft, to quickly increase the number and quality of the naval strike forces. Let's say that we are planning some next conflict across the three seas, where we will be involved directly or indirectly, and we need to support our ally in the region. It is possible to promptly call the required number of large dry cargo vessels from the reserve and place on each of them two dozen "vertical units", as well as load them with fuel and ammunition. Five improvised aircraft carriers in addition to full-fledged warships - this is already a hundred fighters of naval aviation. But this is not all of our potential capabilities.

Let's remember the Caliber-K project, which is a missile strike system, placed optionally inside 20- and 40-foot containers. They can accommodate both the 3M-54KE, 3M-54KE1, Kh-35UE anti-ship missiles and the 3M-14KE, Kh-35UE anti-ship missiles. One container contains up to 4 missiles. There are options with the placement in containers of cruise missiles "Caliber", perhaps, it will be deemed appropriate to use them as carriers for hypersonic "Zircons". The large dimensions of the hull of the dry cargo ship will also make it possible to place a powerful sonar system on it, making a submarine hunter out of a "mobilized" civilian vessel.


It sounds rather unusual, but nothing is impossible in such a project. De facto, due to the placement of the "Caliber-K" and VTOL aircraft complexes on an ordinary dry cargo ship, it turns into an aircraft-carrying missile cruiser, no matter how ridiculous it may sound. Yes, he is very, very far from a real TAVRK or BOD in terms of basic indicators, but he can, if necessary, shoot at targets with "Caliber", "listen" to the underwater strata and serve as a carrier for VTOL carrier-based aircraft. Naturally, not autonomously, but only as escort aircraft carriers and under the protection of full-fledged warships with powerful anti-submarine and anti-aircraft protection.

Let's summarize some of the results. The development of a domestic analogue of the ARAPAKO program and a VTOL fighter will enable the Russian Ministry of Defense to mobilize and arm large civilian ships with "military containers" literally within a couple of weeks, quickly increasing the aircraft carrier and strike group of the Navy in the required theater of operations. Depending on the number of "vertical" and "Caliber-K" containers, we will be able to achieve, if not superiority in the air and in the number of cruise and anti-ship missiles over a potential enemy, then at least reach comparable values, which can have a positive effect on the peaceful settlement of the conflict ... After its completion, "combat containers" can be returned to the warehouses of the Ministry of Defense, and dry cargo ships can be "demobilized". Imagine how much more economical it can be than building and then maintaining a dozen heavy nuclear aircraft carriers and under a hundred strike destroyers and cruisers. Let us clarify that we in no way suggest abandoning a real military fleet, but its analogue ARAPAKHO and the presence of the "Red Banner container-carrying auxiliary fleet" under certain conditions can become a very effective and budgetary asymmetric response to the total dominance of the US Navy in the World Ocean.
57 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Alexander K_2 Offline Alexander K_2
    Alexander K_2 (Alexander K) 17 July 2021 12: 22
    -4
    Does Russia have these 5 container ships?
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 17 July 2021 12: 28
      0
      Damn, we've found a problem. Yes, as much as necessary. An ordinary civilian ship is several times cheaper than a battleship.
      1. Alexander K_2 Offline Alexander K_2
        Alexander K_2 (Alexander K) 17 July 2021 12: 36
        -2
        You know, somewhere on the Internet I read that 30 rich citizens of the Russian Federation have more property on the sea than the property of the Russian Navy, it can be more convenient to attract their fleet, the yachts of these people probably have higher performance characteristics than those newly introduced into the floating craft! And to protect their property They will be better than the Russian Navy!
        1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
          Marzhecki (Sergei) 17 July 2021 12: 53
          +2
          Not a bad idea smile Abramovich's yachts will make good hospital ships.
          1. Binder Offline Binder
            Binder (Miron) 17 July 2021 14: 34
            -4
            But they forgot to ask Abramovich - would he agree to give his property to the disposal of the RF Ministry of Defense? If we take into account that Abramovich himself and his yachts are far from native aspens, then mobilizing these floating craft for the war at sea will be very problematic. hi
          2. Just a cat Offline Just a cat
            Just a cat (Bayun) 18 July 2021 20: 40
            +1
            And from the British Marines, what are the nurses instead of the sailors? laughing
  2. Fourth Horseman Offline Fourth Horseman
    Fourth Horseman (Fourth Horseman) 17 July 2021 13: 07
    0
    Yesterday!
    I suggest building a Death Star!
    1. The comment was deleted.
  3. Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 17 July 2021 19: 09
    -5
    Yes. It’s a little bit ... It’s necessary right away: How five container ships can defeat the US Death Star ...

    If we hear news and helicopters can easily shoot down F35 and F22 ...
    And the next painted, modernized Yak-141 turned into another zilch ...

    But seriously, this is no longer funny ...

    And the idea and cartoons about missiles in containers appeared just from the USA ... 15 years ago, and there are already films ...
    1. avg Offline avg
      avg (Alexander) 18 July 2021 17: 02
      +2
      In 2008, the first container complex Club-K was declassified and already at IMDS-2011, and the commercial came out a couple of years earlier. As for helicopters, in fact, a hovering helicopter is a very difficult target for aircraft missiles, and the stated idea is quite working.
      1. Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 18 July 2021 22: 52
        -1
        Everything is correct. Around this time.
        Amerovskie did not find quickly., Although I remember there were.

        The idea is yes, working. But speculatively it requires the coincidence of several difficult conditions - knowing in advance the path of attack and the time to prepare ...
        Approximately the same probability as shoving missiles into a modernized pickup truck ... Can they also be shot down? but nobody does something ...
  4. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 17 July 2021 22: 07
    +1
    And I completely agree with the author. Because all this is needed and because all this is much cheaper. And there is no need to save on the country's defense capability!
  5. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 18 July 2021 07: 18
    +2
    Quote: Sergey Latyshev
    Yes. It’s a little bit ... It’s necessary right away: How five container ships can defeat the US Death Star ...

    If we hear news and helicopters can easily shoot down F35 and F22 ...
    And the next painted, modernized Yak-141 turned into another zilch ...

    But seriously, this is no longer funny ...

    And the idea and cartoons about missiles in containers appeared just from the USA ... 15 years ago, and there are already films ...

    Do you have flowers at home? still look for such a depressed person. well, write your sad comments, write. hi
    and smart people see at the root. out, even our professional Israelis are keeping quiet about the essence of the issue.
    1. Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 18 July 2021 23: 10
      -2
      And you ? Are the flowers alright? From the abundance of fantastic ideas, they should bloom and smell with might and main.

      If only everything was so easy with fantastic ideas, then everybody would have been stuffing missiles into such containers long ago.
      It has been fitting for 60 years already, the idea is also known for 50 years, Working layouts - 15 years. But nifig no.

      But in real life, the very first scandal will break off all trade in the country, all suspicious dry cargo ships will be gutted. (like the reconnaissance oil tankers of Iran), probably prohibited by law, and the question of logistics ... dofig extra missiles?
  6. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 18 July 2021 09: 09
    -4
    We in Russia, alas, are no strangers to a dastardly war without a declaration.

    It would be interesting to know when was the last time someone attacked Russia without declaring war.
    1. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
      steelmaker 18 July 2021 09: 30
      0
      And once is enough for the state to disappear. If so smart, name is better when Russia was first declared war, and then attacked?
      1. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
        Alexzn (Alexander) 18 July 2021 09: 55
        -2
        In 1941, which the author alludes to.
  7. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 19 July 2021 06: 25
    +2
    Quote: Sergey Latyshev
    And you ? Are the flowers alright? From the abundance of fantastic ideas, they should bloom and smell with might and main.

    If only everything was so easy with fantastic ideas, then everybody would have been stuffing missiles into such containers long ago.
    It has been fitting for 60 years already, the idea is also known for 50 years, Working layouts - 15 years. But nifig no.

    But in real life, the very first scandal will break off all trade in the country, all suspicious dry cargo ships will be gutted. (like the reconnaissance oil tankers of Iran), probably prohibited by law, and the question of logistics ... dofig extra missiles?

    The delirium of a sad commentator
    1. Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 19 July 2021 09: 45
      0
      Well, God bless you.
      Science fiction makes life more interesting. I'll even put a plus sign, despite ...
  8. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 19 July 2021 06: 29
    0
    Quote: AlexZN
    In 1941, which the author alludes to.

    Is that war not enough for you? Or, again, is there a special Jewish view of history?
    Better sit in your Israel and don't stick your sweaty little hands in here. Only pissed off
  9. Nikolai Miracles (Nikolai Chudov) 19 July 2021 06: 37
    -1
    VTOL aircraft inferior in all performance characteristics of normal carrier-based aircraft and ground aircraft. How to compensate for this, in quantity? No chance.
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 19 July 2021 06: 53
      +2
      Yak-141 was comparable to deck ships. And this is 30 years ago. Now there are new technologies and engines, after the modernization there will be another plane.
      And, yes, the number of VTOL aircraft, backed up by other percussion pieces, such as anti-ship missiles, calibers, and so on. So don't la-la. There will be no 1v1 duels, only the number will matter.
    2. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 19 July 2021 08: 48
      0
      There are a little more than 1 aircraft on 70 aircraft carrier. But they cannot all take to the air at the same time. VTOL aircraft can. Conventional 5 container carriers, carrying 20 VTOL aircraft on board, can provide real air domination over Nimitz. We will be able to lift 100 fighters into the air at once against several dozen from the Americans. Or, to begin with, 50, which will still exceed the number of the Americans, and another 50 in reserve for the second wave.
      1. Nikolai Miracles (Nikolai Chudov) 19 July 2021 11: 59
        0
        Well, this is for our first hit. And if the other way around? In addition, for 10 years I have been observing a steady growth in the performance characteristics of the Yak-141 in the absence of such an aircraft. Here are the performance characteristics at the beginning:



  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 19 July 2021 12: 39
    +1
    Quote: Nikolai Chudov
    Well, this is for our first hit. And if the other way around? In addition, for 10 years I have been observing a steady growth in the performance characteristics of the Yak-141 in the absence of such an aircraft. Here are the performance characteristics at the beginning:




    If only, if only. The article sounded working options for how, at a low cost, you can provide an effective asymmetric response of the US Navy, equalize and even surpass the forces of their naval aviation in a specific theater of operations. A bunch of all sorts of If you can think of as many as you want if you want. But the option is quite working and relatively budgetary.
    The growth of performance characteristics, even virtual, objectively correlates with the development of modern technologies.
    P.S. and I think that we will not actually fight at sea with the United States. But with the Japanese and the British ... It is not excluded.
    1. Nikolai Miracles (Nikolai Chudov) 19 July 2021 17: 17
      0
      A war with the Japanese or the British means war with the United States. And now, without false pathos, think that the range of VTOL aircraft, by definition, is much inferior to the range of deck and especially land aviation. That is, "dry cargo ships" will have to go for a long time in the zone of action of enemy aircraft, unable to strike at their airfields and aircraft carriers. I'm not making up anything.
  13. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 19 July 2021 12: 39
    +2
    Quote: Sergey Latyshev
    Well, God bless you.
    Science fiction makes life more interesting. I'll even put a plus sign, despite ...

    That's for sure, God is with us))
    1. Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 20 July 2021 23: 21
      0
      Even so.
      Reminded.
      Gott mit uns. Wehrmacht.
      1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 21 July 2021 07: 59
        +1
        What is wrong with you?
        1. Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 21 July 2021 08: 56
          0
          Wah, I'll put the plus signs anyway ...
          Finish
  14. Many_ways_point Offline Many_ways_point
    Many_ways_point 19 July 2021 17: 52
    -1
    Dry cargo vessels with VTOL aircraft cannot replace the ejection AB. The ejection AB has AWACS aircraft, refuellers, its aircraft have a larger combat radius, and it has a significantly higher travel speed.
    In a real battle with Ford or Nimitz, the first blow will be for the United States, and even if it is unsuccessful, which is unlikely, then they will dictate their terms of the battle.
    At the same time, one should not forget that AV is essentially a floating airfield and its hull itself without special systems is inexpensive. And these military containers will be quite expensive. As a result, there will be no promised savings, and it will be even more expensive. it will still be necessary to have normal AB.
    In reality, dry cargo ships with VTOL aircraft on board can only prove themselves against undeveloped Bantustans. They are useless in combat with navies such as the United States, China, Britain or France.

    Of course we do. We have already discussed this topic, concluding that the optimal solution would be to build a series of 2-3 light non-nuclear aircraft carriers with a displacement of 40-45 thousand tons and an air wing of 40 deck aircraft, one for the Northern Fleet to be reinforced to the Admiral Kuznetsov and two for the Pacific.

    The optimal solution would be the construction of 6-8 medium-sized submarines with gas turbines and a complete refusal to build any submarines except for a small series of submarines-hunters.
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 20 July 2021 09: 55
      +1
      Actually, if you carefully read the article, it says that we need 2-3 light ejection non-nuclear aircraft carriers. And mobilization dry cargo vessels with VTOL aircraft should be used, if necessary, somewhere to build up an air wing as auxiliary escort aircraft carriers.

      complete rejection of the construction of any submarine except for a small series of submarine hunters.

      And Boreas with Ashes too? Seriously?

      At the same time, one should not forget that AV is essentially a floating airfield and its hull itself without special systems is inexpensive. And these military containers will be quite expensive. As a result, there will be no promised savings, and it will be even more expensive. it will still be necessary to have normal AB.

      Are you serious? Is an aircraft carrier inexpensive? Are containers more expensive? Fierce delirium. One aircraft carrier will actually be built in 10-15 years, a series of 6-8 will take 30-50 years. Do we have that much time? A dry cargo ship can be converted into an escort aircraft carrier with a VTOL wing in 1,5 weeks. And then back to the dry cargo ship.
      I think this is where the discussion should be closed.
      P.S. We already have AWACS helicopters, and eventually the planes will appear. And no one compares an improvised dry cargo aircraft carrier in terms of performance characteristics with a full-fledged nuclear aircraft carrier. The point is that in a week and a half, if there are hundreds of VTOL aircraft and containers, they can be converted into floating rocket batteries and aerodromes for vertical units, and at the same time they are in fact supply vessels. Nobody offers to replace the real military with civilian courts. Only as auxiliary.
      1. Many_ways_point Offline Many_ways_point
        Many_ways_point 20 July 2021 17: 05
        -1
        Actually, if you carefully read the article, it says that we need 2-3 light ejection non-nuclear aircraft carriers. And mobilization dry cargo vessels with VTOL aircraft should be used, if necessary, somewhere to build up an air wing as auxiliary escort aircraft carriers.

        In the presence of an AWACS aircraft and a carrier-based fighter-bomber (and they must be at the ejection AB), the whole point of creating a VTOL aircraft and these ersatz with special containers is lost.
        It will be much wiser and more efficient to spend the same money on the construction of a series of full-size AB.

        And Boreas with Ashes too? Seriously?

        Absolutely. The submarine concept itself is outdated, they are perfectly visible for hundreds of kilometers with the help of low-frequency illumination, NATO has more than 100 very good PLO aircraft. In a real war, the entire submarine will be quickly destroyed. Investing in submarines when the opponents have a powerful PLO is stupidity and outright sabotage.

        Are you serious? Is an aircraft carrier inexpensive? Are containers more expensive? Fierce delirium. One aircraft carrier will actually be built in 10-15 years, a series of 6-8 will take 30-50 years. Do we have that much time? A dry cargo ship can be converted into an escort aircraft carrier with a VTOL wing in 1,5 weeks. And then back to the dry cargo ship.

        Hull AB without equipment itself is quite comparable in price with the same dry cargo or container ship. Yes, container ships will still come out cheaper, but the difference will be insignificant, hardly more than 2 times. But at the same time, it should be remembered that the ejection AB is several times stronger than them due to the speed of 30+ knots, the catapult and full-fledged aircraft. Where are the savings?
        1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
          Marzhecki (Sergei) 20 July 2021 18: 58
          0
          Here they will explain to you in a popular way that we have nowhere to build aircraft carriers, there is nothing and there is no need smile so forget about this series. And I disagree about the submarines. Nonsense. Plans are one of our main triad.
          1. Many_ways_point Offline Many_ways_point
            Many_ways_point 20 July 2021 20: 10
            -1
            nowhere

            the northern shipyard is an asterisk after modernization, even though it is now.

            nothing

            If you throw it out to the wind, and on all sorts of nonsense such as VTOL aircraft and udk, scams such as 20386 and 885, etc., then certainly. If you approach the issue reasonably and economically, money will be found. 1 serial AB with an air wing is 500 billion rubles. money is not to say that it is too heavy.

            no need

            You don't need to lie. If there is no need, then why offer these ersatz c VTOL aircraft, they are of the type not needed?

            And I disagree about the submarines. Nonsense. Plans are one of our main triad.

            https://topwar.ru/183065-skrytnosti-bolshe-net-podlodki-privychnogo-nam-vida-obrecheny.html
            1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
              Marzhecki (Sergei) 21 July 2021 08: 01
              +1
              no need

              You don't need to lie. If there is no need, then why offer these ersatz c VTOL aircraft, they are of the type not needed?

              First, read carefully, it is the others who are fighting the aircraft carriers, not me. On the contrary, I advocate their necessity.

              Hull AB without equipment itself is quite comparable in price with the same dry cargo or container ship. Yes, container ships will still come out cheaper, but the difference will be insignificant, hardly more than 2 times. But at the same time, it should be remembered that the ejection AB is several times stronger than them due to the speed of 30+ knots, the catapult and full-fledged aircraft. Where are the savings

              A container ship does not even need to be specially built, this is an ordinary civilian ship, several times cheaper than any warship. How do you think cargo is brought from China? They are in stock, you can easily buy them ready-made. You can't buy an aircraft carrier anywhere. The container ship turns into an escort aircraft carrier with VTOL aircraft for a week and a half. An aircraft carrier under Russian conditions has been under construction for 10-15 years and is constantly becoming more expensive. So where are the savings, really?

              You have spoken, I have read, I have taken note. Remained unconvinced. If necessary, I can find a couple of others on your link from VO, where the opposite point of view is convincingly substantiated. I also read this site. Your problem is that you are too categorical and think you are smarter than others.
              1. Many_ways_point Offline Many_ways_point
                Many_ways_point 21 July 2021 12: 42
                -1
                A container ship does not even need to be specially built, this is an ordinary civilian ship, several times cheaper than any warship. How do you think cargo is brought from China? They are in stock, you can easily buy them ready-made. You can't buy an aircraft carrier anywhere. The container ship turns into an escort aircraft carrier with VTOL aircraft for a week and a half. An aircraft carrier under Russian conditions has been under construction for 10-15 years and is constantly becoming more expensive. So where are the savings, really?

                We count. 1 conditional AB with an air wing is 500 billion rubles. Of these, 200 are the cost of aircraft, and it remains unchanged, even though it is AB, even a bunch of converted cadavers. Alteration of several container ships - let 50 billion. As a result, we have only two-fold savings, but do not forget that you will be obliged to compensate the owners of the ships for their losses if they are destroyed in battle. It should be borne in mind that the ersatz themselves and their air group are several times less effective than specialized ones. Well, where is the savings?

                An aircraft carrier under Russian conditions has been under construction for 10-15 years and is constantly becoming more expensive. So where are the savings, really?

                Savings in serial construction.

                You have spoken, I have read, I have taken note. Remained unconvinced. If necessary, I can find a couple of others on your link from VO, where the opposite point of view is convincingly substantiated. I also read this site.

                Give links. Here is some more information https://avmalgin.livejournal.com/7887924.html Investing money in DPs with their lost secrecy is stupidity and betrayal.

                Your problem is that you are too categorical and think you are smarter than others.

                Or maybe this is not a problem but a gift? Could it really be so?
                1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                  Marzhecki (Sergei) 21 July 2021 12: 59
                  0
                  Oh, that's all, okay. God be with you and your gift smile I am no longer interested in continuing this discussion, it taxied somewhere in the wrong direction. I have stated my position.
                  1. Many_ways_point Offline Many_ways_point
                    Many_ways_point 21 July 2021 14: 38
                    0
                    And I pointed out the weaknesses of this position. By itself, the concept of VTOL aircraft on ersatz AB has a right to life if there are already ready VTOL aircraft. But if they are specially designed and built for this, and even equipment for converting ships into ersatz also needs to be developed, then this is nonsense. With the same expended resources, an ejection AB with normal aircraft will always be stronger.
  15. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 20 July 2021 09: 51
    +1
    Quote: Nikolai Chudov
    A war with the Japanese or the British means war with the United States. And now, without false pathos, think that the range of VTOL aircraft, by definition, is much inferior to the range of deck and especially land aviation. That is, "dry cargo ships" will have to go for a long time in the zone of action of enemy aircraft, unable to strike at their airfields and aircraft carriers. I'm not making up anything.

    A war with the Japanese or the British does not mean a war with the United States, if, for example, the Japanese will encroach on the Kuril Islands or the British will play out on the Black Sea. The United States does not need a real war with us, but entrusting it to its satellites is quite real.
    And what does the range of the VTOL aircraft have to do with it? What is the article about? That we, with the help of VTOL aircraft and improvised aircraft carriers, can provide a serious aviation grouping in a certain theater of operations, quickly and cheaply. To avoid escalating a conflict as a deterrent.
    As for real combat operations against aircraft carriers, tell me, but now, without VTOL aircraft, how are you going to conduct them? Without false pathos? With the help of anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, etc. right? So why should the presence of VTOL aircraft on several improvised aircraft carriers cancel these capabilities? VTOL aircraft will provide anti-aircraft cover for our grouping against enemy carrier-based aircraft. At the same time, we will simultaneously be able to lift more airborne aircraft into the air than from Nimitz, that is, the advantage in the air will be ours, we will simultaneously put 1-2 Yaks on 3 Hornet. The Americans will have little chance, and not ours.
    And why, in your interpretation, dry cargo ships should go by themselves? This is not an independent combat unit, but only an auxiliary one, for full-fledged cruisers, destroyers, frigates and submarines, which is directly indicated in the article. By the way, a Pantsir-C1 air defense missile system can be placed on the deck of a dry cargo ship in order to give it its own anti-aircraft protection in addition to that which will give the entire warrant.
    I don’t understand your pessimism at all. The idea is quite sensible and realizable, no fiction, there are precedents, technology too. It is not so expensive, cheaper than building 10 Ulyanovsk with escort ships.
    1. Nikolai Miracles (Nikolai Chudov) 20 July 2021 13: 19
      -1
      You've probably heard: "A miser pays twice." Yes, VTOL aircraft will provide anti-aircraft cover, but will not be able to strike at aircraft carriers and land airfields. And the enemy will be able to attack with all available means.
      In fact, these "dry cargo ships" are the same disposable fleet. The commander of the Soviet BOD taught conscripts: "A BOD consumes all its ammunition in 45 minutes, and then, guys, excuse me." So that the "satellites" can defeat us at sea. Another question is that Russia is a continental power and is obliged to give priority to the ground forces. Russia will not be able to become on a par with the aircraft carrier fleets of the naval powers.
  16. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 20 July 2021 13: 42
    +1
    Quote: Nikolay Chudov
    You've probably heard: "A miser pays twice." Yes, VTOL aircraft will provide anti-aircraft cover, but will not be able to strike at aircraft carriers and land airfields. And the enemy will be able to attack with all available means.
    In fact, these "dry cargo ships" are the same disposable fleet.

    Yes, our entire fleet is essentially disposable in case of war, isn't it? Does this mean that it does not need to be built?
    The main task of the Russian Ministry of Defense is to provide such responses to threats from the United States so that the United States will never start this war because of the threat of unacceptable losses. The mobilization of container ships, operatively equipped with missile containers and VTOL aircraft, is a very effective and at the same time very budgetary asymmetric response to the US Navy AUG threat. We cannot afford 10 nuclear aircraft carriers, we cannot even afford one. And 1-2 light, ejection, with a gas turbine, for 3 deck horizontal lines and the ability to urgently mobilize and equip VTOL aircraft and missile containers with 40 or more large civilian ships for reinforcement to cruisers, destroyers, BODs and frigates in a week and a half - this is a completely convincing argument against in order to make some war with us at sea.
    What is the double pay of the stingy, explain? Do you propose not to build aircraft carriers at all because of the high cost? Or, on the contrary, a big atomic one? Now, if we produce hundreds of 2 VTOL aircraft, then they would be really useful: both on land, in the event of an impact on airfields, and at sea, as described in the article.
    What is cheaper, to build from scratch a cruiser with 100 universal launchers or 25 mobile combat containers with 4 missiles in each, which can be stored in the warehouses of the Ministry of Defense at naval bases and, if necessary, can be quickly transferred with the help of VTA to where they are needed? Which is more practical, answer?
    Once again: this is by no means an argument for not building cruisers and destroyers, we are talking about auxiliary ships that can be quickly converted into escort aircraft carriers carrying up to 20 VTOL aircraft each and missile containers that will enhance the strike potential of the ship. connections. Naturally, no one such a container ship will send one to fight the American destroyers or hit their airfields.
    By the way, why the Yak-141 after modernization will not be able to carry anti-ship missiles and strike at an aircraft carrier in your opinion? How many planes can Nimitz lift at once? How many VTOL aircraft can simultaneously take to the air? Who will have air superiority? And why should our ships, which we for some reason equip with Calibers, Onyxes and Zircons, should be idle?
    1. Nikolai Miracles (Nikolai Chudov) 20 July 2021 14: 09
      0
      Quote: Marzhetsky
      By the way, why the Yak-141 after modernization will not be able to carry anti-ship missiles and strike at an aircraft carrier in your opinion?

      The missile's range is summed up with the carrier's range. The range of the AUG aircraft is obviously greater than that of the VTOL aircraft. And for this reason, it does not matter how many VTOL aircraft can simultaneously take to the air.
      And the rest is true, only ships equipped with Calibers, Onyxes and Zircons will fight, and VTOL aircraft will not reach the enemy, but will patrol around our squadron, pretending to be a cover, and no one will even enter the battle with them.
      1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 20 July 2021 14: 30
        0
        So I typed the performance characteristics of the Yak-141. The flight range is 2100 km.

        No joke, a supersonic vertical take-off and landing aircraft, which was at least 10-15 years ahead of its time? Even today, comparing the flight characteristics of the Yak-141 and F-35B, it can be noted that the Soviet aircraft is not much inferior to the American one. The maximum speed of the Yak-141 is 1800 km / h at an altitude of 11 km, for the F-35B it is 1930. The flight range of the Soviet aircraft is 1400 km for vertical takeoff and 2100 km for the shortened one, for the American one - 1670.

        https://tvzvezda.ru/news/201706141024-sf9j.htm
        As if comparable characteristics ... The upgraded version with a new engine will probably have a larger combat radius. Plus the range of the anti-ship missile ... soldier
        Do you really think that the battle between the US Navy AUG and the Russian fleet with escort aircraft carriers will go on such a long distance? smile
        1. Nikolai Miracles (Nikolai Chudov) 20 July 2021 14: 39
          0
          On Yandex Zen, one opponent explained to me that this is the Yak-141's one-way range with horizontal takeoff. Take off horizontally from a dry cargo ship? I already wrote to you that the performance characteristics of the Yak-141 are "steadily growing", but the aircraft itself is not. But the performance characteristics of "Harrier" in Russian-language sources are steadily declining. The war of sources is evident. Above was a picture from the video about the Yak-141, there it is closer to reality.
          1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
            Marzhecki (Sergei) 20 July 2021 14: 44
            0
            Well, this is a debatable question. Nevertheless, we came to the conclusion that the presence of VTOL aircraft neutralizes the superiority of the AUG in carrier-based aircraft, right?
            Then there are missiles on both sides. Tell me, is there a fundamental difference, will a missile strike be delivered from a cruiser cell or from a launch container? So we loaded 25 containers with anti-ship missiles onto the dry cargo ship and began to fire volleys at Nimitz. The anti-aircraft guns of the escort begin to cover it. And then the second, third, fifth, tenth dry cargo ship (how many) is involved in the case. And then the Americans run out of ammunition corny, as you yourself said above using the BOD as an example.
            So, what is next?
            1. Nikolai Miracles (Nikolai Chudov) 20 July 2021 15: 21
              0
              Quote: Marzhetsky
              Nevertheless, we came to the conclusion that the presence of VTOL aircraft neutralizes the superiority of the AUG in carrier-based aircraft, right?

              No, it does not neutralize due to the superiority of AUG aircraft in range. They will also launch missiles at our squadron when the AUG is out of reach for VTOL missiles, that is, VTOL aircraft are deleted from this battle. And they will not enter into an air battle with VTOL aircraft. Thus, the enemy has superiority in the weight of the salvo. And the carrier-based air group will return to the aircraft carrier, and will attach new missiles to it. And the escort ships will work out missiles for ours no worse than ours for AUG. In naval missiles there is parity, and in aviation missiles, AUG has the advantage.
              And all because of the superiority of horizontally taking off aircraft in range
              1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                Marzhecki (Sergei) 20 July 2021 18: 51
                +1
                Go ahead. We put on the deck dry cargo BUKi or s300 and neutralize this blow due to powerful air defense. It is better, of course, to develop special mobile modules for installation on civilian ships. Someone's missiles should be the first to end, and it is necessary that not with us. By the way, I didn’t quite understand why there was certainly parity in shipbuilding. We need to bring out so many auxiliary strike platforms to knock out all their anti-aircraft missiles with volleys. They can also serve to neutralize the superiority of carrier-based aircraft in range. After finishing with zircons and calibers. If we have a pair of light aircraft carriers with a wing of 40 horizontal, then the alignment will change significantly
                1. Nikolai Miracles (Nikolai Chudov) 20 July 2021 18: 57
                  0
                  Quote: Marzhetsky
                  By the way, I didn’t quite understand why there was certainly parity in shipbuilding. We need to bring out so many auxiliary strike platforms to knock out all their anti-aircraft missiles with volleys.

                  They just have superiority in the navy. Russia is catching up, but will it catch up, they will not sit idly by, or are you hoping for it?
                  1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                    Marzhecki (Sergei) 21 July 2021 08: 12
                    +1
                    Look, I understand very well how big the difference in strength is between the Russian Navy and the US Navy. And I understand that it is unrealistic to catch up. Therefore, I do not propose to build 10 Ulyanovsk because of senselessness, because the United States will then build 10 more. For my part, as a person who is not indifferent to the sea and the problems of the fleet, I propose a reasonable compromise: 2-3 light aircraft carriers for 40 carrier-based fighters each, a program similar to ARAPAKHO, taking into account the possibility placing from 100 to 200 VTOL aircraft on escort ersatz aircraft carriers to strengthen the fleet and the program for placing missile containers on them. In my personal opinion, such an increase can play a big role without radically increasing military spending.
                    As for the weaker performance characteristics of Yaks, it must be borne in mind that we are guided by an aircraft 30 years old. After the upgrade and installation of Product 30, the difference, I believe, will cease to be so significant. That's all. It is rational, budgetary, feature-rich and efficient. The main task is containment. A similar program would work for this military mission. The same missile containers can be moved and installed on land, somewhere on the western border, etc. I do not understand at all why they attacked me so.

                    And finally, as I wrote above: I do not think that we will really be at war with the United States. But the Americans may well let the Japanese with the Kuriles and the British, who built 2 AUG, ahead of them. These are quite real opponents for our Navy.
                    1. Nikolai Miracles (Nikolai Chudov) 21 July 2021 09: 14
                      0
                      Understand one physical truth: vertical takeoff reduces the range of an aircraft several times. VTOL aircraft are obviously not a competitor to conventional carrier-based aircraft. Hence: "The miser pays twice."
                      It turns out to be window dressing, not containment. Where and whom to contain? Our fleet is not enough for all. There remain offensive local tasks, which is real. And this is an amphibious landing, which must be protected from enemy ground aircraft, and this is such a strength and range that you need your own (floating) airfield, or even more than one, with aircraft no worse than the enemy's ground ones. And including for strikes against airfields.
                      I did not attack you, but patiently explain the difference between hurray propaganda and reality. It remains to recall the superiority of their economy over ours.
                      1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                        Marzhecki (Sergei) 21 July 2021 13: 02
                        0
                        Everything, I understood your position, but I remained unconvinced. I do not see any hurray propaganda in my text, rather, on the contrary. And this is taking into account the realities of our economy. If that doesn't convince you, well, what can you do. Thanks for your time with me.
                2. Many_ways_point Offline Many_ways_point
                  Many_ways_point 20 July 2021 21: 01
                  -1
                  Go ahead. We put on the deck dry cargo BUKi or s300 and neutralize this blow due to powerful air defense.

                  Impossible. No air defense can repel the simultaneous strike of more than a hundred anti-radar missiles and hundreds of LRASMs.

                  It is better, of course, to develop special mobile modules for installation on civilian ships. Someone's missiles should be the first to end, and it is necessary that not with us.

                  Impossible. The AB cellars will always be larger than any reasonable number of missiles in the cells. But their full capacity is not needed, AB is enough for two strokes.

                  After finishing with zircons and calibers.

                  Who will give the control center, if by that time everything that can fly will already be burning or sinking?
                  1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                    Marzhecki (Sergei) 21 July 2021 08: 24
                    +1
                    Read at your leisure https://topwar.ru/31458-nekotorye-osobennosti-ispolzovaniya-palubnoy-aviacii-superavianoscev-tipa-nimitz-ch1.html
                    As for the CU: we kind of form the Lianas. There are actually AWACS helicopters in the hardware. If the goal is to engage in naval aviation, then the carrier-based AWACS aircraft will then make where to go. I think the future belongs to unmanned AWACS, some developments in UAVs already exist in Russia.
                    And I don’t understand at all why in your version we are necessarily terpily, at which 100 missiles are launched first. Is it like a war without a declaration or what?
                    1. Many_ways_point Offline Many_ways_point
                      Many_ways_point 21 July 2021 12: 00
                      -1
                      Read at your leisure https://topwar.ru/31458-nekotorye-osobennosti-ispolzovaniya-palubnoy-aviacii-superavianoscev-tipa-nimitz-ch1.html

                      I did not find anything new there. It is an hour for Nimitz to raise 40 planes to strike. The first ones to take off will be refueled in the air and, in general, their tanks will be filled by 80-90 percent of the maximum. 1 HARM weighs 350 kg. 4 pieces are taken without any problems. 4 * 40 = 160 missiles.
                      Your SAM is the end with no options.

                      As for the CU: we kind of form the Lianas.

                      You can forget about the satellite control center. In a real war, they are quickly knocked down by everyone.

                      There are actually AWACS helicopters in the hardware. If the goal is to engage in naval aviation, then the carrier-based AWACS aircraft will then make where to go.

                      Deck AWACS can only take off from a catapult. Well, or at least from a springboard with a running start across the entire Kuznetsov deck. Erzatsy is passing by here.

                      And I don’t understand at all why in your version we are necessarily terpily, at which 100 missiles are launched first. Is it like a war without a declaration or what?

                      Well, launch rockets at them too. Or raise planes to strike. But where are you going to launch them?
                      They have a higher level of awareness due to AWACS and it is easier for them to dodge due to 33 nodes. And they also beat further. There are no options here.
                      1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                        Marzhecki (Sergei) 21 July 2021 13: 03
                        0
                        Thank you all. This concludes.
  17. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 21 July 2021 13: 55
    0
    Quote: Nikolay Chudov
    Understand one physical truth: vertical takeoff reduces the range of an aircraft several times. VTOL aircraft are obviously not a competitor to conventional carrier-based aircraft. Hence: "The miser pays twice."
    It turns out to be window dressing, not containment

    To put, if not a full stop, then an ellipsis: the WWII experience shows that there is no problem to weld a deck with a hangar onto a large civilian ship, turning it into a merchant or escort aircraft carrier. I do not see any fundamental difficulties in working out the issue of quick installation of the take-off deck on a dry cargo ship so that the VTOL aircraft can take off horizontally in a shortened pattern and land vertically like the F-35B.
    1. Nikolai Miracles (Nikolai Chudov) 21 July 2021 14: 57
      0
      The problem is the length of the civilian vessel and the vertical landing, which eats up fuel, and hence the range. A shortened takeoff is also an additional expense compared to a conventional horizontal takeoff or catapult. And most importantly, you are sacrificing your main trump card, the simultaneous or sequential massive takeoff of VTOL aircraft. "Miser pays twice". Five dry cargo ships, as in the article, will not defeat AUG.
      In the same way, Tukhachevsky wanted 100 armored tractors, or it is easier to say: "Buy dimes for a ruble."