The construction of universal landing ships for the Russian Navy


Model of UDC "Surf"


This year, the Russian Navy is waiting for a joyful event: the laying and construction of two UDCs of the Surf project at the Zaliv plant in Kerch should begin. In the second half of the 2020s, the Navy should receive two UDCs: Sevastopol and Vladivostok.

The exact characteristics of the new project are still unknown. The approximate data are as follows: the total displacement of the ship is 28 tons; full speed - 000 knots; cruising range - 22 nautical miles; autonomy - 6000 days; crew - 60 people, in addition: up to 320 marines, up to 900 units of military equipment, up to 50 landing boats in the dock chamber; air wing: more than 6 landing helicopters Ka-20, anti-submarine Ka-29, or attack Ka-27K.

News really good. The shipbuilding industry receives a new large order; there will also be work for helicopter manufacturers. For the first time since Soviet times, domestic shipbuilding received an order for the construction of such large vessels for the Navy.

This article discusses both domestic UDC projects and foreign experience, comprehends the concept of using such ships as part of the Russian Navy and foreign countries.

UDC: foreign experience


USA

The United States as the main maritime power today has the largest fleet of UDC, as well as experience in their design, construction and operation. To date, the U.S. Navy used 3 types of UDC.


UDC type "Tarava"

The first of them were UDK type "Tarava" built in 1971-1978. These ships had a total displacement of about 40 tons; engines - steam turbine unit with a capacity of 000 hp; speed up to 70 knots; cruising range - 000 nautical miles; crew - 24 people; landing - 10 people of the Marine Corps. Staffing aviation The group provides for the presence of 16 Tarava-type ships on board 46 CH-6D Sea King helicopters, 53 CH-4D Sea Stallion helicopters and 1 UH-43N helicopters. The maximum possible number of aircraft on board is XNUMX units.


UDC type "Uosp"

Next in the American fleet steel UDC type "Uosp". These ships were built from 1987 to 2009. A total of 8 ships were built. Characteristics of Uosp "Uosp": total displacement - 40 532 tons; engines - 2 steam and 2 gas turbines with a capacity of 70 hp; maximum speed - 000 knots; cruising range - 24 nautical miles; crew - 9500 people and 1147 people of the marine corps; air wing - 1893 - 30 CH-32 helicopters, 46 - 6 AV-8B aircraft or up to 8 CH-46 helicopters or 46 AV-20B aircraft.


UDC type "America"

The latest project under construction now is the UDC of the America type, which has the following characteristics: total displacement - 45 tons; engines - 700 GTU General Electric with a capacity of 2 hp; maximum speed - more than 70 knots; cruising range - 000 nautical miles; crew - 22 people; landing - 9500 marines; air wing - up to 1059 helicopters and aircraft, or 1871 F-29B fighters.

Japan


Izumo-class helicopter destroyer

The Japanese Navy is armed with 2 types of UDC (here they are called destroyer-helicopter carriers). The first type is the Izumo helicopter destroyers. Total displacement - 27 tons; engines - 000 GTU General Electric with a capacity of 4 hp; speed - 112 knots; crew - 000 people and 30 landing personnel; air group - up to 470 aircraft (helicopters, convertiplanes, fighters).


Hyuga-class destroyer

The second type is the Hyuga destroyers. Total displacement - 18 tons; General Electric engines with a capacity of 000 hp.; maximum speed - 100 knots; crew - 000 people; landing - 30 people; wing - 370 helicopters.

France


UDC of type “Mistral”

The French Navy has the Mistral type UDCs well known to us. These ships have a total displacement of 32 tons; Engines: 300 Wärtsilä 3V16 diesel generators (32 MW), 6,2 Wärtsilä 1V18 diesel generator (200 MW), 3,3 Alstom Mermaid rotary-column speakers (2 MW); total engine power - 7 hp; speed - 20 knots; cruising range - 400 nautical miles; crew - 19 people; landing - up to 10 marines; air wing - 700 heavy or 160 light helicopters.

United Kingdom


Helicopter landing ship dock HMS Albion (L14)

Helicopter landing ship dock Dock HMS Albion (L14). Total displacement - 18 tons; engines - 500 diesel engines with a total capacity of 4 hp; speed - 21 knots; cruising range - 213 18 miles; crew - 8 people; air wing - 600 Sea King helicopters MK 325.

China

The construction of universal landing ships for the Russian Navy

UDC of project 071 of the Qinchenshan type

UDC of project 071 of the Qinchenshan type. Standard displacement of 19 tons; engines - 000 diesel engines with a total capacity of 4 hp; maximum speed - 47 knots; range - 200 km; landing - 20 people; air wing - 11 Z-000 helicopters.

Spain


UDC Juan Carlos I

UDC Juan Carlos I. Displacement - 27 tons; engines - diesel-electric propulsion system with a total capacity of 079 hp; speed - 30 knots; cruising range - 000 nautical miles; crew - 21 people; landing - 9000 marines; air group - up to 900 planes and helicopters.

Netherlands


UDC type "Rotterdam"


The ship has a normal displacement of 12 tons. The power plant is based on four Stork Wärtsilä 750SW12 diesel generators with a total capacity of 28 MW. Generators supply electricity to four electric motors with a total capacity of 14,6 MW. Electric motors are connected with two propellers, two for each screw. In the bow of the ship there is a bow thruster. Such a power plant allows the landing ship to reach speeds of up to 12 knots.

Cruising range at an economic speed of 12 knots - up to 6000 miles. The crew is 128 people. Troopers - 600 Marines. If necessary, this landing ship can carry over 30 tanks or up to 170 armored personnel carriers. Air wing - from 4 to 6 helicopters.

UDC: domestic experience


The USSR did not build the UDC, however, it designed as an answer to the American UDC “Tarava”. We are talking about the UDC project 11780. These ships were supposed to have a normal displacement of 25 tons; as engines, a boiler turbine plant with a capacity of 000 hp was assumed; maximum speed - 180 knots; cruising range - 000 nautical miles; landing - 30 people, up to 8000 tanks; wing: landing option - 1000 Ka-40 or anti-submarine version - 12 Ka-29.


BDK project 1174 "Rhino"

It is also worth saying a few words about those who went to the BDK series of project 1174 "Rhinoceros". These ships were built for the USSR Navy in 1973-1978. They had a total displacement of 14 tons; engines - 060 gas turbines with a total capacity of 2 hp; speed - 36 knots; cruising range - 000 nautical miles; crew of 20 people; landing - up to 7500 people, up to 239 PT-500 tanks, or 50 armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, or up to 76 vehicles; air wing - 80 Ka-120 helicopters.

UDC Construction: Pitfalls


As can be seen from international experience and from the experience of the USSR, UDC were widely used and are used in fleets around the world. In this context, the desire of the Russian Navy to have such ships in service is quite understandable.

UDC can be used:
• for landing on the enemy’s coast;
• as a command ship;
• as a light aircraft carrier;
• as a hospital ship;
• as a ship of strategic projection of force;
• as a floating airfield for anti-submarine helicopters.

Such multifunctionality evokes sympathy for ships of this type, however, there are pitfalls in the construction of such ships for the Russian Navy.

1. Is industry capable of overpowering the construction of these ships? Is the Gulf Shipyard ready to build such large ships in an acceptable time? Given the novelty of the project, ten years for the construction of ships seems to be a very realistic term.

2. What engines will these ships run on? There is only one candidate here - the Rybinsk Saturn, where the production of gas turbines for frigates of project 22350 has just begun. Will the enterprise be able to ensure timely delivery of engines for UDC? Will there be a delay in the supply of engines for frigates?

3. UDC at sea requires reliable air defense and anti-aircraft defense. This means that each UDC in combat conditions must be accompanied by ships with modern and long-range air defense systems, anti-submarine ships, as well as several submarines. Is our Navy able to provide such an escort for UDC "Surf"?

4. Given the shortage of ships of rank 1-2, is it justified to build UDCs, which require engines with which there is already a shortage, occupy a place on the slipway, absorb money? Isn't it better to order additional frigates of project 22350 or 11356P or corvettes of project 20380?

5. What is the tactical use of these ships in the Russian Navy? Where are we going to land? What ship groups to lead? Where to project the strength of our Navy?

conclusions


UDC - a widespread type of ship in different fleets of the world. The design decisions and performance characteristics of ships used in their design are varied. In size, they can vary from relatively small: UDC type "Rotterdam" or BDK project 1174 to the size of a light aircraft carrier, such as UDC "America". The propulsion systems on these ships are also diverse: diesel, diesel-electric, gas turbine.

The most interesting experience of the United States in the construction of UDC, since they are already operating the third generation of such ships. Since the 1970s, Americans have been building the same type of UDC with almost the same size, speed, range, power plant capacity, and airborne landing capability. The changes are mainly made by engines (replacing a steam turbine installation at a gas turbine) and an aircraft wing, replenished with new types of aircraft. The use of UDC in the NATO fleets is quite obvious and leaves no doubt. For the United States and its allies, UDC is an offensive weapon, which can be used in all areas of the oceans, reliably covered by a huge fleet of NK and submarines. But what about Russia?

There are few doubts that our industry will be able to build such ships. Most likely, with proper financing in ten years we will receive these ships. Engines for them can build Rybinsk "Saturn", it is possible, based on units for frigates of project 22350.

As for the tactical use of these ships, it is not entirely clear. We, by and large, have nowhere to land an airborne assault; moreover, in the event of a conflict with a serious enemy, 900 men and a couple of dozen helicopters will not do the weather, but they themselves will be in a very vulnerable position. The Americans can provide their landing with a powerful cover from the sea, but we are not able to do this.

UDC at sea is a very vulnerable target and requires powerful air cover and from enemy submarines. For the Russian fleet, allocating such an escort for UDC is now a difficult task.

The only function that UDC “Surf” can unambiguously perform is the function of a floating airfield for PLO helicopters.

Perhaps the best solution would be to postpone the construction of the UDC for ten years and now concentrate on saturating the fleet with ships of 1-2 ranks, multipurpose nuclear submarines and diesel-electric submarines and only after solving this problem proceed with the construction of large aircraft-carrying ships. However, we are not looking for easy ways.

It remains only to add that the construction project of UDC “Priboy” has its advantages: the shipbuilding industry receives the largest order in recent years and the opportunity to gain new competencies in the construction of large surface ships. Helicopter manufacturers also receive a new order, which is also good for our industry.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Thrifty April 14 2020 15: 10 New
    • 15
    • 14
    +1
    Now we are barely building ships, and in 10 years the Chinese will ask us to build them? We have a personnel shortage for specialists in the construction of such ships, and the succession of generations is not nearly visible! So, it was necessary to lay and build the UDC yesterday! By the time they reach 90 percent, they will get an engine!
    1. Shadow041 April 14 2020 16: 25 New
      • 13
      • 4
      +9
      We have a shortage of staff for the position of managers. There are many who want to command, but their abilities are far behind desire ... Something when the Mistrals bought agreed to pay the workers French salaries, and at domestic enterprises the equipment was old, if not antediluvian, and the workers live in poverty. ..It is natural that the overwhelming majority of hard workers are pensioners and there is no change, since living on a salary + pension is still somehow possible, but living on a single locksmith's salary is no longer realistic ... and if it’s real, it’s very hungry ... You need make youth go la to factories, and her salary of 15 - 20 thousand rubles per month for heavy dirty, not prestigious work can not be lured ...
      1. Thrifty April 14 2020 17: 00 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Shadow041 - over the past years, many hard workers hurt or retired, or died! And, for the Mistral, we built only Stern - that is, part of the ship! And, between the construction of the part and the entire ship, the difference seems to be not only in size!
      2. EvilLion April 16 2020 10: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You are funny. Do you think that a plant that needs a worker, in the event of personnel starvation, will not begin to increase the supply of salaries? Find a good welder or crane operator right now, and for another 15-20k.
    2. bayard April 14 2020 17: 56 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Our industry really did not build such ships, but was planning to build (Mistral). A set of documentation for them was preserved and could be taken as a basis. GEM - from 22350, or 22350M (purely gas turbine). At the price they will come out approximately like frigates 22350-100 billion rubles for two ships. In Kerch, slipways and a huge dock make it possible to build even full-fledged aircraft carriers, and before that Soviet supertankers and lighter carriers (even one nuclear) were built there. The whole question is personnel and technical equipment.
      And the main misfortune and scourge of modern domestic capitalism is theft. Theft of allocated funds and disruption of orders ... Requires tight control and support of the project from the very top.
      The potential of the “Gulf” for the future is large - it may become the second, or maybe the first (in terms of time) superflight of Russia, but doubts remain.
      Doubts about the sufficient competence of the contractor (they never built large ships and did not possess such large capacities), will they cope. Will the existing equipment and technical equipment allow normal construction? After all, the shipyard was looted during the period of Ukrainian rule ... She even owned one of the main swindlers - Poroshenko ... About the technical re-equipment of the shipyard under such a serious order, nothing has been heard yet, and people are leaving from there with resentment - they "steal." Such powerful bridge cranes as Zvezda in Bolshoy Kamen would not have prevented from “Gulf” ... and just enough trained personnel who will be paid a good salary for hard work ... and not withdraw funds to the offshore portraying several years "violent activity" followed by a retreat to the West.
      Need control and support of the project.
      Including - the prosecutor.
      1. APASUS April 14 2020 22: 57 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: bayard
        And the main misfortune and scourge of modern domestic capitalism is theft.

        Not theft, but mediocre management! (clan management system, daughters, uncles, aunts, classmates and relatives of a lower rank)
        Theft will probably be a consequence!
        1. bayard April 15 2020 00: 52 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: APASUS
          Not theft, but mediocre management! (clan management system, daughters, uncles, aunts, classmates and relatives of a lower rank)

          And that too. Every little official, children will certainly become geniuses in business and public administration yes . But at the head of everything, IT is money-grubbing realized in the theft of state resources and corruption. bully
          And when it is allowed to steal without risk of responsibility, then the motivation to work honestly and with dedication ... evaporates like steam from dew under the first rays of the rising sun of financial prosperity ... at the civil service and government contracts.
      2. Revolver April 15 2020 19: 03 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        It would not hurt to pay for gas debts to shake the shipyards in Nikolaev from Ukraine. And whoever is the boss chooses orders, at least UDC, at least even atomic aircraft carriers. And which is typical, it will cost less than in Russia, due to cheaper labor. Do not hesitate in the workers, they will work hard to earn real money, there will be neither time nor effort, and most importantly moods with a Download from a pan on his head. Even if there are several sakuns, they will not be fired for long - capitalism, s.
        1. bayard April 15 2020 21: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Nagan
          It would not hurt to pay for gas debts to shake the shipyards in Nikolaev from Ukraine.

          A lot of things got in the way. And not just for debts. The Russian businessman bought them at one time and wanted to build something (even under Yanukovych) ... but they did not give him.
          They killed.
          The widow sold the shares to his friend. He, too, wanted something there, but they told him - "we will not let us build." He hired security, guard the asset and ... everything ... I don’t know the sequel. Responsible for keeping the asset (was for 2014) of each other of my friend. That's why I know the story.
          And still Nikolaev "Zorya - Mashproekt" did not ship the power plant for frigates 22350 (two sets), already paid by Russia.
          Nationalization of the Nikolaev shipyards is possible ONLY after the final solution of the Ukrainian question.
          1. Revolver April 16 2020 00: 15 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: bayard
            Nationalization of the Nikolaev shipyards is possible ONLY after the final solution of the Ukrainian question.

            I hope he dares. But when and how? I personally do not presume to predict.
        2. ZAV69 April 15 2020 23: 36 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Nagan
          It would not hurt to pay for gas debts

          Yes, but for some reason, Gazprom must ruin it for gas. The Stockholm court so decided ....
    3. EvilLion April 16 2020 10: 18 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Do you know that in the 1940th year the USSR fulfilled the plan for the production of T-34s by only 15%? Fifteen, Carl! Instead of 1000 tanks, only 150 were built. It is interesting that they would write on the Internet if they were then. And you can’t blame the “comprador elite”. Disruption of plans is, unfortunately, the rule, and to reach the level that of our manufacturers is demonstrated by Sukhoi plants, which have “drying” broken at the end of the year, consider the first small breakdown in 10 years, you can only work, not whine comments.
  2. Ross xnumx April 14 2020 15: 17 New
    • 6
    • 14
    -8
    It remains only to add that the construction project of UDC “Priboy” has its advantages:

    How beautiful everything is on paper and in layouts ... fellow One can only hope that the construction project of UDC "Surf" does not turn into a project of "Rotterdam" ...
    Judging by the terms of production and implementation of a promising program, it is necessary to think about the terms of being in the leadership of not only “nullified”, but also all “involved” ... Just first, we will deal with coronavirus, SP-2, bring water to Crimea, and there. .. fellow
    1. Blondy April 14 2020 16: 49 New
      • 8
      • 4
      +4
      Doubts seized me: wasn’t it the next one that drank all this, does it all start with very joyful propaganda? But can Kerch, in general, pull the construction of these UDCs? After Roscosmos already begin to blow into cold water.
      1. ccsr April 14 2020 18: 37 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        Quote: Blondy
        But can Kerch, in general, pull the construction of these UDCs?

        In fact, they built the largest domestic tankers and the nuclear lighter carrier Sevmorput, so that the plant’s capacities allow larger projects to be carried out with normal funding. It’s worse with personnel now, but they can be invited from other shipbuilding plants, including Ukrainian ones, if there aren’t enough of them.
    2. Doccor18 April 14 2020 17: 13 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Yes, we will definitely build ...
      But does the fleet need UDC now? Generally needed, of course?
      And now? When there is such a shortage of all the main classes of ships, from multi-purpose ships to frigates, I am silent about destroyers and aircraft carriers. Build first
      A couple of dozens of frigates, apl, a couple of aircraft carriers, albeit small ones, and only then take on a fishing rod.
      1. seti April 14 2020 17: 55 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        You forget where we will build. And we will build in the Russian Crimea on the Gulf factory killed by the country 4-4. So this project will give a new life to this, and not only this enterprise, jobs, modernization at last. A little shock our south. This project is needed - the main thing is to be completed and during the construction the Zaliv plant has gained strength and has grown stronger for new larger orders.
        1. Doccor18 April 14 2020 17: 59 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Well, all this is good, shipyards are needed. That's just what a penny it will cost ...
        2. Alexey RA April 14 2020 18: 47 New
          • 6
          • 2
          +4
          Quote: seti
          You forget where we will build. And we will build in the Russian Crimea on the Gulf factory killed by the country 4-4. So this project will give a new life to this, and not only this enterprise, jobs, modernization at last.

          That is, the main task is not to give the fleet ships, but to raise the plant? And could this be done on some less valuable and more developed project? wink
          1. seti April 14 2020 20: 02 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Quote: Alexey RA
            That is, the main task is not to give the fleet ships, but to raise the plant? And could this be done on some less valuable and more developed project? wink

            I believe that these two ships are needed by our fleet. Or maybe even more than two. Moreover, they will be useful and the Black Sea Fleet and Pacific Fleet. Therefore, they need to be built. The question was where to build ?!
            Indeed, of course, the choice of construction also matters. Do you disagree with this? We returned home a very large Soviet center for the construction of military and civilian ships with a huge dock. Yes, everyone there is in a deplorable state, but does that really mean that you don’t give a damn about all this? Yes, there will have to invest serious amounts, it is possible to bring specialists. To carry out modernization .. There is money in the country. There is a desire to produce. And the main thing is наш factory on our the earth. They work there our people. In principle, this enterprise is already undergoing modernization. Other shipyards are full of orders and they are overloaded. It is a fact. There are problems with components and power units. This is also a fact. But a few more years of downtime and this shipyard can finally degrade. My opinion is that the idea of ​​creating such large ships in this particular enterprise is not accidental. And this is only the first swallow. Need acceleration. Look how much this plant has produced over all its years .. I hope to create no less. With uv.
            1. Alexey RA April 15 2020 19: 16 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: seti
              Indeed, of course, the choice of construction also matters. Do you disagree with this?

              Absolutely agree. If the fleet really needs ships, then they need to be built where the factory is engaged in the construction of ships. And not own restoration at the expense of the customer.
              Remember how two battleships were laid at the 402 plant under construction? And how one of them was finally taken apart due to mass marriage?
              Quote: seti
              Yes, there will have to invest serious amounts, it is possible to bring specialists. Modernize ..

              Can I do it? before bookmarking ships? How was this done in Nikolaev in Soviet times?
          2. Peter is not the first April 14 2020 23: 09 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Yes, most likely the task of this order of UDC is to preserve the plant and the remaining competencies for the construction of ships of large displacement.
            But why not try on less valuable orders?
            So just this order, judging by its discussion, is not the most urgent and key for modern Russia and its fleet, and therefore, from the very beginning, the leadership understands that it will be built for a long and painful time, and by that time the mass production of engines will be debugged.
      2. Revolver April 16 2020 00: 23 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Doccor18
        A couple of dozens of frigates, apl, a couple of aircraft carriers, albeit small ones, and only then take on a fishing rod.

        UDC is an aircraft carrier for the poor (or, to put it mildly, a budget option).
        1. EvilLion April 16 2020 10: 23 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          UDC - in which case it will fit at least as a cargo ship.
  3. Igor Borisov_2 April 14 2020 15: 31 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I believe that it is still not correct to compare UDC and DVKD, and especially BDK. In addition to the aircraft component of the ships, the sea landing delivery vehicles are not indicated - DKA, DKVP .....
    1. tatarin1972 April 14 2020 16: 52 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      According to the old Soviet classification, the UDC of project 1174 "Rhinoceros" was considered a BDK, and the current BDK of project 775 belonged to the KFOR. On the photo of BDK "Mitrofan Moskalenko" Northern Fleet.
    2. Dmitry from Voronezh April 14 2020 16: 59 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      You're right. The article turned out to be devoted to landing ships in general.
  4. Scharnhorst April 14 2020 15: 38 New
    • 8
    • 2
    +6
    All the same, someday it is necessary to start, the BDK is rapidly aging. But I would start with a more modest project, such as the similar UDC "Rotterdam" or even a revised project 1174 "Rhinoceros". The only justification for adventurism is the use of PLO as helicopter carriers.
    1. Dmitry from Voronezh April 14 2020 16: 56 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Perhaps I, too, in the current situation, would stop at something like Rotterdam or 1174 Rhinoceros. True UDC has much more potential functions. Perhaps that is why our top military leadership is so eager to acquire such ships.
      1. EvilLion April 16 2020 10: 25 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        In fact, if the fleet does not have such a ship, then there is no experience of its operation in general. That is, the meaning may be in this, if you have to drive such products as a series, then there will be at least some idea of ​​them.
      2. Nemchinov Vl April 20 2020 18: 43 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        Perhaps that is why our top military leadership is so eager to acquire such ships.
        and possibly (?) that the USC leadership
        (led by Rohman) and at the instigation of the Northern PKB, is simply looking for opportunities, offer the government another “few bundles of paper” (or another 3-D model), how is a brand new project to get the maximum amount of budget money ?! The number of SPKB projects in recent years is very reminiscent of a cartoon about a dunno, who went out with the phrase “for no new rehearsal,” “no, I think it will look like that !!” ... "Leader", 22350M, "Surf", "Avalanche", "Manatee", 20386, 11711, etc. .... etc. It doesn’t matter that there is no serialization (!!), there is important newand not small, financing, for a new super project !!! But to get the ships, they are in no hurry - only the PROJECTS of the ships !! ...
      3. Nemchinov Vl April 20 2020 18: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        If hotels acquired ships, rather than ship designs, then in the country, as under Stalin, production capacities would increase. A center for offshore gas turbine engine building would be created, like Nikolaev Zarya-Mashproekt under the Union, which would undertake the production of gas turbine engines and gearboxes !! then shipbuilders would have something to build from !!! Money would be poured into the Taganrog Priboy and Ladoga in order to compensate for the plant for the production of HACs in Krasniy Luch (Lugansk Region) ... Under Beria, Kolomna would also get the maximum financing to quickly master 16 SD-500, (as a promising diesel engine for 10000 hp), and much more ... BUT ?! More important is the game of projects ?! .... The same 22350M, you can not invent it at all, but simply re-digitize 11560 (in a 3-D project) and re-equip today's weapons systems. After all, 1155 showed good seaworthiness (as a predecessor project), and now they want to modernize it on the example of "Shaposhnikov" ?!. Digit 11560, it was already under 64 cells of Poliment-Reduta (which was then still only in development), and it was already planned under 24 UVP UKKS, in the nose !!! If they do not fit 6 x 8 UKKS cells in width (which is unlikely, because on the 22350M (!) They just wanted it on the layout), you can also install 6 x 6 cells (?!), And inclined PUs as suggested by the site on the sides of the cabin "Agatmorinformsystem" (!) ...
  5. Arthur 85 April 14 2020 15: 40 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Yes, at least something to build. As the author wrote correctly, apart from the PLO, these ships can have no problem, but that’s good. Since they set up the PLARK, they need to be covered with something.
    1. Lannan Shi April 14 2020 16: 00 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      Quote: Arthur 85
      As the author wrote correctly, except for the PLO, these ships can have no problem

      Just suppose that tomorrow we need to land a landing. Well, let it be in Libya, or what kind of Ethiopia is there. If we can somehow organize air defense / anti-aircraft squadron squads, then how can we support the marines on the shore? To hit with calibers for each sneeze is somewhat problematic. And the infantry with a couple of dozen mortars, and a battery of howitzers, will carry out both the marines and the BDK at the landing stage. You just have nothing to fight with them. But 15-20 attack helicopters - an argument. It would be an argument for half the countries of the world. UDC is quite a complete tool for regional conflicts.
      1. Lopatov April 14 2020 16: 13 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: Lannan Shi
        And the infantry with a couple of dozen mortars, and a battery of howitzers, will carry out both the marines and the BDK at the landing stage.

        The Marines have both mortars and howitzers.
        In addition, the sailors are not only "calibers"
        The article refers to "Rhino", and this is the MLRS with a firing range of 20.7 km and 2 76 mm guns with a range of 15 km
        1. Lannan Shi April 14 2020 17: 43 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          Quote: Spade
          The Marines have both mortars and howitzers.

          They are first planted, and then they begin to work. And the BDK, with its speed, will be under the influence of artillery and 10-15 minutes of mortars for almost an hour. With its size, maneuverability and security ... It will hurt.
          Quote: Spade
          these are MLRS launchers with a firing range of 20.7 km and 2 76 mm guns with a range of 15 km

          And the fire of the floor. You can smoke a howitzer / mortar standing in a hollow before the second coming. In addition, you still find them from the ship then.
          1. Lopatov April 14 2020 18: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Lannan Shi
            They are first planted, and then they begin to work.

            Well...
            You wrote it yourself
            Quote: Lannan Shi
            then marines than shore support?

            Marines on the shore. With mortars and howitzers
            You already decide where you have these "Marines", on ships or on the beach.
            1. Lannan Shi April 14 2020 18: 33 New
              • 5
              • 5
              0
              Quote: Spade
              You already decide where you have these "Marines", on ships or on the beach.

              Well, not "ashore", but "along the shore." However, they will have to be supported on the shore. The capacity is that BDK, that UDC will not allow you to fire at least some serious amount of people and equipment. And apart from aviation, the landing will be very sweet. Well, Syria, for example, without hmemi, Assad, Xer and Hezbollah troops. How long will one battalion survive, albeit with armor, but without air support? A day or two. We have serious problems with the only aircraft carrier. At the exit we have. BDK, just like a landing ship, can be used within reach from our airfields. That is, before the start of a nuclear war there is practically nowhere. Finland with Sweden, yes Ukraine with Georgia. Actually everything. The rest is either NATO or nuclear. UDC, however, if not with 2-3 helicopters but more serious, allows you to operate even in the Southern Hemisphere. It is clear that it is not against any opponent, but the possibilities are still an order of magnitude wider than that of the BDK. The only thing that follows UDC is the need for full-fledged supply transports.
              1. Lopatov April 14 2020 18: 39 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Lannan Shi
                One battalion will survive long

                And what prevents not one battalion from landing, but as it should be?

                Quote: Lannan Shi
                UDC is, if not with 2-3 helicopters, but more serious

                they still cannot provide sufficient support.
                Need an aircraft carrier.
                1. Lannan Shi April 14 2020 19: 36 New
                  • 6
                  • 3
                  +3
                  Quote: Spade
                  And what prevents not one battalion from landing, but as it should be?

                  All of our BDKs, at once, will be dragged within 3.5-4 thousand troops and units up to 350 vehicles. Well, plus or minus. Too lazy to accurately calculate. The team is roughly speaking. After which, for a couple of weeks - a month, the landing remains presented to itself. Eat in general then. Even in some sort of Uruguay.
                  Quote: Spade
                  they still cannot provide sufficient support.

                  What is considered sufficient? In Panama, for example, aviation as a class is absent, as well as air defense. Even 15-20 percussion pieces there will be darkness and horror. Against light infantry with interspersed armor and artifacts .... And it is likely to make it possible to hold the bridgehead and gain time for the transfer of forces in sufficient numbers
                  I'm not saying that a pair of UDC is a mega-weapon that will allow the United States to bend. But they will significantly expand the capabilities of the Navy .. Especially in local conflicts.
                  Quote: Spade
                  Need an aircraft carrier.

                  Who would argue, but I will not. If only in the sense that one is not needed, but 2 is needed. But while they are not there, it’s better to have a couple of helicopter carriers than nothing at all. Not this way?
                  1. Lopatov April 14 2020 20: 41 New
                    • 4
                    • 1
                    +3
                    Quote: Lannan Shi
                    Even 15-20 percussion pieces there will be darkness and horror.

                    Fear and horror will be overcome even before the Americans help the Panamanians to get hold of everything.
                    Helicopter attack helicopters helped Ukrainians?

                    Quote: Lannan Shi
                    I'm not saying that a pair of UDC is a mega-weapon that will allow the United States to bend. But they will significantly expand the capabilities of the Navy.

                    UDC is the purchase of an automobile audio system "because there is not enough money for a car"
                    1. Lannan Shi April 14 2020 21: 13 New
                      • 3
                      • 2
                      +1
                      Quote: Spade
                      Fear and horror will be overcome even before the Americans help the Panamanians to get hold of everything.

                      Well then, in principle, DCs are not needed. Neither UDC nor BDK. For the Americans and RCC will drive, and the submarine. and burki, in quantities of commodity. And the marines are not needed. Against them, and Abrams will be driven, and F-16.
                      Quote: Spade
                      Helicopter attack helicopters helped Ukrainians?

                      Tanks did not help them either. Not an argument.
                      Quote: Spade
                      UDC is the purchase of an automobile audio system "because there is not enough money for a car"

                      Rather, it is the purchase of a pickup SUV, instead of a caterpillar all-terrain vehicle and a KAMAZ. I do not argue. And they will carry less cargo than a dump truck, and it will not climb into the swamp, like an all-terrain vehicle. But ... But still, an order of magnitude better than a city puzoterka with a clearance of 5 cm and a carrying capacity of a driver and a bag of potatoes.
                      And so ... I propose to complete the argument. We just have different views on this type of boat)
        2. donavi49 April 14 2020 17: 47 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Well, climbing into the support zone is absolutely the same for any large ship. For on its two MLRS packages, in the depths of defense there is its own battery of howitzers, and even the anti-ship missiles are deployed. He himself will not really decide anything with these two MLRS packages and 3 inch cannons.

          Again, if we take the western (now dominant) school, which China itself is actively copying, the paratrooper should have a minimum of inappropriate load. That is, every meter, every ton should be given to the capabilities of the air group, amphibious forces or marines / dowry / convertible areas.

          Own armament, anti-piracy, anti-shahidny, and the last frontier of defense against attacks by anti-ship missiles / aircraft (productive air defense systems MD).

          All these guns, MLRS and other air defense systems DB / KR = not a target waste of displacement and volume of the ship.
          1. Lopatov April 14 2020 18: 13 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: donavi49
            For his two MLRS packages

            Uh ... one battalion to seize a bridgehead on the coast is somewhat arrogant

            Quote: donavi49
            Again, if we take the western (now dominant) school, which China itself is actively copying, the paratrooper should have a minimum of inappropriate load. That is, every meter, every ton should be given to the capabilities of the air group, amphibious forces or marines / dowry / convertible areas.

            I think the air group eats a lot more "every meter, every ton"
            1. donavi49 April 14 2020 19: 26 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Well, here are all the modern UDC - they have no serious weapons. Everything is given to the main load.

              If you take the Chinese, there are several installations of their RIM-116 variant (for 24 MD SAMs), 11 MZA barrels and their universal launchers for jamming / depth charges:


              If you take Carlos - the best UDC of the last generation for today, before entering Bougainville and Trieste for sure (for America and Tripoli without dock cameras). 8 autonomous cannon and machine gun turrets from martyrs. Interference settings. Reserved space for a small runway under ESSM or 2 rotary installations on the same rocket.


              America - Rotary Units for ESSM, RIM-116 and Volcanoes


              The newest European is Trieste, the most toothy. 2 VPU Silver of 8 cells under Aster15 or x2 of their new promising SAM SAM MDM. 3 antiachoid guns KVA. And they abandoned the goalkeepers in favor of the latest version of Melara 76 + a rich family of shells for her. However, they position them as air defense - one above the docking camera and two in the nose sponsons.


              In general, for the last generation, the traits of all are the maximization of the air group, a displacement of 33 - 000 tons. Here Mistral already seems an outdated kid wink .
              1. Lopatov April 14 2020 20: 46 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                The marines of none of the listed countries have the same tasks as the Russian.
                So why blindly follow fashion?
                1. donavi49 April 15 2020 07: 58 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  And what are the tasks of the Russian marines, which others do not have? Take the Tsar Grad by storm? Landing in New York?

                  In any case, there will be no serious unit from the UDC in the battle of fleets-fleet-aviation. It will soon be a burden. The approach to the shore in the BDK style = death. Especially today. When even third-world countries, even participants in civil wars such as PNS / LNA, actively use active-reactive and guided missiles for 152 / 155mm howitzers.

                  For a relatively peaceful service - all the same, an escort will have to be allocated, at least one 11356.
      2. Vadim237 April 14 2020 17: 04 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Strategic aviation is available - in one flight, 800 cruise missiles can land on any country, and then, when air defense is suppressed, it can carry out carpet bombing of the coast.
      3. EvilLion April 16 2020 10: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        There, the question will quickly go about creating a full-fledged air base. Although UDC, of ​​course, can help, at least, with its capacity.
  6. Zaurbek April 14 2020 15: 43 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    There are still full-time functions, hospital functions ..... navigation control .... evacuation, VTOL-based ...
    1. Dmitry from Voronezh April 14 2020 16: 47 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      I agree. Especially with regard to VTOL. If we had such machines in the series, UDC could become light aircraft carriers. An example is the Spanish UDC "Juan Carlos I". But it just so happens (for good or not), we do not have VTOL, even in the project.
  7. Igor Borisov_2 April 14 2020 15: 51 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: Scharnhorst
    All the same, someday it is necessary to start, the BDK is rapidly aging. But I would start with a more modest project, such as the similar UDC "Rotterdam" or even a revised project 1174 "Rhinoceros". The only justification for adventurism is the use of PLO as helicopter carriers.


    I support. By the way, at the naval salon in St. Petersburg, after which it was decided to purchase the Mistral, there was a Witte de Witt dvd and the Dutch actively offered it to us. If they chose Comrade Rotterdam, maybe everything would be different from the French .......
    1. DMB 75 April 14 2020 16: 03 New
      • 11
      • 1
      +10
      Forgive me, I don’t think. It was a bad idea - Holland is one of the founding countries of NATO. There would be exactly the same situevina ... If you really had to buy it, then obviously it was not from the countries of NATO members. And in a good way, we should have would be built in "fat zero", as if in the "Syrian express" would be useful ..
      1. Genry April 14 2020 17: 37 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        Quote: DMB 75
        as if in the "Syrian express" would be useful ..

        On the Syrian express, warships are completely unnecessary. Expeditionary transports are needed here, with the possibility of entering / leaving equipment from the pier along ramps to different levels (floors).
  8. rocket757 April 14 2020 15: 57 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    All the same, these are ships of the typical "colonial fleet"!
    The question always arises, why?
    We have nothing to cover underwater missile carriers! And this is the most important part of the vigorous triad, the shield and sword of the power!
    1. Wiruz April 14 2020 16: 15 New
      • 11
      • 3
      +8
      Here I disagree with you from the word "completely." But laziness once again to write what has already been said more than once. In short, then:
      Military conflict with Georgia in 2008. What ships, except for "Moscow" were involved in it? A couple of RTOs and half-dead BDK? Now imagine the same conflict, but if Russia has full-fledged universal landing ships capable of landing several battalions of marine corps with equipment on the enemy’s coast, covering the whole thing from the air. Able, through the air, to carry out landing inland enemy territory.
      Syrian Express. Yes, basically, landing ships only work as bulk carriers. Only they are exhausted, both morally and physically. That is why we had to urgently purchase civilian cargo ships and launch them under the Andreevsky Flag. It is good that Syrian government forces control the coast. And if not?
      I completely agree with you that our missile carriers enter the sea without proper cover, we remember, for these purposes, back in 2009, the then commander-in-chief of the destroyers promised to build (but what he did not promise, of course). But still it would be wrong, I believe, to give all the priority to only one direction of the development of the fleet. I remember that the union also once thought that aircraft carriers and UDCs did not need to be built; grandfather Lenin would not have approved of this. But during the Caribbean crisis, it became clear that there were no stupid ships to demonstrate power (which is an important task, it turns out). It was then necessary to lay the flag on the submarines, which smacked of suicidal nonsense hi
      1. tatarin1972 April 14 2020 16: 58 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Why are BDK half-dead? The same BDK now constantly go to Syria, the very "Syrian Express."
        1. donavi49 April 14 2020 17: 42 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Well, they fly out regularly. And such a run does not make them stronger and younger. Plus there are problems repairing systems, especially engines. The Zgoda-Sulzer plant has long been destroyed, that is, redesigned. Native spare parts are not endless. According to the plans and standards of the same Navy of the USSR, almost the entire current composition of the BDK should have been melted into pans for a long time. Spare parts did at that time if that.
          1. tatarin1972 April 14 2020 17: 58 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            If they stand, it will be even worse. Project 775 was built in my opinion in Gdansk, and they now prevail in the Navy. I don’t know about ZiPam and spare parts, I went to them for a long time, at the time of the State, and even then a “passenger”.
      2. rocket757 April 14 2020 17: 52 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Who are you going to conquer ?? Whatever is a banana republic?
        Well, let’s bring our little populated coast on distant frontiers as an organization, such as suddenly a thief will penetrate there in an amount more than border guards can repel !!! And then there are big doubts that the hell will get in there, they are not de / B / il, in the end.
        These .... ships will not approach the shores of a serious enemy, without a full-fledged operation .... and further, as it should be in such cases.
        It’s easy to solve problems according to their importance at a given time.
        What is the main threat to us at the moment? Obstacle to the possibility of retaliating a vigorous strike !!! This is in the first place, it is tantamount to be able to detect and gouge the underwater / surface forces of the aggressor !!! Then all the other tasks.
        Properly prioritized, just.
        1. rudolff April 14 2020 18: 59 New
          • 8
          • 1
          +7
          But what if there is a sharp aggravation of the situation around Kaliningrad and an urgent transfer of military units with heavy equipment is required? And what if the Moldovan Armed Forces together with the Ukrainian want to disarm our peacekeepers in Transnistria? What if a second Saakashvili comes to power in Georgia, who tries to return Abkhazia back? And if any of our embassies in the Mediterranean are again under siege? And the Kuril Islands? What about Syria? There are dozens and dozens of such “ifs,” when UDK is useful to us.
          1. rocket757 April 14 2020 19: 18 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            Quote: rudolff
            Well, if suddenly a sharp aggravation of the situation around Kaliningrad is required

            What is required? Another "Tallinn Fleet Crossing" get ??? Learn history, study TVD! even explain nothing ...
            Quote: rudolff
            And if suddenly the Moldavian Armed Forces together with the Ukrainian want to disarm our peacekeepers

            Everything can \ cannot be. There are various plans for resolving crisis situations.
            Ships for landing operations on the coast should be, but this is not a priority problem.
            1. rudolff April 14 2020 19: 24 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              This is one of the priority tasks that should have been solved yesterday.
          2. Liam April 14 2020 19: 24 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            UDC certainly needed but
            Quote: rudolff
            And what if the Moldovan Armed Forces together with the Ukrainian want to disarm our peacekeepers in Transnistria?

            Obviously not in this case. There is essentially no one to disarm)
            1. rudolff April 14 2020 19: 40 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              That is, the battalion of peacekeepers, is this not this case?
              1. Liam April 14 2020 19: 46 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                You are quite an experienced person to know that the magnificent title of the Battalion of peacekeepers can mean both a powerful military unit and an uncomfortable group of people in uniform.
                In the PMR, this is the second case. Guess from whom this group is formed, when was the last time the drugs were rotated there and in what ways. Starting from 2014)
                1. rudolff April 14 2020 19: 50 New
                  • 5
                  • 1
                  +4
                  Even if locals are recruited there, this does not change anything. They are citizens of Russia and the Russian battalion.
                  1. Liam April 14 2020 19: 52 New
                    • 2
                    • 2
                    0
                    Well, I’m not saying that they are not there. I’m saying that they are not combat-ready. The Russian passport does not endow the recipient with military skills and does not put together military units
      3. Alexey RA April 14 2020 18: 59 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Wiruz
        Now imagine the same conflict, but if Russia has full-fledged universal landing ships capable of landing several battalions of marine corps with equipment on the enemy’s coast, covering the whole thing from the air. Able, through the air, to carry out landing inland enemy territory.

        What for? It’s easier to prepare a couple of dshbrs for less money - and they will do the same. The entire coast of Georgia is within the radius of a helicopter flight from Gudauta. Less than an hour - and the landing is in place.
    2. ccsr April 14 2020 18: 49 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: rocket757
      All the same, these are ships of the typical "colonial fleet"!
      The question always arises, why?

      Our "strategists" will never answer this question - both forum and general staff. I always wanted to know which wise guy needed such ships, but I think that we will never know the ideologist of the construction of such equipment. Although I am sure that there are reports to the government signed by the top military leaders, which indicated the need for procurement of the Mistral, I would very much like to know that these reports were prepared by order or on a personal initiative of the naval.
      But since then everything was decided unambiguously, then I consider the construction of these ships to be a boon for domestic shipbuilders - even though the benefits are obvious. What does this give the fleet and the country - hell knows ...
      1. rocket757 April 14 2020 19: 26 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Build later, when the priority tasks are at least somehow solved. In the Far East, they will not be completely redundant, as it seems to me. The coastline there is really big without proper protection / control. Having a well-equipped, mobile unit will not be superfluous.
        In the waters of the Baltic and the Black Sea, it is very doubtful, except to be able to send them somewhere far away? But then a fleet of power support and cover is needed! In short, one without the other is not effective.
        1. Dmitry from Voronezh April 14 2020 23: 47 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Yes, if ships like the UDC "Surf" are needed anywhere, then mainly in the Pacific Fleet
          1. rocket757 April 15 2020 08: 29 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            The argument is not about need / not need!
            Correctly prioritize. We need a fleet construction program and build ships according to this plan.
            1. ccsr April 15 2020 10: 40 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              Quote: rocket757
              The argument is not about need / not need!
              Correctly prioritize. We need a fleet construction program and build ships according to this plan.

              Before moving on to the armament program, it is first necessary to determine how we represent future military conflicts with our main and secondary opponents, and based on this, it is conceptual to determine what the fleet should be and what it will be in priority. And after that, while developing a new weapons program, plan the construction of various ships. At least that was what Soviet military science did when it formed the doctrine of a future war and determined priority weapon systems. Now this can only be sadly recalled, because after Serdyukovism we still have not recovered, and the quality of military knowledge of our Supreme leaves much to be desired, and the current Moscow Region is weak for its position.
              1. rocket757 April 15 2020 10: 52 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Military geniuses are rare. High-quality military planning is when politicians and leaders set a clear, understandable task for many years to come!
                Those. The military doctrine of the state is a joint decision of both the military and political leadership of the country!
                We set tasks for EVERYONE! And over time, it begins to emerge that we can’t do it, here / there we have nothing and something like ....
                And now the question is, and who apart from us everything goes smoothly, right according to plan, according to plan! Not every small thing, where there is nobody and nothing to count, but such small, as it were, serious guys?
                If you look closely, all and the difference in options, who and what did not work out!
                Anyway, this is not critical! Plans are changing, being finalized, corrected. Everything as usual.
                1. ccsr April 15 2020 13: 26 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  Quote: rocket757
                  Those. The military doctrine of the state is a joint decision of both the military and political leadership of the country!

                  Of course. Moreover, the military cannot be completely trusted, nor can their opinion be ignored, which is why we need fundamental science for these purposes, so that the best minds of the country calculate all possible options and the likelihood of their implementation.
                  Quote: rocket757
                  Plans are changing, being finalized, corrected. Everything as usual.

                  For this, a ten-year cycle of armament programs was envisaged with five-year adjustment during the implementation of the program itself - this was laid out in the days of the USSR, then the devil knew that, due to lack of funds. I think now we have again come to the past practice.
                  1. rocket757 April 15 2020 14: 25 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Many times they tried to tell me, to prove that planning is an obsolete phenomenon, a definition !!!
                    He instructed someone, proved that this is an erroneous opinion, and someone still believes that state planning is garbage .... in short, blessed are those who believe that the markets, business will solve everything! They also add here that state control is not needed anywhere and in any way ??? Ha, ha, ha ... not to convince, they have such a sect, the next.
                    1. ccsr April 15 2020 17: 40 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: rocket757
                      Many times they tried to tell me, to prove that planning is an obsolete phenomenon, a definition !!!

                      Such stupidity can be uttered only by homegrown menagers.
                      Quote: rocket757
                      Ha, ha, ha ... not to convince, they have such a sect, the next.

                      They should not be persuaded, but sent immediately and not have a serious conversation with them - to begin with, let them at least master the basics of higher education, and not in any sort of sharaga, but in a serious university.
                      1. rocket757 April 15 2020 17: 45 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        There are guys with education, in bread positions, BUT, they have a sect for entering a nickel, and for a way out ... but they don’t look for a way out, that's all.
        2. ccsr April 15 2020 10: 26 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: rocket757
          Having a well-equipped, mobile unit will not be superfluous.

          The most important question is how much the Americans will be afraid of them in order to invest in them such large funds that we already lack in our country. And here I can say with confidence - the presence of such ships does not change the balance in our confrontation with the United States, which means the idea arises whether we need it. But once the decision is made, we will consider that perhaps we will master serial construction, and we will find potential buyers abroad.
          1. rocket757 April 15 2020 10: 40 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            It’s not against anyone specifically, because how to sail somewhere, for some reason, it is to carry out expansion, and here we need a lot of strength, military and financial. Not our option from this point of view.
            The confrontation with the Yankees takes place in many areas, but the need, for us, to have a "colonial fleet" is not visible in any way for many reasons. Therefore, I propose to postpone the project for later, when such a need arises.
            1. ccsr April 15 2020 13: 18 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: rocket757
              Therefore, I propose to postpone the project for later, when such a need arises.

              I agree with your opinion, but apparently those who have already budgeted money for the construction of these ships in the budget for this fiscal year do not agree with him. So they need to be mastered, otherwise they will be returned to the treasury at the end of the year, and they will be given to the customer by cap.
              1. rocket757 April 15 2020 14: 18 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                The question is that the project is ready, plans are outlined and preparatory work has already begun?
                Then do everything according to plan. Let, in my opinion, not in time, but not in vain!
                I am not against such courts in general, there is a region where they will be in place and business, just right! Simply, in my opinion, this project could be implemented a bit later.
                But the option is to make a lot of them and then swim somewhere on them, to conquer someone ??? unacceptably.
                1. ccsr April 15 2020 17: 36 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Quote: rocket757
                  The question is that the project is ready, plans are outlined and preparatory work has already begun?

                  Not quite so - the budget was approved last year and the funding will go from the second quarter - I see the situation this way, that's why the bookmark is scheduled for May. The project was naturally developed earlier under another budget item.
                  Quote: rocket757
                  But the option is to make a lot of them and then swim somewhere on them, to conquer someone ??? unacceptably.

                  Now there can be no question of a larger-scale release - God forbid that these ships be built on time, taught people how to operate, conducted training and exercises, and there you look and come in handy.
                  So we will be optimistic and we will consider that the money was not spent in vain.
  9. Bashkirkhan April 14 2020 15: 58 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    They tried to disrupt the contract for helicopter carriers. The general director of Ak Bars Shipbuilding Corporation, Mistakhov, spent the night in March 2020 in a temporary detention center on Petrovka in a criminal case on a bribe for the approval in 2014 of the Ministry of Defense contracts for the supply of ships, instituted in 2017 based on the testimony of the head of the 2nd department department audit of the Russian Ministry of Defense Yuri Efimov, retired colonel. Efimov said that in 2014 Mistakhov turned to him and asked him not to underestimate the cost of future plant contracts with the Russian Defense Ministry, and most importantly, to coordinate them. At first, Mistakhov allegedly transferred a deposit of 30 million rubles, and a year later - another 35. The reason for the bribe was two state contracts concluded in 2014-2015 for the supply of components for anti-sabotage boats Grachonok. Mistakhov, already knowing about the criminal case, hinted at possible complications: "... There are other fears. It’s clear that now we are going to a different level. When they just thought about the corporation, they warned me: you will face certain pressure, you will have serious opponents."
    The judge ultimately decided to release Mistakhov in the courtroom, without any bail. The refusal of the petition to the investigators, who asked to send Mistakhov to a pre-trial detention center before April 27, 2020, the judge explained by the fact that the prosecution is based only on the testimony of one person. Mistakhov’s words in court “I lead a large team: 17 enterprises, 11 thousand people. Surprisingly! I was called yesterday. I thought it was just for questioning. Tomorrow I have a visit from Deputy Prime Minister Borisov Yuri Ivanovich, I am signing an agreement. I am signing a large of a contract worth more than 100 billion. Now I am preparing two ships on the Gulf. This is an event of Russian scale, there will be celebrations, the signing of the contract. It is scary for me if the design bureau that I have in my composition, and Avod will lose such a contract because their leader was in such a situation. I have a team of thousands. People would say: “It is because of him.” We initially fought for this contract, presented products, told which project is better "The whole of 2019 was spent on the fact that we defended and fought for this project with several bureaus and factories. And then it suddenly comes up that I should be arrested."
    More information on BUSINESS Online: https://www.business-gazeta.ru/article/460154
  10. Dronza April 14 2020 16: 01 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    It would be nice if only for the sake of running in opportunities and technologies.
  11. Azis April 14 2020 16: 06 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    They put it down, change the project, reload it, cut it, eventually cut it ... Well, in the article the terms were called streamlined -
    In the second half of the 2020s
    . Our chief shipbuilder (USC), even in civilian courts, shifts all the time to the right.
  12. Vladimir_2U April 14 2020 16: 07 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    A ship that can take away a breakthrough of military equipment and troops, land it one way or another and then support it from the air with fire and supplies, of course you need it!
    1. SVD68 April 14 2020 19: 36 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Carrying a breakthrough of equipment on one ship is very dangerous.
      1. Vladimir_2U April 14 2020 19: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        This is if you have only one breakthrough! And if more? )))
        1. SVD68 April 14 2020 19: 57 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Then we are the USA. :)
          1. Vladimir_2U April 14 2020 19: 58 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            By the number of tanks, even one and a half US! )
  13. Prisoner April 14 2020 16: 16 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    "This year, the Russian Navy is waiting for a joyful event: the bookmark should take place and construction begins ..." (c) Sounds like a mockery. what
  14. Avior April 14 2020 16: 43 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    . reliably covered by a huge fleet of NK and submarines. But what about Russia?

    What about Egypt?
    moreover, in the event of a conflict with a serious adversary

    Well this serious opponent was all given! A serious enemy does not directly climb, he has missiles with nuclear warheads.
    Without UDC, problems will be with a frivolous adversary.

    But, perhaps, at the first stage, build one smaller displacement, up to 16-18 thousand tons, based on 12-16 helicopters on board
    It will be inexpensive, practical and fast.
    Such a ship is quite capable of covering the area of ​​the nuclear submarine’s exit area - here’s the use against the notorious serious enemy, it is capable of delivering and supporting an airborne assault against frivolous ones — to free some tanker and its crew from hostages and the like. There are helicopters for such a ship.
    Later, on the basis of experience, in parallel designing the FIS, build 1-2 large UDCs with FIS on board
    1. Dmitry from Voronezh April 14 2020 17: 13 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I think that in the foreseeable future we will not pull VTOL. We can, of course, make experimental machines, but launch it in a series ... Yes, and whether it is necessary is a big question. Still, VTOL aircraft in terms of flight performance lose to planes with horizontal take-off. A more correct way is to build traditional aircraft carriers.
      1. Avior April 14 2020 17: 40 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Today, only one country in the world is capable of building traditional aircraft carriers on its own, and it will not help, like the French, but the Chinese are planning, and it remains to be seen how their plans will end.
        And this task is much more complicated than the creation of UDC and VTOL combined
        According to VTOL aircraft, there are at least some groundwork, they remained in Nikolaev for possible aircraft carriers, but even there they did not build a single traditional aircraft carrier under the USSR, they only managed to lay it down.
        All the same, in the field of aviation resources and opportunities have remained much more since the times of the USSR than in the field of large shipbuilding.
        1. Dmitry from Voronezh April 14 2020 18: 26 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I remember a couple of years ago there were some rumors in the news about the resumption of VTOL development. But it is not yet clear that the matter has really moved. So you correctly noticed that in the aircraft industry our situation is better than with ships. In the medium term, UDCs with VTOL aircraft used as light aircraft carriers are a more realistic option than the creation of classic aircraft carriers with a full-fledged air group.
        2. Alexey RA April 14 2020 19: 09 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Avior
          According to VTOL aircraft, there are at least some groundwork, they remained in Nikolaev for possible aircraft carriers, but even there they did not build a single traditional aircraft carrier under the USSR, they only managed to lay it down.

          In terms of VTOL aircraft, we still have exactly the same groundwork as in traditional aircraft carriers. On aircraft carriers hurt even more - due to experience in the restructuring of "Gorshkov". smile
          In addition, Nikolaev is a building. And the design of the AV was carried out by the Leningrad - Nevskoye Design Bureau.
          Quote: Avior
          All the same, in the field of aviation resources and opportunities have remained much more since the times of the USSR than in the field of large shipbuilding.

          In aviation, everything will run into the engine. In parallel, a fun story will begin on the remodeling of the Yak-141 (and they will take it for a prototype) with its translation into modern materials, and its avionics - into a modern elemental base. In the end it turns out that everything needs to be redesigned, and the engine drivers will roll out first stage engine, under which you have to redo everything again.
          1. Avior April 14 2020 20: 06 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            I would not call Gorshkov a classic aircraft carrier.
            Kuznetsov did not confirm the ability of an aircraft carrier of this type to operate in real combat conditions.
            The Chinese also see it as educational and transitional. What Indians think about this is a mystery. Moreover, they can probably try to take the finished catapult from the States, as well as the French.
            Ulyanovsk was to become a classic. But it was not built, so there is no such experience in principle.
            Typing it right now on this type of aircraft carrier is simply unrealistic
            Actually, the Chinese are completely repeating the Soviet way - from springboard to springboard and ejection and then to purely ejection and plan to go it on 4-5 ships.
            How much it all costs, and how long it will take even the Chinese, is unknown.
            Initially, both Gorshkov and Kuznetsov, were under the designed VTOL aircraft, like other ships with a springboard, existing in the world.
            But due to the accident of the VTOL prototype and the assertiveness of the Migovtsy and Sukhoi, the Yakovlevites were pushed from their Yak-141.
            If type 30 is brought to mind, and he really will give 18000 on the afterburner, without the afterburner 11000, as promised, it will be possible to try to make a single-engine aircraft based on it according to the F-35 type, especially since there will be no need to do it at once of three types , but only VTOL, and this is simpler and will provide better performance.
            In any case, the development and construction of VTOL aircraft is incomparably cheaper than a full-fledged classic aircraft carrier.
            Even if he will have a combat load of not 9 tons (according to the "foreign press" smile ), like the F-35, and 4,5-5,5 like the MiG-29K, it will still be a real plane and a real light aircraft carrier or UDC, which can be used in a combat situation.
            hi
            1. Alexey RA April 15 2020 19: 25 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Avior
              Initially, both Gorshkov and Kuznetsov, were under the designed VTOL aircraft, like other ships with a springboard, existing in the world.

              No. Initially, the “Kuznetsov” was designed for catapult take-off aircraft and had to have two catapults and not have a springboard.
              Of these options, the NPKB recommended for further designing the fifth displacement, the minimum, with a displacement of a power plant of the type of Project 1143 and two catapults, one of which, when reducing the main dimensions, it was possible to place only by removing the Granit rocket launcher. The Bureau proposed to consider the MiG-11435K fighter and the Su-29K attack aircraft as the main types of ejection take-off aircraft for TAKR Project 25 (the dimensions of the Su-27K fighter required a reduction in their number by 35%). The flight deck area of ​​TAKR pr. 11435, according to the technical proposal, exceeded that on the TAKR pr. 1143-11434 1,6 times, and the hangar - 1,3 times. The presence of one catapult on an aircraft carrier ship, if damaged in combat conditions, practically deprived the TAKR of the ability to use the main power of its aircraft. With the total number of LAC up to 42 vehicles, the ship provided for the basing of 18-28 aircraft (depending on type) and 14 Ka-252 helicopters. The technical proposal considered the basing of 18 Su-27K or 28 fighters - MiG-29K (Su-25K) or 16 VTOL Yak-41 and 12 MiG-29K (Su-25K).
              © A.B. Morin

              Kuznetsov’s current appearance is the result of a compromise between the Navy and the Ustinov-Amelko group, which threw out catapults and rewrote the composition of the air group on VTOL aircraft.
              In early 1980, the Minister of Defense signed the directive prepared by the General Staff, which set the Navy, Air Force, SMEs and MAP tasks to reduce the displacement of TAKR pr. 11435 and reorient its air group, mainly to aircraft of vertical and short take-off and landing (NE / UVP) . To ensure the takeoff of short-run aircraft, it was proposed to provide a springboard instead of catapults on the ship. This was followed by instructions to ensure the take-off of VTOL Yak-41 with a short take-off.

              And only by the joint efforts of the aviation design bureau (high thrust-weight ratio) and the Nevsky design bureau (springboard geometry for a short take-off) did normal fighters be put on deck 11435.
              1. Avior April 15 2020 22: 13 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Maureen writes about preliminary estimates for design. There were several such estimates in different versions, they went the difficult way of long disputes, this struggle is a separate topic for discussion, all these intrigues and other things.
                In fact, it was the project that Ulyanovsk later became, with two catapults, on which the use of ejection deck aircraft was justified, naturally, with catapults.
                After the death of D.F. Ustinov (1984), the NPKB was instructed to begin designing the atomic TAKR pr. 11437 with ejection aircraft (stipulated by the military shipbuilding plan 1986-1995) with the total number and types of LAC recommended in 1973 for further Design AB pr. 1 160.

                We can say that it was necessary to immediately build the future Ulyanovsk. But no such decision was made.
                Specifically, Kuznetsov was actually designed and built specifically for VTOL aircraft, without catapults.
                And only then, not only did the catapult squeeze as the main ones, without any catapults, but they also supplanted the Yak-41.
                Once again, look, I’m not discussing plans and preliminary estimates now, and the reasons for all these disputes, and why such a decision was made on the construction of Kuznetsov. But this decision was made, Kuznetsov from the very beginning of construction was built specifically for VTOL as the main ones, and already at this stage it was deeply wrong to push the decision to use ejection aircraft without catapults on the ship, and using the Yak-41 accident to throw them out of the ship altogether, that we are now observing in the form of real combat capability of Kuznetsov. If VTOL were brought to mind, it would be possible to use Kuznetsov as combat with VTOL and training as transitional to the development of catapult to Ulyanovsk, but replacing VTOL with catapult without catapults was a clear mistake.
                hi
                1. Liam April 15 2020 22: 34 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Avior
                  this was a clear mistake.

                  And what other options were if the catapults were not able to build and VTOL, too, but I want the carrier fleet
                  1. Avior April 15 2020 22: 36 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    VTOL aircraft had to be brought to mind, it was much cheaper and easier than building a catapult aircraft carrier right away
                    1. Liam April 15 2020 22: 40 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Controversial point: There were one and a half countries in the history of building a catapult aircraft carrier (USA + Fr.). And one and a half countries that could build VTOL aircraft (USA + WB)
                      1. Avior April 15 2020 22: 43 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        France bought a catapult
                        According to VTOL, there is a reserve.
                      2. Liam April 15 2020 22: 47 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Ejection aircraft carrier is still not only a catapult. And the groundwork was a dead end in the form.
                      3. Avior April 15 2020 22: 55 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        and I don’t propose to return old projects
                        Need a single engine
                      4. Liam April 15 2020 23: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The probability that they will be able to build a “new” VTOL aircraft is approximately equal to the probability of building a catapult aircraft carrier. In current (and foreseeable) realities, about 0)
  15. BREAKTHROUGH READY April 15 2020 11: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Today, only one country in the world is capable of building traditional aircraft carriers on its own, and it will not help, like the French

    Russia, India, China, France, Britain and the United States have aircraft carriers, so which country do you think is the only one capable?
    Building large aircraft carriers is prohibitively expensive, and equipping them even more expensive, however, no super technologies are required for this. VTOL is another matter, the creation of which with one success or another could only be mastered by Russia, Britain and the USA.
    1. Avior April 15 2020 22: 18 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      USA of course.
      Nobody in the world does or does not know how to do catapults for traditional aircraft carriers. The French bought ready-made from the States.
      China is trying, but the result still needs to be seen, a serious task
      Therefore, I propose starting the carrier fleet first with a simpler and cheaper aircraft carrier under VTOL.
  • andrew42 April 14 2020 18: 19 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    A very evil point of view - about the smaller UDC. And I have the same opinion. Plus, the “fatter” the project, the more maneuver for cutting, - the more excuses for excuses in postponing the deadlines and in the cost of the project.
    1. Avior April 14 2020 18: 21 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      It makes sense to build a large UDC if there is experience in building smaller ones, and there is an VTOL for it.
      Purely for helicopters it is better to make a smaller size
      It is much more real in the foreseeable future.
      1. BREAKTHROUGH READY April 15 2020 11: 49 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Smaller UDCs also do not have their own niche; now ordinary frigates take 2 helicopters each.
        Here the problem is that the cat wept for these helicopters at the Navy, even the existing remnants are worn out and no replacement is visible on the horizon.
        1. Avior April 15 2020 12: 30 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Large frigates take 2 each
          and small UDC for 10-16.
          For the price of ships comparable
  • Amateur April 14 2020 16: 55 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    In the USSR, BDK and KFOR were built in Poland. Why you can not order them in China. It will definitely be fast. And hardly more expensive than costing them in Russia in the absence of technology, shipyards and specialists.
    In France, they tried to order. And why is China worse than the paddling pools.
    1. Avior April 14 2020 17: 41 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Do you think Americans will not be able to influence China?
      1. Amateur April 14 2020 17: 47 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        Do you think Americans will not be able to influence China?

        The Chinese on the mattress "pill Wuhan korovininusom".
        But for the order, something in Russia must wipe itself: “And these too” have bypassed us.
        The pipelayer was ordered. And nothing. Pah-pah, God willing, finish building SP-2
        1. Avior April 14 2020 17: 50 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          spit yes not really
          the United States may find a carrot for the Chinese even better than an order for a couple of ships, in China, trade for the States is tied up, and they live by it.
          And the Chinese are not interested in anyone's interests, except for their own
          1. Amateur April 14 2020 17: 54 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            China has trade for the States, and they live by it.

            This is the United States living on the products of Chinese enterprises. If you or your friends were in the USA, you could not help but notice whose products are filled with American stores. And in which case the amers will have nothing to eat and nothing to dress.
            1. Avior April 14 2020 18: 02 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              They just recently had a trade war, in which China surrendered and pledged to fix the trade balance with the States and buy more American goods and products.
            2. donavi49 April 15 2020 08: 08 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And to China too. They had almost 700 billion turnover. Now, because of the war, they were blown away to 500. Trump threatened to crush at 200. But the Chinese went forward and agreed with Trump's demands.

              No one on this ball can buy goods for as much money as the United States. Therefore, China has no particular choice.

              Now the United States will put pressure on the fact that China is to blame for the pandemic, and it will pay the bills. Let's see how China will act if the initiative finds support and the US courts begin to demand trillions from China.
    2. tatarin1972 April 14 2020 18: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      BDK was built in the Union, in Poland, built KFOR.
      1. rudolff April 14 2020 19: 04 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        BDK 775 projects were built in Poland.
        1. tatarin1972 April 14 2020 20: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Dear, learn the mathematical part. Project 775 in its "youth" belonged to the class of medium landing ships. This is already in the Russian Navy, after they wrote off or put on a joke BDK project 1174 "Rhinoceros", renamed "Toad" in the BDK.
          1. rudolff April 14 2020 21: 33 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            And what does it change, dear, knowledgeable materiel? They were built from 1974 to 1985 and KFOR were until 1977, then BDK.
            1. tatarin1972 April 14 2020 22: 09 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I tell you, teach the math. All the ships of Project 775 were KFOR, in the BDK they were raised in the Russian Navy, in 1977 the Gold began production of the project 775 \ ll now they already went as BDK.
              1. rudolff April 14 2020 23: 25 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                775ll went from the 81st. And there were 775lll. However, it doesn’t matter.
                You said earlier: "They built the BDK in the Union, built the KFOR in Poland."
                And now say: "... in 1977, Gold began the release of project 775 \ ll now they were already going as BDK."
                So where is the logic, tatarin? All 775s were built in Poland. And according to your own words, starting from the second subseries (although, in fact, partially from the first), they already went like a BDK. So were the BDKs built in Poland or not?
  • Givi_49 April 14 2020 17: 06 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    We need it?
  • andrew42 April 14 2020 18: 15 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Of course, I understand that the capacity of modern UDCs at the “partners” revolves somewhere in the region of the suffering optimum. But I categorically do not understand our domestic swing on ships of the same displacement / capacity / capacity of gas turbines. This is despite the fact that UDC is needed "the day before yesterday!" Despite the fact that it is not clear what will be the development of the production of new domestic gas turbines, for these "2-battalion" UDCs we would have to "satisfy" their frigates. It would be more logical and reasonable to go closer to the “Chinese” version - 4 UDCs with 400-500 troops and then “half as much” in terms of parameters, although turntables should be “maxed out” within this framework .. “1-battalion” UDCs with enhanced a helicopter fleet - this is 1) shorter construction time, 2) it’s more realistic gas turbines, 3) it’s more flexible in military planning, 4) it’s more stability UDC grouping in the express mode (1 left, 3 remained). What confuses us is the "titanic" swing for our small experience with respect to ships of this class, stubbornly pulling "into the Mistral."
    1. Avior April 14 2020 18: 51 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      UDC Tokto, Korea

      Displacement of 14000 tons, 18000 tons (full).
      It has helicopters and boats.
      But the Koreans have already announced that they will build a larger UDC for the F-35 base (although they are considering the possibility of placing them in Dokdo too).
      These are logical stages - at first a smaller size for helicopters, then, with the appearance of VTOL aircraft and experience in the construction and operation of UDC, a larger one.
      1. donavi49 April 15 2020 08: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Koreans abandoned the hangar deck. And they will build a new one already with her. Therefore, they came out less. However, the nominal capacity for helicopters is achieved by abandoning the landing, and by landing - by abandoning the air group outside the flight deck. This is a so-so solution. All large uncles (China, USA, France, Spain, Italy) are built with a dedicated hangar deck.
        1. Avior April 15 2020 08: 20 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          They emphasize versatility.
          There is a hangar deck
          as I understand it, it may be combined with a cargo for the landing technique
          There is no hangar deck on smaller UDC, like Japanese Osumi or Italian San Giorgio
          https://topwar.ru/1498-mirovoj-rynok-sovremennyx-krupnyx-desantnyx-korablej.html
          1. donavi49 April 15 2020 08: 55 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            There is a common deck. Where are both helicopters and landing equipment. However, the full indicated capacity for the landing is without helicopters on the deck. The total indicated capacity of the helicopters, without landing on the deck. He cannot take both of them in full strength. And the Mistral, Carlos, 075 and others can.
            1. Avior April 15 2020 12: 44 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              He cannot take both of them in full strength.

              this is the meaning of universality
              A small inexpensive ship, configured for different tasks in different proportions.
              Relatively easy to build, they have not one.
              It will be needed in anti-submarine quality - loaded with helicopters, needed for coastal operations - they will make a proportion based on the real need for helicopters and landing
              put them on deck for a short time if that
              I do not propose to steal blueprints and build it, just as an example of a small and affordable UDC
              1. donavi49 April 15 2020 12: 54 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                But, here they are already planning a new one with a separate hangar level, as in adult uncles.

                Affordable UDC is dangerous to build in Russia. Great risk - stay only with them. For they will build 7-9 years, revising the project, changing. And then, it turns out that there are no money for expensive ones and like for adult uncles, and how much will happen by the 30th?

                As a result, by the 30th, the choice is to get either a small ersatz UDC in less than 20k, or normal for 30k. It is better to choose the latter.
                1. Avior April 15 2020 13: 12 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  I agree that it is better to be rich and healthy than the poor and sick.
                  But reality imposes its limitations. smile
                  If you build a large one, construction can drag on for decades.
                  Great risk is to stay without anything at all.
                  they are already planning a new one with a separate hangar level, as in adult uncles.

                  Koreans did exactly as I suggest. First a couple of small ones, then a big one. Both will come in handy.
                  In addition, the potential of the large cannot be fully revealed without VTOL
  • novel66 April 14 2020 19: 11 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    But are they needed? maybe helicopter carriers imprisoned for anti-submarine actions are needed more?
    1. Local from the Volga April 14 2020 22: 12 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      much more necessary !!!!
  • SVD68 April 14 2020 19: 55 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Still, the terminology is very important. Because there is meaning behind it.
    That’s what UDC is going to grind on the Gulf. With a tank deck, with a docking chamber. And where are we going to land tanks with boats? To Libya (i.e. where are some riots)? Nafig do not need such happiness. To Syria (i.e. to an ally)? Here we need transports.
    We need clean helicopter carriers. Without a tank deck and dock chamber. First of all, for PLO. But also to support that NK, that it can be used for landing.
    And for the landing of the BDK and MDK. And it would be nice to place on them an analogue of the Smerch MLRS with cluster and thermobaric warheads.
    1. Lara Croft April 16 2020 00: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: SVD68
      We need clean helicopter carriers. Without a tank deck and dock chamber. First of all, for PLO.

      Definitely, however, is not so simple ....
      Moreover, helicopter carriers have the ability to find the location of submarines using air support. However, the rapid growth of technology and the emergence of nuclear submarines made the latter characteristic of helicopter carriers less important since nuclear submarines have torpedoes with a longer range of destruction and the depth of the submarine.

      https://vmflot.ru/tehnika/vertoletonosets-universalnyj-desantnyj-korabl/#i-2
      Here a specialist is needed, what forces of the Navy need to be combined ....
      1. SVD68 April 16 2020 16: 19 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        That's honest. I read and did not understand the meaning of the argument. Followed the link, read there and also did not understand. And then the range of torpedoes and the depth of immersion?
        1. Lara Croft April 16 2020 16: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: SVD68
          That's honest. I read and did not understand the meaning of the argument. Followed the link, read there and also did not understand. And then the range of torpedoes and the depth of immersion?

          I am a humanist, I simply believed the uncle in the article ...
          He probably meant that PLO helicopters from a helicopter carrier, even with a towed GAS, would not detect a PLA / PLARK / SSBN ...
    2. andrew42 April 17 2020 13: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I support. "Landing Helicopter Carrier", with a landing in the amount of MORE THAN a battalion, always with attack helicopters capable of operating along the coast - these are to the maximum. Plus 2-3 PLO turntables. For tanks, self-propelled guns and BMPTs - clearly separate transports. The moral is that without attack helicopters the paratroopers do not need "tanks"; these themselves must be covered from the air.
  • Petrol cutter April 14 2020 20: 48 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    He will build a “bay”. True s / n twenty-five to thirty-five thousand in the hands of something for some reason do not inspire.
    Although at the present time, maybe this is very good. If the communal apartment is canceled.
    Indeed, in St. Petersburg shipyards, the same works for some reason cost twice as much.
    Apparently, we did not go out with a snout. Or maybe there is more harm.
    From here you can’t see ...
    1. Lara Croft April 16 2020 00: 07 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Benzorez
      Indeed, in St. Petersburg shipyards, the same works for some reason cost twice as much.
      Apparently, we did not go out with a snout. Or maybe there is more harm.
      From here you can’t see ...

      Well, apparently more, because in St. Petersburg life is more expensive than in the Crimea, they have more orders, but you should not have large salaries now, because for a long time OSK needs to be invested and invested in shipyard and shipyard for equipment modernization, repair, staff retraining, etc. (It’s the same as raising Stalingrad from ruins) .... Parties and the Government need the enterprises of the military-industrial complex of Crimea (1/3 of the total military-industrial complex of Ukraine), which means that you have come out with a snout and there will be orders, especially since there are power in the Crimea .... understand need the whole current political moment ...
  • 7,62h54 April 14 2020 21: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    According to the characteristics of the Russian UDC are close to the Mistrals. But for some reason, the Russian team is twice as large.
    1. Pashtet April 14 2020 22: 17 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Ponte is the most expensive of the above, but there is no money, but you hold on ... France, etc. legs wiped but we will push them humanitarian aid anyway.
    2. donavi49 April 15 2020 08: 00 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Automation. Mistral has a chip in high automation. This has significantly reduced the base crew = increased reception capabilities.
    3. Lara Croft April 16 2020 16: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: 7,62x54
      According to the characteristics of the Russian UDC are close to the Mistrals. But for some reason, the Russian team is twice as large.

      You are not an expert in this field .... it’s not a big team, but the controls in that team ...
  • bang April 14 2020 22: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    UDC Juan Carlos I. Displacement - 27 tons; engines - diesel-electric propulsion system with a total capacity of 079 hp; speed - 30 knots; cruising range - 000 nautical miles; crew - 900 person; landing - 1200 marines; air group - up to 30 planes and helicopters.

    Are there many crew members for such a ship?
    1. Avior April 14 2020 22: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0

      can meet other numbers
    2. Dmitry from Voronezh April 14 2020 23: 51 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Yes, 900 crew are a clear mistake.
  • Lara Croft April 15 2020 23: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I’m certainly not an expert, but in my opinion, the author, who set out to write about UDC, mixed everything in a heap and UDC and DVKD and BDK (TDK) .....
    UDC have a through deck, unlike DVKD .... and their purpose is different .... place and method of application ...
    And if, as the author writes, he still decided to write
    The article turned out to be devoted to landing ships in general.
    it was possible to write about the American landing transport docks such as "San Antonio" ...
    Could write about the British UDC "Ocean" (Queen Elizabeth II herself is considered the godmother of the helicopter carrier (in England there is a tradition to baptize ships before they enter service)) .....
    There were a lot of articles on VO in past years, there is something to analyze in modern conditions
    In general, we can arbitrarily distinguish three main subgroups of modern large landing shipshaving export prospects:
    - universal landing ships full displacement from 16 to 000 tons with advanced aviation capabilities;
    - multifunctional landing helicopter docks (DVKD) full displacement from 9000 to 20 tons, focused on solving the maximum possible number of tasks;
    - "Cheap" landing docks (DTD) и small landing helicopter docks full displacement from 6000 to 13 tons, focused mainly on solving airborne transport problems.

    https://topwar.ru/1498-mirovoj-rynok-sovremennyx-krupnyx-desantnyx-korablej.html
    I found a good article ...
    ...... a class of ships appeared that was able to assemble aviation, ground and naval forces into one. Moreover, they have the ability to be military hospitals.

    https://vmflot.ru/tehnika/vertoletonosets-universalnyj-desantnyj-korabl/
  • Wasilii April 17 2020 16: 56 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    It’s good when they pay money for a pro-Blablabla. Drive yourself a blizzard, and money with a shovel. And the more Putin’s cannons, the less real affairs.
  • IC
    IC April 19 2020 04: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The author of the article examined the problem in detail and objectively.
    Given the timing of the construction of new BDKs at Yantar, it is difficult to imagine the timing of the construction of more complex ships in the Gulf.
    Moreover, the plant did not build anything serious for 25 years. But the main thing is financing in the context of the impending global economic crisis. The new reality will naturally force us to review the entire shipbuilding program.
  • Protos 10 May 2020 01: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The author of the article examined the problem in detail and objectively.
    Given the timing of the construction of new BDKs at Yantar, it is difficult to imagine the timing of the construction of more complex ships in the Gulf.
    Moreover, the plant did not build anything serious for 25 years. But the main thing is financing in the context of the impending global economic crisis. The new reality will naturally force us to review the entire shipbuilding program.

    BREED laughing
    Over the past twenty years, the Zaliv factory has been a XNUMX% export-oriented enterprise, supplying its products to leading Western European customers, which confirmed its technical potential and the availability of highly qualified specialists.
    During this period, the range of orders under construction was significantly expanded, the production of offshore vessels, container ships, drilling platforms for oil and gas production was mastered.
    In total, from 1999 to 2014, the plant produced 51 vessels (vessels for servicing and supplying offshore oil and gas platforms, dry cargo vessels and container ships), a floating dock, gas production platform and sections of chemical tankers with a total deadweight of more than 380 thousand tons; over the same period more than 100 ships were repaired (mainly bulk carriers)