Tango with helicopter carriers

147
Before the 2027, the state armaments program included “ships similar to helicopter carriers”. These words were issued by the Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade of Russia Oleg Ryazantsev.


A ship uniquely similar to a helicopter carrier




“A ship similar to a helicopter carrier.” Yes, the Russian language is great and powerful, especially in the performance of officials who are obviously far from military industry and technology.

What analogues can be? For a long time I turned around in my head like this: “a ship similar to an aircraft carrier”? Battleship? The submarine?

Ryazantsev seems to be hinting that this is some OTHER ship. It seems like with the same functions, but not a helicopter carrier. I hope this is not PLARK.

But, as was further stated, the creation of the UDC for the Navy was included in the state armament program, and work is being carried out as planned.

Let's recall a little. This is sometimes useful and brings peculiar results.

In the 90-ies of the last century, our fleet was waiting for the ships of the 11780 project. This is the so-called UDC “Kherson”, or “Ivan Tarava”, as it was designed as an analogue of the American UDC like “Tarava”.

According to the project, the ship could transfer up to 1 marines and up to 000 units of heavy equipment, for example, tanks. In addition, there was an air group of 30 helicopters for various purposes, on board there were 4 project 1176 landing craft or 2 project 1206 hovercraft.

In terms of its characteristics, the UDK of the 11780 project was similar to the UDK “Tarava” or the UDK “America”, but our project was superior to American ships at maximum speed - 30 knots against 22, but inferior in range - 8 000 against 9 500 miles.

And, perhaps, the weapons were stronger at Kherson: the twin artillery mount AK-130 and medium-range air defense systems (Daggers and Daggers), which theoretically increased its potential to support the landing. “Tarava” at best could brush aside enemy helicopters; there was no talk of supporting the landing from the ship at all.

And let’s remember one more figure: the displacement of Kherson was planned in the area of ​​25 000 tons.

Year 2017. Just in time for one large-scale event in the military life of the country, information appeared that the United Shipbuilding Corporation will build two ships according to the design of UDC “Priboy”. The contract value was estimated at 40 billion rubles.

But the construction of UDC "Priboy" was originally laid down in the armament program until 2020 (GPV-2020), and then transferred to GPV-2027.

According to the characteristics, “Surf” looks weaker than “Kherson”. Displacement is about 24 000 tons, but takes on board up to 500 paratroopers and up to 50 units of military equipment. And all this can carry a distance of 5 000 miles with a maximum speed of 22 knots.

With arming order, there is an 100-mm gun mount A-190, 3 ZRAK "Broadsword" and 2 ZRAK "Armor-M". And a group of 16 helicopters.

In general, something is still not working out, and the conceptual Surf remains a project for now.

And here is the thunder: the head of the Ministry of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov and Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov talked about the fact that helicopter carriers would still be built.

The question is where and which.

On September 11 it became known that the first two Russian UDCs will be laid at the Zaliv shipyard in Kerch in May 2020.

The Gulf. Kerch. It’s strange.

This is strange why: although the plant once built huge vessels (tankers of the Crimea series in 150 000 tons), and warships, all this was a long time ago. Today, of course, it is not realistic to build such monsters; the plant is more focused on vessels of lesser displacement.

And here are the numbers for UDC: displacement up to 15 000 tons. The landing group is up to 200 people, up to 20 units of equipment, 10-12 helicopters in the wing. Dock camera on 2-3 boats. So far, there is no information on their own weapons, apparently, it was not even a project, but some kind of TK.

Have you noticed a sharp decrease in displacement and the amount of transported? And I noticed.

And (perhaps some readers will be very surprised right now) this cannot but rejoice.

The question immediately arises: why?

The answer is simple: because for "Kherson" or "Surf" we really do not have any combat missions. Absolutely none!

If we proceed from the tactics of UDC, then, since we do not plan to land on the US coast or in Europe ... Well, in Europe it’s definitely easier in the old fashioned way, by dry route. Remain islands in the Pacific and adjacent seas.

Is there a mistraloid truncheon there, given the size of the islands? According to unverified information, these UDCs are again being prepared for the Pacific Fleet, so ... So, it all fits together. And any landing operation in the region that in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and in the Bering Sea is more convenient to carry out with such ships.

Certain logic can be traced. All that remains is to wait and observe the process if it begins.

But we certainly do not need a thirty-four-ton UDC like the same Mistral in the Baltic or the Pacific Ocean. But twice as small, but more mobile UDC - why not?
Our news channels

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

147 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    24 September 2019 05: 54
    Roman, don’t worry, you won’t build anything like always, you will not, the dates will be shifted to the right again, and very much, then the promises will be removed from power, leaving the people to listen to promises from the new political storyteller. ...
    1. +5
      24 September 2019 07: 47
      The answer is simple: because for "Kherson" or "Surf" we really do not have any combat missions. Absolutely none!

      Yes, and no money. A little bit weary.
  2. +6
    24 September 2019 06: 24
    But we certainly do not need a thirty-four-ton UDC like the same Mistral in the Baltic or the Pacific Ocean. But twice as small, but more mobile UDC - why not?

    And dear author, why do you need smaller UDCs, the same Mistral can at least deliver military equipment to bases in Syria, but why I personally do not understand the small UDCs needed by the Russian Federation
    1. +13
      24 September 2019 07: 19
      Not needed by the author.
      TK customer.
      The author reflects on how such characteristics can be determined.
      As for the transportation of military equipment to remote bases, civilian ships will also be able to cope with the transportation task.
      The author rather suggested discussing why, in the military doctrine of Russia, new types of landing ships may be needed.
      Hypothetically, at the Pacific Fleet to counter Japan's provocations against the disputed islands.

      I apologize for the profanity (it’s absolutely land).
      1. +5
        24 September 2019 10: 14
        In fact, Roman is also a purely land person, and therefore we ask real sailors: what is their opinion?
    2. +13
      24 September 2019 07: 21
      Again, in VO readers love to see not what is written, but what they want to read. At the Pacific Fleet these ships are needed, take a look at the map and understand that there is no place for the huge ship in the sea, but there is a lot of small work, there are darkness and all the small islands (well, unless Hokaido, even for Okinawa, 40 tons will be too much). And they made fun of the bases in Syria that there was nothing to get there, it’s easier to use ordinary cargo ships and planes to transfer to ready-made bases, and it seems to me that if the UDCs begin to be built today, then with the pace of Russia's construction, when it will be ready , the need for it in Syria will disappear.
    3. +11
      24 September 2019 07: 43
      To do a microscope for hammering nails is not rational. Equipment and supplies should be transported to accessible ports by transport or supply vessels. UDCs are needed to turn inaccessible ports into accessible ones.
      1. +16
        24 September 2019 09: 28
        UDC for this is not needed. For this we need:
        - ships with a dock camera. That is, the task of supplying and transporting equipment all year round to the ridge islands can be completed by the same pair of Makassars in total for 120mln dollars. Well, ice reinforcements will have to be done, and in principle their capabilities are enough.


        - Or floating hubs, but it's expensive, but unlimited in terms of transportation.



        UDC is the core of a naval assault group with unlimited range. Homeland said - in Gabon, an illegal tender in which Rosneft and Gazprom threw? Getu Pandu and back it up with a shock group to review the tender. That is, it is a designation of a real threat, the projection of force and, if necessary, a real operation, on a large scale.
        Yes, only 1-2 UDC and 6-8 carriers SLCM even Gabon does not roll. For they have a pair of Mirages and a lot of light infantry and missile defense (all sorts of Mistral). Helicopter support will be limited. SLCM will be enough only for basic purposes. Basic aviation will be presented only by strategists. Therefore, to dig out the routine, we also need AB.

        Here is AUG + KUG with UDC = a group for bringing democracy to countries that are not heavily investing in defense.
        1. +6
          24 September 2019 11: 42
          somewhere we have aug something ??? and without it, helicopter carriers - the same suitcase without a handle
          1. +4
            24 September 2019 15: 58
            The alleged helicopter carrier (15 tons), in addition to delivering troops to the islands and providing helicopter cover for it, at other times can be used as an anti-submarine helicopter carrier to control the combat deployment area of ​​our SSBNs. Like the Soviet "Moscow" and "Leningrad". To do this, he will simply need to change the air wing from landing and combat helicopters to anti-submarine helicopters.
    4. +3
      24 September 2019 11: 31
      Quote: armata_armata
      the same Mistral can at least deliver military equipment to bases in Syria,

      there are dry cargo vessels for this, udk are not needed
    5. +1
      24 September 2019 21: 30
      To scare the Japanese, they have helicopter carriers and we should have one too.
  3. +2
    24 September 2019 07: 07
    3 ZRAK “Broadsword” and 2 ZRAK “Armor-M” - why put this at the same time on 1 ship?
    1. +6
      24 September 2019 09: 18
      Because it’s cheaper. The broadsword is in fact ZAK - and it is significantly cheaper. The shells are expensive. Broadsword will provide artillery defense of the inner circle against all threats (shahidboty, anti-ship missiles, helicopters, pirates, quickly and dangerously maneuvering boats, etc.). The carapace will carry out air defense tasks.
      1. +7
        24 September 2019 09: 32
        Dear Armor still put, and they will solve these problems in the same way as Broadsword.
        Did you joke about pirates as a threat to UDC, or is there really a scumbag-filibuster somewhere capable of rushing to board the UDC full of marines? laughing
        1. +2
          24 September 2019 09: 36
          Well, they attacked the BDK by confusing it with the civilian. Well, here is more likely defense on raids and other dangerous places. You never know what kind of beaten-up alah-babah wants to shy away from RPGs.

          The point is that the Broadsword can be used to solve the tasks of neutralization and surface cargo, and it has wandered, while the Armor was initially put in the best places where they will be engaged in air defense, but in large sectors.
          1. 0
            24 September 2019 20: 00
            Quote: donavi49
            Well, they attacked the BDK by confusing it with the civilian.

            Not mixed up. It was a trap and the ship was disguised as a cargo.
        2. 0
          24 September 2019 20: 37
          Quote: Avior

          Did you joke about pirates as a threat to UDC, or is there really a scumbag-filibuster somewhere capable of rushing to board the UDC full of marines? laughing

          How was the US Navy frigate called? Stark. what? :)))))))))))))))
          1. 0
            24 September 2019 20: 49
            took it on board?
            1. +1
              24 September 2019 21: 27
              Quote: Avior
              took it on board?

              no, they didn't take it ... just as a "shameful sucker" they stabbed with a knife in the form of a motor boat filled with 300 kg of saltpeter, so that ...
              I remembered. not even a frigate, but a whole destroyer


              u and the saudi medina were knocked out the same way ...
      2. +2
        24 September 2019 12: 10
        A carapace for air defense - I agree. But, if you really save money, you can put AK-630 broadsword instead of "ZAK". It is both cheaper and will provide short-range defense.
  4. +8
    24 September 2019 07: 18
    twin artillery mount AK-130 and medium-range air defense systems ("Daggers" and "Daggers"), which theoretically increased its potential to support the landing.

    Helicopter carrier is generally categorically contraindicated to approach the enemy at a distance of artillery fire.
    To support the landing, he has helicopters, and of the cannons, the landing should be supported by smaller ships.
    As for the size of UDC, Roman forgot that a decision was made to develop VTOL.
    And with this in mind, you still need to build something like UDC Kherson of project 11780, you will get a balanced and truly universal warship that can become the basis of a group of ships for a wide range of combat missions, from establishing a blockade and breaking through it to landing and coastal strikes .
    Plus, it can greatly complicate the work of enemy means of anti-aircraft defense, both air and surface.
    1. +4
      24 September 2019 09: 15
      It makes no sense to base less than 4 VTOL on a ship. Since the necessary volumes of truncation of other means (flight group, maintenance, reduction of the helicopter group) will be justified.

      Optimum consider 6 VTOL. Good level 8.

      The best (and most popular - 3 ship sold) UDC meeting the requirements of VTOL outside the US = Juan Carlos.


      Small UDC in 10k, I don’t even know if it makes sense to make a solid deck, or like San Giorgio = in general, this can certainly be taken by the VTOL, but there’s no point in it.


      From voiced by USC is going to build something closer to Sangiorgio, if you choose a through deck.
      1. +1
        24 September 2019 09: 37
        Yes, 6-8 in the airborne variant is enough to directly support the landing.
        Only UDC is a universal ship; if necessary, it is possible to strengthen the wing of aircraft, depending on the range of tasks.
        That's good, not a full-fledged aircraft carrier, of course, but much simpler and cheaper, both in construction and in operation
        1. +3
          24 September 2019 09: 52
          What you wrote is more suitable for large ships with a dedicated hangar. For example Mistral, Carlos or here is a Chinese, whom 26 numbers are lowering.


          For a Dodko type circuit, this works worse. However, it is too big for the voiced.

          Ideally, Osumi fits in from the solid deck (according to the voiced displacement about the Russian UDC). But there is a minimal air group based on the deck (light helicopters can be hidden on the bow cargo area, but then there will be no equipment there). Well, that is, at least 1 MSS helicopter + 2-3 landing helicopter + two more places.




          San Giorgio does not have this either, only placement on the deck, the ship carries only a supply of fuel and lubricants for the air group.
      2. 0
        24 September 2019 11: 19
        Quote: donavi49
        From voiced by USC is going to build something closer to Sangiorgio, if you choose a through deck.

        And there is such an option:
        1. +2
          24 September 2019 12: 10
          Well, this is not the helicopter carrier that everyone dreams of. This is an ordinary horse - such as 071 or Makassar.


          And here at once all the tasks on the PLO and the AWAC fall off, and even as the core of the KUG it will not be very. For 2 sites, a small helicopter group, which will be equipped exclusively with Ka-29 or with a pair of Ka-52K.

          The main advantage of a continuous flight deck, not even in an air group, it can be relatively comparable, but in the same wavelength. According to this scheme, the maximum 2-3 helicopter wave. With solid deck 5-6.
          1. +2
            24 September 2019 12: 46
            Quote: donavi49
            This is an ordinary horse - type 071 or Makassar

            Rather like a Rotterdam

            Quote: donavi49
            this is not the helicopter carrier everyone dreams of

            There is a lot of dreams about it, but this often does not coincide with the plans of the Moscow Region.

            Quote: donavi49
            tasks on PLO and AWACs fall off, and even as the core of KUG it will not be very.

            did you really want to see all this beauty on the landing fifteen thousandth?

            The benefits of a solid flight deck are undeniable. But what ultimately will be designed in the bowels of the NPKB is intrigue. But the declared VI of 15000 tons leaves little chance of a solid deck.
            Even with the example of Osumi with its VI of 13000 tons, we get that it is impossible to accommodate a hangar for helicopters and premises under equipment at the same time. But if we bring, say, VI to 15000-16000 tons, something can happen.

            And San Giorgio is such a thing.
    2. +2
      24 September 2019 09: 44
      Quote: Avior
      Helicopter carrier is generally categorically contraindicated to approach the enemy at a distance of artillery fire.

      Vooot.
      A landing ship on the contrary, it is advisable to get closer as close as possible. Ideally, if the enemy allows, directly to the shore.

      Consequently, conflicting demands are made on UDC. And ideally, the landing and helicopter carriers should be different ships.
      1. 0
        24 September 2019 10: 03
        In UDC, the key letter is the first.
        It’s a little expensive now to keep a specialized fleet for all occasions.
        1. +5
          24 September 2019 10: 21
          Quote: Avior
          In UDC, the key letter is the first.

          Exactly. And this universalism, as it usually happens, decently depreciates the ship.
          It's like a cutlery with a fork on one side and a knife on the other. To eat meat like that, you have to help with your fingers ... But here's what the ficus-picus is: so far I had to use only paired cutlets, therefore this is a misunderstanding and praise ... "oh, he is so universal, oh he is both a helicopter carrier and a ship- dock, and transport and landing, and control ship together with a hospital ship ... "
          But what if meat and blood is served? Refuse or eat with your hands?
          1. +1
            24 September 2019 11: 39
            Quote: Spade
            It's like a cutlery

            Your everyday examples of universality in this case do not fit with the concepts of landing ships.
            1. +2
              24 September 2019 15: 47
              Quote: Povelitel_buri
              Your everyday examples of universality in this case do not fit with the concepts of landing ships.

              This is only your unreasonable statements.
              In real life, we have just jointly revealed that UDC should be in two different places at the same time.
              1. 0
                25 September 2019 13: 01
                Quote: Spade
                This is only your unreasonable statements.

                I read your "reasoned" discussion about adjustable wrenches and plumbers lol - maybe there you proved something to someone. But I did not see any valid arguments on the subject of universal landing ships request

                I think it’s worth recalling where did the UDC come from? In short: this concept originated in the United States after analyzing the experience of landing operations in the Pacific Ocean and after landing in Normandy. Then they decided just instead of specialized but DIFFERENT and NUMEROUS delivery vehicles of manpower, equipment and equipment, which are difficult to control in the clutter of the landing, to design such an amphibious assault ship, on which a whole battalion of marine corps with attached equipment and equipment could be based for start and have all means of delivery to shore. Then the idea of ​​a horizontal landing began to develop, so that the DC was not immediately struck by direct fire direct fire. The appearance of helicopters only added flexibility to this concept, allowing delivery of the same battalion also by air. Managing the landing of a battalion-level unit from a single ship is much simpler and faster than using a dozen specialized ships. I think this is understandable?

                Quote: Spade
                ah, he is so versatile, ah, he is a helicopter carrier, a dock ship, an amphibious assault ship, and a command ship together with a hospital ship ... "

                oh he and the helicopter carrier

                On such ships there is a rather impressive aviation group, consisting of at least one squadron of transport helicopters (12 pcs.) If necessary, use it as a clean helicopter carrier - there will be no problems.

                airborne transport

                transport and landing will deliver more than a few BDKs.
                But there are options. If you have many naval bases around the world and you need to regularly supply them with equipment and equipment by sea, then of course in this case you need a separate transport ship, or rather a fleet of such ships. True, such ships require an equipped port for unloading. And if you have the task of conducting an amphibious operation on an unequipped coast, then they are not helpers.

                ship control

                such a large ship has sufficient controls even for an entire ship grouping. However, if you intend to conduct operations using groups of dozens of warships in coordination with other branches of the armed forces, then of course you can’t do without a specialized control ship.

                hospital ship

                at such UDC, there is always a sufficiently large hospital room for quick operations of the wounded from their battalion. Conveniently? - more than. What prevents in the case of any humanitarian missions to use it as a hospital ship?

                To summarize: everything rests on the REASONABLE SUFFICIENCY of the functions of the universal landing ship. Of course, specialized ships can not do without:
                - ship control
                - transport ship
                - hospital ship.
                However, they can be quite expensive, and are needed for very large operations, and there is no need for a significant number of them, when there will also be numerous generalists. hi

                Quote: Spade
                UDC should be in two different places at the same time


                an example of such a situation in the studio
          2. +4
            24 September 2019 11: 46
            the domestic artillery faced similar problems, everyone wanted universal cannons and air defense and anti-tank guns and like divisions - but it turned out to be heavy horror stories
          3. +3
            24 September 2019 12: 22
            And in my opinion another example needs to be considered.
            Like an adjustable wrench for example.
            If you can not afford to hold the entire set of keys for all occasions and carry with you uncomfortable, then buy one or two adjustable wrenches.

            Better to have a pipe wrench than none.
            But these everyday examples are very conditional to the situation.
            Military equipment is steadily moving towards universalization, and there is nothing to be done about it. Both in aviation and at sea.
            It is too expensive to maintain and produce everything separately, especially if you are not going to fight right now.
            1. +3
              24 September 2019 15: 49
              Quote: Avior
              Like an adjustable wrench for example.

              The best example.
              If you are really repairing something, then be sure to buy normal keys.

              Quote: Avior
              Better to have a pipe wrench than none.

              But this is not a fact at all.
              There is no ban on building clean helicopter carriers and clean landing crab, as far as I know.
              1. 0
                24 September 2019 16: 07
                A hundred times I saw plumbers who only had adjustable wrenches.
                I have never seen a plumber with a full set of all keys
                Besides, you’re not going to start a war tomorrow?
                That is, the key, just in case you
                And what's the point of spreading a ton of money for them, especially if you have limited money for them?
                1. +4
                  24 September 2019 16: 34
                  Quote: Avior
                  A hundred times I saw plumbers who only had adjustable wrenches.

                  Have you drunk the rest? Or do you confuse the adjustable wrench with the second number? laughing
                  A good plumber has a breeder only to work with a non-standard. Because the breeder pays for universalism with inconvenience. Especially after a while, when the "dead moves" appear

                  Quote: Avior
                  Besides, you’re not going to start a war tomorrow?

                  If you are not going to fight, then why buy weapons at all?
                  The Strategic Missile Forces are perfect for the role of "scarecrow".
                  1. -1
                    24 September 2019 16: 57
                    Exactly. A plumber does not carry three dozen keys for all occasions.
                    One breeder is more convenient than five kilograms of iron.
                    And if the keys are also expensive, and even need to be changed periodically due to aging, then this is eternal work at a loss.
                    If you are not going to fight, then why buy weapons at all?

                    And are you going to land troops tomorrow? Share where and why?
                    Most of the military equipment for the entire service life in the battles does not participate at all, and write off
                    1. +3
                      24 September 2019 18: 06
                      Quote: Avior
                      A plumber does not carry three dozen keys for all occasions.

                      Wears. Because there are quite few navigation keys. Well, at least a normal plumber, not a hand-drunk drunkard.

                      Quote: Avior
                      One breeder is more convenient than five kilograms of iron.

                      Better than 5 kg of excess weight than trying to do something with a breeder, especially in an inaccessible place. Do not believe it, try it yourself.

                      Quote: Avior
                      And are you going to land troops tomorrow? Share where and why?

                      Why do you need landing ships if you don’t need to land anything?
                      Something I completely ceased to understand you.
                      "Buy this hammer, even if it’s flimsy, but you don’t score anything with it anyway"... And if I don't, then why buy?
                      1. +1
                        24 September 2019 18: 44
                        I tried many times, work fine.
                        And a smart owner will not dial an instrument that becomes outdated and expensive if he does not know which one will be needed.
                        Moreover, all the money is not enough anyway.
                        Take universal.
                        So with the ships like that.
                        Not landing ships, but universal ones.
                        You don’t know which one will be needed.
                        Set up, and then write off, out of 10 a couple will really come in handy, the rest of the money will be eaten and that’s it.
                        Or maybe not one will really fight.
                        Or for the one that would really come in handy, there was not enough money, and those that tuned in were not needed.
                      2. +3
                        24 September 2019 18: 53
                        Quote: Avior
                        I tried many times, work fine

                        laughing laughing laughing
                        It's not worth telling me about "working normally as a breeder." Within a minute, a wild desire appears to apply this instrument on the head of its inventor. It's a pity he died a long time ago ...

                        Quote: Avior
                        Take universal.

                        Yeah. A good owner does not need anything except a multitool and a monkey wrench, he can do any job with this. Or rather not so. Show that he is a "good boss". And to do something, you have to call a specialist with a normal tool.


                        Quote: Avior
                        So with the ships like that.
                        Not landing ships, but universal ones.

                        Equally disgusting performing all tasks. But they are not intended to fight, as you absolutely rightly pointed out above. Just to show "and I have them.
                        And then he will be drowned in the early days of the war, and all the heaviness on himself will be mobilized by mobilized civilian vessels.
                      3. 0
                        24 September 2019 21: 10
                        It's not worth telling me about "working normally as a breeder." Within a minute, a wild desire appears to apply this instrument on the head of its inventor. It's a pity he died a long time ago ...

                        I don’t need either. he works with the plumbing at home, if necessary. it is much more convenient, although I have a full set of keys, from the Soviet era, for all occasions. Adjustable, by the way, is also Soviet. Great key.
                        well, maybe cheap chinese and not very suitable.
                        Equally filthy performing all tasks.

                        performing all these tasks.
                        since if you set up a BDK for yourself, and you need defense from submarines, then they will not perform them at all. Do not forget to build an aircraft carrier too. No, of course, the aircraft carrier performs its functions better than the UDC, but if the landing party needs air support for at least a day, until they shore up on the shore, the BDK will not help you, the aircraft carrier is separate.
                        or are you better off being rich and healthy than poor and sick? and are you ready to build separate specialized ships for all occasions?
                        So then you were stuck at the UDC?
                        Separately anti-submarine, from which remove all unnecessary, separately air defense, on which leave only SAM (even better radar on a separate one, so that missiles do not interfere smile ) On missile boats only rockets. By the way, separate with Caliber, separate with RCC, so that no universality.
                        Cells are also strictly not what would be a missile type, for a specific instance.
                        And so on ...
                        no need to limit yourself in the fight against universality.
                        so what, that the whole world has long moved to universality in the military sphere, wherever possible.
                        But you are against it.
                        PS By the way, I did not understand, but what do you propose to build instead of 2 fishing rods, say?
                      4. +1
                        24 September 2019 21: 28
                        Quote: Avior
                        and are you ready to build separate specialized ships for all occasions?

                        Why not? If a station wagon performs its functions worse than a specialist, then why is it needed?
                        That's stupid, there is a tank, there is a TBTR. It's expensive, isn't it?
                        We reduce the caliber of the gun to 76 mm, we reduce the landing to five people, ta da damm, we have a super universal. Which is clearly bad both as a tank and as a means of transporting infantry. But cheap ...

                        Quote: Avior
                        PS By the way, I did not understand, but what do you propose to build instead of 2 fishing rods, say?

                        A universal helicopter carrier, a docking ship and a pair of transport vessels with the ability to receive helicopters
                      5. 0
                        24 September 2019 23: 37
                        that is, 4, two of them, or even all 4 (what kind of transport vessel is capable of receiving helicopters? UDC? How will it be unloaded? in the port? why should it accept helicopters, how many and which ones?)) will not be cheaper than UDC. Maybe for the same money you can make 4 UDCs, and let them be a little worse than specialized ones.
                        But at the same time, if you need a PLO, and the landing will not need to land, you will have 1 ship.
                        And if you don’t have to land, then 3 of them will stand idle throughout the war)
                      6. +1
                        24 September 2019 19: 26
                        Quote: Avior
                        I tried many times, work fine.

                        Maybe you tried to repair the car with a wrench? By the way, do you confuse a wrench with a gas one? Or maybe you are thinking about something different with "Lopatov".
                      7. 0
                        24 September 2019 23: 48
                        I do not, do not confuse. Gas, actually called a pipe, plumbers also usually have it now, but a lot of connections on nuts and Americans have become, gas is uncomfortable there.
                        Previously, in the car, of course, there was a full set of keys, both in a penny, in Moskvich and in Zaporozhets, but it was a long time ago, the keys are in the garage for a long time, and in the trunk in the trunk, just in case, large and small adjustable wrenches, and tongs minor repairs. Plus, another tool such as a set of screwdrivers with bits, two ordinary screwdrivers, pliers, etc., of course, and other necessary things, a cable, a waterproof jacket and more.
                        I won’t do any major repairs on the road, but enough for a minor one.
                        but only these examples are all taut, like an owl on a globe and have a very distant relation to the matter.
                      8. 0
                        24 September 2019 20: 46
                        Quote: Spade
                        Quote: Avior
                        A plumber does not carry three dozen keys for all occasions.

                        Wears. Because there are quite few navigation keys. Well, at least a normal plumber, not a hand-drunk drunkard.

                        Quote: Avior
                        One breeder is more convenient than five kilograms of iron.

                        Better than 5 kg of excess weight than trying to do something with a breeder, especially in an inaccessible place. Do not believe it, try it yourself.

                        Quote: Avior
                        And are you going to land troops tomorrow? Share where and why?

                        Why do you need landing ships if you don’t need to land anything?
                        Something I completely ceased to understand you.
                        "Buy this hammer, even if it’s flimsy, but you don’t score anything with it anyway"... And if I don't, then why buy?


                        You are a little substitute for concepts ...
                        There is a choice of plumbing with one universal, albeit not the most convenient key, but working ...
                        Or the choice to constantly keep a staff of 10 plumbers, each with only one key.
                        Each of these plumbers is lower to provide for life and providing for his life and his family.
                        including then. when his services are not particularly needed - i.e. in peacetime
                      9. +1
                        24 September 2019 21: 32
                        Quote: SovAr238A
                        Or the choice to constantly keep a staff of 10 plumbers, each with only one key.

                        One plumber with a severed arm and a lame leg, but at the same time standing, like three ordinary, normal plumbing.
                      10. 0
                        24 September 2019 21: 40
                        Quote: Spade
                        Quote: SovAr238A
                        Or the choice to constantly keep a staff of 10 plumbers, each with only one key.

                        One plumber with a severed arm and a lame leg, but at the same time standing, like three ordinary, normal plumbing.

                        This is the description of three highly specialized plumbers that no one needs, who for 10 years "sit on the butt exactly" without making a single exit, but receive salaries, and there is one, with a universal key, which has been working every day for all these 10 years, eliminating problems ...
                      11. +2
                        24 September 2019 21: 50
                        Quote: SovAr238A
                        there is one with a universal key that has been working every day for 10 years, eliminating problems ...

                        Actually no. They are only going to invite him, oblique, lame and crippled with a universal key. Having dispersed the normal plumbers. They were driven to do various things like “pull the cat from the tree”, “unload the coal car”, “sweep the street in front of the house management” - that is, in those jobs where keys are not needed at all.

                        "... and now they will build the UDC, and instead of all these old and unfashionable BDKs, he will carry tents, field kitchens and toilet booths to Syria .... lepota ..."
      2. +2
        24 September 2019 11: 29
        Quote: Spade
        A landing ship on the contrary, it is advisable to get closer as close as possible. Ideally, if the enemy allows, directly to the shore.

        Landing vehicles such as:
        LCU and LCM landing craft
        LCAC - hovercraft
        Therefore, why should a huge carcass of UDC be driven to the shore?
        1. +1
          24 September 2019 15: 51
          Quote: Povelitel_buri
          Landing vehicles such as:
          LCU and LCM landing craft
          LCAC - hovercraft

          Question: how long will they transport the equipment of at least one battalion?
          1. 0
            24 September 2019 16: 28
            It depends on what type we are considering, but in any case, a couple of LCACs and a squadron of transport helicopters will have time to make two three flights, while some BDK moves to the shore under its own power from the same position.
            1. 0
              24 September 2019 18: 09
              Quote: Povelitel_buri
              It depends on what type

              The best 8))))

              Quote: Povelitel_buri
              while some BDK is getting to the shore

              Given the presence of floating technology, why would he "to the shore"?
              Or do you plan to abandon it?
              1. 0
                25 September 2019 11: 52
                = Lopatov, taking into account the presence of floating equipment, why would he "to the shore"?

                floating equipment will row even longer to shore.
  5. +2
    24 September 2019 07: 26
    Ocean yacht. With luxury finishing. With signalmen and a choir. "Similar" in cost to the helicopter carrier. As I understand it.
    1. +9
      24 September 2019 09: 06
      She is already being lowered soon.
      Premises of increased comfort on the ship "Voevoda"
      "Yantar" is looking for a contractor to perform work on the complex equipment of ship Superior rooms the ship "Voevoda" of project 23700 under construction.

      As follows from the procurement data of the UIS, the plant announced the corresponding request for proposals on September 10, applications for participation in the procedure are accepted until September 21 on 2018. The initial contract price is 188 361 200,43 rubles.

      According to the terms of reference, the facilities of the 23700 project’s increased comfort facilities include eight residential units with a bedroom, a bathroom and an office, a conference room, a cabin for passengers with a pantry.

      It has an 2 helicopter in the hangar, unlimited seaworthiness, 7500 displacement. The range of tasks is wide, including the removal of top officials to exercises and ocean maneuvers.

      1. +5
        24 September 2019 09: 39
        Yeah. With blackjack and signalmen .... smile
  6. +9
    24 September 2019 08: 11
    You can say as much as you like that the military doctrine of Russia is essentially purely defensive, that we are not going to attack anyone or colonize anyone, which means that we do not need either UDC or aircraft carriers. With these words, we only comfort ourselves. Cool excuse, a good answer to the question "why does the US / China / NATO countries have UDC, but we do not?"
    Then it’s possible to abandon landing ships of all classes altogether, we don’t need them. It is so?
    But just elementary, was there a military conflict with Georgia (albeit not a large-scale one)? Was. What ships of the Navy were involved? A couple of half-dead MRKs and one or two even less alive large landing ships (the last read as "dry cargo ships.) The possibility of quickly taking control of the coast of Georgia with such and such landing ships (or rather, with the capabilities of such and such landing ships) is somehow poorly imagined.
    Syria, where without it. Yes, our landing ships go there basically just like ships delivering equipment, weapons and personnel (if required), I don’t talk about any landing operations, landing on an unequipped coast, I agree. Only the BDK was a hundred years old at lunch, they were physically and mentally outdated (who do not know, the Navy bought civilian vessels for the Syrian Express to compensate for the shortage of landing ships), and a more or less worthy replacement in the form of pr.11711 only just started to go to the water. The transfer of the same helicopters by water is slower, but much easier and cheaper.
    Plus to everything (well, this is already a so-so argument), the UDC, although in such a "light" performance once again confirms the status of the Great Maritime Power, and then abroad our Navy has more than once been called the "fleet of green waters"
  7. 0
    24 September 2019 08: 25
    And I read something about a displacement of 15000 tons and 8 helicopters. And immediately I remembered project 1174. And the landing in 500 hours and 50 tanks, and a docking chamber for 3 boats and only 4 Ka-29 helicopters.
  8. +3
    24 September 2019 08: 28
    And there are those who say that it is us who need Mistral and Ivan Tarava — to land troops on Alaska and the east coast of the USA. And make a march to Washington, crucifying the boots of morally decomposed and frightened residents, yes GI! )
    1. +3
      24 September 2019 11: 48
      no landing needed - wait until the Bering Strait freezes - and on, on the dogs
      1. +6
        25 September 2019 06: 01
        "And deer are better" (c) wink
        1. +2
          25 September 2019 06: 46
          they’ll go too - there’s not enough dogs for everyone
          1. +6
            25 September 2019 06: 59
            Do you want to return Alaska?
            1. +2
              25 September 2019 07: 08
              California .. but still go through Alaska ... by sea will not be allowed
              1. +6
                25 September 2019 07: 38
                You decided to chop off the entire west coast there?
                1. +2
                  25 September 2019 07: 48
                  just pick up your lol
                  1. +6
                    25 September 2019 07: 54
                    And where do you attach the locals? Las Vegas and Hollywood - this is understandable, will not remain idle. But other?
                    1. +2
                      25 September 2019 08: 15
                      deamericanization !!!
                      1. +6
                        25 September 2019 08: 31
                        Do not touch the current of the Indians, they sing well. And so take away all the trunks and let them learn Russian at school.
                      2. +1
                        25 September 2019 10: 43
                        and we put the Indians watching !!
                      3. +6
                        25 September 2019 10: 52
                        Kamanchey or Apache?
                      4. +2
                        25 September 2019 11: 09
                        depending on the locality - all under their arms a little of them will go, oh and they will fierce ...
                      5. +5
                        25 September 2019 11: 27
                        That is, the power in the reservations will change?
                      6. +2
                        25 September 2019 12: 14
                        reservations will expand somewhat lol
                      7. +6
                        25 September 2019 12: 28
                        Maybe they have one? Back to send? Cowboys in Texas, Let the Cows Graze. And African Americans grow cotton on the plantation.
                      8. +2
                        25 September 2019 12: 35
                        DANGEROUSLY!!! as GovAriaval N.N. Lakes and so - blacks - to Africa, and Latinos, after retraining - to other states, forgive me, God, my politically incorrect ..
                      9. +6
                        25 September 2019 12: 40
                        Will we take Fort Knox? There is our little gold that they washed during the Gold Rush on the Yukon. And interest yet.
                      10. +2
                        25 September 2019 12: 42
                        if we gain a foothold on land - we can do anything, even a raid by Budeny’s cavalry
                      11. +6
                        25 September 2019 15: 07
                        Nah! Cavalry is the last century. Only tanks - hello heavy metal. Here we need UDC and icebreakers. Did you offer to move to Alaska in winter?
                      12. +2
                        25 September 2019 15: 17
                        everyone will sink - only on land and on ice
                      13. +5
                        25 September 2019 15: 23
                        So why are we seizing a bridgehead in Alaska? Do not drown tepericha.
                      14. +2
                        25 September 2019 15: 27
                        swim unrealistic, the fleet of them, reptiles, is still cooler .. on ice .. on land
                      15. +5
                        25 September 2019 15: 37
                        So they don’t have icebreakers, they won’t get to the Bering Strait in winter. And we easily.
                      16. +2
                        25 September 2019 15: 39
                        Well, not the UDC!
                      17. +5
                        25 September 2019 15: 46
                        Can we carry tankers through the NSR, so why can’t UDC be through the strait?
                      18. +2
                        25 September 2019 15: 53
                        ice-cold vodka of a probable enemy ... or wrote something wrong ??
                      19. +5
                        25 September 2019 20: 10
                        It’s shallow, only ours can drink vodka, and the amertish Boats will not work. But pasaran, amigo!
                      20. +2
                        25 September 2019 21: 51
                        them them, swans !!
                      21. +5
                        25 September 2019 21: 55
                        And swans and geese and cormorants with terns. lol
                      22. +1
                        25 September 2019 21: 58
                        and loons with penguins?
                      23. +5
                        25 September 2019 22: 04
                        Penguins the sailor will not forgive us, and there was no bazaar with him for the loon. You can and loon. Their fluff is warm. Yes
                      24. +1
                        25 September 2019 22: 37
                        and the eggs are delicious !!
                      25. +4
                        26 September 2019 04: 32
                        You know better, I have not tried.
  9. +6
    24 September 2019 08: 28
    The answer is simple: because for "Kherson" or "Surf" we really do not have any combat missions. Absolutely none!

    And I have always wondered: why Egypt needs the Mistral? You read messages: Peru, Thailand, South Korea are building / buying amphibious helicopter carriers .. Where are they going to land ?!
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +3
      24 September 2019 09: 56
      Myanmar will soon receive its DKVD wink . The feed module has been substantially redone (you can’t see it in the photo - you have to wait for new photos) - because the regular Mi-171 helicopter is for him.
    3. +2
      24 September 2019 10: 40
      Quote: Slug_BDMP
      And I have always wondered: why Egypt needs the Mistral? You read messages: Peru, Thailand, South Korea are building / buying amphibious helicopter carriers .. Where are they going to land ?!

      And why a hundred years ago, all sorts of banana republics dreadnought ordered? For the same purpose - to be the coolest and strongest midget in your local Liliput.
      Google "South American Dreadnought Race".
  10. +6
    24 September 2019 08: 48
    But in fact, such a sharp decline in characteristics - due to the fact that industry is not able to give out more. Yes, and formally a cheaper boat will work. Formally - because no one is going to reduce the price, everyone wants to appropriate the difference.
    1. 0
      24 September 2019 10: 30
      And it seems like the French transferred some technology to ours during the construction of the aft part of the Mistrals? Our people were still happy - like, after the French returned the advance payment, we got the technology almost for free. Like, now we ourselves will build the same ships.
      1. +1
        24 September 2019 10: 52
        Yes, there is technology, all sorts of pieces of technical documentation. But it is precisely slipways, shipbuilding plants of such power in Russia, and the available ones allow you to build only the described dwarfs, which are nothing serious.
  11. +5
    24 September 2019 09: 02
    Classic) Under the Mistral means the doctrine was, but not under its own) apparently the reason lies in another hi
    1. +3
      24 September 2019 09: 44
      Mistrals were bought primarily as control ships. The first question was the possibility of acquiring and using BIOS ZENIT. No wonder the French refused to speak about penalties, the sanction did not even go, only to return the advance payment paid - ZENIT was left to us.
      In addition, anti-submarine helicopters were supposed to be used on the mistral. Those. It could also be used as a PLO helicopter carrier.
      1. 0
        24 September 2019 10: 02
        Given that in the Navy - Ka-27PS and Ka-27PL = one helicopter from the point of view of the carrier, this argument is not valid.
        1. 0
          25 September 2019 08: 06
          Does the argument about helicopters invalidate the argument about the control ship?
  12. 0
    24 September 2019 09: 45
    What about UDP?
  13. +4
    24 September 2019 10: 20
    The topic is interesting, but the author did not develop it at all. If you look at the realities of today, then it all comes down not to the availability of capacity and money, but to a completely different question: who will get the profit?
    I do not agree in any way that the Russian Federation will not cope with the construction of such a ship. There is a Bay, there is Sevmash. And the difference between them is entry into the USC! The bay is not included, Sevmash yes. So different forces are lobbying who will get the order. Hence the information stuffing. And construction is not a problem. In essence, the UDC is a huge barge with a helipad. Air defense is provided by modular systems such as Broadsword and Pantsyr-M (complex expensive expensive systems Redut, Shtil, etc. are not needed), anti-aircraft defense and, accordingly, GAS-BUGAS are not needed, there are no tactical and strategic missile weapons. The main weapons are helicopters, armored vehicles and boats, which have nothing to do with the construction of the ship. General detection radars, jammers, communications, etc. are needed.
  14. +4
    24 September 2019 11: 06
    The Americans UDC, TDK, transport go as part of DESO after processing the coast by the forces of AVMA.
    This was constantly practiced in Korea, for the same "Tim Spirit" quite often.
    What is the meaning of landing ships in the absence of forces to prepare the landing site?
    1. +2
      24 September 2019 13: 08
      Well, not at all. Libya was bombed from the UDC as from a light aircraft carrier, before that also Yugoslavia. They carried, so to speak, freedom. Kearsarge worked there and there.

      Now there is such a thing as ARG - an amphibious ready group, this is UDC, a pair of DVKDs (the same "San Antonio", for example ") one exp. Marine detachment (we translate it as a battalion, but MEU is not a battalion) in the same place Harriers, or F-35B and three to four destroyers.

      This is such a colonial fire brigade, ersatz-amg. They can be strengthened by adding another pair of destroyers and submarines. Then it will be something like the Expeditionary strike group from the 90's.

      Tool of influence.

      And what you write is only in a real big war against a strong enemy, and it’s not the fact that there will only be carrier-based aviation there, most likely not only and not so much, even at a great distance.

      The Americans used B-52 to directly support troops on the battlefield in Indochina.
      1. +2
        24 September 2019 14: 51
        Logical.
        I hope Russia is not going to bomb Libya and Yugoslavia?
        Those who want to (need) to bomb are linked to the United States for assistance or partnership agreements.
        Those who can be bombed without air support, such as partners or neutrals.
        Remained Ukraine, Georgia, S.Korea .... nothing else on the mind does not chill. For them to bomb the UDC program is somehow strange.
        If only sawing.
        1. +2
          24 September 2019 19: 46
          We have half of Africa already in clients. Equatorial is generally the whole, from coast to coast.

          To urgently support "your" regime against some regular fighters for Democracy / Allah / It is quite possible to enter the necessary one with your analogue ARG, if it were available.

          Another thing is that under it you need VTOL or SKVP. It seems they are already sawing it, but firstly, it is not clear when they will finish it, and secondly, what happens at the exit. F-35B if you can get it, then only according to the technical specifications, not according to VZOI and avionics. And not in arms.

          I would honestly postpone UDC. Although I approve of the use of the fleet as a policy tool in general, there are more urgent things.
          1. +1
            24 September 2019 20: 08
            After the "Kuznetsov" campaign in Syria. I even find it difficult to advise anything.
            And in general, I was told from childhood, "Do not go children to Africa for a walk."
            Well, war sounds more globally, this is a continuation of politics by other means.
            If you want, why not fight :-)
            1. +3
              24 September 2019 20: 32
              After the "Kuznetsov" campaign in Syria. I even find it difficult to advise anything.


              But I can: "Learn military science in a real way" (c). As the great Lenin bequeathed.

              It’s thank God that they screwed up in proving grounds, at least, maybe now, when Kuzya will be released from the fleet for repair, at least for the combat training of the crew and aviation, they will begin to ask, from old memory.

              If you want, why not fight :-)


              I don’t want to, there’s just no choice. So that's where we are all for the world.
              I am such a convinced pacifist.
              1. +2
                24 September 2019 21: 10
                Well, you remembered .... Lenin :-)
                Another warrior with a rod :-)
                There is always a choice, like Bulgakov’s, about helping foreign rags and ruin.
                1. +2
                  24 September 2019 22: 33
                  We help ourselves first of all. Still for the money now. We will give you KAMAZ trucks to the army, you are our mines, and buy spare parts for KAMAZ trucks for the money earned from taxes from mines.

                  I sell them, if that. Black people. Together with everything else.

                  For example. The black brothers were chasing the brand new KAMAZ 4x4, looking for terrorists, they ran into something and broke the razdatka. They had to take a picture of the breakdown on the mobile, send pictures of what they broke into their commander in chief of the ground forces, from there to a guy named Chakamuyeka, from him to me, and in return I have such an explanation for their hoteliers.


                  Like, you can’t change the cover, you can completely change the transfer case. It worked both for mechanics, and for advanced, and for translator. For all, in short.
                  1. +1
                    25 September 2019 03: 14
                    All this is understandable, and when to shoot, to fight? :-)
                    1. +1
                      25 September 2019 11: 59
                      Here KAMAZ will be repaired and again in battle)
                      1. +1
                        26 September 2019 07: 53
                        The normal move to carry KAMAZ to Africa at the BDK.
                        It is possible on Kuza, it will fit more :-)
  15. -2
    24 September 2019 11: 34
    the concept of helicopter carriers is vicious in principle, the enemy will destroy both his and the small landing force landed in small batches, the BDK is better, and even better the MDK, they quickly land in large numbers and leave
    1. +7
      24 September 2019 12: 18
      The BDK will have to face such threats that the DKVD and UDC do not see in principle, for example:
      - in the Pacific Ocean they put Oslyabya on stones, and at a regular training ground, they pulled it off by Krylov and even tugs. Not only is the BDK a minus (well, if it weren’t for the exercises, but for the BDK’s exercises it’s also a minus and the captain is being judged now), he ruined the entire landing area, because there’s no way for others to. The result - even without opposition from the enemy = landing failed.

      - which dug T-72 will open fire at a training ground at a slowly approaching BDK. To this will be added anti-tank systems. Mortars. Awaking and surviving artillery (given the current capabilities, even in depth at 10-15km). That is, a slow-moving BDK will be struck by all means of the enemy - which cannot be intercepted and controlled. The DKVD / UDC is, by and large, dangerous only as anti-ship missiles (including small ones), aviation breakthroughs, and what kind of airborne shells (all kinds of actively reactive). The first two can be controlled by escort forces. But moreover, the BDK is also vulnerable to this. What is the guarantee that Harpoon will not bury Gren with all the troops on the way to the landing zone?
      1. +3
        24 September 2019 13: 12
        You can’t explain it to Vladimir, never. Just believe me)))
      2. 0
        24 September 2019 13: 48
        The result - even without opposition from the enemy = landing failed.
        so because it is necessary to prepare personnel with a command, to build landing ships as normal, without getting them into giantomania. For centuries, ships without a problem landed a landing party on an unprepared coast, and in the 21st century you see problems with this .... not even funny.
        which prikopanny T-72 will open fire at a training ground at a slowly suitable BDK. To this will be added anti-tank systems.
        completely burn out several hundred hectares of coastal landscape in the landing zone will not be completely difficult. Yes, so that even target designation for anti-ship missiles will not be given to anyone during the landing, the main domination in the air is to have.
        That is, a slow-moving BDK will be struck by all means of the enemy - which cannot be intercepted and controlled.
        A landing ship has no less chances to reach the coast than the Morpses under their own power will get during over-horizon landing, while the combat value of combined arms equipment and amphibious units is simply not comparable
        What is the guarantee that Harpoon will not bury Gren with all the troops on the way to the landing zone?
        the same can be said of any ship, and now what, do you propose completely abandoning the surface fleet?
        1. +3
          24 September 2019 14: 07
          1) Well, you can say the cavalry over 2500 years was a significant or ultimate force. And where is she ...
          There is always a risk of error, and for the BDK, an error can turn into a failure of the entire landing zone, because others will not be squeezed.
          The high cost of error is already a big problem.
          2) No. Well, or rather, if you burn out, the landing will fail guaranteed because the enemy will reveal the landing zone and will draw more forces there. Then nothing special. Well-camouflaged and buried firing points and tanks will be vulnerable only with direct hits. That is, they will come to life. There is always a chance that enemy firepower will come to life. Rather, they always come to life. How many Americans did not hope for the overwhelming firepower of hundreds of aircraft and dozens of battleships that ironed an isolated island for a week, and as the landing began, the Japanese pulled out cannons and pillboxes and bunkers came to life. Yes, the same is Peleliu - an island in 13 sq. Km. He was burned out by napalm and excellent fire support of the fleet. The result - the usual two-month assault grinder, success was ensured only by additional forces, bringing superiority on earth to 3,5 to 1.
          3) Well, the whole world has gone overseas landing. LSTs are built either in the form of a wave of buildup (that is, to qualitatively strengthen the captured positions) or very weak countries like Iran, the DPRK or Mauritania.


          1. +1
            24 September 2019 14: 38
            Well, you can say cavalry over 2500 years was a significant or ultimate force. And where is she ...
            you misunderstood me. It was meant that in our century, with sonars, azipods, automated thrusters and ship hulls made of aluminum alloys, it is at least ridiculous to refer to any technical problems.
            Well, rather, if you burn out, the landing will fail guaranteed because the enemy will reveal the landing zone
            and if you don’t burn it out, then the enemy will not only see the landing with his own eyes, he will also be able to conduct targeted fire. This is your argument.
            Well-camouflaged and buried firing points and tanks will be vulnerable only with direct hits.
            But can a single tank just make a ship, or can it be calculated by a tanker? - Nothing serious. But he flips amphibious assault like ducks in the fall.
            Well, the whole world has gone overseas landing.
            I (probably dumb by nature, what can I do) I think this is a mistake.
      3. +1
        24 September 2019 15: 18
        Landing directions are taken into account. In addition to what you have listed, there are concrete barriers, mines, or simply laid "sausage" under the water, like the "Dragon".
        Therefore, underwater saboteurs are involved before landing, all of this should be removed, or mark passages for equipment.
        Well, experience. The Anglo-Saxons in history have the largest landings, and this is experience and technology. Our soldiers, as a rule, were not spared; they drowned when crossing the Dnieper; a bad soldier is not suitable for the Red Army.
      4. -1
        25 September 2019 00: 12
        You write about the vulnerability of the BDK, and by the way, I always wrote that in my opinion the BDK is too big, it’s better to build the KFK and the MDK .... but you didn’t pay attention to the fact that, in general, the respected Corn Karl has already correctly noted, namely, in addition to the landing process, there is also the result in the form of either a platoon of suicide bombers from the UDC, or in the form of battalions with tanks and armored personnel carriers landed from four BDKs. It’s still easier to organize an enemy’s stripping for half an hour of landing the BDK, KFK, MDK ... than a week. for an unhurried platoon landing with UDC ..... so you are wrong, and even Timokhin just confirmed
        1. 0
          25 September 2019 14: 50
          The worst thing about the BDK is that it has access to a very small part of the coast for landing. I won’t tell you the exact number, but for the fact that less than 10% can vouch.
          1. 0
            26 September 2019 16: 33
            Quote: mik193
            a very small part of the coast is available for landing

            Well, one can also say about UDC and its landing facilities
      5. 0
        25 September 2019 08: 13
        You haven’t shown the main thing - that the slow speed of unloading by boats, which is what the supporters of the BDK rest on, is less significant than the dangers for the BDK.
        The argument of defeating the BDK with a tank or ATGM also looks unconvincing. After all, with the same success, these funds can hit the landing boat. But the BDK is not only able to withstand several hits, it also has the means to suppress enemy firing points.
    2. 0
      24 September 2019 17: 16
      Quote: vladimir1155
      the concept of helicopter carriers is vicious in principle, the enemy will destroy both his and the small landing force landed in small batches, the BDK is better, and even better the MDK, they quickly land in large numbers and leave

      Here the whole point is in the dispersal of the landing: It is one thing when the entire landing, if something happens, goes to the bottom, and another thing, when only part of it. Feel the difference? So here it is rather the opposite, at times ... Another thing is that a small ship has less functionality than a large one. Well, not everyone, like on an UDC like America, keep 10-22 F-35s wassat
      1. -1
        25 September 2019 00: 15
        a small formation, in principle, will not survive, unless of course it’s not scouts or saboteurs, but it is then secretly planted from a submarine or a boat, and not UDC is driven .....
  16. +6
    24 September 2019 12: 49
    Russian serial helicopter carrier.
    1. +1
      24 September 2019 16: 55
      The real (or close to those) performance characteristics of the planned helicopter carrier will be clear after the laying, if not after the descent. I saw option 3-4 mentioned in the article "Surf", so it makes no sense to compare it with anything. Regarding the tasks for the helicopter carrier now: in peacetime - to nightmare the barmaley, supply the bases, display the flag (so as not to be ashamed), evacuate citizens from dangerous areas, take part in search and rescue operations, keep the deck aircraft in good shape, etc. time - PLO, landing (and most likely on their territory), target designation in BMZ (AWACS helicopters).
      In addition, in the last 4 years, rumors have come from various sources that considerable money and resources have been allocated for the reincarnation of domestic VTOL aircraft, which also says a lot.
      Carrier ships, among other things, are a symbol of the strength of the state.
  17. 0
    24 September 2019 17: 08
    Quote: Spade
    Consequently, conflicting demands are made on UDC. And ideally, the landing and helicopter carriers should be different ships.

    No, this is not about "conflicting requirements"!
    Just landing is carried out using helicopters that are on the deck, and boats that are from the hold. Due to all this, the so-called landing over the horizon.
  18. +3
    24 September 2019 19: 30
    No, well, again, I don’t understand if you even need the helicopter carrier that prevents you from taking the hull with a displacement of 100 thousand tons, putting as many helicopters on it as you need, screw the C300 division and the battery of the closer air defense to the deck with nuts ... Pour sand into the hold for balance. And a couple of cruise liners in the wake for the landing, let people travel in comfort.
    1. +1
      24 September 2019 23: 43
      Quote: Arthur 85
      take the hull with a displacement of 100 thousand tons, put on it those helicopters as needed, screw the C300 division and the battery of the closer air defense to the deck with nuts

      Yeah. "Northern Sea Route" for example. And it fits in size and it is also atomic, the range is not limited.
      1. 0
        25 September 2019 15: 14
        And another thought, suddenly someone will come in handy. To unload tanks from such a monster, they can be placed in the lowest hold. To one of the sides (to the power set) fasten a low, but with a long boom crane, 40-45 tons, and through the through hole in all decks unload to the side opposite from you. To avoid bumpiness, hold from below with a non-steel cable, which should be unhooked "when the tank leaves the mine." If you need to unload on the other side, or you have run out of fuel a lot, you can take water up to 30 centimeters in the same hold, the tanks will not rust. True, this is only in calm weather. And provide ventilation in the hold. Start tanks one at a time. If disembarkation is expected in an unprepared location, diving equipment can be installed.
  19. +1
    24 September 2019 20: 16
    I do not understand these landing ships. Perhaps someone will clarify.
    Are they intended for landing on an unequipped shore in the face of enemy opposition?
    Just 200 people and up to 20 units of equipment is very little. Reinforced company. They landed, set up pickets, patrols and are not capable of anything else. No strength. Strongpoint for the company 2.5x1 km (from memory). And all this with a 15 thousand-ton ship. Or 500 people but 24 thousand tons. Some "golden" landings. And plus with heavy equipment (Tanks, ZSU,) tension, which reduces shock capabilities. Or is my infa outdated and everything is much more cheerful now?
    1. +2
      24 September 2019 21: 06
        If you wonder how it was with the Americans, the story "Curiosity and nothing else."  
      http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/teamspirit.shtml  
      This is how a difficult one brought me to the exercises "Tim Spirit-82" :-) There is a scheme for building forces there. ...
    2. 0
      25 September 2019 00: 23
      I agree, the landing itself is rather weak, ...... I will explain that the landing is always carried out behind enemy lines, but near the main land forces and only in accordance with their increased offensive activity. It is the land forces, and not the landing, that strike the main attack, the landing while it helps the main strike by tactically cutting communications depriving the rear, the enemy is not always able to fight with the landing force because at this moment it is busy defending itself against the attack of the main forces.
      1. 0
        25 September 2019 11: 25
        There is also the problem that this landing is always "golden". Even in peacetime. Expenses for a large recreation center, supplies, constant organization of exercises. All this for the sake of a reinforced company, or an incomplete battalion (for a 24-ton DC) without heavy weapons, which makes the outcome of their clash with ground opponents absolutely unpredictable despite all the coolness of the Marines.
        The cost-effectiveness criterion is somehow not visible in all of this.
    3. 0
      25 September 2019 08: 15
      Yes, landings have always been "golden" in terms of costs. Therefore, they are usually planned when the result is expected to be "golden".
  20. 0
    25 September 2019 02: 01
    “A ship similar to a helicopter carrier.” Yes, the Russian language is great and powerful, especially in the performance of officials who are obviously far from military industry and technology.

    Or maybe the official decided to convert "Kuznetsov" into a helicopter carrier? lol
  21. 0
    25 September 2019 14: 41
    And here are the numbers for UDC: displacement of up to 15 tons. The landing group is up to 000 people, up to 200 pieces of equipment, 20-10 helicopters in the wing. Dock chamber for 12-2 boats.

    TTX resemble a helicopter carrier of project 1123, only with a docking chamber. It can also apparently be taken into account when developing a project.
  22. 0
    24 October 2019 23: 21
    For a long time I turned around in my head like this: “a ship similar to an aircraft carrier”?

    Carrier heavy cruiser. For example Kuznetsov ...

"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"