Why hypersonic "Daggers" and "Zircons" are useless against the US Navy AUG

The Russian navy, unfortunately, is, quantitatively and qualitatively, very seriously inferior to its potential adversary, the US Navy. Unable to compete in the speed and scale of the shipbuilding program, the RF Ministry of Defense relied on an “asymmetric response,” which we consider to be hypersonic weapons. If you look at the numerous publications on this topic and the enthusiastic comments of a jingoistic patriotic audience, you may get the impression that we have already won a victory over the Americans in absentia, completely zeroing the potential of 11 AUG. Alas, this is far from the case, and "victory" is more likely to be classified in the media rather than real.

The author of the lines condemns his colleagues in the shop, who disseminate not entirely correct assessments about the real capabilities of Russian hypersonic weapons, thereby provoking inadequate ideas on the merits of the issue from an inexperienced man in the street. Due to such activities, stupid and dangerous mythologemes about the US Navy AUG are formed in the public consciousness, such as that an aircraft carrier is a "useless vessel", "an obsolete weapon of aggression" and "a huge defenseless target" for our "Daggers" and "Zircons" ". Let's take a cold shower and chase away this imposed wrath.

Two ways, and ours is wrong?

A small digression is needed here to explain the difference in the two approaches to building a navy. The Americans, who have almost a century of experience in operating aircraft carriers, know very well that there is nothing more terrible at sea than aviation. Aircraft sank enemy ships many times more than warships, and with much less resource consumption. Deck aircraft can be used in the war of the fleet against the fleet, and in the war of the fleet against the coast. For this reason, the US Navy is built around aircraft carriers, for which a warrant of missile cruisers, destroyers, frigates and submarines is assembled for protection and fire support.

Unfortunately, due to the wrong ideological setting that "an aircraft carrier is a weapon of aggression", the USSR took a different path. The stake was placed on missile weapons, which were seen as a panacea. The Soviet admirals understood the fallacy of such a one-sided approach and by hook or by crook tried to push through the need to build aircraft-carrying ships, at least in the form of TAVRK. "Admiral Kuznetsov" is the highest point of achievement in this undercover struggle. Towards the end of the existence of the USSR, the naval commanders managed to achieve their goal, and a series of four nuclear-powered aircraft carriers of the Ulyanovsk type, comparable to the Nimitz, was laid at once, but due to the collapse of the country, even the lead ship was never completed. The TAVRK "Admiral Gorshkov" was sold to India for some reason, and today we only have "Admiral Kuznetsov", which they are trying to "drown" or set on fire during repairs.

Why are we telling all this? To the fact that the Russian Navy, which is incomparably weaker than the Soviet Navy, is again following the same not entirely correct path, relying exclusively on missiles. The theme of the construction of aircraft carriers has been turned into a kind of farce in the media space. But let's now smoothly move on to hypersonic missiles and explain why this is far from a panacea against the 11 AUG of the US Navy.

And we are their "Zircons" and "Daggers"!

The very idea of ​​a hypersonic weapon is simply wonderful: I launched a missile at hypersonic speed, against which modern missile defense systems are practically useless, and that's it, good-bye an aircraft carrier, and then its escort order. For this, Russia has developed a sea-based anti-ship missile "Zircon" (3M22) and an air-launched hypersonic missile system 9-A-7660 "Dagger". "Zircons" can be launched from submarines, cruisers and frigates, and "Daggers" - from supersonic MiG-31K fighters, Tu-22M3, Tu-160 bombers and, in the future, from the 5th generation Su-57 fighters. It seems that everything is simple: they raised aircraft or fired a volley from ships and submarines - and goodbye, US Navy AUG. Oh, if only it were that simple ...

Unfortunately, the matter is not limited to a simple press of a finger on the conditional "red button". You still try to get into this very aircraft carrier. Let's try to explain the complexity of this combat mission in an extremely simplified form:

At first, AUG of a potential adversary will always try to stay as far away as possible. Due to the presence of carrier-based aircraft, which can deliver air strikes, its "arm" will always be longer than that of a fleet that does not have its own aircraft carrier.

Secondly, a rocket, even a hypersonic one, unable to move in space at lightning speed.

Thirdly, the AUG order will not stand still. Despite their size, American aircraft carriers are capable of moving at very high speeds, which can reach 30 knots.

Taken together, this means that after the launch of the "Zircon" or "Caliber" on one target coordinates, that at the time of the strike will be on the other. The area of ​​the probable location of the target is significantly increased, and the data that was relevant at the time of the launch of the missiles became irrelevant. Yes, the missiles have homing heads, but the work of the seeker is complicated by the fact that they fly at extremely high speeds in a cloud of plasma. And we have not yet said anything about countering a missile attack by air defense systems of the AUG order, electronic warfare and air cover by carrier-based fighter aircraft.

What conclusions can be drawn from this? It is necessary either to shoot from short distances, but who will let us close to him, or the target must be continuously tracked in real time with the transfer of data to the carrier of the missile weapon. Otherwise, our "Zircons" and "Daggers" may not get there. But try to bring our surface ships or combat aircraft to the AUG, which tracks all movements with its own AWACS aircraft and is covered by carrier-based aircraft.

Targeting problems

Our potential enemy in the person of the United States has a huge satellite constellation, as well as several AWACS reconnaissance aircraft on each of its 11 aircraft carrier strike groups, which allow the Pentagon to continuously monitor the situation and provide effective target designation in naval and air combat. Alas, not everything is so wonderful with us.

A sea-based AWACS aircraft in the Russian Navy is absent as a class. In the late USSR, the development of its own Yak-44 AWACS began, but it was never completed. In the US Navy, AWACS reconnaissance aircraft take off from aircraft carriers using a catapult. We did not have time to build our first atomic "Ulyanovsk" with a catapult because of the collapse of the country. Theoretically, the Yak-44 could take off from the Admiral Kuznetsov TAVRK, but only with half-filled fuel tanks to reduce weight. True, recent American experiments show that aircraft can be refueled in the air using drones.

Be that as it may, today we have neither an AWACS aircraft, nor a normal catapult aircraft carrier. As an alternative, the RF Ministry of Defense is considering the Il-20M electronic reconnaissance aircraft, which can provide data for the Dagger missiles via a secure communication channel. True, it is not known how long this turboprop aircraft will last over the sea in the area of ​​operation of the AUG fighter aircraft, but it is clear that it will not last long. What then can you count on in the issue of target designation for the Navy?

"Liana"

Under the USSR, in the absence of the means of deck reconnaissance, the stake was placed on the Legenda naval space reconnaissance and target designation system (MCRTs). It really made it possible to track the situation in the oceans and transmit data for target designation to warships and submarines. In total, over 30 spacecraft were launched into orbit. Their unique feature is the presence of a nuclear reactor that provides a power source. However, in the end it played a cruel joke with "Legend". In 1978, the spacecraft "Kosmos-954" fell in Canada, which led to radiation pollution of a vast territory and an international scandal. Under pressure from the West, this entire system was gradually decommissioned.

To replace it, the Russian Federation has developed the Liana ICRC system. Because of technical the complexity of the program has greatly stretched in time, and today it is a very modest constellation of two satellites of passive electronic reconnaissance "Lotos-S" and two satellites of active radar reconnaissance "Pion-NKS". Let's face it, sparsely when compared with the capabilities of the Soviet "Legend" and the American intelligence group. Considering that these four Russian satellites are also rotating, then there is no need to talk about continuous monitoring of the situation in the entire World Ocean.

Tsushima 2?

Now let's try to imagine the worst case scenario. Let's say that Russia is forced to enter into some kind of armed conflict with the United States. Among the primary goals for the Pentagon will be "blinding" and "stunning" our Armed Forces, Aerospace Forces and the Navy. In view of the extremely small number of the Liana group, this can be done very quickly using anti-satellite missiles. For example, back in 2007, the Chinese were able to shoot down their FY-1C meteorological satellite of the Fengyun series, located in a polar orbit with an altitude of 865 km. The height of the defeat of the American SM-3 Block IIA anti-missile missile is generally 1500 km. In addition, the group of unmanned spaceplanes X-37 Boeing, which the Pentagon intends to bring to 8 pieces, can secretly prepare for the destruction of Russian reconnaissance satellites.

So, what do we have in the bottom line. A potential adversary in the person of the United States is capable of knocking out our Liana ICRC without any problems, making it impossible to transmit data for target designation to the Russian Navy. Due to the lack of aircraft carriers as carriers for the AWACS aircraft and the carrier-based AWACS aircraft themselves as a class, Russian ships will not be able to effectively defeat the US Navy's AUG by the Zircons, and the Russian Aerospace Forces by the Daggers. Even an ordinary, non-carrier-based AWACS aircraft is a rare animal in the army today. At the same time, our fleet, without the cover of its own carrier-based aircraft, will not be able to withstand the over-the-horizon attack of the US Navy AUG. This allows us to draw the disappointing conclusion that relying solely on missiles, supersonic or hypersonic, was one-sided and wrong. Zircons and Daggers are great, but they won't be enough.

The modern fleet, in addition to missiles, needs carrier-based aircraft, reconnaissance and fighter aircraft, which will provide target designation to missiles and aircraft, and also protect ships from air attacks by enemy carrier-based aircraft. That is, it needs a carrier, which will always follow as part of the ship's formation. In other words, an aircraft carrier.