Discussions on the feasibility of building full-fledged aircraft carriers for the Russian Navy have been going on for decades, but an exhaustive answer has not yet been found. In the acute controversy on this topic, new strong arguments have recently emerged — a book with the concise title "Aircraft Carrier" has been published. The military service of its author, the former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Navy, his scientific activities at the Krylov State Scientific Center allowed him to competently tell not only about the history of the development of the Russian aircraft carrier fleet, but also to reasonably determine the contours of its future. Vice Admiral Vladimir Pepelyaev, the author of the book, told TASS in an interview about the problems associated with the prospects for the construction of a marine aircraft carrier complex, what kind of appearance a new generation destroyer can take, as well as possible ways to create a class of unmanned ships.
— Vladimir Viktorovich, the presentation of your book "Aircraft Carrier" took place recently. Your conclusion — should there be aircraft carriers in the Russian fleet?
— Aircraft carriers should be part of the fleet. Our chief academician, shipbuilder A.N. Krylov, said: "The fleet is an organic whole, the relative smallness or absence of any type of vessels is not redeemed by the increased development of the number of vessels of another type — an excessive number of them will not give dominance over the enemy, but will only lead to a waste of funds."
If a State claims to be a great maritime power, it must have full-fledged aircraft carrier formations in its fleet. This is confirmed by the place that the aircraft carrier fleet occupies in the history of the combat use of naval forces, and by the events of today.
However, before building an aircraft carrier fleet, it is necessary to clearly formulate the tasks that it will solve both in peacetime and in wartime, on the basis of which to formulate an understandable concept of its development.
— When will we be able to start implementing the aircraft carrier construction program?
— In order to answer this question, it is necessary to analyze and add up all the components of the process. First, to assess the possibilities of our industrial potential, primarily shipbuilding capacities.
At the same time, it must be borne in mind that until the main and primary task is solved — the victory over the "world evil", all the power of our military-industrial complex will be focused on ensuring its solution. Besides, after the victory, there is a lot of work to be done to restore the losses in the ship's complement that we have suffered and can still suffer.
Secondly, to evaluate the available scientific and technical groundwork. In the meantime, it is necessary to continue research and design work, including in the field of improving shipboard weapons, which should be carried out ahead of schedule so that by the time the aircraft carrier project is approved, the weapons planned to be installed on the ship already have the highest degree of technological readiness.
Aircraft carriers were present in all shipbuilding programs of our country. It was only in 1941 that they were temporarily forgotten. But since the end of 1944, when the enemy was pushed beyond our borders, by order of the People's Commissar of the Navy, Admiral N.G. Kuznetsov, the development of a project for a promising aircraft carrier began.
However, with enviable regularity, aircraft carriers disappeared from all programs. This "tradition" was broken only in the early 1960s, when we began to create the first ship with a group-based aviation — the long—range anti-submarine cruiser Moskva.
Thirdly, in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past, it is necessary to soberly assess the possibilities of creating a modern basing system for future aircraft carriers with full-fledged logistical and technical support.
Vice Admiral Vladimir Pepelyaev
the book "Aircraft Carrier"
— You worked at the Krylov State Scientific Center, which, as you know, offered three variants of aircraft carriers of a new generation. Which one of them do you belong to?
— Of all the advance projects available today, the so-called "Storm" is the most realistic. On the instructions of the Ministry of Defense in the 2010s, the Krylov Center, together with the Nevsky Design Bureau and aviation research institutes, carried out a full-fledged scientifically based research work, which proposed six options for a promising aircraft carrier, including one with a nuclear power plant (nuclear power plant). The "Storm", which is shown at naval exhibitions, is the seventh, so-called export version.
In the future, when creating a promising aircraft carrier, you can use any of the six options as a basis. Taking into account the experience of using aircraft carriers by our "likely opponents" since the approval of the advance project, the experience of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier going to the Syrian conflict zone, a special military operation and the latest scientific and technical achievements in the field of naval weapons, the project will need to be finalized. In particular, according to the composition of the air wing, in which there should be a place for the radar patrol aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles, for the main power plant, acceleration and braking devices, etc.
Other proposals of the Krylov Center and Nevsky PCB cannot be considered full-fledged advance projects. Rather, these are proposals for the technical appearance of a promising aircraft carrier, which will require serious scientific and technical study to bring them to a full-fledged preliminary design. But this does not mean that it will be impossible to take advantage of the developments that have been made by scientists and designers during research work.
— What kind of weapons can the heavy aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov of the Fleet of the Soviet Union receive during modernization?
— According to open publications, the ship should complete repairs and modernization this year. Most likely, surveillance systems, aviation management, self-defense complexes and electric power industry will be modernized.
 |
| The withdrawal of the heavy aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov of the Fleet of the Soviet Union, Project 11435 of the Russian Navy, which is under repair, from the new dry dock of the 35 Ship Repair Plant branch of the Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center JSC. Murmansk, 02/21/2023. |
| Source: Lev Fedoseev / TASS |
Apparently, the strike missile system will not be dismantled in favor of carrier-based aviation. Rather, it is being modernized. It remains to be hoped that the vicious practice of creating "hybrid aircraft carriers" will be interrupted on a new generation aircraft carrier. And all the useful volumes of the ship will be used to ensure the basing, vital activity and combat use of the air group.
Vice Admiral Vladimir Pepelyaev
the book "Aircraft Carrier"
— Isn't it time to think about replacing the MiG-29 carrier-based fighters? Who can undertake the creation of a promising machine?
— Probably, the Su-33, which was created for use from the "springboard" Kuznetsov, and the MiG-29 should continue their aircraft carrier service. These are good aircraft, the modernization capabilities of which, in my not very professional opinion, have not yet been exhausted. Most likely, during this repair, landing support systems will be finalized, primarily for the MiG-29.
In the future, the fifth-generation Su-57 fighter (PAK FA) is considered as a carrier-based aircraft, the deck version of which may appear if there is sustainable financing. For its full-fledged combat use, it will be necessary to install new, more advanced acceleration and braking devices on a promising aircraft carrier.
He will no longer be on the Kuznetsov. This requires a deeper modernization. And this requires a completely different financing and a different time period. There is neither one nor the other, nor any meaning. Most likely, Kuznetsov will remain a springboard until the end of the service.
— Due to the understandable impossibility of using the NITKA complex at the Crimean Saki airfield, is it not planned to resuscitate a similar project in Yeysk?
— Why can't you use the NITKA complex? And the project in Yeysk, according to my not very verified data, continues to be implemented. I can't say exactly what degree of readiness he is.
It makes sense to have both complexes. One is in Saki, which, as far as I know, was planned to continue to be used for training deck pilots, the second, in Yeysk, for testing and research. In Saki, a "track" for the catapult and a room for installing the power plant necessary for the operation of the upper stage have been reserved and preserved. In the event of a force majeure situation, one of them can reserve the other.
— In the Krylov Center, you were engaged, among other things, in the preliminary design of a promising destroyer. How do you see him?
— The way we showed it earlier at the exhibition. We tried to integrate our destroyer squadron into the global trend. Our overseas opponents excluded the concept of "cruiser" from the classification of ships, bringing the destroyer to the cruising level in terms of displacement and armament. They combined two classes of these ships into one — destroyer, that is, "destroyer".
Initially, at the beginning of the twentieth century, this name came from the abbreviation of the phrase torpedo boat destroyer — "destroyer (or destroyer) of destroyers". Since initially this class of ships was intended to intercept and destroy enemy destroyers attacking the squadron's attack ships.
The American destroyer Arly Burke, the most massive ship of the new combined class, with a displacement of about 9,600 tons, has 96 universal submerged launchers (UVS) for firing anti-aircraft, anti-submarine and cruise missiles, 2 three-tube torpedo tubes, 1 127 mm automatic artillery launcher and 2 helicopters. His main power plant is a gas turbine.
We also wanted to see our destroyer with ATVs and the most modern weapons, having modern architecture, high seaworthiness and perfect propulsive qualities (propulsion characteristics — approx. TASS). It was planned to use new materials in the superstructure, which, together with the architecture of the superstructure, were supposed to provide it with low electronic visibility. Our destroyer was supposed to be armed only with systems brought to full operational readiness, while having a large modernization resource.
As for energy. The Americans long ago, back in the 1970s, abandoned the use of a nuclear power plant on all ships except aircraft carriers, where it is necessary to sustainably maintain the course necessary for flight operations and to provide energy for the operation of acceleration and braking systems for carrier-based aviation.
The electric propulsion on the "American miracle" — the destroyer "Zamvolt" did not show itself from the best side. And in general, Zamvolt itself is rather a demonstration of the industrial power of the United States. And therefore, as far as I know, they are not going to build a series of such ships further.
Nuclear energy, of course, provides unlimited autonomy in fuel reserves, but does not solve the issue of increasing autonomy in food and weapons reserves.
— Will the new braking machines, which were tested by the Center for Scientific and Technical Services (CSTU) Dynamics at Admiral Kuznetsov, find application, or is this already a reserve for the future?
— Hardly on the Kuznetsov. We have already said that this will require a deeper modernization, which will entail a significant increase in funding and time. Rather, it is a groundwork for a promising aircraft carrier.
— How are things going with the development of an electromagnetic catapult?
— This question is about "Dynamics". The job is promising. There are problems, as with any perspective technique. The Americans have been solving them for a very long time on the aircraft carrier Gerald Ford. I hope we will succeed and our promising aircraft carrier will receive the most advanced EMR (electromagnetic booster). Good energy is needed for its operation. In this case, a nuclear power plant is quite appropriate.
— How many promising aircraft carriers and destroyers do you think are required for the Russian fleet?
— Probably at least four aircraft carriers: two in the Pacific Fleet and two in the Northern Fleet. With normal logistical and technical support, this will make it possible to withstand an operational voltage coefficient (KOH) of 0.5. Thus, the fleet commander will have at least one combat-ready aircraft carrier at his disposal to solve all tasks, including those that suddenly arise.
As for the number of ships of other classes, including to ensure the combat stability of an aircraft carrier, such calculations are made in the relevant departments of the Navy Commander—in-Chief on the basis of proposals from military scientists.
— How, in your opinion, will the non-emergency direction of shipbuilding develop?
— Actually, it was necessary to turn to face him long before the start of the SVO. There were many good developments. Quadrocopters appeared in our aviation research institutes at least 15 years ago. And on Sakhalin, in a miraculously preserved research institute in the 1990s, back in the 2010s, underwater and surface unmanned aerial vehicles were tested on Lake Tunaicha.
Using the experience gained in the course of its, I think we will continue to develop all types of drones — air, surface and underwater, which will be armed with surface ships and submarines of our fleet, depending on their combat purpose, including aircraft carriers. This will require a deep analysis of the lessons of its own and serious scientific and technical study.
In addition, systems to combat this new type of weapon must be developed and improved in parallel.
Based on the experience of current events, our research organizations probably need to reconsider their attitude to the proposals of "concerned citizens". Of course, most of them contain various kinds of anti-scientific ideas. But in all this pile of absurdities, you can probably find something really interesting and promising. If we turn to the history of the "Japanese economic miracle" of 1955-1972, we can recall that the Soviet Union played an important role in it. The Japanese bought up the "trash cans" of our research institutes, the magazines "Science and Life", "Technology for Youth" and even children's brochures "Know and be able", drawing new technical ideas from there.
