The contract for the construction of two UDC for the Russian Navy is signed

The contract for the construction of two UDC for the Russian Navy is signed

The Russian Ministry of Defense has signed a contract for the construction of two universal landing ships for the Navy fleet. The laying and construction of ships will be carried out at the Zeriv shipyard in Kerch. This was reported by TASS with reference to a source in the military-industrial complex.


According to the source, the military department signed a contract with the Gulf Shipyard for the construction of two UDC. The contract value amounted to 100 billion rubles, the laying of ships will take place in the near future. No further details are provided.

The contract has been signed; its total cost is about 100 billion rubles. Bookmark ships should take place in the coming weeks

- the agency leads the words of the source.

Note that the official confirmation of this information from the Ministry of Defense has not yet been received.

Earlier it was reported that the laying of two UDC is scheduled for May this year and will happen in Kerch at the Gulf Shipyard. It is also known that the domestic universal landing ships will be given the names Sevastopol and Vladivostok, which were intended for helicopter carriers of the Mistral type, ordered from France. This decision was made by the General Staff of the Navy.

The lead ship will be part of the Russian Navy until 2027, the first production ship - until 2030. Initially, the displacement of ships should not exceed 15 thousand tons, and the number of helicopters on board - no more than ten. Later, information appeared that the Navy had finally decided on the parameters of the ships being laid and they would receive a displacement of 25 thousand tons.

It is planned that the UDC will carry 20 heavy helicopters and will be able to carry up to two battalions of marines with a total number of up to 900 people.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Zaurbek 22 May 2020 10: 15 New
    • 15
    • 5
    +10
    And who will put the propulsion system?
    1. Pug
      Pug 22 May 2020 10: 18 New
      • 14
      • 10
      +4
      Quote: Zaurbek
      And who will put the propulsion system?

      Well, if you signed a contract, then there will be engines, I hope mine ..
      The amount is serious ..
      1. Zaurbek 22 May 2020 10: 22 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        As far as I understand, it is impossible to make a diesel engine only for two ships ... they should be put on ships similar in tonnage. From what is in the press, only gas carriers in the Far East .. and there, it seems, Korean diesel engines.
        1. figwam 22 May 2020 10: 28 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Maybe the diesels will be Chinese? Ships that will be the size of the Mistral.
          1. ccsr 22 May 2020 10: 54 New
            • 9
            • 2
            +7
            Quote: figvam
            Maybe the diesels will be Chinese?

            For a warship? I do not believe. Apparently, their development is underway somewhere, and until they begin assembly without them, leaving technological openings for the subsequent installation of diesel engines. At least, such a practice existed in the development of new weapons even in Soviet times.
            1. figwam 22 May 2020 11: 13 New
              • 4
              • 2
              +2
              Quote: ccsr
              For a warship? I don’t believe it.
              They have been installed for a long time, though they are not reliable, they break.
              1. tvgpvo 22 May 2020 20: 06 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                But I think Rybinsk gas turbine - today they lowered Admiral Golovko with Rybinsk gas turbine.
            2. Kalmar 22 May 2020 11: 22 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: ccsr
              For a warship? I do not believe.

              On pr. 21631, Chinese diesel engines were also installed.
              1. ccsr 22 May 2020 11: 51 New
                • 5
                • 2
                +3
                Quote: Kalmar
                On pr. 21631, Chinese diesel engines were also installed.

                It is not correct to compare a small missile boat with a BDK - the scales are not at all the same, which means the approach to components will be completely different.
            3. bayard 22 May 2020 12: 11 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              Perhaps Kolomna diesel engines of 10 l / s are provided, should be on the way. On four diesels 000 40 l \ s. And maybe there will be a gas turbine, which is being prepared for the 000M on the M22350FRU and M70FR.
              Other cash and promising GEMs are somehow not observed.
              1. ccsr 22 May 2020 12: 28 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                Quote: bayard
                Other cash and promising GEMs are somehow not observed.

                In any case, when designing this ship, it was assumed that such a diesel engine would appear, otherwise the customer would have thrown the entire project into the trash. But since ships are being laid, it means the engine is already provided for it with specific delivery times, plus or minus a shift in delivery times, which is not so uncommon for serious projects.
            4. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 12: 29 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              A power plant there can be completely taken from corvettes pr.20380. In total 2 units DDA-12000. Power should be enough.
              1. bayard 22 May 2020 12: 57 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Cyril G ...
                A power plant there can be completely taken from corvettes pr.20380. In total 2 units DDA-12000. Power should be enough.

                There is not enough power on these units - 24 l / s for 000 tons. VI. You do not compare the corvette at 25 - 000 tons. The VI and UDC with a displacement of 2 tons. Such a ship needs a minimum speed of 000-2500 knots. Promising Kolomna diesel engines of 25 l / s x 000 = 20 l / s - this may be enough. Or a power plant from a prospective 22M at a gas turbine - 10 x (000 + 4) l / s.
                Do not offer power plants from 22350, there is a diesel engine with a capacity of 5200 l / s, this is not enough.
                Nothing more domestic is observed.
                But it is also possible to use electric motion on steering columns powered by gas turbine generators (or a whole "battery" of diesel engines), taking into account the loss of power for converting rotation into electricity and vice versa ... which is unlikely.
                1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 13: 03 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Why do you need UDC speed of 22 and above the node you can’t say? In real life, the Mistral costs 18-19 knots, and more is not necessary.

                  Further, the Corvette's power unit is 2 DDA-1200 units, each consisting of 2 Kolomensky diesels. Not enough two, put three units working through a common gearbox for 2 screws
                  1. bayard 22 May 2020 13: 42 New
                    • 5
                    • 1
                    +4
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    Why do you need UDC speed of 22 and above the node you can’t say? In real life, the Mistral costs 18-19 knots, and more is not necessary.

                    Of all modern UDC, Mistral has the lowest maximum speed. And it has always been criticized. Named a militarized ferry with a helicopter deck.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    Further, the Corvette's power unit is 2 DDA-1200 units, each consisting of 2 Kolomensky diesels.

                    Yes, for 6000 l / s, but even for 20385 this is already not enough (why they turned off the series) - the speed is 24 - 25 knots for a warship ... unforgivable.
                    Now Kolomna is approaching a diesel engine with a capacity of 10 l / s. Here the GEMs on such DAs will fit just right for 000, and for the UDC, and in the long run - for a possible light frigate PLO.
                    Quote: Cyril G ...
                    Not enough two, put three units working through a common gearbox for 2 screws

                    How do you imagine such a design? We have recently assembled the first running gear for 22350, and God forbid, for the first time, they will test it for the first time on the go.
                    Do not do so with industry ... it does not forgive such a thing.

                    The contract for the construction of the UDC is finally signed. So the project is approved. And this already means that the GEM (whatever it is) is already provided for. We can only guess what it will be.
                    So I guessed.
                    The time for more complete information apparently has not yet come.
                    1. ccsr 22 May 2020 17: 29 New
                      • 3
                      • 1
                      +2
                      Quote: bayard
                      Do not do so with industry ... it does not forgive such a thing.

                      Indeed, one must be careful with industry - they like to overestimate their capabilities.
                      Quote: bayard
                      The contract for the construction of the UDC is finally signed. So the project is approved. And this already means that the GEM (whatever it is) is already provided for.

                      Quite right - it couldn’t be otherwise, because nobody needs cases without engines.
                      Quote: bayard
                      The time for more complete information apparently has not yet come.

                      It can be assumed that the engines are already at the exit, but have not yet passed the stage of factory and state tests in full.
                2. Marconi41 22 May 2020 14: 46 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: bayard
                  But it is possible to use electric motion

                  Quite possible. A la icebreaker Viktor Chernomyrdin. But the speed will be no higher than 14 knots.
                  1. bayard 22 May 2020 15: 33 New
                    • 2
                    • 2
                    0
                    You can get more speed, the Chinese destroyer 055 also has electric movement, but 4 gas turbines of 35 l / s each (!!!). Moreover, with direct operation through a gearbox, the turbine power of 000 - 22 l / s would be enough to ensure such a speed.
                    As a result, fuel overruns, more expensive power plants ...
                    But fashionable.
                    And the laser can be powered.
                    And an electromagnetic gun.
                    Electricity is justified in the Navy except for anti-submarine ships, in order to minimize noise when searching for submarines.
                    And the icebreakers.
                  2. ccsr 22 May 2020 17: 39 New
                    • 3
                    • 2
                    +1
                    Quote: Marconi41
                    Quite possible. A la icebreaker Viktor Chernomyrdin. But the speed will be no higher than 14 knots.

                    I don’t know why this speed for the BDK doesn’t suit you, given that such a ship will travel 600 km in a day — even a motorized rifle brigade will not be able to achieve such a speed if it moves to an infantry fighting vehicle. And according to driver training programs, they had to carry out a 500 km daily march, moreover, by car, and not by armored vehicles. So, from the point of view of military science, the pace of the transfer of ground troops (marines) to the BDK does not differ much from the speed of movement of motorized rifle units on land, and given the savings of motor resources and rested personnel, it is even more preferable from the point of view of the combat readiness of the deployed units.
                    1. Marconi41 22 May 2020 20: 06 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Quote: ccsr
                      I don’t know what you are not comfortable with for BDK.

                      Did I write somewhere that I did not like it? Although for convoy ships, this speed is pure hemorrhoids, the cruising speed of which is 17 knots in most cases. In general, the tab of the UDC (not the BDK), as a naval officer, undoubtedly pleases me.
                3. Dart2027 22 May 2020 19: 10 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: bayard
                  You do not compare the corvette at 2 - 000 tons. The VI and UDC with a displacement of 2500 tons. Such a ship needs a minimum speed of 25-000 knots.

                  The total displacement of the Mistral is 32000 tons, and the capacity of the engines is 20 thousand tons. 6 conventional diesels should be enough.
                  1. bayard 23 May 2020 00: 08 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    At "Mistral" electric movement on the steering columns. What is unknown to ours, if the speakers are also (and they are already produced by us), then six Kolomna diesels may be enough. I wrote about this. But what kind of power plant was laid down by the project is not yet clear. Wait and see .
          2. Ascetic 22 May 2020 20: 58 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: figvam
            Maybe the diesels will be Chinese?

            DU 301110 of the Yaroslavl MSHZ
          3. Lara Croft 22 May 2020 22: 57 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: figvam
            Maybe the diesels will be Chinese? Ships that will be the size of the Mistral.

            Maybe there will be a diesel engine and a gas turbine engine at the same time as the empirialists ...
        2. Pug
          Pug 22 May 2020 10: 28 New
          • 9
          • 11
          -2
          Quote: Zaurbek
          As far as I understand, it is impossible to make a diesel engine only for two ships ... they should be put on ships similar in tonnage.

          Well, we got out of the helicopter engines and then get out .. Russia has everything for this, the main desire and purpose
          For the first time or something we encounter such a problem ..
          God grant that everything works out!
          1. Zaurbek 22 May 2020 13: 48 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            On the helicopter that was done with us, plus there is the production of aircraft .... But with ship diesels and the Soviet Union did not shine
            1. Pug
              Pug 22 May 2020 15: 41 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: Zaurbek
              On the helicopter that was done with us, plus there is the production of aircraft .... But with ship diesels and the Soviet Union did not shine

              Well, you have to get out, the contract is signed, and not in France, because again to buy engines, etc. ? Once Russia clicked on our nose !!! hi
              Really can’t .. During the USSR, EVERYTHING could, from needles to orbital stations and "Buran"!
        3. Kalmar 22 May 2020 10: 31 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          Quote: Zaurbek
          As I understand it, you can’t only make diesel for two ships

          Why, you can. Only for the price they will be gold.
          1. ccsr 22 May 2020 10: 59 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            Quote: Kalmar
            Why, you can. Only for the price they will be gold.

            This is not entirely true, because there could be another customer for such diesel engines. As far as I know, diesel engines from submarines were used at some sites for backup power generators, including for transmitters of powerful radio stations. That's why a series of such diesels can be much larger than what the Navy orders.
            1. Kalmar 22 May 2020 11: 11 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: ccsr
              This is not entirely true, because there could be another customer for such diesel engines.

              Well then, this is no longer "under two ships")) If a diesel from a piece of goods turns into a serial, then there are no questions. Especially great if commercial orders are found.
              1. Zaurbek 24 May 2020 09: 16 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                To do this, it is necessary to establish the production of civil vessels similar in terms of displacement and make sure that someone buys them.
          2. Zaurbek 22 May 2020 13: 49 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            The most expensive is the ebb tide of the block ...
            1. Pug
              Pug 22 May 2020 15: 48 New
              • 0
              • 4
              -4
              Quote: Zaurbek
              The most expensive is the ebb tide of the block ...

              Well, if we make rocket engines in a series and sell what a diesel block is for such a simple boat, only 15 thousand tons! And the icebreakers, on which engines our rod and ice break .. I don’t understand this guys?
              Or are we brainwashed again, that we are Ivan and can not do anything ..?
              1. Marconi41 22 May 2020 20: 13 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Pug
                Icebreakers on which engines our rod and ice break

                Icebreakers are electric movement.
              2. Zaurbek 24 May 2020 09: 10 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well, why not put the RD-181 ... enough power!
        4. Boris ⁣ Shaver 22 May 2020 11: 01 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Zaurbek
          you can’t do diesel only for two ships

          Military spending does not fit into the economic feasibility of peacetime. So what?
          1. Kalmar 22 May 2020 11: 18 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Boris ⁣ Shaver
            Military spending does not fit into the economic feasibility of peacetime.

            Nevertheless, no one has canceled the economic feasibility even for military expenses: the cost of the product should be adequately correlated with its capabilities and the tasks that are set before it.
          2. Zaurbek 22 May 2020 13: 50 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The fact that this unit is not particularly different from civilian ... or you make a diesel engine for ships (all) or do not ...
        5. The comment was deleted.
        6. kig
          kig 24 May 2020 09: 12 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Zaurbek
          only gas carriers in the Far East .. and there, it seems, Korean diesel engines.

          In the Far East, not gas carriers, but tankers. And the main engines for a merchant ship and a warship are completely different things. For example, the main engines for the tankers that are assembled on the Star are made in Korea under the license of a Swiss (?? !!) company named Winterthur Gas & Diesel (WinGD). The peculiarity is that they without a camshaft, with electronic injection control, can operate either on diesel fuel or on LNG. Power 13800 kW at 86 rpm and weighs such a structure of almost 400 tons - for a warship is unacceptable.
    2. Quote: Zaurbek
      And who will put the propulsion system?


      Yes, there are likely to put propeller columns, that is, rotating motors with screws, well, as a power source-generator, you can cram a bunch of diesel diesels
      1. pl675 22 May 2020 20: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Humpbacked Horse
        Quote: Zaurbek
        And who will put the propulsion system?


        Yes, there are likely to put propeller columns, that is, rotating motors with screws, well, as a power source-generator, you can cram a bunch of diesel diesels


        azipod is called.
    3. donavi49 22 May 2020 12: 59 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Kolomna. There you need 14-16 knots cruising - 18 maximum speed. 4 D49 as on corvettes it will pull with such characteristics. For example, on the Dodko 4xSEMT Pielstick 16 PC2.5 STC, approximately like in Kolomna. Mistral has 3 Wartsils - but it’s a power station. Similarly, Carlos, for example, Anadolu (Turkish UDC) 5x10000 MAN ES, which are going to Turkey, but it is also a power plant.

      Another approach for those who have turbines. The Chinese made up a half of the installation in their 075 from the project supplier 901 - that is, 2 Zorevian turbines that make the QC-280 in China. The Italians pulled into Trieste (the most powerful of the European UDCs) - 2 megaturbines from RR for 100 forces in total + two MAN diesel engines of economic progress. However, Trieste can succumb, traditionally for Italy the question of maximum speed is paramount. When all sorts of UDC barely squeeze 000 knots, Trieste has a design 18.
      1. Zaurbek 22 May 2020 13: 51 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        We do not do MegaTurbines ....
      2. Boa kaa 22 May 2020 15: 47 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: donavi49
        There you need 14-16 knots cruising - 18 maximum speed

        In fact, you need 18 knots of combat economic and 24 knots of squadron progress. At the Amov, all military convoys go no slower than 20 knots. And if like Mistral, then on the propeller shafts they gave 18 knots with a power plant power of 20,4 thousand hp. We wanted to buy one?
        1. donavi49 22 May 2020 17: 02 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Amers have their own atmosphere and god-like LM2500 (the most common marine gas turbine engine in the world). The Navy has only M90FR.

          For example, Americans can score 90 hp. with two new LM000 +, the Navy will gain the same power with 2500 turbines (4 - but there will also be losses due to assembly).

          And then America and Bougainville run 22 maximum speed.

          Carlos and Kenbers 21 maximum speed.
          Ocean 18 knots
          Mistral 18

          Those parameters that you wrote, gives out only 1 ship with a dock camera and a solid deck (and even then on paper) - Trieste. However, before such systems the Navy will evolve for another 20 years, and if this is laid down, then it will be built for 20 years. For he:
          - It has an onboard power station based on MAN + batteries + two electric motors, this provides it with 10 nodal travel with muffled main diesels (under electricity).
          - two main marching diesel engines, which give 18 nodal economic progress.
          - two powerful turbines of 50k forces each (I recall the Navy has only 27k) - РР Р = with them it should give out at least 24 knots according to the technical specifications. How much will give out really is not yet clear.


        2. Marconi41 22 May 2020 20: 16 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: BoA KAA
          In fact, you need 18 knots of combat economic and 24 knots of squadron progress.

          17 nodes is already enough, but less - not camille.
    4. TermNachTer 22 May 2020 18: 07 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Is it already known what the installation will be?
    5. venik 22 May 2020 21: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      And who will put the propulsion system?

      ========
      Guess from three times!
    6. shonsu 23 May 2020 11: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Interest Ask. 25000 tons, maybe nuclear? Or boilers?
  2. Civil 22 May 2020 10: 16 New
    • 2
    • 8
    -6
    Well, and what is not, the documentation from Mistral remained, shift and order.
    1. Kalmar 22 May 2020 10: 32 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: Civil
      Well, and what is not, the documentation from Mistral remained, shift and order.

      After so many discussions about their shortcomings and, as a result, extremely dubious value for the Russian Navy?
      1. Civil 22 May 2020 10: 37 New
        • 10
        • 6
        +4
        Quote: Kalmar
        Quote: Civil
        Well, and what is not, the documentation from Mistral remained, shift and order.

        After so many discussions about their shortcomings and, as a result, extremely dubious value for the Russian Navy?

        Signing a contract does not mean building. Build does not mean on time. After “Ivan, his mother, Grena,” this construction of two UDCs will drag on for decades. These ships will be taken by completely different people.
      2. Boris ⁣ Shaver 22 May 2020 11: 08 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Kalmar
        After so much reasoning

        So the years go by, the operational environment is changing
        1. Kalmar 22 May 2020 11: 20 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Boris ⁣ Shaver
          So the years go by, the operational environment is changing

          Finally figured out where to land? )
          1. Zaurbek 24 May 2020 09: 13 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Kuril Islands, Crimea, Odessa ..... Hospital functions, managerial, rescue, anti-submarine ...
            1. Kalmar 24 May 2020 12: 53 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Zaurbek
              Kuril Islands, Crimea, Odessa

              For a hypothetical landing on the Kuril Islands you need, for starters, a fleet capable of covering this very landing, otherwise it will simply go to slaughter. Where exactly they were going to land in the Crimea is an open question. As with Odessa.

              Quote: Zaurbek
              Hospital functions, managerial, rescue, anti-submarine ...

              It looks like an attempt to tailor tasks to a ship, rather than build a ship for tasks. UDC is not needed for managerial functions; almost any other one will do. For hospital functions, there are appropriate types of ships. Helicopters are needed for rescue / anti-submarine. In all of the scenarios described, the airborne capabilities themselves seem overkill.
              1. Zaurbek 24 May 2020 12: 56 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                So its charm is just in universality .. and you don’t have to invent anything about functions. Look at the original ships: Mistral, Spanish, Chinese and American counterparts. Crimea and the Kuril Islands, it is quite relevant ....
                1. Kalmar 24 May 2020 22: 29 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  So its charm is just in versatility

                  A ship that is equally useless in a number of tasks will not come out?

                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  Look at the original ships: Mistral, Spanish, Chinese and American counterparts

                  Mistral was blamed for the fact that it, in fact, was built according to the standards of civil shipbuilding. Like when you want an aircraft carrier, but money only for the ship. For the most part, it was used as a motor ship by the French themselves.

                  It is not worth staring at the Chinese and Americans. They build the fleet as an instrument for the expansion of their interests; We now have much more urgent tasks of a defensive sense.

                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  Crimea and the Kuril Islands, quite relevant

                  Are they ours anyway, where and why should they land there? It is wiser to build normal warships that will not allow the enemy to capture the designated territory. More often, without any escort from such ships, any UDC is just a floating mass grave.
          2. Boris ⁣ Shaver 24 May 2020 18: 48 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Kalmar
            Finally figured out where to land? )

            That is how
      3. Marconi41 22 May 2020 20: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Kalmar
        After so many discussions about their shortcomings and, as a result, extremely dubious value for the Russian Navy?

        Which ones? We discuss only the shortcomings of what we ourselves cannot build. It’s good that the business has finally got off the ground.
        1. Kalmar 24 May 2020 12: 57 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Marconi41
          Which ones? We discuss only the shortcomings of what we ourselves cannot build.

          Basically, it all came down to the idea that for the “Mistral” the Russian Navy has no corny tasks. It did not work out to come up with a situation where a landing would be required in the amount of a pair of marine battalions (and could no longer be accommodated). Well, then: low speed, low combat stability, difficult maintenance due to the peculiarities of the power plant, etc.

          In fact, the only thing that would be really interesting to us would be the BIUS, with the help of which the Mistral could fulfill the functions of a floating headquarters. But as far as I remember, the French eventually refused to transfer it.
          1. Marconi41 25 May 2020 21: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            In fact, UDC has a lot of tasks. For example, to land these two battalions in the Kuril Islands in case of threats from the Japanese, or to strengthen the base in Syria, help Venezuela, I can continue, and the speed of the move, since it is almost the same for almost all the Docks and this does not prevent them from performing combat missions
            1. Kalmar 25 May 2020 22: 20 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: Marconi41
              In fact, UDC has a lot of tasks. For example, to land these two battalions in the Kuril Islands in case of threats from the Japanese, or to strengthen the base in Syria, help Venezuela

              Main point landing ship - this is the ability to ensure the landing of troops on unequipped coast. Why do these squats in the Kuril Islands or in Syria, if you can just deliver troops to ports with conventional transport ships? The US Navy for such purposes, they say, in general, civilian vessels charter and are not shy.

              Well, if we are talking about landing on a beret captured and held by a strong enemy, then the UDC will be needed here in the last turn: they should be “cleared” the way by warships, which we now categorically lack (on the issue of priorities for spending finances and production capacities )
  3. Oh, not in time ... It’s too late for the economic component. It was necessary immediately after the termination of the contract for the Mistral. And now it’s too hard.
    1. Bashkirkhan 22 May 2020 10: 47 New
      • 13
      • 1
      +12
      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. 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 Labor will lose such a contract due to the fact that their leader got into this situation. I have many thousands of staff. " As a result, Mistakhov was released, so we are waiting for the laying of helicopter carriers. Video on the Gulf below.
  4. Avior 22 May 2020 10: 25 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    And recently they argued about how much UDC costs.
    Here is the answer.
    100 billion steam.
    If during the construction does not rise in price, of course smile
    In general, the cost is a little cheaper than Mistral.
    1. barclay 22 May 2020 10: 36 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Quote: Avior
      In general, the cost is a little cheaper than Mistral.

      And this is logical. After all, half of the Mistrals was built in France, and there the work is, of course, more expensive. And our builders will be paid by our standards.
      PS: But far from the fact that the cost over the years will not increase.
      Although we are significantly behind in the construction of such ships (such ships have been built abroad since the 60s), but we need to develop our technologies. Moreover, this applies to defense.
      1. Avior 22 May 2020 10: 38 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        I think so.
        But there is another nuance - the French have experience and ready-made construction technologies.
        In general, the price turns out a little cheaper, even if during the construction process it will add to the price, as it happens.
        1. Boris ⁣ Shaver 22 May 2020 11: 17 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: Avior
          experience and ready-made construction technologies

          And most importantly - infrastructure and equipment. And we still have to sharpen our production base.
          If, taking into account these expenses, the ships leave even cheaper than the Mistral, it becomes obvious that the purchase of the latter was more a political step, as they say, to thank France then for a reasonable position in Ossetia. Time puts everything in its place.
      2. ccsr 22 May 2020 11: 06 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: barclay
        And our builders will be paid by our standards.

        I agree - with us it will be much cheaper.
        Quote: barclay
        PS: But far from the fact that the cost over the years will not increase.

        They can prescribe in the project what percentage of the amount, or taking into account inflation expectations, they immediately fall into this amount.
        Quote: barclay
        Let us significantly lag behind in the construction of such ships (such ships have been built abroad since the 60s),

        We lost something and lagged behind, but not as it might seem to someone, because supertankers were built in the Gulf in the seventies and even an atomic lighter carrier for Arctic waters. So, if desired, we will restore our skills very quickly, perhaps by attracting personnel from other shipyards.
        1. barclay 22 May 2020 14: 09 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: ccsr
          So, if desired, we will restore our skills very quickly, perhaps by attracting personnel from other shipyards.

          God give it. I'm all for it. Here are just the UDC have their own characteristics, which our shipbuilders have not encountered. For example, docking cameras with landing boats. As a result, of course, we will succeed. The only bad thing is that we catch up all the time ...
  5. Fedorov 22 May 2020 10: 28 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    The main thing that started, the rest will follow. Better late than never. The Slavs - the Russians, as it was said for good reason - harness themselves for a long time, but drive fast. I think it will be so, and the boats will go to Ur ..
  6. novel66 22 May 2020 10: 39 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    carry up to two battalions of marines with a total number of up to 900 people.
    I'm shy to ask - where ??
  7. Black_hawk 22 May 2020 11: 02 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    There were projects of landing submarines of 717,748 projects, this would be a technique. And these troughs need to be accompanied by dozens of ships
  8. xomaNN 22 May 2020 11: 12 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    I hope that this is not a duck and we will soon learn about the UDC bookmarking ceremony. An interesting design of the ship, its performance characteristics. And the Crimean shipyards will begin to give returns in the Russian Federation.
  9. GMM
    GMM 22 May 2020 11: 28 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    After the contract was broken on the Mistrals, I personally read the comments on VO, and the whole article about the fact that we do not need the UDC, that this is a utopia, that Serdyukov drank the dough, that we have a different doctrine, etc. etc...

    Here are those times, and what happened is a multi-port?
    1. Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 12: 23 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Instead of just being silent, with bitter anger, they decided to portray a good face in a bad game. It turned out well, as usual ...
      But UDC was needed then and is needed now since we are pursuing a colonial policy.
      1. ccsr 23 May 2020 13: 18 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        But UDC was needed then and is needed now since we are pursuing a colonial policy.

        The question is certainly controversial, especially since a certain expert Timokhin convinced all of us a couple of years ago that we needed medium-sized landing ships:
        And it is also impossible to use BDK in river amphibious operations. And this, too, may be needed, at least in the last War - it took, let us recall at least the Tuloksin landing operation.
        What should be limited to the size of KFOR? Gateways on inland waterways, the height of the passage of bridges over them and the depths of the rivers. Within these limits, the maximum possible size is necessary, but not exceeding these limits. Naturally, KFOR should have a power plant based on diesel engines, apparently, produced by the Kolomna plant. The weapon with which the ship is equipped should be minimized. The gun 76-mm, AK-630M, MANPADS managed by crew members, and one long-range ATGM to hit point targets on the shore and on the water.
        But, and this is important, you should not make our new KFOR look like the old ones. Our ship should be completely different.

        https://topwar.ru/150355-atakovat-s-morja-kak-vernut-vmf-desantnye-vozmozhnosti.html
    2. bars1 22 May 2020 18: 27 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: mmg
      After the contract was broken on the Mistrals, I personally read the comments on VO, and the whole article about the fact that we do not need the UDC, that this is a utopia, that Serdyukov drank the dough, that we have a different doctrine, etc. etc...

      Here are those times, and what happened is a multi-port?

      Syria has happened.
    3. Dart2027 22 May 2020 19: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: mmg
      Here are those times, and what happened is a multi-port?

      Commentators were divided into two categories.
      1) Those who believed that it was necessary to blindly imitate the USSR and build only the BDK.
      2) Those who believed that you can not buy abroad.
      1. ccsr 23 May 2020 11: 10 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Dart2027
        Commentators were divided into two categories.
        1) Those who believed that it was necessary to blindly imitate the USSR and build only the BDK.
        2) Those who believed that you can not buy abroad.

        There is still a third category, which we believe that, by and large, we don’t need the BDK, but since they were able to push through their purchase in France, and they broke the deal and returned the money, they should be spent on creating their own ships of this class. Otherwise, the whole idea with the Mistrals would have looked like complete idiocy if we had not started building our ships, and in a strange way their number coincides.
        As for the purchase of such weapons abroad, it was utter nonsense, but as I understand it, it was clearly not our naval commanders who shoved the deal, but the politicians.
        1. Dart2027 23 May 2020 12: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          who believe that we, by and large, do not need BDK
          Yes, yes, yes, why do we need an ocean fleet.
          Quote: ccsr
          As for the purchase abroad of such weapons, it was utter nonsense
          Did the USSR know about this?
          "Tashkent" - the leader of destroyers of the project 20I, built in Livorno according to the Italian project for the Navy of the Red Army
          "Luttsov" - the fifth and last heavy cruiser of the type "Admiral Hipper", planned to be adopted by the Kriegsmarine. Named after the Prussian general Adolf von Lutzov. Laid down in 1937, launched in 1939. In February 1940, the unfinished ship was sold to the Soviet Union, where it received the name Petropavlovsk, and in August 1941 it was included in the USSR Navy in conditionally combat-ready condition. Participated in the defense of Leningrad from German troops.
          1. ccsr 23 May 2020 13: 08 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Dart2027
            Did the USSR know about this?

            Do not confuse the pre-nuclear period that existed in the Red Army, and modern strategic nuclear forces that can solve for us all the problems of any war in any theater.
            Yes, and present-day Russia is not the Soviet Union — at least proceed from this, deciding what we need and what not.
            1. Dart2027 23 May 2020 13: 41 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: ccsr
              Do not confuse the pre-nuclear period that existed in the Red Army, and modern strategic nuclear forces

              How tired of explaining to fans to shout about nuclear weapons that local military conflicts are constantly going on in the world, without any super-missiles.
              Quote: ccsr
              Yes, and today's Russia is not the USSR

              And trying to fall apart trying to build a utopia is not going to.
              1. ccsr 23 May 2020 17: 00 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Dart2027
                How tired of explaining to fans to shout about nuclear weapons that local military conflicts are constantly going on in the world, without any super-missiles.

                Say "professional", where you see Russia's participation in such wars - at least hypothetical. Just do not confuse the current location of our troops in Syria - we are not fighting against this country.
                Quote: Dart2027
                And trying to fall apart trying to build a utopia is not going to.

                Who told you that they do not want to destroy us, even if we abandoned the socialist system? Apparently not in the system ....
                1. Dart2027 23 May 2020 17: 05 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: ccsr
                  where do you see Russia's participation in such wars
                  If you are not in the know, then you thought about UDC just after admonishing Georgia. And yes, I read the opinions of various "experts" that it was supposedly a bribe, but only none of those who shouted about this had any relation to those who made decisions.
                  And by the way, the fact that we are fighting terrorists in Syria does not cancel the fact that we have to fight.
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Who told you that they don’t want to destroy us
                  Did I say that? That's just the Soviet Union collapsed those who led it.
                  1. ccsr 23 May 2020 17: 34 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    If you are not in the know, then you thought about UDC just after admonishing Georgia.

                    There one could do without UDC - we have a common land border.
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    And yes, I read the opinions of various "experts" that it was supposedly a bribe, but only none of those who shouted about this had any relation to those who made decisions.

                    It is not surprising that all the military are rejecting this deal, and not one of them, even after retiring, tried to prove the necessity of this deal from the point of view of the operational use of these ships.
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    And by the way, the fact that we are fighting terrorists in Syria does not cancel the fact that we have to fight.

                    We have a base in Tajikistan - are we fighting there too?
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    That's just the Soviet Union collapsed those who led it.

                    Partly agree, because our people themselves wanted to overthrow the CPSU and live under capitalism. And who is more to blame for the collapse of the USSR, the question is certainly interesting, although I do not condone the creatures that were at the time at the head of the country.
                    1. Dart2027 23 May 2020 17: 43 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: ccsr
                      There one could do without UDC
                      You can do without many things, which, however, no one refuses.
                      Quote: ccsr
                      and not one of them, even after retiring, tried to prove the necessity of this deal
                      The need is simple - even then ships were needed yesterday. Moreover, in those discussions I was especially touched by those who stated that the landing ships should be only small. It is small, that is, not even BDK, but MDK.
                      Quote: ccsr
                      We have a base in Tajikistan
                      The US has a base in Japan - with whom are they fighting there?
                      1. ccsr 23 May 2020 17: 48 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        You can do without many things, which, however, no one refuses.

                        These ships cost a lot of money, and the combat power of our armed forces will not increase from them - this should be the starting point, evaluating their adoption.
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        The US has a base in Japan - with whom are they fighting there?

                        So I am about the fact that you can maintain a base even without the construction of a UDC - for example, chartering ships for one-time transportation of military units.
                      2. Dart2027 23 May 2020 18: 58 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: ccsr
                        and the military power of our armed forces will not increase from them
                        And what is meant by that power - the renunciation of landing forces?
                        Quote: ccsr
                        for example, chartering ships for one-time transportation of military units
                        But does the USA do that? Seriously? Have you heard about universal landing ships like "America"?
                      3. ccsr 24 May 2020 10: 35 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        And what is meant by that power - the renunciation of landing forces?

                        In Syria, the cost of using the videoconferencing system is the best option for such operations.
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        But does the USA do that? Seriously?

                        And the USA is not a decree for us - even in the economic plan we cannot pull out what they allow themselves to use their armed forces.
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Have you heard about universal landing ships like "America"?

                        We can’t really master Siberia and the Far East, but you also wanted to work in foreign territories? Navel will not tear from such ambitions?
                      4. Dart2027 24 May 2020 13: 38 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: ccsr
                        In Syria, cost of using videoconferencing
                        Managed. That's just not always there is such an opportunity.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        And the USA is not a decree for us - we
                        As experience shows, to go your own way means to get yourself a bunch of cones and be the last to go where others have already come.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Navel will not tear from such ambitions?
                        Protecting your country away from its borders is much cheaper.
  • bobba94 22 May 2020 19: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    For the country's security, Russia needed the stoplights as a stop signal. The Mistral deal concluded after August 2008 was extremely beneficial for Russia, I would call this deal a triumph of Russian diplomacy.
    1. ccsr 23 May 2020 11: 16 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: bobba94
      For the country's security, Russia needed the stoplights as a stop signal.

      I totally agree.
      Quote: bobba94
      The Mistral deal concluded after August 2008 was extremely beneficial for Russia, I would call this deal a triumph of Russian diplomacy.

      But this is a mistake, because we were thrown in the cheapest way, and after that we can only speak about the success of our diplomacy with irony. Of course, our diplomats shitty know the story, since they don’t remember how the same French already threw us into the First World War, having appropriated the money transferred to them, but without putting up weapons. It turns out our diplomats are not so pros if they were thrown for the second time. But for some reason I’m sure that this was not the initiative of diplomats - they don’t get into such matters, they have enough of their own hemorrhoids through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
      1. bobba94 23 May 2020 12: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Why attract some grievances of World War 1. We need to look at the situation in the world after August 2008. All Western media raised a howl that a huge aggressor country attacked a small freedom-loving country that chose the path of true democracy, loud statements were made by NATO generals, politicians, EU officials, the UN and other international organizations that everyone needs to rally and fight back , up to the military, this aggressor country. It was a real bacchanalia. And suddenly, one of the leading countries in Europe, a model of democracy, a member of NATO, this country is making a deal to supply the aggressor country with two strike (?!), Landing (!!!), helicopter ships. For the West, it was a real shock ..... but what about cohesion, but what about resistance. All the intensity of the statements disappeared, everything immediately dwindled and calmed down. That's why I consider this deal a triumph. By the way, the French returned the money for the Mistral.
        1. ccsr 23 May 2020 13: 13 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: bobba94
          We need to look at the situation in the world after August 2008. All Western media raised a howl that a huge aggressor country attacked a small freedom-loving country that chose the path of true democracy, loud statements were made by NATO generals, politicians, EU officials, the UN and other international organizations

          You should not bother with this, if only because a year later the same countries recognized that Georgia was aggression against our peacekeepers, and all politicians smoothly got off this topic.
          Quote: bobba94
          That's why I consider this deal a triumph.

          It was a stupid deal, if only because we would never have been able to open all the bookmarks on this ship, which means that it could be put out of action as they say by “pressing a single button”.
          Quote: bobba94
          By the way, the French returned the money for the Mistral.

          They would have lost the arbitration, and would have suffered even greater losses, and their reputation losses were nothing.
  • mark1 22 May 2020 11: 50 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    It is planned that UDC will carry 20 heavy helicopters

    Severe according to classification or “heavy” according to the subjective feelings of the author? 20 Mi-26 is power! good
    1. Andrey Ostroushko 22 May 2020 14: 20 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The heavy class of combat helicopters in the world include: Ka-52, Mi-28N, Mi-24, Apache An-64, and from the CSH-2 part of Roivalk.
      1. mark1 22 May 2020 14: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        This is a Western classification, it differs from ours quite decently. And our UDC and the author, as I understand it, too.
        1. Andrey Ostroushko 22 May 2020 15: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This classification refers to the mass of the combat vehicle and its carrying capacity. The heaviest combat helicopters are manufactured by the industries of Russia, the USA and partly South Africa.
          1. mark1 22 May 2020 17: 24 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Ultralight - helicopters with take-off weight up to 1000 kg;

            Lungs - up to 4500 kg;

            Medium - from 4500 to 13000 kg;

            Heavy - more than 13000 kg.

            The separation of medium and heavy helicopters is different in the CIS and abroad. Therefore, some helicopters can be classified in Russia as medium, and abroad as heavy.

            it’s a little unclear what does your emphasis on the Western classification of combat helicopters mean, the main ones on UDC are transport
            1. Andrey Ostroushko 23 May 2020 04: 24 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              What is the western classification, when it comes to the banal mass of the helicopter. I’m translating, the article says that the main helicopters in service with these UDCs will be Ka-52 Katran, Ka-27, and later Ka-92 Lamprey.
  • Cyril G ... 22 May 2020 12: 21 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    The Navy is still raving with the head and first production!
  • senima56 22 May 2020 13: 03 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Finally, the “Gulf” will receive a contract worthy of its capacity! good We will wait for the bookmarks! drinks
  • Crimea26 22 May 2020 15: 43 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    “The lead ship will be part of the Russian Navy until 2027” - 7 years to build ???????
    "the first production - until 2030." - i.e??? There are only 2 of them! What is 30 years old for?
    1. Nemchinov Vl 25 May 2020 22: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Crimea26
      “The lead ship will be part of the Russian Navy until 2027” - 7 years to build ???????
      no-ah ... don't flatter yourself so as not to get upset after (!). If "waste frigate of project 22350", built according to plan 7 and in fact 10-11 years with a displacement of 5400 tons, then at "planned by 2027 at UDC", expect the first-born (head) by 2030, and the second one in 2032 .... For there are already 25000 tons of VI. (!), deck decks and mechanisms (which may suddenly appear during construction not yet developed), and helicopters, and some kind of super new GEM (from engines not yet commercially available), etc ...
  • KrolikZanuda 22 May 2020 16: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Instead of building the already completed project 11711, which can be built in four years, we will build a new project for seven years. And again, the deunification so beloved by our fleet.
    1. bars1 22 May 2020 18: 30 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: KrolikZanuda
      project 11711,

      Fuck you need this pornography. Especially such masterpieces as Gren and Morgunov
      1. Cyril G ... 23 May 2020 13: 56 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        At least something is better than nothing ...
    2. Cyril G ... 23 May 2020 13: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I agree. It was worth building at least a small series of 4-5 ships and forming a brigade from them at the Black Sea Fleet
    3. Nemchinov Vl 25 May 2020 22: 43 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: KrolikZanuda
      Instead of building the already completed project 11711, which can be built in four years, we will build a new project for seven years. And again, the deunification so beloved by our fleet.
      I agree, but not quite (!), in part -
      Quote: KrolikZanuda
      we will build new project seven years.
      , you are engaged in self-deception .... The highlighted words, as it hint at the contradictions in the approaches to the implementation of shipbuilding programs (!)... Take the first ship of the new project immediately 10 years, in your expectations, and you will have less chance to be disappointed ....
      And the rest I agree with you.
  • Maxwrx 22 May 2020 16: 31 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Yeah. The French did for 80 billion and 4 years. And here 100 billion 7 years and, as usual, the postponement.
  • T.Henks 22 May 2020 18: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    So what did they do in St. Petersburg, face or zoooooo? And what about the technologies that were transferred and suddenly disappeared again? Can I turn on the fool again? Some nonsense is booming. Answer, did you make half-mistral in St. Petersburg? And now they can’t?
  • Petrol cutter 22 May 2020 21: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes sir. Steamboats - at work. Where to look for movers today is not a shipbuilding problem. There are marketers from the supply chain. They- and cards-in hand.
  • Nicholas 23 May 2020 18: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I recall how our couch analysts argued that we don’t need Mistral, and Russia was suffocating without a class of such ships. As long as the MO did not make official statements, but I think it will soon, first of all, Kerch allows you to make UD ships of docks and even a larger tonnage, of course with engines indefinitely. But you need to set the right tasks and everything will be. Not to appoint new simulators, but designers, with the involvement of broad rights, and stop whining and nagging. that there is nothing we can’t do, but the Nikolaev plant made turbines, developed it by the Design Bureau of the USSR, and why is there no documentation in Russia? On a long run, we need diesel engines, there is a KINGISEP MH, to connect all resources, including the Kolomensky Zavod, to refine the samples. The performance characteristics of the ships are good, more than 20 turntables and 2 battalions of the marine corps (SMB). Ships of this class should be at the rate of 2 in the Baltic , 3 in the Black Sea, with access to the Mediterranean Sea, 2 in the Far East, including for the defense of the Kuril Islands (the so-called northern territories).