Military Review

Which helicopter carriers will receive the Russian fleet?

88
In early January, 2018 of the year, citing its sources in the domestic military-industrial complex TASS, reported that the Russian Ministry of Defense and the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) agreed that the construction of Russian helicopter carriers will begin in 2020. Construction of new ships for the Russian Navy will be carried out in St. Petersburg at the shipyard "Severnaya Verf". The interlocutor of the agency noted that the company has already begun a large-scale reconstruction of production facilities, including the construction of a workshop that allows the construction of new helicopter carriers and destroyers Leader, whose construction will also be entrusted to the Severnaya Verf.


According to the plans, Severnaya Verf will first build two helicopter carriers, after which it will start building the Leader project of nuclear destroyers. Development work on Russian helicopter carriers will begin in 2018, in 2020 it is planned to begin work on the construction of the lead ship with its delivery to the Russian the fleet in 2024, the production of the first and only serial helicopter carrier is planned for 2022 with transfer to its fleet in 2026, the source of the TASS agency said. At the same time, TASS notes that they do not have confirmation of this information. It is worth noting that earlier Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Yuri Borisov told reporters that the first Russian helicopter carrier will appear around 2022.

Earlier, another source of the agency said that promising Russian helicopter carriers would receive a diesel-gas turbine power plant. According to him, the basis of the air group of new ships will be Ka-52K Katran helicopters, the delivery of which will be synchronized with the delivery of helicopter carriers to the fleet. Also, Ka-27, Ka-29 and Ka-31 helicopters can be based on the ships.

The first attempt to acquire UDC

The need to be in the fleet of universal landing ships that could serve as the core of expeditionary forces, landing marines at large distances from their bases (including those outside the coastal area aviation), the leadership of the Navy of the Soviet Union was fully aware back in the 1980s. The first ships of this class in the USSR were to be the vessels of Project 11780. These UDCs managed to get the playful nickname "Ivan Tarava", which they gave them for their resemblance to universal landing ships like the Tarawa of the US Navy. The UDC of project 11780 had a normal displacement of 25 tons. The autonomy of sailing was estimated at 000 days, the maximum speed - 30 knots, when sailing in an economical course - 30 knots, ships could cover 18 nautical miles. The maximum airborne landing capacity of UDC was estimated at 8000 people, the composition of the air group - 1000 transport and combat helicopters Ka-12. In the anti-submarine version, the ship could take up to 29 Ka-25 helicopters.

layout UDC project 11780

The main lobbyist for the construction of the UDC of the 11780 project was not so much the Main Board of the Navy as the General Staff. The Soviet military needed a tool that would allow them to forcefully defend the country's interests in remote regions of the world, even if there were no USSR-friendly states or armed pro-Soviet organizations and movements. The characteristics and equipment of the ships of the 11780 project allowed them to be used as control ships, as well as in search shock teams, the main purpose of which would be to destroy enemy submarines.

The collapse of the Soviet Union stopped the implementation of this project, making the construction of ships at the Black Sea Shipbuilding Plant in Nikolaev irrelevant. The ships remained just a project, none of the two planned UDC was laid. The fact that ships with a standard displacement of 25 000 tons could be built only on the Black Sea GCC in Nikolaev, where it was planned to begin construction of aircraft carriers of the 1143.5 project, also had an effect. The General Staff attached greater importance to the construction of the UDC, and the fleet defended the aircraft carriers. The “struggle for the stocks” that had begun, was lost by supporters of the construction of the UDC.

Second attempt: acquisition of UDC abroad

By the middle of the 2000-s, the economic situation in the country has stabilized. Against the background of high oil prices and the growth of the economy in Russia, they again thought about obtaining weighty tools for upholding their political interests in various parts of the world. Taking into account not the best position of the Russian industry and the complete lack of experience in building ships of this class, it was decided to acquire the UDC from foreign manufacturers. So began the famous epic with "Mistral".

DKVD "Rotterdam"

According to information available today, it can be said that the Russian naval leadership considered a number of foreign projects of such ships. Of greatest interest were the South Korean UDC project of the Dokdo type, as well as the Dutch helicopter landing ship dock (DVKD) Rotterdam. Further, in terms of attractiveness for the Russian military, the Spanish “Juan Carlos I” was modeled on the model of which the Canberra-type UDC was also built for the needs of the Royal Australian Navy.

However, the political conjuncture, as well as the contractual capacity of the French, who agreed to the transfer of technology, led to the fact that the preference of the Russian admirals was given to the UDC project of the Mistral type. Initially, Russia hoped to buy 4 ships of this type, two of them were planned to be built in France with the participation of enterprises from Russia, and two more directly at Russian shipyards. As a result, an agreement was signed on the construction of two ships totaling 1,15 billion euros, the cost included technology transfer, crew training and training, and supply of additional equipment, including landing craft.

17 June 2011, the contract for the supply of two ships was finally signed. As part of the Russian fleet, the ships were to receive the name "Vladivostok" and "Sevastopol". In the first half of 2014, Russian seafarers began training in the management and maintenance of UDC data. 15 September 2014 of the year “Vladivostok” with the Russian crew on board went to sea for sea trials. Crew training took place against the backdrop of the growing Ukrainian crisis 2014 of the year, which eventually led to the fact that France refused to fulfill the contract. The sum of money paid for the ships returned to the Russian budget, and the UDC themselves were sold to Egypt, which in turn acquired helicopters and equipment for them from Russia. The cost of helicopters and equipment purchased by the Egyptian side is estimated at over one billion euros.
UDC of type “Mistral”


Third attempt: promising Russian-made UDC

The failure of the attempt to acquire a UDC of foreign production did not reduce the interest of the Russian military leadership in ships of this class. Only now Russia is going to build amphibious assault helicopters with its own forces, work on their design began almost immediately after it became clear that France would not fulfill the signed contract. According to Izvestia journalists, at present, two concepts of the future helicopter carrier are under study in our country. As part of one of them, it is planned to build a DKVD on the model of the Dutch Rotterdam with a displacement of about 14 thousand tons and an air group of 6-8 helicopters, as well as a docking camera designed for 2-4 landing craft. Such a ship should provide for the transfer and disembarkation of a marines battalion of a maximum strength of about 500 people with weapons and equipment.

As part of the second concept, it is planned to build a UDC of classic aircraft-carrying architecture with a through-deck, displacement of about 24 thousand tons. Such a ship should receive a larger-scale air group - about 20 helicopters, realizing the concept of conducting an over-the-horizon assault landing in two waves, delivering ashore heavy weapons and equipment, as well as part of the personnel on amphibious boats across the sea, and parts with light weapons - by air . The number of paratroopers on a ship of this type will need to be more than 900 people.

Both concepts envisage the possibility of using helicopter carriers both as control ships and as floating bases during rescue / humanitarian operations, as well as solving other tasks. According to the interlocutors of the Internet portal iz.ru in the military department, the needs of the Russian fleet in such vessels are estimated at 6-8 units in the best option and at 4 - at the minimum. In the meantime, it is planned to build a series of only two ships. The two ships will not provide the fleet with the possibility of a permanent presence in the necessary areas, but will, if necessary, form the core of the expeditionary forces that will be able to solve tasks in remote theaters of war as the need arises. At the same time, the usefulness of amphibious assault helicopters, used as mobile bases for the operational deployment of military contingents during local conflicts, has been proven many times, starting with the 1960-s.

Sketch of promising Russian UDC

Four such ships as part of the Russian Navy would allow one helicopter carrier to be permanently kept at sea, another one - in a state of immediate readiness, the third - able to go to sea for military service in a few weeks, while the fourth ship could be upgraded or long-term repairs. The presence of 6-8 ships of this class would allow the Russian fleet to increase or rotate its forces in the regions where it is needed. Back in the middle of 2015, Anatoly Shlemov, who served as head of the USC Defense Procurement Order Department, said that the country needed 6-8 helicopter carriers, and the Ministry of Defense assessed the needs of the Navy for the 4 of the Priboy project ship.

In the meantime, there are plans to build only two landing helicopter carriers. So on May 25, 2017, the Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Yuri Borisov told reporters that two helicopter carriers were included in the state arms program until 2025, while he did not then specify what projects were involved. Most of the information is known today about the UDC of the Surf project, the layout of which was first demonstrated as part of the Army 2015 forum. The Russian Ministry of Defense said that this project is an alternative to the French Mistrals. At the same time, everything will be Russian at Priboy: the aviation wing, landing and landing equipment, and weapons system.

It is known that the UDC of the project “Surf” will have a displacement of about 14 thousand tons with a draft of 5 meters. The maximum speed of the ship will be 20 knots (cruising approximately 15-16 knots), the maximum cruising range is 6 000 nautical miles, the autonomy of the hike being made is up to 60 days. Anti-aircraft defense of the ship are going to trust the anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex of the sea-based "Pantsir-M". On the take-off deck, the Surf will be able to accommodate up to 8 helicopters: anti-submarine Ka-27, transport-combat Ka-29 or shock Ka-52K. In addition, the ship will carry on board two amphibious boats “Moray” of the project 12061М and four amphibious boats “Serna” of the project 11770М. It is assumed that on board will be able to accommodate the order of 500 paratroopers and up to 60 units of various military equipment. According to the stated capabilities of the ship will be close to the landing ships docks of the type "Rotterdam".

Layout of promising Russian UDC

At the same time, experts note that Russia so far has no sea-based serial helicopters that would fully meet the capabilities of the new ships. To fully utilize all the capabilities of modern UDC, heavier helicopters are needed than the Ka-27 and Ka-29 available in the Russian fleet (can take up to 16 soldiers), capable of taking on board before the platoon of soldiers and more like the European EH-101 (30 soldiers) or American MH-47 (from 33 to 55 soldiers) and CH-53 (to 38 soldiers).

It is known that the Russian Helicopters concern is currently working on creating a new family of sea-based helicopters, the work is being done under the cipher "Murena", while the estimated characteristics of this helicopter are still classified information. At the same time, the attack helicopter Ka-52K, which became the deck version of the famous military aircraft of the army aviation, which showed itself well during the conflict in Syria, is already ready to respond to the fire support of the landing force.

Depending on what kind of helicopter carrier project will be chosen for the Russian fleet - UDC displacement 14 thousand tons or 24 thousandth UDC, the price of the lead ship will be 30-50 billion rubles. The cost of the air group for a ship of this class could be 20 billion more rubles. But even with such a cost, landing helicopter carriers will continue to remain a fairly economical means of projection of force.

Information sources:
https://iz.ru/694802/ilia-kramnik/s-opozdaniem-na-10-let
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4863362
https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/404063-avianosetz-shtorm-priboi
Open source materials
Author:
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Spartanez300
    Spartanez300 16 January 2018 05: 51 New
    +6
    On paper and a mockup, of course, this does not look bad, but in practice it always turns out to be unfinished, especially since something new.
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 16 January 2018 07: 40 New
      11
      Problems with the construction of the UDC are likely to be real, Neither the USSR nor Russia built such ships. And indeed, from the bookmark of the last ship of such a displacement, a generation of warships has changed. Another thing is important here, it’s not just project on paper, and quite practical work is underway to modernize the shipyard and prepare for the UDC bookmark
      1. Bronevick
        Bronevick 16 January 2018 09: 40 New
        +3
        Paul Mistral was built.
        1. Inok10
          Inok10 17 January 2018 00: 46 New
          +3
          Quote: Bronevick
          Paul Mistral was built.

          ... that’s not the point ...
          ... the main thing in the title:
          Which helicopter carriers will receive the Russian fleet?

          ... and here the main mistake ... the conversation is not about the Landing Means ... first you need to determine the appearance of the Marine Corps ... what is the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation doing at the moment ... what equipment will be used by the Marine Corps? ... right, no one knows, the Moscow Region is doing this now ... BTR -82A is an intermediate option ... we sorted out the airborne forces, now our hands reached the Marine Corps ... and, after that, they will be based on the airborne assault equipment ... and delivery and landing vehicles ... one thing is clear, the USSR lesson was taken into account ... the first delivery vehicles start with 14 tons of full displacement ... with a helicopter group of 000-6 airborne ... more thoughts develop to an area of ​​8-22 tons of total displacement ... this was thought out 24 years ago ... pr. 000 + pr. 25 ... and not even on all fleets ... on the DKBF is redundant, and on the Black Sea Fleet also ... a personal opinion ... we share the skin of a dead bear ... hi
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 16 January 2018 09: 43 New
        11
        USSR built steeper. Nuclear lighter carrier, helicopter carriers, VTOL carrier ships ...
        But universal neither fish nor meat really built.
        They were not sure about their necessity.
        1. Separ DNR
          Separ DNR 16 January 2018 10: 28 New
          +2
          Quote: Spartanez300
          On paper and a mockup, of course, this does not look bad, but in practice it always turns out to be unfinished, especially since something new.

          Nothing ... "Rocking" and shipbuilding yes
          1. Kudrevkn
            Kudrevkn 16 January 2018 22: 28 New
            +3
            for sure! hats - with earflaps and felt boots throw the supstat
        2. Per se.
          Per se. 16 January 2018 12: 54 New
          +4
          Quote: Spade
          They were not sure about their necessity.
          Rather, the priorities were in the construction of aircraft-carrying cruisers. If they didn’t want to get an anti-submarine helicopter carrier from the Halzan project, they could have had a purely landing force. At the moment, the idea of ​​reworking can also be relevant, in the very same Syria it would be quite useful to use the type of "Halzan", it’s all the better that the second coming is coming. In World War II (and in front of it), many ships and civilian vessels were converted into aircraft carriers, and this was justified by time. Scheme alterations Rokker in amphibious assault helicopter.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 16 January 2018 13: 04 New
            +2
            Personally, I am not sure of the need for "universalism" in the form of combining a landing dock ship and a landing helicopter carrier.
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 16 January 2018 13: 10 New
              +2
              Quote: Spade
              Combine amphibious assault ship and amphibious assault helicopter
              It’s necessary to start somewhere, simpler, without “universalism”, at least, as an amphibious assault helicopter.
              1. freejack
                freejack 16 January 2018 16: 26 New
                +2
                Personally, I'm not sure about the need for "universalism"

                And this universalism is obtained "in a natural way." A ship - a dock cannot be miniature ... No matter how you turn it, you get a large capacity. The result is a large "unnecessary" deck. We expand it a little bit and ... that's it! the platform for 8-10 helicopters is ready ...) Of course, everything is not so simple. Adaptation of the add-in. elevators, etc.

                if we go from a helicopter carrier, then we will get the same result.)

                And the fact that they carry weapons - for example, I agree ... Americans and Britons ignore this ... but it seems to me - because of their stupidity ... hi
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 16 January 2018 19: 27 New
                  0
                  rather, on the contrary, due to real experience, guard ships can be moved away from the main ship, they can be grouped between the base ship and the enemy all this allows you to create a separation of defense. Here a combination of advantages is obtained, UDC \ AB provides early detection and target designation and long-range target destruction, and ships of smaller displacement provide protection in the near zone.
                  1. freejack
                    freejack 16 January 2018 21: 10 New
                    +1
                    Here we get a combination of advantages

                    I don’t see any advantages here ...
                    I just imagine the captain of a unified helicopter carrier when his guarded frigate was sunk ... And he watches how any enemy pit approaches him to shoot at point blank range ... And that captain thinks "Eeeeeh, at least a couple of onyxes or calibers ... "
                    But the captain of "Kuzi" will not think so - he will have a chance ... smile hi
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 17 January 2018 00: 57 New
                      0
                      As if for this, protection is needed to die but not to allow the destruction of the aircraft carrier ship. wink and an aircraft carrier ship is not a problem to arm at the expense of container and / or coastal complexes.
                      1. freejack
                        freejack 17 January 2018 21: 29 New
                        0
                        This debate can be waged forever ... as about the primacy of chicken or eggs.

                        Unification and versatility - this is not a smart or stupid argument!

                        This is an argument, a rich country and not very rich ... That's it! hi
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 17 January 2018 22: 39 New
                        0
                        Quote: freejack
                        This is an argument, a rich country and not very rich ... That's it! hi

                        No, it’s not poverty, it’s just rationality, Why do we need a mosquito fleet and / or corvette fleet if its tasks are more efficiently solved by naval aviation systems but located on the shore? Airborne coastal complexes see further, are better camouflaged, can escape and hide faster, are more mobile when transferring between TVD (for example, between the Okhotsk, White, Baltic and Black Seas), they can bring down more bombs, missiles and torpedoes on the enemy.
                        Naturally, such complexes are not a “pill for all diseases” and they have limitations that are easily compensated by the “marine base” (AB \ UDC \ etc) and the “guard ships” (ships of the sea + ocean class). But then again, the airborne systems themselves are needed to protect the missiles, and bases are needed when the combat zone is distant from the coastline and for "projecting forces."
                    2. sd68
                      sd68 17 January 2018 15: 43 New
                      0
                      What a chance? Onyxes or calibers?
                  2. Boa kaa
                    Boa kaa 17 January 2018 00: 17 New
                    +2
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    UDC \ AB provides early detection and target designation and long-range damage to targets,

                    Only on condition that he, like the UDC Comrade "America", will carry F-35 / Yak-141 VTOL aircraft. And the pinwheel t. Ka-27 / 29 / 52K / 31 well, very limited in capabilities and drums, and search, and RLD ...
                    Somehow, however.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 17 January 2018 01: 07 New
                      0
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      Only on condition that he, like the UDC Comrade "America", will carry F-35 / Yak-141 VTOL aircraft. And the pinwheel t. Ka-27 / 29 / 52K / 31 well, very limited in capabilities and drums, and search, and RLD ...
                      Somehow, however.

                      No, it’s not, there are still devices like Osprey, as soon as the Americans think of correcting their mistakes made in this convertiplane and supplementing it with reconnaissance and strike-type functions, everything changes dramatically. For example, a “Kovertoplan-DRLO” will be able to carry out more efficient detection and targeting than a helicopter-DRLO, and a “Tiltrotor-Bomber-Rocket Carrier” and “Tiltrotor-Tanker” will compensate for the shortcomings of the existing VTOL (Harrier \ f-35) and helicopters.
                      1. sd68
                        sd68 17 January 2018 15: 44 New
                        0
                        Do Americans and business and refueling
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 17 January 2018 22: 41 New
                        0
                        Quote: sd68
                        Do Americans and business and refueling

                        They do it, but not on the basis of convertiplanes. Or do you know models of convertiplanes for AWACS \ PLO?
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 17 January 2018 16: 30 New
            +1
            Quote: Per se.
            If you didn’t want to get an anti-submarine helicopter carrier from the Khalzan project, you could have had a purely landing force.

            EMNIP, with “Khalzan” was the opposite. Initially, it was made as part of the Argus research project as an element of the PLO system — a cheap mass-produced PLO helicopter carrier based on a rocker coupled to hydroacoustic detection ships based on fishing trawlers. Then the customer decided to "universalize" the ship, adding the possibility of carrying and landing ... and away we go. Immediately attached to the landing ship all the fleet requirements for survivability and security for special construction ships - and for the resulting TK, the skater did not fit the base anymore.
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 17 January 2018 18: 17 New
              0
              Greetings, Alexey! In general, you are right, but there are nuances, decide for yourself, here are excerpts on the subject of the project.
              PLO helicopter carrier, landing helicopter carrier (draft). The development of the PLO helicopter carrier on the basis of the high-speed civilian container ship Roker 1609 Ave. was initiated by the Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, Admiral N.N. Amelko in 1978 after conducting the Argus research project (study of an integrated anti-submarine system, including the possibility of building low-cost PLO helicopter carriers based on civilian vessels, the Central Research Institute named after A.Krylova, the head of the research .V.Dmitriev).
              In the process of designing, the TTZ was changed several times and as a result, a helicopter carrier was designed in two versions - as a ship for a long-range PLO and as a landing ship.
              Analysis of variants of the project 10200 in September 1980 in the Central Research Institute for them. A.N.Krylova showed that the execution of a helicopter carrier in a civilian building does not provide adequate reliability in terms of the GEM (located in one compartment) and does not meet the requirements for military ships in physical fields (GEM had high noise,) low search performance of the PLO system ( 5 times smaller ships pr.1143)
              Ultimately, the idea itself, on the basis of a civilian vessel, was destroyed (at least as an amphibious assault helicopter), and the 1143 project aircraft cruisers preferred to the improved 11780 helicopter carriers.
        3. svp67
          svp67 16 January 2018 17: 11 New
          +2
          hi
          Quote: Spade
          But universal neither fish nor meat really built.

          The author, however, touched only the visible part of the problems of building such a ship. Passing by no less important. UDC is not just a landing ship, it is also a shock ship, a hospital ship, control ship. Do we have now or in the long term, everything for equipping the ship with these systems?
          And the landing capabilities are provided not only by helicopters, but with the help of landing barges, which must be taken on board very quickly, loaded and released ... Previously, we did not have such a landing technique.
          And of course, one should consider the use of reconnaissance and strike drones and GDP aircraft on it.
          And of course you need to build a series of eight ships, which will greatly reduce the cost of the project itself and greatly strengthen our fleet
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 16 January 2018 19: 54 New
            +2
            Quote: svp67
            UDC is not just a landing ship, it is also a shock ship, a hospital ship, control ship.

            A Swiss knife can never cut a tree better than a hacksaw.
            1. svp67
              svp67 17 January 2018 05: 37 New
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              A Swiss knife can never cut a tree better than a hacksaw.

              Nevertheless, he is ready to do it when there is no hacksaw at hand, like a bayonet-knife to AK.
              I do not urge UDC alone to do so by abandoning the BDK. But UDC is needed as a command center for conducting airborne operations. After all, because of this they are UNIVERSAL ships
              1. Botanologist
                Botanologist 21 January 2018 10: 50 New
                0
                Known wisdom - if you put 10 guns on an 12 cannon ship, only 8 can shoot. So let them make the ship FOR DISPOSAL, and not a child prodigy with calibers, redoubts and torpedoes. The best is the enemy of the good, haven’t it come to the Gorshkov and the corvettes yet?
  2. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 16 January 2018 06: 31 New
    16
    What helicopter carriers will the Russian fleet receive?


    The answer is "none." wink
    1. kapitan92
      kapitan92 16 January 2018 08: 53 New
      13
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      The answer is "none."

      Anyway, in the next 10 years!
      Earlier, Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Yuri Borisov told reporters that the first Russian helicopter carrier will appear around 2022.

      You are already tired of such nonsense.
      1. megavolt823
        megavolt823 16 January 2018 11: 59 New
        +2
        I'm a land person. warrior sofa. I don’t understand the theater of action and the real use of this structure on the water. here the use of diesel engines, both surface and submarines convinced me. but our only airdrome afloat, as it is not. more submarines needed, this is a top priority. Do not repair the old and release a new one. and building drowning goals for a likely partner is possible after. hi
  3. Deck
    Deck 16 January 2018 06: 48 New
    +2
    Development work on Russian helicopter carriers will begin in 2018, in 2020 it is planned to begin work on the construction of the lead ship with delivery to the Russian fleet in 2024, production of the first and only serial helicopter carrier is planned for 2022 with transfer to its fleet in 2026


    What is the difference between the lead ship and the first and only? And why are they being built at different times?
    1. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack 16 January 2018 07: 07 New
      +9
      Quote: Deck
      What is the difference between the lead ship and the first and only? And why are they being built at different times?

      These are two different ships.
      The head is built first, it is always alone.
      Then the series is built. Here in the series will be ... also one.
      That's about as yes
      1. Deck
        Deck 16 January 2018 07: 40 New
        +1
        What are some new trends in shipbuilding? laughing And the second is also the only one! And the third one! In my opinion, the USC press service itself does not know what hangs on the ears of journalists
        1. KVU-NSVD
          KVU-NSVD 16 January 2018 09: 03 New
          +5
          The head one is a child of difficult mistakes, hence the timing. If possible, serial errors were taken into account and the construction time was shorter, but the larger the series, the faster and faster the ships leave the slipway and the cheaper
        2. Golovan Jack
          Golovan Jack 16 January 2018 14: 08 New
          +6
          Quote: Deck
          And the second is also the only one! And the third one!

          You do not need to be clever, read better carefully.
          Quote: Deck
          In my opinion, the USC press service itself does not know what hangs on the ears of journalists

          In this particular case, she hangs everything correctly.
      2. yehat
        yehat 16 January 2018 16: 36 New
        0
        I was always strained by a series of 2 ships.
        because building 1 ship is always expensive. And 2 are already of type "series" and zelo cheap
        but in my opinion that 1 that 2 is almost equally expensive.
        and even more so, it’s not clear, because you need at least 4.
  4. tchoni
    tchoni 16 January 2018 07: 22 New
    +4
    FSE ent's balls))) We somehow began to build the watchdogs, but so far there is no dream of something more serious. The economy will not allow, s. So what, the Haspada of the Marimans, "karakurt" is our FSE! -)
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 16 January 2018 08: 40 New
      +8
      Quote: tchoni
      karakurt "our fsё!

      laughing Your everything is seeds and a bench! wink
      1. KVU-NSVD
        KVU-NSVD 16 January 2018 09: 49 New
        +7
        Pyotr Alekseevich Romanov (known in wide circles under the nickname - the Great) used to say - "Rejoice in the little, then the big will come" The road will overpower
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2018 12: 01 New
          +7
          Quote: KVU-NSVD
          Peter Alekseevich Romanov (known in wide circles under the nickname - the Great)

          For ten years he built a fleet, the power of which forced the mistress of the seas of England to change her policy.
          1. KVU-NSVD
            KVU-NSVD 16 January 2018 12: 09 New
            +4
            Well, he did not act by market instruments. recourse
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2018 13: 10 New
              +3
              So, the thing is in the toolkit, and not in the saying :)))
              1. KVU-NSVD
                KVU-NSVD 16 January 2018 13: 27 New
                +3
                Regardless of the toolkit, the road will master the road.
              2. KVU-NSVD
                KVU-NSVD 16 January 2018 13: 45 New
                +5
                Still notorious Herr Peter used to say - "we will put the whole country on Karachik, and build a fleet." And set, and built. But he did this not out of a stubbornly stubborn love of ships, but because he saw in him an instrument of the country's sovereignty and therefore the people remember him not the Bloody, but the Great. I don’t think that right now, for the sake of the fleet, it’s necessary to put the country on fours. For guarantees, there is nuclear weapons. The fleet is definitely needed and it is being built and updated with all its flaws. And of course I would like 6 helicopter carriers, but they plan two and probably not from a good life. God willing, build
                1. Sergey Cojocari
                  Sergey Cojocari 16 January 2018 14: 08 New
                  +3
                  Actually (if you face the truth), the people called Peter the Antichrist. Great, he was called him only by "neighbors" ("friends" at the present time).
                  1. KVU-NSVD
                    KVU-NSVD 16 January 2018 14: 12 New
                    +6
                    It doesn’t matter who he was considered during his lifetime - it is important who remained in his memory. Big seen in the distance
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2018 14: 16 New
                  +4
                  Quote: KVU-NSVD
                  I don’t think that right now, for the sake of the fleet, it’s necessary to put the country on fours. For warranties there is nuclear weapons

                  A third of which is concentrated in the fleet, which is not able to provide PLO of the SSBN deployment areas. But let's build helicopter carriers, which in the case of a real mess, will live on the strength of an hour
                  1. KVU-NSVD
                    KVU-NSVD 16 January 2018 14: 27 New
                    +5
                    The submarines are also building. I, in fact, also do not see an urgent need for these ships and brewing situations for their use. But if I don’t understand something, it doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. I would love to listen to the people responsible for planning the fleet
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 January 2018 14: 34 New
                      +4
                      Quote: KVU-NSVD
                      The submarines are also building.

                      I’ve even figured out how
                      https://topwar.ru/132505-voennyy-flot-rossii-grus
                      tnyy-vzglyad-v-buduschee-chast-2.html
                      https://topwar.ru/132918-voennyy-flot-rossii-grus
                      tnyy-vzglyad-v-buduschee-chast3-yasen-i-haski.htm
                      l
                      1. KVU-NSVD
                        KVU-NSVD 16 January 2018 14: 41 New
                        +3
                        Was reading good but I'm still one of the people who think the glass is half full smile
                  2. VlK
                    VlK 16 January 2018 20: 31 New
                    0
                    Well, if, for example, to build not UDC with docks, boats, etc., but pure helicopter carriers for PLO and attack helicopters?
                3. yehat
                  yehat 16 January 2018 14: 16 New
                  0
                  need at least 3, and preferably 5 helicopter carriers
                  one at a time to the North Sea, black and Vladik
                  plus 2 is needed to ensure ongoing combat readiness, because
                  always a part is under repair. Among Americans, half of Aviks always stick out on the docks.
            2. 97110
              97110 16 January 2018 15: 32 New
              +2
              Quote: KVU-NSVD
              Well, he did not act by market instruments.

              An ax is quite a market tool. Bought and sold in the market - this time. If the President brings him to the Gaidar brawl - these are two! (we will dream that someday this will be elected). Suitable for shipbuilding and shipbuilding - these are three. And it allows the count on the head to be kept especially uncontrollable - these are four.
          2. yehat
            yehat 16 January 2018 16: 38 New
            +4
            Yes, talk nonsense. Peter-1 was able to build mainly only the coastal fleet and a little merchant. England had all this to a light bulb, only that now there was no monopoly on trade changed.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 January 2018 18: 41 New
              +1
              Quote: yehat
              Yes, talk nonsense.

              March to learn history, your mother. For starters, at least the size of the Baltic Fleet.
              If only six years ago the tsar had only 17–18 battleships, some of which were bought abroad, and some were built in Arkhangelsk, then in 1719, according to Jeffries, there were already 27 or 28 battleships in the Baltic Fleet out of which were built over the past six years in St. Petersburg: "Gangut" (90-gun), "Forest" (90-gun), "Alexander" (78-gun), "Neptune" (70-gun), "Revel" (70-gun), Ingermanlandia (64-gun), Moscow (64-gun), Shlisselburg (64-gun), Ekaterina (64-gun), Victoria (64-gun) , "Poltava" (50-gun), frigate "Ilya" (32-gun), pink "Alexander" (20-gun). In the summer of 1719, another 10 ships of the line were built at the shipyards, and it was expected that by the spring of 1720, seven would be ready for military operations. “As soon as one ship descends into the water, another is already being built at the shipyard,” Jeffries grieved. The ships are built excellently, no worse than in any European country, Russia has beautiful material, ship timber is so cheap that a Russian ship was 2/3 cheaper than a ship built in England for the English fleet. All this depressed the English heart. And besides, the Russian sailors learned their work very quickly, and there was every reason to believe that over time they would become as good as the Russian soldiers.
              1. yehat
                yehat 18 January 2018 19: 25 New
                +1
                you named 12 more or less large ships. I recall that there were still about 200 others, for example more than 120 galleys. But back to this grandflit.
                5 64 ... 70 cannons were almost a single and quite successful series. However, if you look closely. Lesnoye - sank 3 weeks after construction, raised, repaired, but armed only 8 years after the death of Peter.
                Gangut. Armed in the year of Peter's death. Still, 92 guns are not easy to set up.
                Alexander - began swimming in the year 22, a year after the death of Peter.
                Then I think it’s clear. You, my friend, a demagogue!
                Yes, under Peter, not a few ships were laid, but a large combat ready there was no linear fleet with him !!! And those that were, basically could not withstand a serious storm .. So the fleet was coastal and there was nothing to inflate cheeks.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 January 2018 20: 56 New
                  +1
                  God, what nonsense.
                  Quote: yehat
                  Lesnoye - 3 weeks after construction it sank, raised, repaired

                  Lesnoye entered the fleet on 29.7.1718 g. He sank due to an accident - he landed on his own anchor, and this happened in May 1719. How did it take three weeks from July 18 to May 1719 - I don’t even want to ask.
                  Quote: yehat
                  but armed only 8 years after the death of Peter.

                  I racked my brains for a long time after which bottle one could think of such a thing. Then it dawned. Apparently, this is from a Wikipedia phrase
                  In the spring of 1728 the ship was armed, but the fleet did not leave the harbor by order of the Admiralty College.

                  It remains to find out how you managed to take Peter's life in 1720. The only thing that comes to mind is that after running to look at the date of his death, you managed to confuse her with the date when he ceased to reign (1721). But bad luck, after that he called himself emperor and lived until 1725. But in general, for a second, the phrase wandering on the wiki does not refer to artillery, but to sailing weapons :)))))
                  Quote: yehat
                  Gangut. Armed in the year of Peter's death. Still, 92 guns are not easy to set up.

                  Arctic fox revelation. It remains only to find out how Gangut without guns fought in the Northern War, which ended in 1721. By the way, like Lesnoye
                  Quote: yehat
                  Then I think it’s clear

                  With you, yes.
                  1. yehat
                    yehat 19 January 2018 12: 06 New
                    0
                    I don’t want to continue this nonsense. there are Apraksin's notes on what real forces were available. teach the story itself. Of the list announced by you, only 5 ships were really navigable, the rest of the Gulf of Finland was maximum and even with restrictions. This is a COASTAL Navy.
                    I can confuse the dates, but it is impossible to confuse the fact of the existence of such a situation on the sea, which you stated. Or maybe I should remind you how many tanks were in the Red Army in June 1941 and how many really remained by August, so that finally the difference between the numbers reached you?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 January 2018 13: 27 New
                      +1
                      Quote: yehat
                      I do not want to continue this nonsense

                      So don’t go on.
                      Quote: yehat
                      Of the list announced by you, only 5 ships were really navigable, the rest of the Gulf of Finland was maximum and even with restrictions. This is a COASTAL Navy.

                      And now we read my initial comment, because of which your butthert happened
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      For ten years he built a fleet, the power of which forced the mistress of the seas of England to change her policy.

                      Is there even a word about the OCEAN fleet? :))) Speaking generally, it is about creating a naval force that forced the most important political players to change their political alignment. And this is precisely what happened in fact, because the Petrovsky fleet radically changed European alignments
                      Quote: yehat
                      there are notes Apraksin

                      Start with Tarle, for starters, "expert"
                      1. yehat
                        yehat 19 January 2018 13: 51 New
                        0
                        Yes, the fleet of Peter could not radically change the alignment, because the notorious exit to the open seas was difficult, and there were no foreign bases. Linear = in fact, the cruising fleet cannot act actively in such conditions. All Peter's fleet could do was annoy the Germans, Danes and Swedes and greatly influence trade in the Gulf of Finland. The times when the British fought with the Dutch at sea or with the Spaniards are fundamentally different in that they are remotely remote, unhindered access to the operational space.
                        There is a description of a number of incidents when Russian ships forced to change the route in the Gulf of Finland.
                        This suggests that Peter could only change the alignment to a limited extent - mainly restricting Sweden, but he could only partially succeed in this.
              2. Artem Popov
                Artem Popov 1 March 2018 19: 47 New
                0
                Eh, darkness, lightheadedness.
                To begin with, Peter 1 bought everything in Europe (and first of all - in England) that he could find.
                The same Victoria you listed is the former English Vencker, purchased in Bristol in 1712. And it was decently purchased ships, especially of rank 2-3.
                Further, the quality of the forest. It is NO. The technology of PREPARATION, STORAGE, PROCESSING was not absolutely observed. There is an article evaluating the British marketable timber from different countries, I can throw a link. Moreover, the Baltic oak was not bad, with a high content of tannins, but the method of extraction and alloy spoiled it hopelessly. I am silent about storage and aging.
                Inventories of the condition of the ships, reports of their inspection have been preserved. On average, the ship was enough for 4-5 navigations, and on the fifth it was already shamelessly flowing. A third of the listed "17-18 ships" were already on the joke, because going to them was dangerous.
                Further, in England there were already complex procedures for multilayer processing of the bottom, coating it with copper (which in Russia began to be done only in the 19th century), timbering - all this we did not have, because there were no specialists, only a written-out ship engineer at the shipyard - he cannot do everything himself.


                So study history, your mother, and not cheap Russian propaganda about her. Peter built the largest coastal army (galley) fleet in Europe. It was this fleet that actively operated up to the Gulf of Botany. And the linear fleet stood rotting, because both its quality and the qualities of the Russian Moreman were very mediocre. Peter's instruction was "to engage in battle, only one and a half more forces than the enemy has" - this is his assessment of the real strength of a large fleet.
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 16 January 2018 11: 14 New
        0
        Oh yes) on a bench with seeds is very comfortable)
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 16 January 2018 18: 00 New
          +4
          recourse Especially on the seashore, contemplating the "rusted troughs" welded to the shore wink
  5. True
    True 16 January 2018 09: 07 New
    14
    We’ll re-elect the guarantor and immediately in the 22nd udkd in the 24th - the leader ... Aircraft carrier, 9th hot plane for SPACE wassat forces, but the cowards are Chinese.
    1. Soho
      Soho 16 January 2018 09: 24 New
      +3
      True Today, 09:07
      We will re-elect the guarantor and immediately in the 22nd udkd in the 24th - the leader ... Aircraft carrier, 9th generation airplane for SPACE wassat forces, but Chinese underpants
      .

      with this ability you need to be vanguators on TNT - they’ll appreciate
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 16 January 2018 11: 15 New
        +3
        We have all TNT channels
    2. Monarchist
      Monarchist 16 January 2018 12: 42 New
      +4
      Corporal True, but call me a WORTHY ALTERNATIVE, or maybe you can nominate you? Joke.
      But seriously, I DO NOT SEE alternatives to him. "Papa Sue" puts forward some young businessman from the Moscow region. And young entrepreneurs do not inspire confidence in me, perhaps a static grumbling at young ones, but I'm a skeptic
      1. Sergey Cojocari
        Sergey Cojocari 16 January 2018 14: 12 New
        +1
        Presumably, you are the one "last resort" that "weighs and recognizes"? How many do you take on?
        1. Monarchist
          Monarchist 16 January 2018 17: 47 New
          +2
          Quote: Sergey Kozhokar
          Presumably, you are the one "last resort" that "weighs and recognizes"? How many do you take on?

          I expressed my opinion, and if you (by the way, the appeal “you” must be written with a capital letter, if your rules have changed, I'm sorry, but I am a conservative) arguments against that, voice them. Glad to be mistaken, but "confusion". I remember the "real Leninists": "labeled", EBN, and the main thing I forgot, "corncob"
      2. sd68
        sd68 17 January 2018 16: 31 New
        +1
        And you will not see.
        And if suddenly there is one, it will immediately become clear that he is a foreign agent of five intelligence services.
        Not the first time, the reception worked out
      3. Artem Popov
        Artem Popov 1 March 2018 19: 53 New
        0
        Yeah, right now, so the Kremlin organized crime group will allow itself to be torn from the feeder. At the first sign of a competitor, he and the “State Department agent” will be glorified and convicted, even conditional, to apologize at press conferences “well, we are for the legality of how we will let such an election go,”
  6. faiver
    faiver 16 January 2018 11: 44 New
    +1
    50bn rubles is not too much? one and a half mistral ...
    The surf is small in my opinion, although I don’t special ...
  7. Monarchist
    Monarchist 16 January 2018 12: 31 New
    +1
    Kamrad Spartan, you have removed the language from my language: “it was smooth on paper, but there are ravines”, and “ravines” are deep - financing
    1. Valery Saitov
      Valery Saitov 16 January 2018 14: 24 New
      +1
      There are no problems with finances, 200 and 2000 rubles began to be printed in full, and they started talking about bitcoins at the parliamentary level. The problem is in industrial capacities, now at least engines and turbines have started to do their own thing (for now, of course, they will accelerate). as with RTOs.
  8. KGB WATCH YOU
    KGB WATCH YOU 16 January 2018 18: 24 New
    +1
    None, it's obvious. Just look at the “successes” and pace of shipbuilding. After 20 years, maybe, and then if you disperse the shameful USC and admirals who do not know what they want.
  9. Sebastian Pereira
    Sebastian Pereira 16 January 2018 19: 05 New
    0
    Again whining in the comments. "None" "Never." With such "citizens", indeed, we will never build any, for such a mentality. While our poor man is honest, he’s honest (well, he’s rubbing at the little things, that he’s lying badly), and as he climbs higher, bribes immediately become commonplace, and he doesn’t steal from the little things anymore. Most of those present here have the same mentality and it doesn’t matter what republic of the former USSR you are from. The Soviet and post-Soviet legacy - while weakening the conviction that the state “should” give you something, will not disappear soon. Take an example from amer. There, if a person achs and cries “how difficult it is,” for others he automatically becomes a loser and a subject of ridicule. No self-respecting Americans will ever admit that he is weaker, that he is wrong. You still have to study for a long time.
    1. sd68
      sd68 17 January 2018 16: 35 New
      0
      Come on, any post-Soviet government, except for the Baltic states, except that very quickly in the States would be hung up on posts.
      And the welfare in the same States quite exists.
    2. Artem Popov
      Artem Popov 1 March 2018 19: 55 New
      0
      And when a Soviet citizen gains power, he begins to monetize it, responding to all attacks, “you just didn’t achieve anything yourself”
  10. internal enemy
    internal enemy 16 January 2018 20: 19 New
    +2
    Yes, the hedgehog is clear that no one will receive
  11. shuravi
    shuravi 16 January 2018 22: 04 New
    0
    Why the hell are they needed?
  12. sd68
    sd68 18 January 2018 00: 44 New
    +1
    ProkletyiPirat,
    Osprey drills are done for a long time, then they start, then they drop out, but I still can’t do anything.
    like customers have already appeared
    https://vpk.name/news/138393_indiya_i_velikobrita
    niya_hotyat_konvertoplanyi_drlo.html
    http://army-news.ru/2015/08/letayushhij-radar-na-
    baze-v-22-ospri /

    similarly with the tanker.
    The fleet was about to change to change its Greyhounds (and deck Hokai, as you know, at their base) at Osprey.
    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1133555.html
    and God himself commanded light aircraft carriers
    1. maximghost
      maximghost 18 January 2018 02: 42 New
      +1
      While there is no AWACS based on a convertiplane, and, in the near future, is not expected. Due to the peculiarities of folding the wing and screws, placing the plate on the tiltrotor is still a problem.
      1. sd68
        sd68 18 January 2018 08: 17 New
        0
        a dish is optional if a HEADLIGHT antenna is used.
        Turkish Boeing 737 AEW & C E-7 Wedgetail, for example, or this
        Israeli https://topwar.ru/67055-samolet-dlro-caew-izrail.
        html
      2. sd68
        sd68 18 January 2018 08: 19 New
        0
        Rather, the problem is that there is no real customer ready to pay for it, perhaps because of doubts about reliability.
        If the US Navy accepts Osprey to replace the Greyhounds, skeptics will clearly be reduced.
  13. sd68
    sd68 18 January 2018 00: 58 New
    +2
    ProkletyiPirat,
    refueling Osprey

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/re
    lease / 3/174174 / bell_boeing-to-develop-v_22-aerial
    -refueling-system.html

    Pentagon Contract Announcement
    (Source: US Department of Defense; issued May 26, 2016)
    Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office, Amarillo, Texas, is being awarded $ 58,784,829 for cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order 0123 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-12-G-0006) for non-recurring engineering and logistics services in support of the development and integration of the V-22 aerial refueling system for the MV-22. ...
  14. sd68
    sd68 19 January 2018 00: 30 New
    0
    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
    and a “tiltrotor-bomber-rocket carrier” and “tiltrotor-fuel tanker” will make it possible to compensate for the shortcomings of the existing VTOL aircraft (harrier \ f-35)

    And what disadvantages does it compensate for?
    F-35 load lifts as if no more, flies faster, from the point of view of military operations more universal
  15. ★ VLADIMIR ★
    ★ VLADIMIR ★ 21 January 2018 18: 01 New
    0
    Oh Vanya Vanya. So a damn life does not teach you. How much can you step on the same rake. Why rivet basins and spend money on a one-time banquet. And it’s not better to spend a little more on the trough, for all occasions. Have our Pokémon replaced our staff generals? Or it’s easier to cut the army’s budget. Most likely the second. Otherwise, why SAW two working engines (submarines).
  16. storm
    storm 23 November 2018 22: 35 New
    0
    There is no way to conclude a long-term state contract with Severnaya Verf. 15-year contract for three episodes:
    - 6 helicopter carriers in two units. on the Federation Council, Pacific Fleet and Black Sea Fleet
    - 6 destroyers "Leader", three each for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet
    - 6 frigates, project 22350
    Two more contracts for 10 years for the construction of 12 frigates 22350-M need to be concluded with Amber and the shipyard / Vostochnaya shipyard.

    25 years of the destruction of the fleet have wiped out almost everything ...

    - a series of 72 minesweepers is required (4 fleets have 12 naval bases, 6 minesweepers for each), there are no real worthy projects.
    - a series of 30 MPK, pr. 23420 (12-SF; 12-TOF; 6-ChF) is required on the Baltic Fleet there are enough 6 corvettes pr.20380.
    - A series of 36 transport and landing ships with a displacement of 8 -12 thousand tons is required, possibly on the basis of civilian projects of dry cargo / container ships (12 units each for the Northern Fleet, Pacific Fleet and 6 units for the Black Sea Fleet and Baltic Fleet). the transport component in our fleet is practically absent, which was confirmed by the Syrian company.