Military Review

"Ivan Tarava" - the hostage of admirals and politicians

41
As part of the development of the landing forces of the USSR Navy, which required a larger and more versatile (multi-tasking) ship than the Project 1174 BDKs available at that time, as approved by order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Admiral Fleet The Soviet Union Sergei Gorshkov, experts of the Nevsky Design Bureau began around the mid-1980s to study the question of the possibility of creating an amphibious assault ship of a new class for the country - the universal amphibious assault ship (UDC) of project 11780, which has a docking chamber for receiving amphibious assault landing gear and capable of carrying a fairly large air group, for which the ship was supposed to have a continuous, over the entire length, flight deck of a large area. A promising ship was supposed to land personnel and landing equipment using helicopters and landing boats, as well as through the bow and stern ramps. In the process of its design, it was supposed to take into account individual developments on aircraft-carrying cruisers of the Kiev type.


"Ivan Tarava" - the hostage of admirals and politicians


Due to the fact that the conceptually promising Soviet UDC largely repeated the American UDC of the Tarava type, the nickname Ivan Tarawa was quickly established behind it. On the other hand, in Nevsky PKB, the ship was not only developed in the classic UDC version, including the sub-version with the incorporation of Yak-38 type aircraft into the ship’s aviagroup, vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft, but also in the anti-submarine version (helicopter). It was planned to build two ships - "Kherson" and "Kremenchug".

The original, “clean landing” version of the ship provided for a continuous flight deck of 200x25 m size, which could be used for the production and reception of both the Ka-29-type amphibious transport helicopters (12 helicopters in the naval air group) and Yak-38 aircraft. Helicopters were to be used to deliver troops to the coast and provide fire support to them. Later, in the antisubmarine version, the possibility of basing on the ship twice as large — up to 25 machines — the number of Ka-27 helicopters was registered.

All armament, including one X-NUMX caliber AK-130 two-gun artillery, mm, one Dagger anti-aircraft missile system (SAM), consisting of three or six eight-shot vertical-launch (ATD) rocket launchers and anti-aircraft missile and artillery system (ZRAK) “ Dirk "in the composition of two - four combat modules, and various radio equipment (antenna radar posts, electronic warfare, etc.) were placed in the superstructure-island, which was shifted to the starboard.

The project provided for the presence on the ship of a sufficiently capacious dock chamber, where amphibious boats could be placed (four or five displacement boats of the 1176 project or two or three hovercraft of the 1206 project) and through which it was possible to land amphibious amphibious equipment. The design of the UDC also provided for bow and stern ramp.

The UDC of the 11780 project had the following calculated tactical and technical elements: the normal displacement is 25 thousand tons, the total displacement is more than 30 thousand tons, the greatest length is 196 m, the length of the shipboard waterline (KWL) is 180 m, the maximum width is 35 m , KVL width - 25 m, draft - 8 m, autonomy for reserves of fuel, water and provisions - 30 days.

The main turbine power plant (GEM) 100 power thousand liters. with. (according to other sources, even 180 ths. hp / 142,4 MW) was assumed to be unified with the destroyers of the 956 project and should have provided the ship with a full speed of 30 nodes, as well as a range of 18 miles to 8000 miles.

Landing capacity - up to 1000 people, plus about 70 units of various military and automotive equipment or 40 basic tanks and 15 armored personnel carriers.

However, the development of the UDC project 11780 was eventually terminated at the design stage.

Domestic naval historians agree that the UDC of the 11780 project has become hostage to the “confrontation” that took place between the Admiral of the Soviet Navy Head of the Soviet Navy Sergei Georgievich Gorshkov and the Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the USSR for the Navy Admiral Nikolai Nikolayevich Amelko. The latter had previously been Gorshkov’s deputy for antisubmarine defense (PLO), but, as is believed, forcedly, due to insurmountable disagreements with the Glavkom, he moved to the General Staff. In the Russian specialized literature, it is indicated that when the 11780 project was reviewed by the General Staff, it was suggested that Admiral Amelko would modify the ship — place a springboard in its nose and provide additional types of aircraft on the ship.

It is alleged that Sergei Gorshkov considered that the implementation of such a “request” was in the hands of a group of high-ranking opponents of the Soviet aircraft carrier program, which, it is believed, included Admiral Nikolai Amelko. And as a preventive measure, Sergey Georgievich instructed the designer to transfer the two-gun 130-mm artillery unit and two batteries of the Dagger anti-aircraft missile system, six UVPs in each, from the superstructure to the nose - where the springboard proposed by the General Staff would be located. In addition, the basing of VTOL was no longer envisaged. Naval science was ordered to "scientifically substantiate" the need for such changes, which was done. However, in this form, the General Staff ship was no longer needed.

It should be especially noted that there were problems with the choice of a place for the construction of ships with such a displacement and size. At that time it was possible to build them only at the Black Sea shipbuilding plant in Nikolaev. But then the latter was the main protagonist in the Soviet carrier program, and the shipyard could not draw both classes of ships. Domestic sources indicate that, in the event that the plant imposes obligations to build, in addition to aircraft-carrying cruisers, two UDCs, the labor intensity of producing each of which reached 13 million man-hours, both of these programs could be in jeopardy.

Moreover, the leadership of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces proposed to build a UDC in return for a TAVKR. But since the latter had a higher priority for the command of the Navy, the admirals did everything possible to ensure that the General Staff and the leadership of the Ministry of Defense abandoned the UDC at all. And then another important reason for the cessation of work on the 11780 project appeared: the Soviet Union collapsed, and the leadership of the new Russia was not up to the ocean fleet with its aircraft carriers and universal landing craft.

The next attempt to give the fleet a full-fledged universal landing ship - in the form of an improved amphibious assault ship-docking-type "Mistral" - was undertaken in the new millennium. However, also to no avail. Now all hopes are placed on the UDK type "Surf". The future will show how reasonable and realistic they are in practical implementation.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2017-12-01/9_975_tarava.html
41 comment
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 2 December 2017 13: 14 New
      +5
      Quote: Hunter
      It remains only to decide whether our fleet needs an effective means to combat submarines.

      And what is it, is it an effective remedy?
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 2 December 2017 14: 46 New
          +5
          Sorry, but ...
          Quote: Hunter
          aircraft carrier ship with 20-22 helicopters and two BPCs.

          with a stretch can be called an effective tool! Departure of the submarine under the jump layer complicates the search incredibly! hi
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2017 19: 51 New
            +2
            Dear Serg65, please tell me, do the search capabilities of the submarines somehow change after leaving under the jump layer?
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 4 December 2017 08: 54 New
              +6
              hi Welcome Andrew!
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              But do the search capabilities of the submarine somehow change after leaving under the jump layer?

              Of course change yes I will not bring ...
              Quote: Hunter
              research findings.

              because all scientific research can be sent to kindle the stove, after the new generation submarines, new HACs and GASs come into operation, everything is changing so fast in this world ...
              The process of detecting submarines after leaving the jump horizon is very complex and not one of many detection methods cannot guarantee 100% success. BOD in this case, you need to act in steps with lowering the gas at the search point and raising the helicopter with a magnetometer. The GAS in this case should work in the active mode, while the submarine will detect the operation of the enemy’s GAS much earlier than the enemy will detect the submarine. Helicopter PLO for detection due to the rapid smoothing of the magnetic field of the submarine, you need to go literally over the boat, and you yourself understand that - problematic!
              Another thing is when the submarine is discovered at shallow depths and several ships + PLO aircraft conduct a search. Knowing the alleged location of the submarine, hydrology and underwater sound channels of the area, the chances of tracking or destruction are much higher, even after the submarine goes below the horizon. It says only about NK PLO and aviation! In my opinion, the best detection and tracking of universal submarines, i.e. PL vs PL!
              I will give you some examples from the history of the Navy of the USSR.
              Now many people already know about the once-secret operation "Kama", when almost the entire 2nd US fleet chased 4 Soviet factories, but few know that, back in the 57th B-77, ave. 611 3 months stuck at the cape Canaveral, watching NASA launches and no one found it, a year later the B-78 Ave. AB611 with two ballistic missiles on board for 1,5 months was off the northeastern coast of the United States and went unnoticed. A week before the appearance of Agofonov’s boats in the Caribbean, B-75 Ave. 611 calmly roamed in the area and no one noticed it. Those. if the enemy is not aware of the presence of submarines at their side, only a case or a deliberate discharge will help to find a boat, as is the case with boats of the 69th brigade. In the 80s, if my memory serves me right, a new and most secret K-284, pr. 971 was taken out from Komsomolsk-on-Amur. When entering the Tatar Strait, one of the Golden Eagles entered the guard of the boat, the boat went underwater. After some time, the acoustics of Pike discovered a foreign submarine ...... right under the Golden Eagle, and the acoustics of the BOD did not see a foreign boat !! hi
      2. yehat
        yehat 11 January 2018 17: 07 New
        0
        an effective remedy is needed for acne. the question should be built differently.
  2. Cat
    Cat 2 December 2017 06: 45 New
    +2
    Do not twist cool, but the Russian fleet needs such ships!
    1. andrewkor
      andrewkor 2 December 2017 08: 25 New
      +2
      What is needed, no doubt, but are there any opportunities? So far, we see at a minimum the saturation of the fleet with small surface ships, which the shipbuilding industry of Russia can only afford!
      1. Monarchist
        Monarchist 2 December 2017 11: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: andrewkor
        What is needed, no doubt, but are there any opportunities? So far, we see at a minimum the saturation of the fleet with small surface ships, which the shipbuilding industry of Russia can only afford!

        But what about the icebreaker Ilya Muromets, built in the interests of the Nevsky Shipyard? There was a publication about him on the site and recently heard on the radio; he was not assigned to be his small adjustable ship.
        It’s another matter that they are successfully coping with the orders of the Moscow Region: Pela, Nevsky and Zelenodolsky shipbuilders, while Amursky is pulling the rubber and the subcontractors can
      2. antivirus
        antivirus 2 December 2017 19: 27 New
        +2
        It is alleged that Sergey Gorshkov considered that the implementation of such a “request” was in the hands of a group of high-ranking opponents of the Soviet aircraft carrier program, which, it is believed, also included Admiral Nikolai Amelko
        20 years ago, Amelko’s interview was shown.
        there he clearly said --- Ustinov convinced and did not convince of the need for an aircraft carrier. AND THE UDC also did not convince.

        ANSWER ANSWER-- EVERYTHING IMMEDIATELY TO PROJECTS-- NO MONEY. GIANT COSTS DO NOT PUSH (and this is from the USSR)
        1. Glory1974
          Glory1974 2 December 2017 22: 37 New
          +2
          It is alleged that Sergei Gorshkov considered that the implementation of such a “request” was in the hands of the group senior opponents of the Soviet aircraft carrier program, which is believed to have included Admiral Nikolai Amelko.

          Or maybe it was not the spies who had to be shot, but just "stupid" people?
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 3 December 2017 11: 42 New
            +3
            Quote: glory1974
            Or maybe it was not the spies who had to be shot, but just "stupid" people?
            "Stupid" people, more dangerous than spies, worse than enemies, the whole question of how they find themselves at the right place at the right time ... If in Soviet times the word "aircraft carrier" was synonymous with imperialism and aggression, linked with the United States, how could promotion of all topics somehow connected with carrier-based aviation, both in terms of UDC, and, especially, of the classic aircraft carrier? What is interesting is when the burzhuiny won, the Soviet Union fell, everything amerikosovskoe became almost the standard, however, the topic of aircraft carriers "stupid people" again began to desperately stomp, already under the guise of "land" of Russia. By hook or by crook, virtually the entire carrier fleet from the USSR was destroyed, even the Gorshkov managed to offer the Hindus a MiG-29 deal ... But if not for the miracle Kuzya, Burzhuin Russia wouldn’t have aircraft carrying ships. This is despite the fact that almost all more or less developed fleets of the world have them and are building, even small Italy. As for the UDC topic, it would probably be better to build them first than our aircraft-carrying cruisers, and then, from the Gorshkov, purely as a multi-purpose aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant. Could and the project "Halzan" to use as a purely landing ship-helicopter (not anti-submarine), and a reserve for alterations Rokkerov in case of military necessity.
    2. Monarchist
      Monarchist 2 December 2017 11: 44 New
      +2
      Komrad Kotische, I would say that we always needed such ships.
      It is bad when the ambitions of individuals become over the interests of the state. Unfortunately, this often happens.
  3. common man
    common man 2 December 2017 08: 31 New
    11
    A few thoughts for thought are not naval, but I hope a healthy person. Why UDC Dock Camera? If the UDC is intended to capture the bridgehead in the first wave, then I imagine how, for example, 2 or 4 boats will land tanks from a distance of 10-20 km? An hour to go there, an hour back, an hour to load and unload. 40 tanks, this is 30 hours. Half of the amphibious assault will be damaged at the beginning of the operation (God forbid they drown all boats) This is not an amphibious operation, but some kind of madhouse. Only amphibious equipment and helicopters should be based on UDC. He came up and fired all the equipment at once, attack helicopter teams, fire support helicopters. And he walked away. To do this, by the way, it is not necessary to block the nasal gate. Preferred and cheaper landing through the stern. And tanks and other land equipment should be delivered by tank landing ships. With gateway cameras, landing boats, but without helicopters. More capacious, simple and cheap. And yet., Need universal helicopter carriers. Which can be used as both assault landing and anti-submarine. But without any dock cameras and other things. Only helicopters and VTOL aircraft, if any.
    1. vlad007
      vlad007 2 December 2017 09: 20 New
      +7
      Quote: man in the street
      But without any dock cameras and other things.

      USS Tarawa (LHA-1) USA with dock camera.
    2. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 2 December 2017 11: 36 New
      0
      So, do you offer our fleet to order several different vessels? and I want to ask where is the money zin?
      But seriously, we need a maximum of two types of large ships, the first is a hybrid of an aircraft carrier and UDC, it should be of maximum size and autonomy, somewhere 49m * 400m, the second type should be less than somewhere 49m * 200m. And both should be both aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers and have a camera dock. The only difference is that the former need up to 10-20, and the latter 50+. Well, at the "price" the answer is very simple, in peacetime, boats should earn money on chartering, and in the event of war, be equipped with ISO-containers and turn into warships. And no cruisers like Moscow nafig are unnecessary, only small boats with a displacement of 5-7,5kt, everything else is on the first two boats.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 5 December 2017 17: 07 New
        0
        we don’t need military surface ships longer than a frigate, and large UDCs, all the more, they’ll sink even at a distance of 20-30 miles from the coast
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 5 December 2017 20: 17 New
          0
          Quote: vladimir1155
          we don’t need military surface ships longer than a frigate, and large UDCs, all the more, they’ll sink even at a distance of 20-30 miles from the coast

          "us" is the Russian Federation? or personally "to you"? You do not confuse one and the other ... Unfortunately, you cannot cover all the tasks of the Navy with frigates alone. For example, to combat submarines, an aircraft-carrying ship is needed, the frigate will have a maximum of cover, but not search and destruction. To transport troops and military cargo, the frigate also does not roll.
    3. Serg65
      Serg65 2 December 2017 13: 27 New
      +6
      I do not argue about the health of your mind, but you are not a naval one for sure!
      Quote: man in the street
      If the UDC is intended to capture the bridgehead in the first wave, then I imagine how, for example, 2 or 4 boats will land tanks from a distance of 10-20 km?

      The first wave is the first echelon. Who do you think will support and strengthen the first echelon, by what forces will the first echelon expand the bridgehead and prepare a place for the reception of the main forces? Needless to say, the need for a second echelon reinforced with heavy weapons, who will deliver it? The tank landing ships you mentioned are already the third echelon needed for development
      tactical success! That is why the UDC and place a dock camera, landing boats, tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery!
      Quote: man in the street
      Preferred and cheaper landing through the stern

      My friend, you probably saw movies or pictures where a person stands on the shore? Have you noticed the waves? Do not tell me ... the waves go to the shore or from the shore ??
      1. common man
        common man 2 December 2017 18: 31 New
        +2
        Quote: Serg65
        Have you noticed the waves? Do not tell me ... the waves go to the shore or from the shore ??

        It was meant that the device of the gate from the stern is easier than from the bow, as in our BDK. And where does the wave, when it comes to over-horizon landing, 10-30 km from the coastline?
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 2 December 2017 22: 48 New
          +1
          Quote: man in the street
          Quote: Serg65
          Have you noticed the waves? Do not tell me ... the waves go to the shore or from the shore ??

          It was meant that the device of the gate from the stern is easier than from the bow, as in our BDK. And where does the wave, when it comes to over-horizon landing, 10-30 km from the coastline?

          at high tide, the waves go ashore, at low tide, but they are smooth and invisible wassat
          But the essence of the bow and stern landing is not in the waves, but in the way of landing. Our BDKs come close to the shore aground (oh yes this is a brilliant solution!) Go nose to secure the screws, because during the high tide they will flood the stern, therefore they will drop through the bow, and even this landing allows you to concentrate weapons and armor on the front hemisphere. Western UDC landing on the sea and put the ship against the wave in order to minimize the roll and flooding of the landing compartment, and loading is facilitated.
    4. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 5 December 2017 17: 12 New
      +2
      udk is a nonsense, in principle, the Russian Federation, due to its specifics, is more comfortable with KFOR, in the extreme case, BDK,. For aviation support of the landing, you can use coastal aviation, in the extreme case of Kuznetsov, and there is nothing to fence the garden with new monsters
  4. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 2 December 2017 18: 37 New
    +5
    I see a lot of defeatist moods. In fact, not everything is so bad. Work is going on, people are trying. All will be. Give the deadline ..
    Most of the work, I would generally forbid to disclose. Like good old times.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 2 December 2017 19: 23 New
      0
      and this is the chatter for unnerving the public
      and the work is going on --- only to ensure the security of the country, and not the hotel of the highest military
  5. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 2 December 2017 19: 30 New
    +4
    Speaking of birds! I think it’s high time to raise the issue of the secrecy of certain products. Too many discussions of what just need not be discussed.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2017 19: 49 New
      +5
      Quote: Benzorez
      I think it’s high time to raise the issue of the secrecy of certain products. Too many discussions of what just need not be discussed.

      I recall a children's fairy tale
      - Go here! - shouted the puppy kitten. - I came up with something!
      - What did you come up with? Gav asked.
      - I came up with a secret language.
      “Why secret?” - surprised Gav.
      - So that we can talk and no one understands us.
      - It's good! - rejoiced Woof. “Tell me something in your secret language.”
      - Cook markuka balyam barabuka! - said the puppy.
      “Very secret,” Gav praised, “nothing is clear.”
      “And now,” said the puppy, “let me tell you in your ear that it means“ cookie marka. ”
      - Do not! - said Gav. - Do not say.
      - Why not? - the puppy was surprised.
      - Because it's a secret! - said the kitten Woof. “And let it be secret.” Let no one ever understand anything. Even to me. Then we will have a real top secret language.

      You, in my opinion, took this fairy tale too close to the heart as a child.
      1. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 3 December 2017 19: 43 New
        +5
        Well no. As a child, I just read the right books (as life shows). And then I read some more books (already narrowly special). Then he worked at various enterprises related to readable books. Therefore, there is some understanding about state secrets, etc. With all my respect hi
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 December 2017 23: 37 New
          +5
          Quote: Benzorez
          And then I read some more books (already narrowly special). Then he worked at various enterprises related to readable books. Therefore, there is some understanding about state secrets, etc.

          Well, I do not pretend to have a deep understanding of state secrets with my third form of admission, but there is an understanding that this state should not be included - these are general things, such as our naval strategy, marine construction program, the main types of ships, their technical characteristics and etc. etc.
          It makes no sense to keep them secret, but to return to the USSR, where ignorance of the capabilities of our technology led people to openly applaud Rambo, destroying Soviet tanks with a bow ...
          In general, the iron curtain was covered, it is impossible to secret the western. And in these conditions, to close information about our own weapons means stepping on a rake on which we already jumped under late socialism, admiring the Mirage and F-15 and not having a clue about the MiG-29 and Su-27.
          Yours faithfully, hi
  6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2017 19: 47 New
    +1
    It is alleged that Sergei Gorshkov considered that the implementation of such a “request” was in the hands of a group of senior opponents of the Soviet aircraft carrier program, which, it is believed, also included Admiral Nikolai Amelko. And as a preventive measure, Sergey Georgievich instructed the designer to transfer the two-gun 130-mm gun mount and two batteries of the “Dagger” anti-aircraft missile system

    I still apologize, but the respected ator inattentively worked with the sources. Amelko was an ardent opponent not only of aircraft carriers, but even of the Tavkr.
    1. Russian whale
      Russian whale 2 December 2017 21: 55 New
      +1
      You quoted the following: “It is alleged that Sergey Gorshkov considered that the implementation of such a“ request ”was in the hands of a group of high-ranking opponents of the Soviet aircraft carrier program, which, it is believed, also included Admiral Nikolai Amelko." And then write that "he worked inattentively "because Amelko was an opponent of aircraft carriers and TAVKR. What is written in the quote quoted by you ???
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 December 2017 10: 11 New
        +1
        Yes repeat Something I blurted out. I'm sorry.
    2. yehat
      yehat 11 January 2018 17: 17 New
      0
      which automatically makes him an apologist for the coastal defense fleet and as a result
      raises the question of its adequacy. As an example, I want to refer to the Caribbean crisis -
      it is difficult to imagine a more shameful and somewhere even idiotic position of the fleet than there.
  7. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 5 December 2017 17: 03 New
    +3
    Omelko is right, the NKM does not need large surface ships mass graves, you need more submarines, minesweepers, and a certain limited number of third-rank ships, corvettes, frigates
    1. yehat
      yehat 11 January 2018 17: 42 New
      0
      I can’t agree with you, and I have already given the arguments above, but I’ll add that there are a whole bunch of books by figures such as Tirpitz, which chewed on why large ships are needed along with small forces. Everything should be. And instead of arguing this or that, it’s better to take care that there is this and that. Your opinion is understandable, but it relies logically only on a narrow horizon.
  8. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 11 December 2017 18: 23 New
    +1
    Now Russia needs more of a “mosquito” missile fleet consisting of ships of the 3rd rank, mine ships, anti-submarines of the 3rd and second ranks are very necessary! Aircraft carriers and BDKs are not suitable for defense, these "mass graves" are very good targets. The largest ships, it seems to me, should be the ships of the "leader" family! Now you need to build coastal infrastructure, slipways and docks. Aircraft carriers UDC, BDK is a distant prospect.
    1. yehat
      yehat 11 January 2018 17: 32 New
      +1
      the fleet should not pursue efficiency goals in itself, but the provision of geopolitical interests. To do this, you need several TAVKR and BDK, you need a merchant and fishing fleet, you need support vessels and much more, like it or not. And the fleet needs to form a sane opinion on the needs based on tasks, and not from what God will send randomly from shipyards. The fleet is a political instrument and very expensive. It needs to be used, not stored like rockets in mines.
  9. Shtroffrus
    Shtroffrus 4 January 2018 22: 29 New
    0
    the author of the article could replace the picture of the foreign UDC with a picture of the project 11780
    1. yehat
      yehat 11 January 2018 17: 38 New
      0
      By the way, are there specialists who can speak out about the location of the armament unit in the bow? Is this normal or not normal?
      It’s just that on foreign ships of close destination
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 11 January 2018 20: 32 New
        +1
        there are a lot of things on foreign ships, they call the udk a regular ferry without compartments and a reserve of stability, and do not expect to land on land where there is at least one living enemy
      2. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 11 January 2018 20: 36 New
        0
        I’m not a “specialist” but I’ll answer
        1) nasal armament (now speaking about) is unacceptable on Western ships due to the use of VTOL primarily harriers, and in the second f35, which take off from the takeoff. Also for helicopters, this is "undesirable" because during the take-off run the thrust is higher due to the non-formation of a vortex ring.
        2) Nasal armament (now about the below deck) is unacceptable, due to the formation of "garbage" that can get into the VTOL engine, This is not critical for helicopters.
        We decide the second point at the conceptual level, the first is not.
  10. Valery Saitov
    Valery Saitov 16 January 2018 10: 40 New
    +2
    UDC type "Surf".)))
    The ship will be much smaller than the French Mistral, its length is approximately 165 meters, width 25 meters. The Russian fleet absolutely does not need huge landing helicopter carrier ships, since the current capabilities of the Ka-52 and Ka-52K attack helicopters have stepped far forward, and no more than ten such combat helicopters are enough to ensure combat stability on a sea theater.

    So, the modern Ka-52K will be able to carry out a complex list of anti-ship missions due to the use of anti-ship missiles X-31A and X-35U, in addition, for helicopters a lighter modification of radar with AFS "Zhuk-AE" is being developed, which will also be able to work by air targets within a radius of 80 km; it is likely that in future the air-to-air missile R-52 (RVV-AE) will be unified with Ka-77K and helicopters will be able to master all types of operations in the sea and coastal zone.
  11. Turist1996
    Turist1996 4 December 2018 19: 22 New
    0
    Amelko is a crest, take his foot! It’s not a matter of thinking, but only to spoil a neighbor - a purely Hohlyak approach! Motto: stupidity, cowardice, greed, stupidity and narrow-mindedness !!