Tank Challenger 2: applications filed

Tank Challenger 2: applications filed

Due to the lack of capacity in the UK for the production of armored vehicles, local applicants for the LEP project (Life Extension Project) to increase the life of the British main combat tank Challenger 2 are forced to rely on foreign experience when applying for this program.

The LEP project is currently gaining momentum, as part of the project performance evaluation phase, the British Ministry of Defense received applications from five teams.

London reduced the number of applicants to two, and although the decision was expected on 1 on September 2016, it has now been postponed to the end of that year.

BAE Systems and GDLS were the first to apply, while CMI Defense and Ricardo UK announced their interest at Eurosatory. Lockheed Martin UK and Elbit Systems publicly announced this on August 10, while Rheinmetall, along with RUAG Defense, announced their collaboration with Supacat, Thales UK and BMT immediately before the deadline for submitting 11 August.

The two applicants selected for the evaluation stage will receive contracts worth 19 million pounds each. This stage will last two years, until the end of 2018, when the winning team will receive a contract for preliminary tests, production and service.

The British Department of Defense plans to upgrade 227 tanks Challenger 2

The only company with at least some experience with the Challenger 2 tank is Babcock DSG, which received a contract from the Ministry of Defense for the maintenance and supply of tanks at the military base in Bovington; while the company will remain in the game for any outcome of the competition.

The invitation to negotiate a contract for the evaluation phase provides that applicants must submit options for supplying new equipment that they want to supply “together” with the main service provider and these applicants “must demonstrate the willingness and ability to work with Babcock DSG”.

The company BAE System at one time manufactured tanks Challenger 2, but lost the competence of this platform and in general to upgrade the main battle tanks. Not the fact that the company is an automatic winner in this competition; it needs to work together with the American GDLS, which has experience in the manufacture and modernization of M1 Abrams MBT.

BAE has a reference collection of machines that it once produced at its plant in Telford; Now they are used to study the modernization of new options and training. At the same time there they say that the modernization of the Challenger 2, which received the designation of the standard "Mark 2", will be carried out at the factory of the company GDUK in Wales.

The situation with the application of the companies Lockheed Martin UK and Elbit Systems is similar. LMUK had no experience in upgrading MBT and cooperation with Elbit. But much of the work on the LEP project is related to the tower and LMUK has an advantage here because it owns a tower manufacturing plant in Amphill, where work is underway to modernize the Warrior BMP and implement the Ajax program. The company could carry out work on the Challenger 2 LEP project here or in Bovington.

Towers on the assembly line at the plant in Amphill

According to Richard Muir, director of business development at LMUK, the evaluation stage of the LEP project "is very well synchronized with the WCSP projects (the program for extending the capabilities of the Warrior BMP) and Ajax." Since all these programs are already sufficiently developed, the “risk” of transferring resources from them to research and development under the Challenger 2 tank program is minimal. ”

The Ajax and Warrior programs will end in 2022-2023, so there are certain possibilities in the Amphill plant in the future and they are counting on the next big program.

Of some concern is Oman, which with its 38 tanks, the Challenger 2 has observer status in the LEP project. Will this country be satisfied with the team of participants, which includes the Israeli Elbit, as well as the modernization of its tanks, given the transfer of technology from Israel?

However, Muir insists that Lockheed Martin UK and Elbit Systems UK remain British firms, despite the fact that their parent companies are American and Israeli, respectively.

The LMUK application also draws on Elbit’s expertise in upgrading M60, T-72 and Merkava tanks (top to bottom)

Will the life extension be upgraded?

Research to increase firepower will be conducted as part of the assessment phase and the teams of applicants will be able to offer new technologies. But at the same time, Muir warned that "all this should be economically viable and meet the requirements of the customer."

The company LMUK is considering the inclusion of anti-tank guided weapons and target designator in order to obtain an integrated fire control network. Also in the 2017 year, the decision of the British Ministry of Defense on the complex of optical-electronic countermeasures is expected, which may also be included in the modernization program.

However, the plans of the Ministry of Defense for the purchase of an intermediate thermal imaging unit for the Challenger 2 tank were not to be realized. According to industry sources, the decision to purchase it will be made in the framework of the LEP project.

Replacing the gun could significantly increase the firepower, but it’s all about funding

Although the requirement for replacing the 120-mm rifled gun L30 was not put forward, the industry quite seriously rushed to decide the question: will it be able to offer a new gun within the budget in 642 million pounds?

Rheinmetall supplied the X / NUMX-mm L / 120 smoothbore cannon as part of its technology demonstration program as part of a proposal to upgrade the Challenger 55 tank held in the 2-2003 years, but there was no money for it. It is clear that the installation of a new gun entails a new optics, fire control system and rearrangement of ammunition storage places and, as a consequence, an increase in cost.

However, for Rheinmetall it makes sense to make another offer. If the British army reduces the number of its regiments with the Challenger 2 from three to two, this means that a smaller number of tanks will enter the LEP project, and this could free up certain funds (although still not enough to replace the gun).

The company has a vast experience in upgrading Leopard 2 tanks and therefore understands all the complexities of such a program better than other competitors.

Rheinmetall definitely needs this work, since its German partner and competitor KMW has taken on the modernization of the German tanks Leopard 2 and Rheinmetall there is nothing else to do but fight for export orders.

Options for increasing fire power are presented. Will industry be able to make a proposal to the British Ministry of Defense that it cannot refuse?

In addition to fire power, there are questions on mobility and protection. In the Challenger's tank working group prospectus, there is no mention of replacing a power unit or armor, but only a phrase about “the possibilities of future capacity enhancement” implying high costs, although the Department of Defense is considering the possibility of installing an active protection system on all armored vehicles in a separate project.

Materials used:
    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. +6
      27 September 2016 06: 40
      And what do these tanks mean to them ..... Drive around Afghanistan, or frighten Ireland?
      1. +13
        27 September 2016 08: 54
        Quote: vetor
        And what do these tanks mean to them ..... Drive around Afghanistan, or frighten Ireland?

        First of all, this is the base for maintaining the tank corps in the British Army. Secondly, it is an obligation to NATO to maintain a certain potential, and thirdly, the maintenance of the combat readiness of the expeditionary forces.
        1. +4
          3 October 2016 21: 58
          With the same success, one can justify the extreme necessity and emergency need of any cavalry (real) royal regiment.
          Firstly, it is the basis for the preservation of racehorses and normal men.
          Secondly, it is an obligation to normal boys to maintain a certain potential in the derby.
          Thirdly, maintaining the combat readiness of the expeditionary forces (as in the original source).
          Seriously, having lost the "sum of technologies", it is impossible to return to it.
      2. +1
        17 November 2016 03: 17
        Tank without DZ? Well, I HZ!
        Even in Iraq, they were only partially protected by DZ. The sides of the tower without any DZ.
        As it is doubtful, Even the old RPG grenades will break.
    2. +1
      27 September 2016 08: 46
      Actually, the British were great - for the sake of preserving Vickers production and jobs, they ordered these tanks, which were already outdated, and could buy from Amers or Germans.
      1. +2
        27 September 2016 09: 17
        I very much doubt that the capitalists would do all this for jobs ... it was cheaper to produce than to buy current and business ..
    3. +2
      27 September 2016 08: 53
      Fuuu - what an ugly, tolerai geyropov will be unhappy.
    4. 0
      27 September 2016 09: 05
      Something the tower does not inspire confidence, apparently due to the lack of mounted dynamic protection and high profile.
    5. +4
      27 September 2016 09: 32
      From the moment the BOPS interception with the help of KAZ “Afganit” began, the “Challenger” concept gave oak bully
      1. AUL
        27 September 2016 20: 08
        Is Afghanit already intercepting crowbars? belay Can't he peel potatoes?
        1. +5
          27 September 2016 22: 20
          Quote from AUL
          Is Afghanit already intercepting crowbars? belay Can't he peel potatoes?

          KAZ "Arena" is able to shoot down an incoming projectile flying at a speed of up to 700 m / s. Developed in 1980.
          KAZ "Afghanit" must shoot down an enemy projectile flying at a speed of up to 1700m / s. (according to passport)
          The difference in development years is 35 years. And what's not real is that over 35 years the interception speed has increased 2,5 times?
    6. +10
      27 September 2016 10: 35
      "Due to the lack of armored vehicle production capacity in the UK"

      Did I understand correctly? Greatbright nowhere else to build tanks? Oce is good news. If the United States is not mistaken, such is the problem. And this can not but rejoice !!!
      And to compare the Challenger and the T-90 is stupid in terms of characteristics and descriptions, it's like boxers on posters. Until the Mahach begins, real superiority cannot be determined.
    7. +1
      27 September 2016 10: 58
      In general, where are the news about the defeat of the challenger and even from RPG? Britain claims no tank was lost.
      1. +4
        27 September 2016 11: 58
        He was lost and officially - as stated, a break through in the NLD and the driver’s water tank broke his foot.
      2. +2
        27 September 2016 12: 54
        http://vunivere.ru/work59833/page17 там со ссылками на все источники официальные и не очень.
    8. +5
      27 September 2016 13: 07
      I didn’t meet a more stupid argument. at least a person who used both of these tanks can compare both cars. what is all this for? 1 to 5? in what conditions? I myself vividly drew a picture of how one kamikaze turtle went for 5 tons 90)))
      1. +4
        27 September 2016 13: 37
        He meant that the 5 T-90 will follow each other in smooth, smooth motion. The gun will jam on the 6 shell and then the next T-90 will take revenge. Well, something like this.
    9. 0
      27 September 2016 13: 10
      if you really go deep then on the TVD, taking into account the presence of other weapons, this math is stupid in itself. We proceed from the fact that there are two cars, a turtle and 90 tons. Do you make such conclusions about these machines?
    10. +1
      27 September 2016 13: 44
      Two tank regiments ....
      No, they’re not going to fight seriously. And they don’t even plan to defend themselves.
    11. +1
      27 September 2016 13: 50
      I think Challenger will eventually be replaced by a Leopard or whatever the pan-European tank. In general, Europe has headed for heavy infantry fighting vehicles and reducing the number of tanks. They do not really believe in a conflict with Russia with tank battles, and to combat the old T-54/55/62/72, the AT with 105 / 10mm guns based on the BMP and ATGM and Combat Helicopters is quite enough.
    12. +4
      27 September 2016 13: 55
      Quote: cariperpaint
      if you really go deep then on the TVD, taking into account the presence of other weapons, this math is stupid in itself. We proceed from the fact that there are two cars, a turtle and 90 tons. Do you make such conclusions about these machines?

      Could it be based on the fact that five infantry platoons will have t-90s each, and one challenger for 5 British platoons?
      And if we start from an oncoming tank battle, (let's imagine a breakthrough of the front line, on a section of 10-15 kilometers with a counter strike of 10 regiments, that is, TA), then two regiments are fie, for a couple of days of fighting, with a complete loss of materiel, and without the possibility restoration (mute tank factories).
    13. 0
      27 September 2016 15: 55
      Does anyone know why the Print version button has disappeared? I try to keep interesting materials, but it was so convenient ...
    14. +11
      27 September 2016 16: 51
      "Although there was no requirement to replace the 120mm L30 rifled gun,
      the industry at the same time quite seriously rushed to resolve the issue:
      will she be able to offer a new gun within the budget of 642 million pounds sterling? "///

      This rifled 120 mm is a strange solution. She has a separate charge, and not a case,
      and some howitzer - kartuznoe.
      The devil knows why they needed it.
      The English are weird: they came up with the first tanks - wow !, then they made a nice "light Vickers" (T-26), then a wretched monster the centipede "Churchill", then the ingenious "Centurion", then the problematic "Challenger" ...
      1. 0
        27 September 2016 18: 59
        In which case, and nobody will throw shells at them!
      2. +3
        27 September 2016 22: 17
        Quote: voyaka uh
        This rifled 120 mm is a strange solution.

        Alex, threaded accuracy is better, and the islanders, generally conservatives request
        1. +4
          28 September 2016 10: 37
          It is possible (as a hypothesis) that Vickers simply did not have time to develop
          smoothbore 120 mm on time, and take the license from the Germans (as did
          Americans and Israel) pride is not allowed.
          The British stretched out for a long time: for a long time they produced and sold a 105 mm rifled tank gun of excellent ballistics with a kumm. shells, which was the "queen of tank battles" in the 60s.
          But time does not stand still.
          The USSR "went out into the world" with the T-62 with its 115 mm OBPS, which pierced any tank from 2 km.
          I had to admonish everyone.
          1. 0
            28 September 2016 12: 44
            In general, it seems to me that the potential of 115mm guns was not fully disclosed and immediately switched to 125mm.
      3. +1
        27 September 2016 22: 21
        Quote: voyaka uh
        This rifled 120 mm is a strange solution. She has a separate charge, and not a case,
        and some howitzer - kartuznoe

        Perhaps tightness does not allow the unitary cartridge to push into the breech. And so - that kartuznoe that separate - small difference.
        1. 0
          27 September 2016 22: 40
          Quote: iConst
          And so - that kartuznoe that separate - small difference.

          When kartuznoy loading put a capsule - a separate operation.

          On the Challenger, unlike self-propelled guns, where a similar type of loading is used, the amount of gunpowder in the cap is always the same.

          :) By the way, for comparison
          in our "Coalition-SV" gunpowder in the chamber is ignited not by primers, but by radiation (like in a microwave oven).
          1. 0
            27 September 2016 22: 58
            Quote: Bad_gr
            When kartuznoy loading put a capsule - a separate operation.

            I mean, if such a fuss, then they did not really bother with rate of fire.

            Quote: Bad_gr
            :) By the way, for comparison
            in our "Coalition-SV" gunpowder in the chamber is ignited not by primers, but by radiation (like in a microwave oven).

            Yes, I'm in "currs" smile
    15. +4
      27 September 2016 18: 05
      Lord, how much garbage was caused by an ordinary, ordinary article and writings of an uneducated participant. Gentlemen, are you familiar with the words "ignore" or "boycott"? Stop answering any of his prescriptions and he will "shut up the fountain" by itself! ... Be prudent!
      1. +1
        28 September 2016 03: 21
        Well, when else can you have so much fun laughing
    16. +1
      27 September 2016 18: 14
      Quote: Florizel
      The account looked strange, the guys from the State Department probably didn’t know, nothing came of it ... maybe you Mr. Olginets got me with you.
      For everyone (well, suddenly) more detailed - the Challenger is the development of the concept of the so-called "western tank building" in which emphasis is placed on the security / range of the control center / firing accuracy / centralized control-communication, T 90 I mentioned "Soviet (yes) school of tank building" - the minimum size / mass construction / use by poorly trained personnel, if you want the same confrontation of the Tiger vs T34 (and yes 1 to 5 consumption from the same place from WW2 / WWII, IMHO, of course, but an analogy ...).

      Good 1 to 4 m so arrange?

      And yes, there is nothing "dumb" here and derogatory to us here, just the alignment is historical and technological.

      Armata does not inspire thoughts about whose path was more correct in tank building?

      In general, I know for sure that I am writing in vain, but actually not for you.

      ) will not work
    17. +3
      27 September 2016 21: 52
      Florizel yes you are sick old man))) stupid trolling and all.
    18. +8
      27 September 2016 22: 03
      Dear Florisel, why did you get the idea that ISs are not tanks but self-propelled guns? I happened to be in the army inside the entire line of IP (by the way, serious machines), like in the T-34. I saw how they shoot, very impressive and quite accurate. There was even the opportunity to shoot at the IS-2 and IS-3 from the T-62 (from the PKT cal. 7,62 mm, Cliff cal. 12.7 mm, well, actually down 115 mm caliber). At the exercises due to accurate shooting, the whole Ural Uk was saved. The battalion commander really did not appreciate our zeal, said that until we shoot everything, we may not return to the barracks. And around tank equipment in the field there was a bulk for shooting exercises. By the way, they didn’t pierce the forehead, although the attachment was demolished, leaving bare armor and I also shot the front rink. And about the artifact, you just look at the photo of the towers in the workshop, the chickens to laugh, the vertical armor plate in the 21st century, and the roofing felts on bolts or rivets are collected (high Euro level of technology !!! foret shaving !!!). Where to compete with the T-90. And at the expense of the great and terrible Abrashi, google the photos of those who were beaten and burned during two Iraqi companies. Truly, it’s better to see once than ... Now, about the Western school of tank building, it’s rested on over security. In the Donbass in 2015, during the battles with Ukraine, the militia learned to burn T-64 with dagger fire from two heavy machine guns. In the same way, Leopard-1 presented to Ukrainians by the Germans after the exercises was littered. In the heat of battle, the militia did not make out what kind of beast, otherwise they would have shown respect for Western tank construction - they would have fired from which in a more respectable way. This experience was transferred to Syria, there was a case of parsing in a similar way Abrams ISIS captured from the Iraqi army. It turned out that Abrams has a place in the side projection with armor no more than 40 mm, and they beat it there.
    19. +2
      27 September 2016 23: 20
      Vlad, be healthy. To visit the reservation laughing right now the forest will be especially beautiful, foliage will fall down, so translucent with green, Christmas trees, pines and fir (Oh, a broom in the bathhouse, dohtur was forbidden to steam, I broke the ridge here by chance request , but cleanly breathe) And the forest, right from the porch begins. Lyrics.
      Vlad, they still confuse tanks with self-propelled anti-tank vehicles. And at the Balaton, the Panzerwaffe multiplied by zero sushi, fleeing the shelves from German TB. Well, if they, even in the TTB have 20 cats and 16 grooves, and we have 18 dryers in the regiment, the ancestors of the Teutons were completely new, Heinz was sad and rocky, they say the Panzerwaffe paragraph, I think that my white fluffy land showed him his with a fox face and said, they say, now it’s at least understood with whom what
      1. +1
        27 September 2016 23: 48
        Yes, be Zdrav!
        It’s the same with us, plus five at night, it’s fresh in the mountains, but it’s still green. The truth is that after July 5 and a crazy city with the wind, next to the spruce and pine forests, it’s practically destroyed ... that it broke, that it completely knocked down the needles, in general it’s fabulous , local lazy people do nothing, cleaning ..
        As for our su, regiments from TB, well yes .. if you don’t know the organization, then Pryntsi will talk so much turbidity ... For example, by the spring of 1944, the German heavy tank battalion included three tank companies with three platoons each . The platoon consisted of four vehicles, the company - of 14 (of which two - commander). Given the three headquarters tanks, the state battalion was supposed to have 45 combat vehicles.
        And we have 18 self-propelled regiments in total .. And even if we take into account that the Germans did not have a full-time staff on the balonon, and then ... all the same, our skins were wrapped around them, but their tails were pulled out ..
        1. +3
          28 September 2016 12: 56
          Three quarters of tanks in German heavy tank
          the battalion was not the Tigers, but the T-3. Three T-3s covered
          each Tiger from the approaches of the T-34 (or Sherman) from the flanks and rear.
          And they passed him information about the goals. And he destroyed them
          ...as far as possible.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. 0
            10 October 2016 00: 56
            Well, then the total paragraph is 20 cats and 60 grooves on the TTB, against 18 dryers. Drying won request
    20. +1
      28 September 2016 02: 49
      Quote: Florizel
      albeit an argument, but a question for whom and whom will be considered an occupier?

      Is it so important during a war? laughing
      The winner dictates his rules. Vae Victis.
      And the one who instead of waging war looks around, no matter how someone says something, will never become a winner.
    21. +4
      28 September 2016 02: 55
      Quote: Florizel
      T 34 is not a tank.

      And the author of this statement is not a sane interlocutor. So, what is next? laughing

      By the way, nothing so that after the end of WWII neither the Tigers, nor the Panthers were needed by anyone, even on the cheap - and the T-34 lasted in service until the beginning of the 21st century? Even the Pz4 and Shermans still managed to come in handy in the Middle East troubles, and the heavy German miracle equipment was not useful there either?
    22. 0
      28 September 2016 02: 59
      Quote: Florizel
      Do you have a doctor who sold all the pills there?

      Well, why judge everyone by themselves laughing
    23. +2
      28 September 2016 03: 19
      Quote: Florizel
      Tiger - technological descendant of Chel

      You are wonderful. Equate MBT late 20c. to WWII tanks, while the average T-34 is compared with the heavy "Tiger" and it is stupid to transfer this comparison to much later machines of the same class ... laughing

      And the announcement of the English Challenger as a direct descendant of the German "Tiger" is also a masterpiece of your * mental activity *.

      And how is the head doctor not afraid of letting you go further than the toilet? What irresponsible you are ... crying
    24. 0
      28 September 2016 03: 22
      Quote: Florizel
      and the local holy fool here, some kind of holiday

      Yes, you are here, and you have made us an unforgettable holiday. laughing Thank you! love
    25. +1
      28 September 2016 03: 44
      Quote: Florizel
      go for a beer

      Can't you do it yourself? Well, I don’t feel sorry for your clowning. laughing
    26. +5
      28 September 2016 04: 30
      Hello everyone. I’m so briefly, I’m at my service. There’s a guy under the prince who told me so much. I won’t even argue - I’m not a tanker, but I shot at tanks. Yes, and it’s not about me. My grandfather, a tankman, if he were alive and heard about his 34 ki (and he changed three) that it was not a tank !? He probably would have torn his ass to the full size of the British flag for sure. What to take the old school is his kingdom of heaven. And you, Comrade Pigeon Florisel, do not be distracted, continue to lick all the protrusions and depressions of the Challengers Abrams. Go on .go on fag ...
      1. 0
        28 September 2016 10: 57
        He probably would have torn his ass to the full size of the British flag. laughing
        I mnu, in civilian life, the head of RMM Saburov left the instructors from the army, count along with at least thirty-four. To tell him that the T-34 is a bad tank, it’s a guarantee to rake in a nickel and listen to a lecture, on the account that the deadbolt in the tanks is a little worse than in the shit request
    27. +3
      28 September 2016 07: 56
      Quote: Florizel
      Well, are you a stupid ass then you substitute everything?

      Once again, to the wretched, by the kindness of my soul, I advise:
      1. filter the bazaar.
      2. Do not judge all by yourself.
      And then, after all, kindness, it is big, but not dimensionless. It may end.
    28. +2
      28 September 2016 07: 59
      Quote: perepilka
      Florizel, so, you will find.

      You, a colleague, are an optimist about the mental and other abilities of this Floriseli lol
    29. NGK
      28 September 2016 08: 10
      Quote: Florizel
      and yes, small, well, it happens that my grandfather from 42 to 46 (dmb) fought as a commander just T 34, you’re not unique, just said - rubbish tank (like a tank), like an infantry tank praised.
      And by the way, are you sure that personally you (without grandfather show respect for the veteran) I myself will not tear to any flag?

      Just reading comments and wondering! This hamlo for half a day insults and humiliates everyone, without exception, and no one can give him a decent answer! And now it is also threatening!
      Colleague, before you become a cripple! First, learn the Russian language, there is not a single punctuation mark in your posts, and then you will mock and tear flags. The forum accepts only links to the work of worthy authors, and not the baseless orbits of narcissistic and self-confident fools - which you are. There were many of them here ... tear-blowers of other people's flags ... in words. It’s more difficult to be polite, but you should have enough mind for this, which cannot be said about you!
    30. 0
      28 September 2016 12: 52
      The trouble is that Hussein did not buy modern BPS. Comments are amusing that they shot at Abrams and Challenger and never shot. Tanks generally entered into battle mainly at night with a thermal imager, and during the day first Apache, then tanks. The Russian Federation also showed a lag in modern BPS and thermal imagers, but it seems that this topic is being corrected. I hope for the rearmament of the latest version of the 125mm cannon with an enhanced charge and new BPS and 65 tons of weight will not save Western tanks.
    31. 0
      29 September 2016 08: 47
      and it turns out that the Europeans (that the Germans, the Anglaxians, these European legislators in tank building) alone can no longer pull the creation of their own qualitatively new domestic tanks as opposed to Armata, which even there is not enough to re-equip the pounds, but all one with threats to They climb the Russian Federation, hope for the Yankees (NATO), and laughter and sin, aristocrats without pants, but still there ...
    32. 0
      3 October 2016 09: 21
      In the homeland of tanks - there is no one to produce and modify tanks. An interesting situation.
    33. 0
      30 October 2016 21: 39
      The easiest way would be to cut this junk, buy cheaply used Leo 2 and spend money on their repair and modernization.
      But the Angles do not look for easy ways, therefore they will continue to suffer).
    34. kig
      15 February 2017 03: 05
      And why on one of the pictures depicts Merkava?

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"