The destroyer "Leader" can find a new life as ATAVKR

The destroyer "Leader" can find a new life as ATAVKR

The nuclear destroyer of project 23560 "Leader" was supposed to replace three classes of ships of the 1st rank in the Russian Navy at once - the obsolete destroyers of project 956 "Sarych", the BOD of project 1155 and the missile cruisers of project 1164 "Atlant", which included the one who died on Cherny sea ​​"Moscow". However, due to technical complexity and high cost, the project of a promising Russian destroyer stalled and was actually suspended. But can the "Leader" find a second life in a different form as ATAVKR (nuclear heavy aircraft carrier)?


Why are aircraft carriers really needed?


Yes, we are returning to the aircraft carrier theme again and will do it for as long as necessary. This question is too serious to be turned into a "farce". Why does our navy today, in the age of hypersonic speeds, need these "huge floating targets"?

It must be understood that the concepts of naval combat between Russia and its potential opponents are fundamentally different. The Anglo-Saxons, who have a century of experience in operating aircraft carriers, have relied on carrier-based aviation. In the event of a real collision, fighters and attack aircraft will hit the ships of the Russian Navy with air-based anti-ship missiles and anti-radar missiles without entering their air defense coverage area. Whether our KUG will see an aircraft carrier strike group in a timely manner and whether anti-aircraft missiles will be able to intercept a massive strike, to be honest, is a big question. A potential adversary will have a clear advantage in reconnaissance and target designation, since it has AWACS carrier-based aircraft that will be the first to see the target and will be able to direct aircraft at it, which will operate from a safe distance "far hand". What can oppose this to the Russian Navy?

Unfortunately, not much. Not having the aircraft carriers it needed so much, the Russian fleet relied on missile weapons. Our missiles are really good, no irony, but the problem may lie in aiming them at the target. It's one thing to hit the bull's-eye on a stationary target, it's quite another to hit a moving one, which moves in space at a speed of 30 knots, like the American AUG. That is, first you need to see a potential target, preferably first, aim at it, and then an anti-ship missile fired from a distance of several hundred kilometers must be adjusted so that it hits where the enemy aircraft carrier is at the current time, and not at the time of the salvo . How to do it?

The reconnaissance capabilities of shipborne radars are limited by the radio horizon. This problem is solved simply - you need to raise the radar as high as possible, by plane, helicopter or drone. For this, the US Navy has the best that is possible - carrier-based AWACS aircraft (AWACS), which are based on nuclear aircraft carriers and are launched using catapults. In the USSR, for the needs of the Navy, the Legend satellite constellation was created (GRAU index - 17K114), which made it possible to track and predict the tactical situation in the oceans and transmit real-time information to ships, submarines and ground points.

Alas, the short life of Soviet satellites predetermined her fate. Under pressure from the West (those still environmentalists!) A ban was introduced on the use of satellites with a nuclear power plant, and in 2006 this satellite constellation finally ceased to exist. The Russian navy, with all its wonderful missiles, is half blind. To replace the Legend, the Russian Ministry of Defense ordered the development of the Liana ICRC, consisting of several satellites, but it has not yet been finalized. These are our harsh realities.

Thus, aircraft carriers are not needed at all in order to “chase the Papuans”, as adherents of the “anti-aircraft sect” claim, but, first of all, for reconnaissance and target designation of sea and air-based anti-ship missiles, as well as in order to quickly detect enemy fired anti-ship missiles and direct anti-aircraft missiles of their own air defense system at them. About how important it is to see and shoot down a low-flying anti-ship missile, we can draw conclusions from the tragic fate of the Moskva missile cruiser. It is still possible to provide air defense for your KUG and the deployment area of ​​the RKPSN, provide anti-submarine warfare with carrier-based PLO helicopters, and also strike and counterattack enemy AUGs with fighters. And, yes, from an aircraft carrier, if necessary, you can “drive the Papuans” with carrier-based aircraft, and not only them. These are such “useless vessels”.

Destroyer turns into ATAVKR?


In fairness, we note that the construction of a heavy nuclear aircraft carrier with catapults capable of launching carrier-based AWACS aircraft is a complicated and expensive business. The Americans, the French, who were helped by the United States, and the Chinese have their own deck AWACS. The PLA Navy will start operating them from its newest aircraft carrier, the Fujian. The development of the domestic AWACS under the name Yak-44 went to the USSR, but modern Russia does not have its own carrier-based AWACS aircraft. There are several carrier-based Ka-31 helicopters, the performance characteristics of which are seriously inferior to aircraft.

Due to the lack of relevant technologies in all other countries, with the exception of the two superpowers, the most promising direction is the replacement of carrier-based aircraft with ersatz in the form of drones. Turkey intends to turn its first universal amphibious assault ship Anadolu into a "drone carrier" by overpowering reconnaissance and strike UAVs. Iran, one of the world leaders in the field of unmanned aircraft, is now following the same path. Recently, a whole unit armed with UAVs of various types was created as part of the Southern Fleet of the Islamic Republic Navy. The Iranians have deployed drones, ranging from light to heavy, not only on ships, but even on their diesel-electric submarines. Due to this, an observation zone with a radius of several hundred kilometers is formed around each pennant, in which the Iranian Navy can conduct aerial reconnaissance and launch missile and bomb strikes.

But back to the main topic of the article. Can the destroyer "Leader" get a new life as a nuclear-powered heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser (ATAVKR)?

Why not. Despite the name destroyer, it is actually a real cruiser with a total displacement of 17000-19000 tons. The greatest length and width are, respectively, 230 and 23 meters. The power plant is nuclear, which gives the ship an unlimited range at a maximum speed of 32 knots. The ship's ammunition load should be from 80 to 130 anti-ship missiles, anti-submarine missile torpedoes, cruise missiles for firing at ground targets and medium and long-range anti-aircraft missiles. A formidable force, and this is definitely not a destroyer.

The real destroyer will be a modernized Project 22350M frigate of the SuperGorshkov type with a total displacement of 8000 tons, designed for operations in the far sea and ocean zones. The unification of frigates and destroyers is the right decision, greatly simplifying their production and subsequent maintenance. A “leader” as a cruiser may be needed in the medium term, when the time comes to change both of our last Orlans for something - the heavy nuclear missile cruiser Pyotr Veliky and Admiral Nakhimov. Or not?

In fact, after completion, the project 23560 "Leader" can be turned into an aircraft-carrying cruiser. A significant part of the strike weapons will have to be abandoned, giving up space under a solid take-off deck, and the island superstructure will be shifted to the right. Of course, no fighters can be placed on it with a displacement of less than 20000 tons, but instead of aircraft, the Leader can be based on an air wing consisting of drones and helicopters, strike and anti-aircraft defense. UAVs can be both reconnaissance and strike, and AWACS.

In view of the above, the receipt by the Russian Navy of carrier-based AWACS UAVs is of exceptional importance for increasing its real combat capability and combat stability. A heavy aircraft carrier will not replace such a ATAVKR, but it will be able to solve a number of critical problems of the Russian Navy with reconnaissance and target designation.
25 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. k7k8 Offline k7k8
    k7k8 (vic) 6 August 2022 13: 34
    +9
    This has never happened before, and here again!
  2. rotkiv04 Offline rotkiv04
    rotkiv04 (Victor) 6 August 2022 14: 45
    +11
    Yes, what kind of aircraft carrier is there, these figures, like Borisov, couldn’t even bring the army to mind with drones, but there were so many exhibitions and bombastic speeches
  3. Valentine Offline Valentine
    Valentine (Valentin) 6 August 2022 17: 05
    +1
    We, a continental country, cover the north with Arctic ice, and D.V. we have coastal batteries covered, so we don’t need these “monsters” at all, and we don’t intend to attack anyone, and in which case we can get by with several Poseidons, but this is already in the case of a real nuclear danger, when everything " into dust", and our "Caliber" and their more modern counterparts have perfectly proved their capabilities in their combat use. We need to deal with Galicia as soon as possible, and equip new borders, closing the entire West with an "iron curtain", and we can only resist US hegemonism together with China, and there Europe will see clearly after the approaching cold weather.
  4. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 6 August 2022 21: 44
    +5
    It is worth looking at the photo of a small destroyer, and it is immediately clear that as an aircraft carrier it will not pull. Mal.
    A couple of helicopters or small drones will not make the weather. Small and slow.
    And for large ones, you still have to build an aircraft carrier.

    So it can't. Will not get. IMHO, they wrote, we won’t pull it right away.
  5. vlad127490 Offline vlad127490
    vlad127490 (Vlad Gor) 6 August 2022 23: 58
    -3
    We need destroyers now, we won't build them quickly ourselves. Order 8 pcs. in China, if China agrees, two per fleet. China will build us in two years, and we will build small frigates ourselves. We need two cruisers per fleet, we lost Moscow. Let's see what our admirals decide.
  6. Krapilin Offline Krapilin
    Krapilin (Victor) 7 August 2022 18: 05
    +1
    Project 1164 Atlant missile cruisers, which included the Moskva that died in the Black Sea.

    Cruiser - and "Moscow" that died on the Black Sea!?
    Hmm ... Someone's analytics is lame.
  7. Indifferent Offline Indifferent
    Indifferent 7 August 2022 19: 15
    +3
    With the start of a special military operation, it became clear that the chatter of the chiefs and the real state of the army were far from being the same thing. Especially for electronic means of combat. They wrote so much that our helicopters are invulnerable due to electronic warfare devices that they "drop" everything that flies in their direction. And also that EM weapons explode everything that flies by and so on. But in the war, it turned out, as in the war. I do not want to say that our army is fighting badly! No, well done guys! My deepest and deepest respect to all! But, when compared with the bombastic reports of the leaders of the recent past, in fact, you need to divide by four or even five. And the fleet is completely blocked. As I remember the constant "liquid dressing" of our Black Sea Fleet for the whole world, the mood for the whole day deteriorates. Who does not know, BDK "Saratov" RK "Moskva" and the last, a plywood plane with a grenade over the headquarters on a holiday!
    1. Alexey Lan Offline Alexey Lan
      Alexey Lan (Alexey Lantukh) 15 August 2022 22: 32
      0
      Well, a plywood plane is a disgrace!
  8. Vamp Offline Vamp
    Vamp (wamp) 7 August 2022 19: 59
    +3
    Do not read Marzhetsky.
    He has the wrong orientation of the thought process.
    I thought of making aircraft carriers from ships of the opposite purpose.
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 22 August 2022 11: 54
      0
      I'm fine tongue
      What is the opposite meaning? And what is the purpose of TAVKR Admiral Kuznetsov?
  9. 1_2 Offline 1_2
    1_2 (Ducks are flying) 8 August 2022 12: 08
    0
    aircraft carriers are needed not at all in order to "drive the Papuans", as adherents of the "anti-aircraft carrier sect" claim, but, first of all, for reconnaissance ..

    how can AWACS detect nuclear submarines, especially in non-flying weather ?, that is, you need to spend up to 7 billion bucks on a large trough so that a ship's AWACS flies around a huge trough (in flying weather) to detect surface troughs within a radius of + - 700 km, and in the meantime, the NATO submarine (with VNEU) will be under the keel of the aircraft trough, and then, moving away a little, will launch torpedoes to the noise of the propellers of the aircraft carrier)), well, even if the Americans are stupid, and they decided to attack the aircraft carrier not with their hypersonic missiles (or point-blank torpedoes ) from the submarine, and with their destroyers using subsonic anti-ship missiles or axes, how will AWACS help in a storm or at high wind speeds? take-off of AWACS and fighters is impossible, the trough becomes a defenseless expensive vessel, but even if they take off, there are doubts that air defense will repulse a simultaneous attack (on one target) with dozens of anti-ship missiles and tomohawks. but the Americans (NATO) are not fools and they will not even approach the Russian AUG with destroyers as frigates in a storm, fearing the Russian submarines, therefore they will only attack with their multi-purpose submarines, it turns out that the AUG cannot be used (at a great distance from the bases and coasts of the country) against the surface fleet a country that has multi-purpose nuclear submarines, especially with hypersonic on board.
    there is only one conclusion: to control remote areas of the oceans, it is necessary to build up a fleet of multi-purpose nuclear submarines Yasen with Zircons on board, the more the better, (40-50 pieces) they can destroy everything, and AUG and even Washington. one Ash tree costs 7-8 times cheaper than an air trough.

    for the sake of the experiment, one vertical take-off fighter can be placed on the frigate (work on its creation is underway), but for it there is still room to free up on the deck. use it to destroy AWACS AUG (and other targets) and as AWACS, the compact Su35 radar sees large targets up to 400 km + aircraft radius
    1. usm5 Offline usm5
      usm5 (George) 8 August 2022 16: 06
      0
      Correct and logical suggestion. We have a lot of smart people, but somehow there are not proportionally few smart decisions.
    2. Vladimir Tuzakov (Vladimir Tuzakov) 8 August 2022 17: 45
      +1
      place one VTOL fighter on the frigate

      Always work ahead of the future, with the release of the product there will no longer be a novelty, but a trend of application. Instead of a vertical take-off fighter, to use an UAV, the "Hunter" is already flying, so even building different options on its base, from a reconnaissance aircraft to a fighter, is definitely more promising and not more expensive. The main thing today is to detect and designate the target, then they will be connected network-centrically, by air S-500, by water others ... UAVs in the fleet are already today, they do not need aircraft carriers, it is possible on a frigate with a mini-catapult with different methods of splashdown, landing. .., For the air wing of attack and reconnaissance UAVs, the UDC that they are building is especially suitable. This is already a big step, but it must be done if we don’t want to always fall behind ... According to the Leader, it’s clearly yesterday, and the same as Admiral Lazarev, a lot of money, at least useful in today’s combat use. The main weapon, and it can be used from RTOs or from a cruiser, the effect is the same, but losing them, the effect is very different ......
      1. Nikolai N Offline Nikolai N
        Nikolai N (Nikolai) 12 September 2022 15: 28
        0
        According to the Leader, the cruising range is not limited, 80pkr and 60pzrk, and mkr for 2500 miles go without air defense. We need a fleet and destroyers and aircraft carriers and a cruiser and udk, apl and pl, paratroopers, a frigate and all in a series.
    3. Alexey Lan Offline Alexey Lan
      Alexey Lan (Alexey Lantukh) 15 August 2022 22: 36
      0
      All the same, we need satellites with side-looking radars, as well as AWACS aircraft. All this is clear to everyone, even to the horse. And here is the reconnaissance aircraft carrier. "It's never happened before, and here it is again."
  10. Piramidon Offline Piramidon
    Piramidon (Stepan) 8 August 2022 14: 40
    +1
    Another fantastic story.
  11. Navigator Offline Navigator
    Navigator (Andrei) 8 August 2022 21: 34
    +3
    Cool article from an exceptional author. Then rebuild the nuclear destroyer. Just move the add-on a little to the side. It's like moving a sofa in a room to another corner. Those are earlier ideas about creating combat airships that will perform the duties of AWACS. Those are submarine aircraft carriers ... But, reading these pearls, you still have to smile.
    No need to break the nuclear destroyer. It is enough to develop a relatively inexpensive UDC and stuff a bunch of all sorts of drones into it. And, as I assume, this is already being done.
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 22 August 2022 11: 54
      0
      You are my good smile
  12. de_monSher Offline de_monSher
    de_monSher (Cher) 10 August 2022 02: 30
    -2
    But, "completely by chance", the Soviet carrier-based AWACS aircraft was not called Yak xnumx?.. *))) Yak 42, it seemed like a passenger one ... *)))
  13. Squid X Offline Squid X
    Squid X (Serg X) 10 August 2022 14: 23
    +1
    the sectarians outdid themselves .. soon they will begin to remake their combat sofa under the fifth point into an aircraft carrier.
    of course, neither a "nuclear destroyer" for 17-19 thousand, nor an aircraft carrier is needed (and will never be built) (although here the noisy aircraft carrier sect presses through public opinion as best it can)
    targets for PKR are detected simply - through a developed satellite constellation. it should be created instead of useless sea searchlights. all the more experience has shown its categorical necessity. so let future reconnaissance satellites fly over the ocean after Ukraine at the same time and find ships. drill, plane and reconnaissance aircraft, in our case, coastal ones will be enough. all the more before our eyes an example of heavy drones with a global range, such as the "global hawk".
    alas, there is less and less room in the sea for aircraft carrier troughs. the aircraft carrier sect dodges more and more ridiculously - either they need "rpksn cover" from aircraft carriers, now the drill will not do without an aircraft carrier. although even the leader of the sect, Timokhin, seems to have calmed down, and only his stubborn followers continue to invent reasons for the sacred boat.
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 22 August 2022 11: 55
      0
      the sectarians outdid themselves .. soon they will begin to remake their combat sofa under the fifth point into an aircraft carrier.

      Sectarians? Well, a sect, so a sect.
      I personally am not dumb to be in the same sect with Admiral Gorshkov, American, British, French Chinese and Indian admirals. And you be in your sect with Skomorokhov.

      drill, plane and reconnaissance aircraft, in our case, coastal ones will be enough. all the more before our eyes an example of heavy drones with a global range, such as the "global hawk".

      Truth? And how many such AWACS, PLO aircraft do we really have and domestic Global Hawks?

      targets for PKR are detected simply - through a developed satellite constellation. it should be created instead of useless sea searchlights.

      Well, why hasn't it been created yet? And when will it be created?
      And how long will it last in the event of a real war with a real enemy who has anti-satellite weapons and combat shuttles in orbit, answer me?

      alas, there is less and less room in the sea for aircraft carrier troughs. the aircraft carrier sect dodges more and more ridiculously - either they need "rpksn cover" from aircraft carriers, now the drill will not do without an aircraft carrier. although even the leader of the sect, Timokhin, seems to have calmed down, and only his stubborn followers continue to invent reasons for the sacred boat.

      If there are really stubborn sectarians, then these are people like you, who inadequately deny reality and live in the world of their fantasies. You're not even in a position to say anything about the essence of the issue, repeating buffoonery.
      And he just hype on this topic. And then even he had already begun to change shoes, he liked the Turkish UDC for the operation near Odessa.
  14. Ten canarias Offline Ten canarias
    Ten canarias (Ten Canarias) 10 August 2022 21: 34
    +1
    Probably, aircraft carriers are not the most effective and relevant means of national defense.
  15. Denis Z Offline Denis Z
    Denis Z (Denis Z) 10 August 2022 23: 49
    +3
    Who would doubt that this is Marzhetsky?))) Well, at least he doesn’t offer to make an aircraft carrier cruiser out of 22800. Not yet offered! ))) it's good to be a little expert in the Navy, a little expert in aviation and air defense, a little economist and a little writer)))
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 22 August 2022 11: 56
      0
      Well, did you chuckle, Deniska? smile Go take a pie off the shelf if you can reach it.
  16. Nikolai N Offline Nikolai N
    Nikolai N (Nikolai) 12 September 2022 15: 24
    0
    Why fence an aircraft carrier from a destroyer when there is a udk? 40000 tons is enough for VTOL and UAVs and helicopters.