New Russian fleet. Dance around UDC

103

Take and combine


Everyone probably knows history with the French Mistrals, large universal landing ships (UDC), which Russia never received. It may be recalled: back in 2010, Russia and France announced a deal to build two Mistrals for the Russian Navy in a French shipyard. And two more ships of the same type were supposed to be built under license in Russia itself.





Further events around Crimea and the related deterioration in relations between the West and Russia put an end to all this. Many were initially surprised by the fact that the department of the then head of the Ministry of Defense, Anatoly Serdyukov, preferred western ships instead of Russian ones. Serdyukov (in fairness, I note: not the worst Minister of Defense in the history of the Russian Federation) was accused of "surrendering national interests", "indulging the West" and other largely contrived sins.

In reality, everything is much simpler: Russia has neither the experience of building UDCs, nor the experience of their use. There is, of course, its own shipbuilding. Even in the Soviet years, a variety of landing ships were built, some of them still serve the Russian Navy. For example, for all the years of the USSR, fourteen large landing ships of the 1171 project were commissioned. Of the relatively new - a large landing ship project 11711. The lead ship, Ivan Gren, was launched in 2012. The second ship of the series will be "Peter Morgunov."

However, the experience of Soviet / post-Soviet projects will not help much here. Formally, the UDC is a subclass of the landing ship. In fact, this is a new class of ship. The USA acutely felt its need during the Vietnam War. When the interaction of different landing groups revealed many problems that would have made themselves felt with particular force during the "global" conflict: putting people and equipment on a fortified bridgehead is extremely difficult.

The solution was the combination of shock, landing and management functions within the framework of a single ship project. Helicopters can land the first wave, which will partially clear the coast. Then, with the help of high-speed boats, units with equipment and heavy weapons will land on it. Americans, for example, can all this be dropped by LCU or LCAC boats. Large and lifting. In general, in terms of carrying capacity, one UDC can replace ten “ordinary” large landing ships. From the side - a very profitable investment.

There are some differences in understanding the concept. So, the latest UDC U.S. Navy of the type "America" ​​of the Flight 0 series do not have a docking chamber for the above-mentioned craft, but they do have additional hangars and workshops. There is a bet on air potential. However, in general, you need to understand that any universal landing ship is very expensive, very complex and at the same time quite vulnerable to air attacks: not every UDC carries fifth-generation fighters like America. This, of course, does not mean at all that universal landing ships are not needed. Quite the contrary.



A New Twist


The abandonment of the Mistral hit the potential of the Russian fleet, especially when you consider that the only conditional aircraft carrier - “Admiral Kuznetsov” - is being repaired and cannot fight. And its repair can be "eternal".

Therefore, in Russia more than once offered alternative options. Now history has received a new development. In October, BUSINESS Online reported that the Ak Bars Shipbuilding Corporation, which includes Zelenodolsky Yard Gorky and which is headed by Renat Mistakhov, claims to develop UDC. The ship is supposedly being developed by Zelenodolsk Design Bureau.

Apparently, these are not just rumors. Earlier, in September this year, unconfirmed information appeared that the Kerch branch of the plant named after Gorky will take on universal landing ships. “Two universal landing ships (UDC, they are also called helicopter carriers) with a displacement of up to 15 thousand tons are planned to be laid at the Zaliv shipyard in Kerch, which, as you know, is controlled by it. Gorky, ”wrote then the publication“ BUSINESS Online ”with reference to TASS. The bookmark is planned for May 2020 of the year, and the head helicopter carrier fleet should be received before the end of 2027 of the year.



Project of contention


From the outside, everything looks good. The country still has money, as well as those who want to build new ships. But everything is not so clear, if you look closely. In August of 2014, Ukraine announced that the Zelenodolsk enterprise by force seized the Zaliv Kerch Shipbuilding Plant OJSC, which had previously belonged to Ukrainian oligarch Konstantin Zhevago. And 15 March of the same years, the United States imposed sanctions against the plant to them. Gorky, although the enterprise had previously encountered Western restrictions.

More experts were surprised otherwise. According to Aleksey Litsis, Head of the Design Department of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise Krylovsky State Scientific Center, Russia has “far more pumped up from the point of view of building large Sevmash ships, Baltic and Volga-Baltic factories, and now the Far Eastern Zvezda factory is preparing to launch "".

There are other points of view. All the same, “BUSINESS Online” cites the opinion of Vladimir Leonov that sanctions are not a sentence for the plant at all. And in the new material, the publication considers other aspects of this issue, speaking in favor of the fact that the choice was made correctly. Experts believe that the Baltic Shipyard and Admiralty Shipyards are already heavily loaded, and the Kerch Zaliv has a large dry dock and much of what is needed to build a large ship. Finally, experts focus on the development of the Crimean industry, which in the current conditions is extremely important for the current government.



Money and ships


An order to design such a large ship is a huge responsibility, but there is also huge money. Experts believe that the main benefit here is Tatarstan, which owns the majority stake in Zelenodolsk Design Bureau (75% minus one share). “Tens of billions of rubles will be allocated for the design and construction of UDC ... This is very profitable and profitable. That’s why for the participation in the creation of UDC today there is a serious undercover struggle, ”the source said in an interview with“ BUSINESS Online ”.

On the technical side, everything is both simple and complex. Zelenodolsk Bureau was founded in 1949 year. Starting work with submarine hunters, Design Bureau engineers developed the world's largest hydrofoil warships of the Sokol type, as well as, for example, the 11540 project patrol ship. These are serious achievements. But as we already wrote above, in Russia they never built full-fledged UDC, and the ships developed earlier have almost nothing in common with them.



So the prospects of the first Russian universal landing ship are more than vague. This is best seen in the example of the aforementioned large landing ship "Ivan Gren", which was laid back in 2004, and put into operation only in 2018. And about whether Russia generally needs universal landing ships, we will talk sometime later.
Our news channels

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

103 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +30
    9 November 2019 05: 54
    Of course, it would be good, but empty conversations are tired of the order. It would be good for us, instead of talking about aircraft carriers and UDC, first we’ll first build a fully-fledged destroyer and launch it in a series, at least in the amount of 20 pieces.
    And in vain it is also possible to chat about space cruisers from the Star Warriors that we will ever build.
    1. -4
      9 November 2019 07: 50
      Quote: NEXUS
      We would be fine instead of idle talk about aircraft carriers and UDC, first build a fully-fledged destroyer, then launch it in a series, at least in the amount of 20 pieces.

      In addition to the talk about aircraft carriers and UDC, we can’t help the Russian fleet with anything, unless:
      Overthrow the mighty hand
      Bending fatal forever
      And let us rise above the earth
      Red Banner of Labor!

      As long as there are business owners, only monetary projects will be built. And in order to "appease" the kind oligarch uncle, it is necessary to rip off more taxes from all citizens and stop worrying about social payments, it is desirable to abolish pensions ...
      Or such an answer: good
      Quote: Thrifty
      Ilya, the fleet needs a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean that this is also necessary for this power of the country.
      1. -8
        9 November 2019 15: 22
        With such "rulers" there is no modern fleet and will not be.
    2. +10
      9 November 2019 11: 01
      Well, 22350 is developed, and this is actually a destroyer. At least it is noticeably superior to the Soviet Sarychs. request Now they are designing 22350m. The question also comes up in the GEM. Although this year 2 frigates of the second series were laid down, but work on them most likely will not really begin for a long time. There are no engines for them - it makes no sense to force. request
      Well, in terms of number I approximately agree - you need a minimum of 18, and in the normal 30 pieces 22350 and 22350m.
      But this does not negate the fact that the landing craft are in a deplorable state. Of the 20 BDKs, 15 are old Polish buildings, 4 are at least Soviet, but as old as the feces of a mammoth. PM there is only 1 new and 1 more will be delivered by the end of the year. Again, the marine corps will be redeveloped into expeditionary forces of the Russian Federation, which means that it needs other ships, which could ensure not only delivery, but also basing on them. This is just fishing. For good, they are needed in 2 fleets - Black Sea Fleet and Pacific Fleet. On the rest you can do BDK. hi
      1. +9
        9 November 2019 11: 27
        Quote: g1v2
        Well, 22350 is developed, and this is actually a destroyer.

        No ... 22350 is a frigate. The destroyer WILL BE 22350M. But he has not even been laid.
        1. +4
          9 November 2019 11: 31
          This is a ship of the first rank. As far as I remember Gorshkov is commanded by Krokhmal, and he is kapraz. If we compare with the old Soviet first-ranking - 956 and 1155, then frigate 22350 surpasses them. And by the way, 1155 after modernization will be re-qualified as frigates. You can call it even a corvette, but this does not change the fact. He will have to change both 956 and 1155. request
          1. +12
            9 November 2019 13: 42
            Quote: g1v2
            but this does not change the fact. He will have to change both 956 and 1155.
            Eco you had enough ... Until 1155 he is as far from the sky, because the possibilities of detecting submarines SJSC "Zarya" and SJSC "Polynom" are not comparable from the word - in general ... Forget it. Opportunities now to produce industrially, something like SJSC "Polynom" or "Zvezda-2", as far as I understand, unfortunately in Russia there is no ?! And this is one of the reasons why new EM / BODs, which are so necessary for the fleet, are not being laid. The second of the reasons is probably the absence of new gearboxes for the promising power plant from the cruise M-70FRU and afterburner M-90FR ... And most likely, these two reasons are just a small part of the iceberg, visible to us as outside observers ... citizen
            Quote: NEXUS
            No ... 22350 is a frigate.
            , in his statement, is absolutely absolutely right !!
            Quote: NEXUS
            The destroyer WILL be 22350M. But he has not even been laid.
            most likely, for the reasons stated above, and maybe not only because of them .... To our regret, but alas ...
            1. 0
              9 November 2019 18: 35
              The reducer for MA7 MAU, which will be 22350M (from m70 and m90) is simpler than for the base 22350
              1. +1
                9 November 2019 23: 23
                Quote: Artemiy_2
                The reducer for MA7 MAU, which will be 22350M (from m70 and m90) is simpler than for the base 22350
                theoretically, it is possible that this is so (Timokhin is of the same opinion, but in my opinion he is far from being an amateur), but in practice, there isn’t any real one in metal yet ?! fact ?!
                1. 0
                  9 November 2019 23: 53
                  Well, if P055 for a simple 22350 could be mastered, then considering that now this gearbox is actively drawn, it may appear in metal in 3-4 years.
                  1. +1
                    10 November 2019 00: 02
                    Quote: Artemiy_2
                    considering that this gearbox is now actively draw maybe in 3-4 years it will appear in the metal.
                    argument argument ...
            2. 0
              10 November 2019 21: 35
              Apparently without, at least partial restoration of the planned economy, the fleet cannot be built.
              1. +1
                10 November 2019 22: 24
                Quote: Chaldon48
                Apparently without, at least partial restoration of the planned economy, the fleet cannot be built.
                partially, but in my subjective opinion (this is from the point of view of a separate business executive who grew up in the spirit of the USSR), I would consult with specialists in this area (Timokhin, Klimov, etc., they are sometimes, though not always delicate in communication, /more often Klimov, and Timokhin more communicative and productive in the exchange of information/,) they throw up quite objective information ... But only there will be a problem not only in planned financing, but I’m afraid in the targeted use of funds and monitoring this targeted use of these funds... consider this a symptom / syndrome / of a former employee of the OBHSS ....
      2. +2
        9 November 2019 18: 57
        with a teaspoon from the world - from each court-builds a plant - to each fleet .. and that would not stand in the bases, but sunbathe around Africa and in the Indian Ocean
        1. 0
          18 November 2019 00: 41
          Quote: antivirus
          with a teaspoon from the world - from each court-builds a plant - to each fleet .. and that would not stand in the bases, but sunbathe around Africa and in the Indian Ocean
          Probably yes, if each plant quickly builds what it does best, and it is the rational use of funds allocated for shipbuilding programs ... As a supposed example, I would consider: from Zelenodolsk Shipyard and the "Zaliv" leased by it (in Kerch) 1166 * for PLO (with SAC, normal TA 533mm, and UKSK, for GEM DDA-12000 !!), for OVR, instead of expensive and inappropriate for the parameters - cost / effectiveness ships of project 20380; from "Admiralteyskie Verfi" 636.3, for the Pacific Fleet, smoothly moving towards the P-750 prospect (which, in my opinion, is closer to the VNEU perspective); from "Severnaya Verf", frigate pr. 22350 (as the most spent, "for now"), from "Sevmash" (for now "Yasen-M"), but I would welcome an alternative in the form of a new, cheaper project of the ISSAPL, in the form of a certain hybrid of solutions for projects 671 RTMK / Barakkuda / Lira, at a modern technological level (in acoustics, lack of replacement / stealth, the possibility of using cruise missiles of the "Caliber / Onyx / Granat" type from TA, in addition to torpedoes UGST / Physicist / Case, etc.), as well as the renewal of the competence of the Amur Shipyard, in the construction of such submarines, and not project 20380 corvettes !!; and so on ... Suppose "mine-action" Alexandrites "successfully builds if I'm not mistaken" Sredne-Nevsky shipbuilding plant "; and BDK, easily and relatively quickly" Yantar ", but" Baltiysky Zavod "is gradually unloaded from civil orders, and systematically (as the problems associated with the creation and delivery of GAKs like Zvezda-2 for shipbuilders and a promising power plant from Saturn gas turbine engines, with gearboxes necessary for them, for the construction of full-fledged BOD / EM), and construction it is ships of such a class as BOD / EM, for the Navy, well, etc. ... - well, I think you understand me ....?! I hope so ....
      3. 0
        10 November 2019 21: 14
        Why are BFKs not needed at KSF and ToF? I myself am a marine from Sputnik, in the good old days, the USSR, we walked a lot, and now they seem to be walking.
      4. -1
        20 November 2019 11: 08
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGsHshpYkiU вот вы же понимаете что для того чтобы ехать нужен бензин? а для того чтобы стрелять патроны?.....а для того чтоб не только ваши удк, ав и ЭМ, но и чтобы мрк вышел в море в военное время нужен тральщик...а тральщиков нет, тогда и нечего говорить по флот, он не сможет выйти в море , так зачем его еще строить?
        1. +3
          20 November 2019 11: 22
          Well, he can get out without minesweepers - it’s just that the risk increases. Secondly, minesweepers are being built. Moreover, their priority on different fleets is different. At the World Cup, they are needed first of all. therefore, he already received the first, the second will receive soon, and then the third. Further minesweepers will begin to receive Pacific Fleet. In general, after 5 years, modern minesweepers will receive all the fleets, although not so much as needed. There were plans to change all the minesweepers - and this is about 40 pieces. If one plant is to be built, as it is now, it will take about 20 years. I hope that the pr-in is deployed somewhere else. But again, I repeat - the severity of the problem will be removed after 5 years, when all fleets will have 3 pieces of Alexandrite each. request
          Well, again, we must understand that the main task for us now is not the fleet, but bringing the military shipbuilding to a state where it can produce all the ships and vessels necessary for the fleet constantly and in the required numbers. Industry is more important than the fleet itself. request
          1. 0
            20 November 2019 14: 36
            Quote: g1v2
            There were plans to change all the minesweepers - and this is about 40 pieces.

            I agree, however, it must be borne in mind that the minesweeper can be lost, so even a couple of minesweepers on the ocean or the Black Sea Fleet is not enough, the entire fleet of the Russian Federation is sky-ready! .......... once again, the entire fleet of the Russian Federation is unable to go to sea in case of war! ........ it’s stupid to hope for the stupidity of an enemy not using mines, for example, in Finland there is only a mine fleet, and this is serious, this is not a computer game with many lives, and if you think logically, now you need to not lay down new udk, but urgently address the issue of increasing the construction of minesweepers (for example, to make them the Northern shipyard on the hulls from Pella, especially since the corvette program closes there, Zelenodolsk can do them, where the hull from Pella can also be delivered), when the fleet receives their necessary number of minesweepers, we can discuss Opportunities for the construction of other ships.
    3. +5
      9 November 2019 21: 52
      It would be good for us to at least saturate the Navy with the frigates of the Gorshkov project in the next 5-7 years, my optimism is already not enough for more ...
      1. 0
        20 November 2019 14: 38
        your frigates will be blown up in a mine right after leaving the port
        1. +1
          24 November 2019 21: 20
          I fully share your concern with the insufficient composition of the new minesweepers; therefore, I don’t understand any of these projects of aircraft carriers and UDC.
  2. +1
    9 November 2019 06: 32
    As far as I know Zelenodoltsy know how to work.
  3. -2
    9 November 2019 06: 44
    Ilya, the fleet needs a lot of things, but this does not mean that this is also necessary for this power of the country. And the udk can be quickly built using the hulls of those two nuclear cruisers that we have written off.
    1. +6
      9 November 2019 07: 20
      Quote: Thrifty
      A fishing rod can be built quickly using the hulls of the two nuclear-powered cruisers that are being decommissioned.

      It’s good that you wouldn’t have this power, otherwise you would have set up.
      1. -4
        9 November 2019 08: 03
        Darth 2027 - then, in your opinion, let good buildings stupidly cut into scrap metal? So you can even stay without a fleet.
        1. +3
          9 November 2019 11: 29
          Quote: Thrifty
          let good buildings stupidly cut into scrap metal?

          It is possible to remake a cruiser into an aircraft-carrying ship, but in the end it will turn out to be a NUDO.
          It may be possible to carry out modernization as it is done with the Nakhimov (provided that the hulls are really good, and have not rotted so that it is pointless to mess with them in principle), but in the end it should be a cruiser.
    2. +2
      9 November 2019 09: 49
      Well, the body of the PAZ (and, what is, a good body, almost did not rot in 40 years) to rearrange to the Zhiguli - the task will be easier.
      1. +2
        9 November 2019 18: 17
        I have three cars, each 55-60 years old, Gaz21, and I know that some buildings rot in three years, while others serve 60 years .... and with ships, first an examination, and then a decision, and not all sitting on the couch can be determined objectively
        1. +2
          9 November 2019 18: 26
          That is, apart from the condition of the buildings, nothing confuses you? For example, the fact that the hull of a ship with a displacement of 25000 tons should become a ship of 15000 tons? Or the fact that the design of the UDC and the cruiser are completely different: the cruisers do not have a huge flight deck, huge hangars for equipment and landing, ramps, etc.? Well then, perhaps, you can be convinced of the futility of this lesson by just one example: when an aircraft carrier was converted into an aircraft carrier for India on Sevmash, then the whole ship had to be dismantled almost to the frame.
          1. -2
            9 November 2019 18: 29
            Of course it’s embarrassing, I think that 1 UDC and AB and Cruiser are not needed at all by Russia in principle, and their presence is solely due to the fact that they have not yet collapsed from old age 2 such an alteration is not worth the candle 3 Sell to India and whether to China Kuzyu, and do on this money minesweepers submarines and coastal aviation
            1. +2
              9 November 2019 22: 35
              Quote: vladimir1155
              Of course it’s embarrassing, I think that 1 UDC and AB and Cruiser do not need Russia at all

              Vladimir, you are so consistent in your madness that I unwittingly put you plus at the same time categorically rejecting your fantasies. Let me remind you again. Submarines without a serious surface fleet are completely useless ..
              1. +2
                9 November 2019 23: 00
                https://flot.com/science/tactic/substactics.htm
                http://weapons-world.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000022/st008.shtml
                I believe that minesweepers and PMO aviation (helicopters) are needed to ensure the PMO PLO requires aircraft PLO and frigates (Corvettes MRK MPK) operating under the guise of aviation and coastal assets. I believe that all corvette frigates, the existing cruisers and most of the MPK MPKs should be assembled in Kamchatka and the Northern Fleet, creating large airbases there and saturating them with airplanes, and also urgently building minesweepers. I believe that it is necessary to sell Kuzyu to the Chinese and not build it, the NK is more than a frigate, leaving, as far as possible, large frigates of the 1155 type in the fleet.

                "Chapter 3. Submarines at sea crossing
                3.1. Transition Organization
                The transition of the submarine by sea from one point or region to another region or point is carried out to accomplish the mission, relocation, conduct combat training activities and for other purposes [13, 48]. The main objective of the transition is the timely and secretive arrival of the submarine in the designated area or point in the highest degree of readiness to complete the task. The transition of the submarine by sea to the combat area is carried out along the optimal route, which is selected based on the assessment of the transition area, taking into account the combat and maneuverability of the submarine making the transition, the specified arrival time in the designated area, and in wartime, and taking into account the assessment of the anticipated anti-submarine forces and enemy means.
                At the appointed time, the submarine is removed from the moorings with the permission of the commander of the connection and an exit from the basing point follows to go to the area where the task is set along the assigned route. Departure from the base is subject to secrecy measures on established fairways, safe in navigational and mine terms, and indicated by means of navigation barriers. As a rule, the exit is carried out independently, and if there is a threat of an enemy attack - as part of an escort from anti-submarine ships, anti-aircraft weapons, as well as aircraft and helicopters. In the presence of mine danger, submarines are posted behind the trawlers of the minesweepers heading ahead in the course.

                Navigation by sea is carried out by single submarines or as part of groups (tactical groups), formations, independently or in providing other forces of the fleet. When passing as part of a compound, submarines follow in a marching order with such a mutual arrangement of groups and individual submarines that ensures the reliability of all types of defense, the possibility of immediate use of weapons and mutual security [13]. When crossing the sea as part of tactical groups, submarines follow in the formations of the front, bearing, wedge (return wedge), and in some cases in the wake formation. The type of system is selected depending on the tactical and navigational situation along the transition route, taking into account the most efficient use of surveillance equipment, weapons and control convenience. The actions of the submarine at the transition by sea are due to the fulfillment of the main task of the transition - to arrive in a designated area in a timely manner and secretly in the highest degree of readiness to complete the task.


                Transition secrecy is achieved by circumventing, to the extent possible, the enemy anti-submarine forces action areas, the areas of its stationary sonar monitoring systems, organizational and technical measures to reduce the unmasking signs of the submarine, choosing low-noise speeds, correctly taking into account sonar conditions in the navigation area, and reliable monitoring of underwater and surface and the air situation, as well as information from the submarines from the command command post about the situation along the transition route and timely evasion of the submarine from being detected by anti-submarine forces and enemy means.



                In order to maintain combat effectiveness, air defense (anti-aircraft), anti-submarine (anti-submarine) and anti-mine defense (PMO), as well as protection of the submarine from weapons of mass destruction (ZOMP) and from homing enemy weapons are organized [48]. All types of defense and defense are organized directly on the submarine and, in addition, can be provided by the forces and means of the senior commander.

                For the purpose of air defense, monitoring of the air situation, notification of submarines at sea about air danger, fighter aircraft cover in cooperation with air defense means of coastal units within their radius of action are organized.

                In the interests of the PLO, enemy submarines are searched for and destroyed along the transition route by specially assigned anti-submarine forces, including anti-submarine submarines, anti-submarine guards of deploying submarines, and submarines and their weapons are evaded.

                The transition route is selected, if possible, through areas where the actions of enemy submarines are unlikely.

                In the interests of the PMO, underwater submarine transitions are organized underwater and surface surveillance, both by means of submarines and by means of mine support forces, notification of submarines about detected mines in the area of ​​their base, on the transition route and in the combat area, minesweeping and destruction of mines, piloting of submarines behind trawls in mine-hazardous areas.

                In the course of hostilities, submarines navigating by sea will, as a rule, be forced to force anti-submarine lines and minefields.

                In wartime, in case of a sudden encounter with the enemy at any stage of the transition, the officer of the watch follows the instructions for the use of weapons and takes timely action aimed at evading the submarine from being detected by the enemy, breaking away from it in the event of a submarine being detected or evading enemy weapons using sonar suppression. In cases where the use of weapons is permitted, the officer of the watch performs the initial actions to launch an attack on the detected enemy. "
    3. +3
      9 November 2019 09: 50
      Quote: Thrifty
      A fishing rod can be quickly built using the hulls of the two nuclear-powered cruisers that are being decommissioned.

      Bravo! lol
    4. +4
      9 November 2019 11: 38
      That would be an epic cut! (I'm talking about the idea of ​​building a UDC based on cruiser corps)
  4. +4
    9 November 2019 06: 53
    And about whether Russia generally needs universal landing ships, we will talk sometime later.
    They are needed, especially in the Pacific theater of operations, for many reasons. This, of course, is the abundance of island territories, and the poorly developed infrastructure, and the construction of the Vostochny cosmodrome, and for many more reasons
    1. +5
      9 November 2019 07: 28
      The message of the Pacific Fleet and the Vostochny Cosmodrome, which is in a straight line through all kinds of ridges like Stanovoy, Sikhote-Alin, etc., is not entirely clear. 600–700 kilometers to the nearest sea (the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, called an ice bag), and perhaps a thousand and a half kilometers to the nearest Pacific Fleet base.
      1. +3
        9 November 2019 08: 06
        Quote: YOUR
        The promise of the Pacific Fleet and the Vostochny Cosmodrome is not entirely clear,

        The route for launching manned ships will run over the Pacific Ocean and in the event of an accident they will be brought into it, with the help of the UDC, search and rescue will be much faster and more efficient
        1. +4
          9 November 2019 10: 04
          Quote: svp67
          Manned spacecraft launch track will run over the Pacific Ocean

          Admiral, here are a couple of points:
          1) Are there any plans to transfer manned launches to Vostochny?
          2) The route of the manned flight will pass over the Pacific Ocean?
          fool wassat
          1. +2
            9 November 2019 19: 11
            Quote: Ezekiel
            1) Are there any plans to transfer manned launches to Vostochny?

            Yes, this has already been announced.
            The first flight of the astronaut from the Vostochny cosmodrome will take place after 2025. This follows from the draft Federal Space Program for 2016–2025 (FKP-2025)

            Quote: Ezekiel
            Will a manned flight route pass over the Pacific Ocean?

            Yes, since it is precisely at the meeting of the Earth's rotation that all the main launches take place. I think it’s not difficult for you to make sure how the Earth rotates and how, and where in this case the route will run
            1. +1
              9 November 2019 21: 03
              And where does it rotate?)))
              1. 0
                18 November 2019 02: 39
                Quote: Hwostatij
                And where does it rotate?)))
                Yes, and even more often arguments for the fact that it is generally flat ?! :))
            2. +1
              9 November 2019 21: 16
              Quote: svp67
              Yes, this has already been announced.
              The first flight of the astronaut from the Vostochny cosmodrome will take place after 2025. This follows from the draft Federal Space Program for 2016–2025 (FKP-2025)

              Admiral, it’s very strange that you sink to the banal lies. In FKP-2025 this is not.
              Moreover, it has been repeatedly stated that manned launches in the Union remain on Baikonur. No transfer plans anywhere. feel

              Quote: svp67
              It is at the meeting of the Earth's rotation that all the main launches take place.

              Admiral, launches do not occur towards the rotation of the Earth, but in the direction of rotation! wassat

              Quote: svp67
              I think it’s not difficult for you to make sure how the Earth rotates and how, and where in this case the route will run

              You can see all the tracks from Vostochny on the Internet. And decide everything yourself.
      2. +2
        9 November 2019 09: 54
        Quote: YOUR
        ridges such as Stanovoi, Sikhote-Alin, etc.

        Admiral means that the UDC for Amur will do.
        Not far, hundreds of miles and a half lol
        1. +5
          9 November 2019 10: 20
          Perhaps 1500 km were mistaken by one toe
          1. +3
            9 November 2019 10: 27
            Specially measured on Yandex.Maps - 104 km from the cosmodrome to the nearest coast of the Amur. hi
            1. +6
              9 November 2019 10: 34
              Count from Komsomolsk-on-Amur. Well, as I understand it, the UDC from the seas of the Akyans will go.
              Well, you counted in a straight line, but along a stream, and along Zeya to Amur it will be about 1.8 times further. I live here.
              1. +3
                9 November 2019 10: 44
                Do you live there?
                We are discussing the role of promising UDC for the defense of the Vostochny spaceport.
                It is best for him to use the Amur River for this purpose, because landing helicopters (and none at all) will fly from the Pacific Ocean.
                The distance is small, as I wrote above.
                It will be able to cover the construction area of ​​the cosmodrome by the air group.
                I see no other benefit from UDC for covering a spaceport, alas negative
                1. +5
                  9 November 2019 11: 13
                  You need to do tady on geese
                2. 0
                  9 November 2019 19: 15
                  Quote: Ezekiel
                  I see no other benefit from UDC for covering a spaceport, alas

                  You have not only "myopia", but also a poor understanding of the essence of the issue. Who here raised the question about the "cover" of the Eastern UDC. This ship is not intended for this, this time and two the question was raised about ensuring the safety and rescue of astronauts in the event of an emergency splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. In this case, the UDC is very good. Large helicopter group, the presence of a hospital and an excellent communications center. What else do you need for such a job?
                  1. +3
                    9 November 2019 21: 07
                    Build UDC to save the astronauts.))) Epic, Th)))
                    1. +1
                      9 November 2019 22: 34
                      Quote: Hwostatij
                      Build UDC to save the astronauts.))) Epic, Th)))

                      And for this the SAME ... Somehow earlier a separate fleet was built to service the "Soviet space". That was EPIC, and UDC is so ...
                      The Americans won the aircraft carriers and nothing, but now the UDC
                  2. +1
                    9 November 2019 21: 21
                    Quote: svp67
                    You have not only "myopia", but also a poor understanding of the essence of the issue. Who here raised the question about the "cover" of the Eastern UDC.

                    Well, but you, Admiral, have not explained what you intend to do with UDC for Vostochny. I thought to cover the construction of the East. lol
                    Why is UDC necessary for the catch of the crew of the Union for these purposes? The Sea of ​​Okhotsk is covered with ice from November to May. There you will need an icebreaker, not UDC! bully
      3. +1
        9 November 2019 11: 03
        Ага.
        But the joke itself is that large landing ships must not be at the Pacific Fleet or SOF, but at the Black Sea Fleet. This is what the military aspect of geopolitical strategy requires.
        And on SOF and Pacific Fleet, it is limited to smaller and simple DCs.
        1. +5
          9 November 2019 12: 58
          I do not agree. Indeed, in the Northern Fleet, somehow large landing ships are not quite in place, although they can find a deal, and the Pacific Fleet is a must. There is where to land and who to pat the withers of.
          1. 0
            17 November 2019 18: 22
            Not landing ships are needed, but troop transports ..

            It’s not trivial to land, but it’s very necessary to transfer troops and equipment .. look at Syria what was most useful there for a successful operation? Landing operations from the sea? Or sea battles with enemy ships? maybe fleet attacks on the enemy in Syria? No, the most important was to provide all the necessary ground grouping of Syrian troops and the Russian military contingent .. In the future, this will be the main task of the fleet.
  5. +9
    9 November 2019 07: 12
    Whether it will be, or not, or rain, or snow. What is the use of them if there is nothing to cover?
  6. 0
    9 November 2019 07: 52
    It was necessary to hijack a purchased ship from France during the running - but for this you need eggs
  7. +2
    9 November 2019 07: 54
    Is that what I just read? Free retelling of the movie classics "is there life on Mars, is there life on Mars, science knows nothing about it!"?
  8. +8
    9 November 2019 08: 18
    But tell me. Who will protect these ships? So far there is nothing. First, export ships must be built. And yes, three.
    1. +10
      9 November 2019 10: 11
      Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
      And yes, three.

      For reasons unknown to science, the issue of building ships with much more practical meaning, like destroyers, submarines, and amphibious assault ships, does not meet the enthusiasm of naval strategists fellow
      But the construction of atomic aircraft carriers and UDCs, which are needed like a cow 5 legs, yes!
      It causes delight and seething! wink
    2. -1
      17 November 2019 18: 24
      Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
      But tell me. Who will guard these ships?

      The fleet protects the flag of the state .. everything else is show-off ..
  9. -3
    9 November 2019 09: 10
    the abandonment of the Mistral hurt the potential of the Russian fleet

    What a rejection of the Mistral.
    We didn’t have them.
    Failure to obtain the Mistrals could in no way "hurt the potential".
    Which was such and preserved.
    the only conventional aircraft carrier - Admiral Kuznetsov - is being repaired and cannot fight. And its repair can be "vnna"

    What is a "fictitious aircraft carrier"?
    Admiral Kuznetsov is an aircraft carrier cruiser.
    That is, a warship, which in addition to having the functions of a mobile air base, also has its own serious strike capabilities.
    With the same success it is possible to call highly specialized aircraft carriers giant aircraft-carrying barges.
    The question is approach.
    The Russian Navy already has icebreaking ships with serious strike weapons.
    A program for the restoration and modernization of the landing component of the Russian Navy has been launched.
    And along the way the development will go, we will really discuss with enthusiasm.
    hi
    1. +3
      9 November 2019 09: 51
      Quote: Livonetc
      That is, a warship, which in addition to having the functions of a mobile air base, also has its own serious strike capabilities.
      With shock capabilities, he has been very sad for the past 10 years: they are not there (he was dragged).
    2. +5
      9 November 2019 13: 48
      Quote: Livonetc
      The Russian Navy already has icebreaking ships with serious strike weapons.
      AK-190 and AK-630 ?!
    3. 0
      18 November 2019 02: 47
      Quote: Livonetc
      A program for the restoration and modernization of the landing component of the Russian Navy has been launched.
      and the word - runningIs key as they say in all its glory, and in the fullest sense of the word !!!
  10. 0
    9 November 2019 10: 32
    = But as we wrote above, in Russia they never built full-fledged UDC, and the ships developed earlier have almost nothing in common with them. =
    Well, not built, so what? Don't even try to build them? So what? Once Americans didn’t build them, and phrases. But they were needed by both, and built.
    So, the problem is not that, the problem is - "there is no money, but you are holding on."
  11. +3
    9 November 2019 11: 17
    The solution was the combination of shock, landing and management functions within the framework of a single ship project. Helicopters .... boats will land units with equipment and heavy weapons.


    A huge, clumsy, slightly armed barge, standing 10 miles from the coast, crowded with soldiers, equipment, hospital and other equipment, and even a bunch of admirals on it, commanding the landing operation?

    Tell us about this goal of Marinesco.
    1. +4
      9 November 2019 11: 33
      Quote: Arzt
      standing 10 miles offshore

      In fact, 100 km from the coast.
      Quote: Arzt
      Tell us about this goal of Marinesco.

      A better Doenitz. As it turned out, some submarines cannot do anything with an adversary who has a PLO.
      1. -1
        9 November 2019 11: 44
        In fact, 100 km from the coast.


        All the worse for the landing, when the UDC begins to sink, they will not swim to the shore.
        And Marinesco, coastal missile systems and aviation on the drum.

        The very idea of ​​UDC in modern conditions is vicious. All eggs in one basket. In the presence of tactical nuclear weapons, the concentration of forces and means (UDC, aircraft carrier, tank fist, etc.) loses its meaning.
        1. +1
          9 November 2019 13: 03
          Quote: Arzt
          And Marinesco, coastal missile systems and aviation by drum
          That is, about the fact that the landing is hiding behind you do not know? When discussing the Mistral, it was also full of experts who put them against the entire NATO fleet at once.
          Quote: Arzt
          With tactical nuclear weapons
          The use of which will smoothly grow into a strategic launch.
      2. 0
        10 November 2019 20: 50
        Quote: Dart2027
        Better Doenitsa
        but something he could, and with considerable success ... that is. questions regarding tactics and strategies have not been canceled .... if that?!., and the talent of certain commanders, in terms of their individual (often fateful) tactical decisions ... this is, for reflection ...
        1. 0
          10 November 2019 23: 19
          Quote: Vl Nemchinov
          but something he could, and with considerable success

          Something he could. But he could not win. The fleet must be balanced and you will not go far on the same submarines / aircraft carriers / frigates / cruisers (underline as necessary).
    2. 0
      11 November 2019 12: 47
      Quote: Arzt
      A huge, clumsy, slightly armed barge, standing 10 miles from the coast, crowded with soldiers, equipment, hospital and other equipment, and even a bunch of admirals on it, commanding the landing operation?

      This is much better than a few large boxes of 5-7 thousand tons with a battalion of marines inside, crawling to the shore at the smallest or standing on the beach - in the fire zone of all BW firearms, including mortars.
      1. +1
        11 November 2019 13: 25
        This is much better than a few large boxes of 5-7 thousand tons with a battalion of marines inside, crawling to the shore at the smallest or standing on the beach - in the fire zone of all BW firearms, including mortars.

        If the coastal defense is not suppressed, no matter how to land, from the mother ship far from the shore or from several boxes of 5-7 thousand tons. Mortars with great pleasure will work on small landing means. But at sea, one large ship is more vulnerable than several medium ones.
        1. 0
          11 November 2019 16: 29
          Quote: Arzt
          If the coastal defense is not suppressed, it does not matter how to land, from the mother ship far from the shore or from several boxes of 5-7 thousand tons. Mortars with great pleasure will work on small landing means.

          In principle, it is impossible to suppress coastal defense 100% - the Japanese guarantee. And from the point of view of defeat by the surviving means of BO there is a big difference between DKVP and BDK / KFOR. Especially if you compare the size of these targets, their speed and the percentage of available coast for landing for each of them. I just want to see the mortar shooting at the 50-node DKVP. smile .
          And the number of losses per affected landing unit differs significantly.
          The UDC and other over-the-horizon landing facilities are so good in that they make the line of airborne dispersion beyond the range of most of the weapons of war - only a few coastal anti-aircraft missiles or long-range MLRS can reach these landing ships.
          Quote: Arzt
          But at sea, one large ship is more vulnerable than several medium ones.

          And when disembarking, one ship, standing 50 miles from the coast, is much easier to cover than 3-4 medium-sized ships sailing at low speed to the coast.
      2. 0
        19 November 2019 13: 18
        The landing party only lands when most of the enemy’s weapons are suppressed.
  12. -3
    9 November 2019 11: 34
    blah blah again on space (sorry universal) ships plowing open spaces .... objectively too big a target, and as a result completely unsuitable for war and defense, (especially the combination of headquarters, landing and aviation at one all-visible point touched) only against the Papuans is used , then the question ... why does he need Russia? And this is in a situation when the country is catastrophically behind in minesweepers, submarines, and coastal aviation, which are essential for the country's defense and the world’s world security!
  13. +1
    9 November 2019 12: 32
    Quite decent ships were built in the USSR, an example of this was project 1174 Ivan Rogov ... This concept should be developed, not chased by dubious foreign projects
  14. +4
    9 November 2019 15: 02
    As far as I remember, during the break of the deal on the Mistrals from all channels, it was pouring this overpriced crap, it is not clear how we slipped it. That most of the analogues, including ours, surpass them in terms of cost-effectiveness. Has something changed again?
    1. +1
      9 November 2019 18: 32
      The sailors cursed because the fleet did not have more important needs: if you transfer it to the plane of aviation, then imagine that you do not have a fighter, and you are buying a cool transport or tanker. The thing is good, there are no questions, but you can live without it, and without a fighter - problematic. In addition, the Mistral was not the best UDC, expensive and "not military": it was not designed to be hit by bombs.
      1. +6
        9 November 2019 18: 33
        "not military": not designed to be hit by bombs

        No irony. Are there any that are designed?
        1. +1
          9 November 2019 18: 42
          Well, in theory, any warship (especially the first rank) should be designed taking into account the "external influence". Reservations are made now, if they do, then local (for example, at 1144 they covered the main caliber and the reactor, they wanted more, but did not interfere with the required parameters), and other means of damage control (compartments, bulkheads, fire extinguishing means, pumping out water, duplicating control, etc. energy, large crew and other chips such as Kevlar armor) - in full growth. I don’t know about anti-torpedo protection (not active, but as in World War II), I haven’t heard.
          1. +2
            9 November 2019 18: 44
            It seems to me that most of the listed Mistral had, didn’t they ?. UDC is simply a convenient target based on the concept itself.
            1. +2
              9 November 2019 19: 29
              Quote: Engineer
              It seems to me that most of the listed Mistral had, didn’t they ?.
              Well, I didn’t see it myself, but I read how the sailors cursed that no.
              1. +1
                9 November 2019 22: 40
                Ok thanks for the opinion
              2. +1
                9 November 2019 23: 21
                Quote: bk0010
                but read how the sailors swore

                They scolded mainly because the ambition did not give rest, "how can we buy it", and here on the site there are also fans of the mosquito fleet, confident that they say we only need small ships, and we don't need large ones.
                As for the reservation, now it is not on any ships, even ours, at least someone’s, and at one time Kaptsov wrote a series of articles on this topic that a modern ship is unable to survive any serious damage. From recent, one can recall the collision of a frigate and a bulk carrier or tanker, after which the frigate drowned.
          2. 0
            11 November 2019 12: 53
            Quote: bk0010
            Well, in theory, any warship (especially the first rank) should be designed taking into account the "external influence".

            I remember the project "Khalzan" - as a cheap mass airborne anti-submarine helicopter carrier of the "second echelon", designed on the basis of a civilian ro-ro, after the request of the Navy "provide minimal structural protection and survivability at the level of naval standards"began to fit only in the corps of pr. 1143. smile
            1. 0
              11 November 2019 21: 57
              Well, if you think about it, it sounds logical. They could have done cheaper (due to the lack of strike weapons and civilian radars), but less - hardly.
  15. 0
    9 November 2019 15: 41
    ... And about whether Russia generally needs universal landing ships, we will talk sometime later.
    Probably upstairs they think so too - about "later" .... sad
  16. +2
    9 November 2019 17: 59
    New Russian fleet. Dance around UDC

    Why dance - the money was returned for the Mistral? If they returned, let them build them, they will not be superfluous (taking into account the poor quantitative composition of the warships of the Russian Navy)! sad
  17. +3
    9 November 2019 18: 01
    Quote: Sapsan136
    Quite decent ships were built in the USSR, an example of this was project 1174 Ivan Rogov ... This concept should be developed, not chased by dubious foreign projects

    Yes Yes Yes good hi
  18. +4
    9 November 2019 18: 08
    Quote: Sapsan136
    Quite decent ships were built in the USSR, an example of this was project 1174 Ivan Rogov ... This concept should be developed, not chased by dubious foreign projects

    The guarantor said that in the USSR they knew only how to make galoshes (galoshes), so his friend decided to buy troughs (which are suitable for fulfilling the tasks of the Navy as overall targets, nothing more). Are you against the concept of building the Russian Navy, which the person who is the Supreme has probably approved ...? wassat hi
    1. +1
      11 November 2019 13: 19
      Quote: Radikal
      The guarantor said that in the USSR they knew only how to make galoshes (galoshes), so his friend decided to buy troughs (which are suitable for fulfilling the tasks of the Navy as overall targets, nothing more).

      Yes, yes, yes ... the whole world is not keeping up, Russia alone is keeping up - stuffing the Marines battalion-by-box into slowly crawling boxes and slowly squeezing them through the fire zone of all coastal defense equipment.
      The absence of the UDC in the USSR Navy was caused not by strategic considerations, but by production reasons - the fleet wanted a full-fledged UDC, which could only be built on "Stapel 0". A slipway 0 was given to aircraft carriers.
      In addition, the UDC turned out to be a kind of bargaining chip in the battles between the Navy and the General Staff - the General Staff stubbornly pushed them into the construction plan, but not for the sake of increasing the amphibious capabilities of the fleet, but in order to thwart Gorshkov's plans to build a TAVKR. For, as I already wrote, UDC and TAVKR were competitors in the struggle for the only "slipway 0" in the USSR. Thus, the decision to build two "Khalzans", punched by the General Staff through the Central Committee, almost canceled the construction of 1143.5.
      1. 0
        11 November 2019 21: 59
        Quote: Alexey RA
        and to disrupt Gorshkov’s plans for the construction of the Tavkr
        And why did they so want to frustrate his plans? What is joy to them?
        1. +1
          12 November 2019 11: 41
          Quote: bk0010
          And why did they so want to frustrate his plans? What is joy to them?

          But because the Minister of Defense and General Staff considered AB instrument of imperialist aggression and were held captive by illusions about the KVVP and coastal aviation.
          And consistently all the attempts of the Navy to acquire a full-fledged AB to cover its naval formations were drowned, slipping something indecent instead of it. Through the efforts of Ustinov, pr. 1160 and 1153 were killed, instead of which TAVKR were imposed on the fleet from their KVVP "defense of the mast". And this despite the fact that the Navy in the construction of full-fledged AV was able to enlist the support of its eternal enemy - Ministry of the Industry (Butoma went to meet the fleet). Through the efforts of Amelko, a ready-made catapult was killed - and Kuznetsov lost even the theoretical possibility of basing the AWACS aircraft. Through the efforts of Ustinov and Amelko, the 1143.5 air group was reduced to KVVP - but then the aviation design bureaus, which rolled out the MiG-29 and Su-27 with their shortened take-off, were kicked out.
          In general, if it had not been for the efforts of the Moscow Region and the General Staff, then pr.1143 would have ended on the second building, and then the fleet would have received an atomic AB similar to 1143.7.
  19. AAK
    0
    9 November 2019 19: 06
    Of the well-known Soviet projects, the UDC would be easiest to build on the basis of the Moscow / Leningrad helicopter-carrying cruisers, there it was enough to seriously rework the bow, make the central "island" Already and shift to the starboard side, install two lifts, and the cutout in the stern to be replaced with a latchport
    1. 0
      10 November 2019 10: 47
      From my amateur point of view, on the basis of project 1123 one could even try to make a multi-purpose ship depending on the composition of the helicopter wing (anti-submarine or landing) and the loading of the docking camera (landing boats or, say, minesweepers).
  20. 0
    9 November 2019 20: 44
    The Ka-27 is not eternal, we need to think about replacing them in the future. It is necessary to create an analogue of the SH-53, adapt the Zhuk radar for the Ka-52, "teach" the avionics of all shipborne helicopters to use the Kh-35 Uranus anti-ship missile system or better. But the UDC is very necessary, IMHO.
  21. -1
    9 November 2019 23: 40
    Isn't it easier to buy in China? If you need fast what they only need to show a photo and in a month they can take a copy laughing
    Buy a license to practice crying
    If you don’t need to quickly, then you can draw the drawings yourself laughing
    1. -2
      10 November 2019 23: 48
      I did not notice your post and published your own - the same ...
      So, I think, it will be.
  22. -2
    10 November 2019 23: 46
    The best solution: buy from China.
    Make barter, in exchange for raw materials or Russian military equipment.
    1. -2
      11 November 2019 19: 51
      It’s not necessary to know so far, so they don’t go to the printer what
      Or for political reasons it’s not comme il faut from China to order, the sailors will not learn Chinese instructions laughing

"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), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“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 Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"