Military Review

"Varan" - is it worth wasting time and money?

89
Our media know how to catch up with the wave. Especially in the field of shipbuilding. You look at the headlines, and pride bursts. Now we'll show them all! And Kuzkin's mother, and Seregin, everyone!


Then, however, comes the understanding that we are once again, and you can safely disperse.

As an example, here's a headline from TASS: "Varan" goes hunting. A new class of naval equipment is being created in Russia ".

"Varan" - is it worth wasting time and money?

Let's put it this way: the first half of the title simply and uncomplicatedly contradicts the second. And immediately the intrigue: this is how they create a new class of technology or this, excuse me, "Varan" is ALREADY out on the hunt and will soon show everyone?

Calm and only calm, nobody goes anywhere. And nobody creates anything. The main thing here is to raise the wave. As it was with the "Leader", "Storm" and other "Poseidons".

The presence of a certain project in the bowels of the Nevsky Design Bureau is just a few computer drawings of a very dubious nature. I don’t want to say anything, but it’s enough to look at the drawing where the bump stop was attached. And you don't have to be a literate person in the sea and aviation affairs to figure out that no one is going anywhere.

However, we will leave the conclusions at the end of the material, and first ask the questions "why?" and "who benefits?" Because everything depends on the answers to these questions.

Assault landing ships as a class have existed for a long time. It's just that over the past 50 years, they have turned from purely amphibious ships into independent combat units capable of solving a variety of tasks. This includes the transfer of troops, and patrolling areas, and aviation support for troops on the coast and other ships in the formations.

And yes, of course, the "flag demonstration." How could it be without it.


In general, an ordinary landing barge has evolved very decently into a large ship with great capabilities. Significantly larger than that of a conventional amphibious assault ship.

The class received recognition, today UDCs are in service with many countries. It is clear that the leaders here are the United States, which has as many as 13 ships of three types, "America", "Wasp" and "Tarawa".
In Japan 4, two "Izumo" and "Hyuga".
In South Korea - 2, Tokushima and Maro classes.
Australia has 2 Canberras.
In Turkey - 1, "Anadolu".
There are 3 Mistrals in France and 2 more in Egypt.

And so on.

Do we need such a class of ships in general and, if so, why?

At first glance, the Kurils are immediately drawn in the Far East. This scandalously controversial point is and will remain so forever, because the Japanese will not abandon their claims, and we (most likely, but we cannot be sure of anything in our country, unfortunately) will not give up the islands.

And here is drawn a ship for support and delivery of cargo and reinforcements with an air group capable of solving some kind of combat missions, such as supporting its troops on the shore.

Yes, America-type UDCs are capable of this, since 22 F-35Vs are powerful. This is a wing to be reckoned with anyway.


So, the Americans embodied the idea of ​​a universal UDC in all its glory and showed it to the whole world. We also made an attempt to acquire such ships by purchasing them from France. Everyone knows how it ended. The Mistrals are in Egypt, but we have holes ... vague prospects.

However, apparently, the idea did not die out and someone really wants to build such ships in Russia.

We think how much they are needed at all. Considering that the UDC is precisely an assault landing ship, that is, a ship of an attacking plan, and, moreover, with almost no possibility of double interpretation. Even an aircraft carrier can be viewed in a defensive concept as an airfield pushed forward from the lines from which planes can take off to meet the enemy on the approaches to their borders.

And the UDC is not defense. This is a landing assault supported by airplanes or helicopters. Yes, UDC can defend something, the question is what and where. It is clear what the American UDC will defend. Democracy around the world. Likewise, it is difficult to imagine what the French ships will be doing in their territorial waters.

As for the Japanese and the Chinese, it is simply better to remain silent, there are continuous territorial disputes of a regional nature. And the UDC of project 075, hanging out near the Spratly Islands - this is understandable.

The presence of Russian UDCs near the Kuriles also seems to be justified. However, if you look closely at the potential adversary who will oppose them, it becomes clear that the Japanese destroyers-helicopter carriers and missile destroyers will simply demolish everything in their path. And in fact, today the Pacific Fleet cannot really oppose anything except submarines to the Japanese the fleet.

Well, yes, one day the "Admiral Nakhimov" will come out of repair, which ... Who alone is not a warrior in the field. The crowd stammered, in this the Japanese are strong and they have a lot of ships.

No options? Not at all. The Kuril problem “if something happens” is perfectly solved from the ground airfields of Kamchatka and South Sakhalin. And planes can take most of all and board, and fly a little. 300-400 km from Sakhalin to the southern islands and the same amount from Kamchatka to the northern part. Yes, and there are airfields on the Kuril Islands ...

Deliver reinforcements? Yes, this is the right thing to do. But for this, simply landing ships are more suitable, which they take more and carry on. Cover? Yes, from the same airfields and the same frigates / corvettes.

And yes, coastal complexes like the Bala are both cheaper and more effective. And as an additional means of stimulation, more than one "Buyan-M" or "Dagestan" with the same "Calibers" on board can be quiet in the shores cut by coves.

And - welcome, as they say. Whoever comes to us with what, he will get away with it.

And the Su-34s taking off from the airfield to Iturup will be much more effective than the Su-33s. The difference between a fighter and a fighter-bomber, I hope, is not worth explaining. And we will not talk about the fact that we will be able to take off from the deck of the UDC, because it is simply ridiculous.

And the main thing. UDC is a ship that will still require protection. If we take as an example that "Mistral", that "America", yes, they are able to fight off a couple of planes. But if you take them seriously - alas, everything will become sad. For example, if the Tu-95 seriously decides to offend the boat with all available ...


So if we seriously talk about the creation of Russian UDCs, then first of all it is necessary to consider the question of who will protect them. That is, the construction of a sufficient number of frigates and corvettes capable of providing air defense and anti-aircraft defense for the UDC.

And this task seems to be the top priority in the creation of the fleet of tomorrow.

However, we still have nothing more than a computer drawing of the UDC. For, I will quote TASS, "Domestic shipbuilders are working on the possibility of creating a universal maritime complex and a line of projects on a unified platform."

Do you understand? They are working on the OPPORTUNITY of creation. That is, the question is asked to the drawing: "We need this?" And if the answer is yes from the naval command, then the work will begin.

The specialists of the Nevsky PKB say very interesting things. UDC "Varan" is a unified platform, that is, several variants can be created on the basis of the ship. Actually, that is the topic, because of which they paid money for those same "Mistrals".

If you believe the representatives of the "Nevsky PKB" (why not believe it?), Then on the basis of the "Varan" you can create several types of ships. Light aircraft carrier, UDC, transport and hospital ship and support ship.

Perhaps - even in the version for the Arctic, with a reinforced hull.

Since the "Nevskoe PKB" has existed since 1931 and during this time such ships as aircraft-carrying cruisers of project 1123 ("Moscow" and "Kiev"), aircraft-carrying cruisers of project 1143 ("Admiral Kuznetsov" and "Vikramaditya "), BDK type 1171" Tapir "and 1174" Rhino "(" Ivan Rogov "), and" Vikramaditya "and" Vikrant "were also painted for the Indians within the walls of this bureau.

That is, they can.

A universal platform, a modular ship - all this has long been tormenting the brains of many fleets of the world. Such a good candy, whatever one may say. UMK - a universal maritime complex - is the idea of ​​the day of tomorrow. But the UDC was once something strange and incomprehensible ...

As a matter of fact, the idea of ​​the teaching materials in itself as presented by the St. Petersburg designers is good. And, perhaps, it should be carefully considered in terms of the need for the Russian fleet.

Alas, unfortunately, our media immediately rushed to discuss and compare. To what extent "Varan", which does not yet exist even on paper, is better than "America", which quite serves itself in the American navy and is being built in a series that we can only dream of.

Today it has become very fashionable to fight with numbers on paper. And therefore, comparisons of "Varana" with "America" ​​and "Type 075" immediately began.

"There are no direct foreign analogues of Varan at the moment - the world's largest shipbuilding companies produce multipurpose UDCs designed to perform a number of tasks, but there are no universal complexes based on a single platform and made using unified components" (TASS) ...

The impression is that "Varan" is already floundering on the wave. The ship is not even in the project, the representatives of the "Nevsky PKB" themselves say openly that"Varan" as a whole is at the level of the preliminary design, and some of the main parts are at the stage of preliminary design. "General arrangement diagrams, schematic diagrams of the main power plant and the electric power system of the ship have been developed, a three-dimensional model of the hull has been created".

But - already, as usual, they recorded it in "unparalleled in the world." Apparently, she won't even swim without it.

But almost no one mentioned that the design was carried out by the Bureau employees as an internal initiative. And the development of the project of the CMD has not yet cost the state a penny.

It is worth considering here. And to draw appropriate conclusions on the topic of whether it is necessary to spend money and time on this project. And it is desirable to solve this as soon as possible, until the designers of the Nevsky PKB really spent a lot of time on a project that may not be needed by anyone.


There are some doubts, you know.

Those colleagues that have analogues in the world, for the most part, carry helicopters, but those that are aircraft carriers are "sharpened" for the F-35B. The plane, let's say, is peculiar, but what can we oppose? All the same "modern" MiG-29K?

It is not equal. Especially considering the fact that our opponents in this race have gone far, and for each of our aircraft carriers they have eleven. And it will be approximately the same with the UDC. This means that more modern sea-based aircraft are needed, which can actually withstand the quality of the number of the same F-35B from the enemy.

And all this talk about the equipment by means of "promising aircraft, including vertical takeoff and landing, to ensure a balance and efficiency of use, corresponding to modern and promising foreign aircraft-carrying systems" (press service of "Nevsky PKB") - this is really a conversation about what.

Yes, a promising ship, which is on paper, it can be equipped with promising aircraft, which are not even on paper.

But if we talk about the fact that such a ship will be needed tomorrow ...

This is where I want to say: "More business, less talk." And then the prospect will become a reality, embodied in metal, and not another project on which you can just earn a little extra money.

Making a decision on the need for a ship of this class for the fleet, then financing the development, taking into account the need to have everything necessary for such ships in the fleet, from aircraft to escort ships - and, in fact, work.

Everything can be built if you know why and for what. The main thing is understanding the need.
Author:
89 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. iouris
    iouris 25 March 2021 05: 11
    +14
    What does it cost us to build a house? We will draw - we will live.
    Is it worth wasting time on discussion if, firstly, no decision has been made ...
    1. SVD68
      SVD68 25 March 2021 05: 28
      -2
      Worth it. After all, they are building something in Kerch.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 25 March 2021 05: 43
        +2
        Quote: SVD68
        something in Kerch

        If I am not mistaken, they are building there according to the project of Zelenodol residents.
        1. A1845
          A1845 25 March 2021 10: 52
          +1
          Quote: Dart2027
          then they build there according to the project of Zelenodol residents

          but is it interesting to build too?
          attack helicopters for them are first class good and everything else?
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 25 March 2021 11: 19
            0
            Quote: A1845
            but is it interesting to build too?

            Of course interesting, but they have nothing to do with "Varan". Well, we will see the result in 6 years.
      2. BDRM 667
        BDRM 667 25 March 2021 05: 54
        +32
        "Varan" - is it worth wasting time and money?


        Is it worth pounding water in a mortar, spending time discussing the conjectures of the author, who is not a shipbuilder, nor a naval sailor, nor an economist, but who has little command of elementary terminology?

        Considering that the UDC is precisely an assault landing ship, that is, a ship of an attacking plan, and, moreover, with almost no possibility of double interpretation.


        Indeed, there can be no double interpretation, since the UDC is У niversal Д amphibious К an attack whose very ideology does not imply (and even contradicts) the deployment of a complex of strike weapons on board.

        And the Varan project, in this sense, is no exception.
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 25 March 2021 06: 03
          +20
          universal UDC ... ..... Considering that the UDC is precisely an assault landing ship,
          Yes, the author has completely knocked down all the pretentiousness of the article with this.
          1. BDRM 667
            BDRM 667 25 March 2021 06: 13
            +14
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Yes, the author has completely knocked down all the pretentiousness of the article with this.

            I don't want to discuss the author, I also spoke about the content of the article ...
            There is no intention to breed a bodyagu around a non-professional view of the naval development program in the style of an agronomist gopher.

            I don’t want to discuss this nonsense anymore. You were answered only because of your comment.
            1. Civil
              Civil 25 March 2021 07: 57
              +3
              Since the "Nevskoe PKB" has existed since 1931 and during this time such ships as aircraft-carrying cruisers of project 1123 ("Moscow" and "Kiev"), aircraft-carrying cruisers of project 1143 ("Admiral Kuznetsov" and "Vikramaditya "), BDK type 1171" Tapir "and 1174" Rhino "(" Ivan Rogov "), and" Vikramaditya "and" Vikrant "were also painted for the Indians within the walls of this bureau.

              That is, they can.

              It has already been optimized and reformed 5 times. Those people are no longer there.
              1. bayard
                bayard 25 March 2021 11: 42
                +10
                The author, listing Soviet-built aircraft-carrying ships, does not even imagine them and is not familiar with the history of their creation.
                Quote: Civil
                as aircraft-carrying cruisers of Project 1123 ("Moscow" and "Kiev")

                belay "Kiev" project 1123 ???
                According to project 1123, two ships were built - "Moscow" and "Leningrad".
                "Kiev" is the lead ship of the 1143 series.
                Very superficial and frivolous knowledge of the author in this area, a very frivolous approach to writing texts ... in vain.
                Simply - in vain.
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 25 March 2021 11: 44
            +3
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Yes, the author has completely knocked down all the pretentiousness of the article with this.

            Exactly. After reading that the anti-ship missile "Moskva" and the aircraft carrier "Kiev" refer to the same project - as 1123, I felt "NON-Fascinating"
            from the sketches of the bureau, such ships as aircraft-carrying cruisers of project 1123 ("Moscow" and "Kiev"), ...
            1. PSih2097
              PSih2097 25 March 2021 22: 46
              -3
              project 1123 - "Moscow", "Leningrad" and "Kiev".
              https://topwar.ru/27884-morskie-kondory-protivolodochnye-kreysera-vertoletonoscy-proekta-1123.html.
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 25 March 2021 23: 14
                +6
                Quote: PSih2097
                project 1123 - "Moscow", "Leningrad" and "Kiev".

                Colleague, you'd better not read the biography of K. Ryabov about the project on VO, but look at the reference books on the USSR Navy. This is the first thing.
                Second. I began my service in Kiev as a "tillinant", when it was called "the graveyard of the lieutenant captains"! And I went to the first BS in Mediterranean with him.
                Third. Many did not get to lunch if they could not answer the SPK's question about the structure and performance characteristics of the ship. Therefore, we studied the "2-volume book in lead covers" (overlays) as our Father! And believe me, we knew the TAKR project quite well.
                Therefore .... you are wrong, along with the author.
                By the way, Cyril also wrote in the subjunctive mood about the mythical 1123M, which never happened, and the name of the "third ship" of the series was given to Project 1143.
                And I also saw Marynich, and even asked him questions ...
                So, do not be afraid - "You are not in the church, you will not be deceived" (c). laughing
        2. venik
          venik 25 March 2021 11: 23
          +5
          Quote: BDRM 667
          Is it worth pounding water in a mortar

          ========
          good I read this, but still did not understand: WHAT is the article about?
          R. Skomorokhov - in his role: "elegant style, many sarcastic comments, angry tirades" ... And all because of what? Yes, due to the fact that some "journalist" did not hesitate, "squeezed" an article praising nonexistent while the aircraft carrier project? Well, yes - "zhurnalyugi" - they are: not understanding, anything "squeeze" just louder Yes more scandalous..... As a matter of fact, but who is Roman Skomorokhov? And how does he differ from the "zhurnalyugi" criticized by him? Yes, it seems - NOTHING! Storm "in a glass" and for what? For the "ingenious conclusion": "...Everything can be built if you know why and for what. The main thing is understanding the need..."
          Just "discovering America" ​​.... request
        3. Aleksandr1971
          Aleksandr1971 25 March 2021 15: 41
          +2
          To the author a question.
          What is the Tokushima UDC in South Korea? Maybe "Togto"?

          Overall, the article is not convincing. The author tries to question the whole meaning of the UDC.

          But we will not only butt with NATO and Japan. And what about Syria? And Ukraine or Georgia? And if in Africa somewhere you have to show strength? This is where the UDC of the Russian Navy will be needed.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 28 March 2021 20: 11
            0
            Quote: Aleksandr1971
            The author tries to question the whole meaning of the UDC.

            But we will not only butt with NATO and Japan. And what about Syria? And Ukraine or Georgia? And if in Africa somewhere you have to show strength? This is where the UDC of the Russian Navy will be needed.

            not the whole meaning of UDC, but the meaning of UDC for a specific country of Russia, you yourself clearly answered why UDC ... it is for aggression against Africa or Syria, (about Ukraine and Georgia, you are deeply wrong, in principle, there is no need for UDC, we will go to tanks) ... The question to you is not the young man taught you not to offend the little ones? do you want to aggressively attack Africa? what did she do to you? Despite the fact that there is nothing to protect their shores, we count on our fingers, there are almost no planes and minesweepers, but did you need Africa? Russia would not be lost ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkvAThrjQyo
        4. petroff
          petroff 29 March 2021 01: 44
          -1
          Worth it. At least based on two facts.
          1 The Ministry of Defense did not order Varanov from the word at all. They do not need him from the word at all. It's just that Nevsky is selling a face. He just showed at the exhibition that he can. But the fact that he may not need anyone.
          2 well, yes, the author is not shipbuilder. So do you, too, so this principle works in the opposite direction. That is, the fact that he was not a shipbuilder does not mean a fig.
      3. BDRM 667
        BDRM 667 25 March 2021 06: 02
        +9
        Quote: SVD68
        Everything can be built if you know why and for what. The main thing is understanding the need.

        Everything can be built if you know why and for what. The main thing is understanding the need.


        The author, having looped everything and everyone, himself came to what conclusion?

        Everything, I'm leaving the topic. There is nothing to discuss here. Empty thoughts in the article ...
        1. bar
          bar 25 March 2021 06: 19
          +3
          Quote: BDRM 667
          The author, having looped everything and everyone, himself came to what conclusion?

          Apparently he offers to surrender, what else ... recourse
      4. YOUR
        YOUR 25 March 2021 07: 37
        +2
        UDC building project 23900 there. "Ivan Rogov" and "Mitrofan Moskalenko".
        First, they gave information that the first will go into operation in 2025, the second in 2027. A month ago, the first was specified in 2027, the second in 2028.
        "Varan" as the article says is a promising ship that exists in a couple of pictures of dubious properties. And who will arm
        promising aircraft, which are not even on paper.

        The above question was asked
        Quote: iouris
        Is it worth wasting time on discussion if, firstly, no decision has been made.

        Well, for the sake of entertainment it is quite possible, but not seriously.
    2. lucul
      lucul 25 March 2021 11: 38
      +4
      What does it cost us to build a house? We will draw - we will live.
      Is it worth wasting time on discussion if, firstly, no decision has been made ...

      To build a house, you first need to build a foundation, and the foundation of the fleet is marine engines, that is, you first need to develop and build a whole line of engines, and only then rivet the hulls like cakes.
      Any shipbuilding program without naval engines is dead from the start. It's like a house without a foundation.
      Want a powerful fleet? First, create a powerful engine building - in a different way.
      Because it is the engine that sets the appearance of the equipment, without knowing which motor will stand on it - the designer simply will not be able to justify the design of the equipment.
      1. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 25 March 2021 18: 05
        +3
        Quote: lucul

        To build a house, you first need to build a foundation, and the foundation of the fleet is marine engines, that is, you first need to develop and build a whole line of engines, and only then rivet the hulls like cakes.
        Any shipbuilding program without naval engines is dead from the start. It's like a house without a foundation.
        Want a powerful fleet? First, create a powerful engine building - in a different way.
        Because it is the engine that sets the appearance of the equipment, without knowing which motor will stand on it - the designer simply will not be able to justify the design of the equipment.


        There is an example in the world of how to do
        This example is already 50 years old and it was and is on many completely different types of warships (over 400 ships) and over 30 countries use it.
        It's called General Electric LM2500.
        A little less than 2500 of them were built.

        You can also remember the Rolls Royce MT30, but their role is much less noticeable compared to the LM2500.

        You can get by with just one turbine, and not fence
        a whole line of engines
  2. Thrifty
    Thrifty 25 March 2021 05: 33
    +10
    Damn it, we've arrived! !! Roman, Nevskoe KB for sure "has existed since 931", it is possible that before the Nativity of Christ, or you just lost one? ?? And, I naively thought that the UDC is a Universal Landing Ship, but it turned out to be "Shock" !! Or am I right, is it Universal? ?? Yes, someone was in a hurry to pass off wishful thinking, but the fleet needs new ships, perhaps the "Varan" will be in demand over time, and how the combat platform will "take root" in our fleet.
  3. martin-159
    martin-159 25 March 2021 05: 35
    -9
    Quote: iouris
    Is it worth wasting time on discussion if, firstly, no decision has been made ...

    But you still commented on the article.
    Article +.
  4. svp67
    svp67 25 March 2021 05: 50
    +9
    The UDC is not just an amphibious assault ship or an aircraft carrier, that is what is worth understanding. This is a UNIVERSAL ship, which is also the command center of a detachment of ships or an amphibious operation, a hospital, a center of material supply ... And how much it can be useful in the same Pacific Ocean should be thought in the context of its appearance in our Far East the cosmodrome, from which they are going to launch the manned spacecraft and most of their route does not lie over land, but just over the Pacific Oceans, where, in case of anything, an emergency landing will be carried out. And for carrying out a rescue operation, such ships are simply destined for
    1. SVD68
      SVD68 25 March 2021 06: 00
      +4
      First of all, it is still a landing ship. With its huge dock chamber, with its tank deck. For all other purposes, these two elements are huge ballast.
      1. svp67
        svp67 25 March 2021 06: 03
        +1
        Quote: SVD68
        For all other purposes, these two elements are huge ballast.

        And for this it is necessary to provide him with a detachment of BDK and KVVP
    2. Runway
      Runway 25 March 2021 06: 44
      +7
      1. The combat stability of the DESO built around 1 UDC and 4 BDK (all 155 BMP on board) must be ensured by the forces of the association.
      2. UDC in DESO drags the 1st echelon (if gurgles = failure of the intention to conduct).
      3. In the theater of operations, the fleet, with or without UDC, in its current state and in the future, will be able to successfully (+; - bast shoes) land on the coast of the Russian Federation if there is a bridgehead in the landing zone (a defense area with a certain SIS capacity).
      It can be a hospital (UDC) only with complete domination on water / under water and in the air. Otherwise, it will take the shortest course to land (to the bottom). Unlike the same "Irtysh".
      Fashion, a contagious thing, but the UDC (super goal) in conditions of multiple superiority of the enemy's CCS in the theater of operations is a controversial decision.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 25 March 2021 07: 06
        0
        At a minimum, the UDC can carry several AWACS helicopters, which will push the radio horizon and provide an external control center, if necessary, this is useful in any scenario on the open sea.
        1. Runway
          Runway 25 March 2021 08: 09
          +1
          Paragraphs 1 and 2 hint that the use of the UDC (DESO) is a solution to the problem of the front (district) level and the entire Fleet + a VKS connection will provide transports with the 1st "wave" landing force.
          We are talking about something else: if the UDC (which alone in the fleet makes it possible to land over the horizon) "gurgles" = failure or "we solve the problem on our own."
          1 - 23900 passengers and up to 1000 bbm + 75 turntables. Displacement is 15 Ktn (+; - bast shoe).
          2 - 11711 passengers or 300 bbm + 36 turntables. Displacement from 2 to 6 Ktn.
          Further trivial math:
          40 with a hook on 6 with a tail / 8 - we get 5-7 steamers 1171. Accordingly, 1200 passengers and 108 bbm with 14 turntables.
          Lost 4 landing craft (party charter does not allow towing).
          We get 7 goals that need to "gurgle" instead of 1.

          If on 11711 increased displacement 4 turntables can be crammed with the same landing capacity - the UDC will be the "white elephants" of the Russian Navy (a staff steamer was made from KIK - the same "opera").
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 25 March 2021 10: 38
            0
            if the UDC "gurgles"

            So the UDC is needed so as not to "gurgle", the link of the AWACS helicopters allows you to move the radio horizon from 30-40 km to 250 km, to give the control center for some purpose, if necessary. The first-echelon landing vehicles are helicopters and landing craft, not the carcass of the DK. The benefits are obvious.
            ChSI Ka-29 as a landing helicopter, to put it mildly, "not very", the landing compartment is small.
            1. Runway
              Runway 25 March 2021 11: 02
              +4
              You read without delving into it. I can not help you. We do not discuss nonsense about drlo boards with UDC.
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 25 March 2021 11: 35
                0
                Thanks for the informative answer.
                1. Runway
                  Runway 25 March 2021 11: 51
                  +2
                  Don't be offended. Read how the same Yankees (who ate more than one dog) provide DESO to capture (throw the brigade ashore) and your AWACS will fall off the steamer by itself (I emphasized the points at which the AWACS spinner is on UDC = ballast).
                  1. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 25 March 2021 12: 17
                    0
                    What are you, what grudges laughing The Americans have a full-fledged carrier-based aircraft, ejection carriers, they do not need a Ka-31 palliative. But the British had to send ships to the RLD, exposing them to attack. Where is the logic?
                    1. Runway
                      Runway 25 March 2021 14: 47
                      +1
                      Well, the Brita, having brought two air steamers to the Falklands, initially did not scratch at the expense of the drills in the air. Their steamers worked in isolation from their bases, and if they hadn't yawned, the gauchos would not have been able to shove them.
                      We can't go to Okinawa and Hawaii, and we don't need to (keep our own).
                      Yankees with their air steamers do not hesitate in their plans to provide DESO to have, in addition to guarding, as part of the detachment itself (X UDC, X TDK and TV / TO + 1-3 esm uro) AUG + a pair of KUG and a pair of KPUG (OKOP is formed on the spot).
                      We have the same, but the view from the side, and the air (including RLD / AWACS) will drag the VKS.
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 28 March 2021 20: 41
            0
            Quote: WFP
            UDC will be the "white elephants" of the Russian Navy

            perfectly true, elementary arithmetic
  5. IC
    IC 25 March 2021 06: 02
    +11
    Recently, publications in the media about the Navy are striking in their incompetence and far from the real situation in the Navy and shipbuilding
    1. bar
      bar 25 March 2021 06: 53
      0
      Or maybe this incompetence just reflects the real situation in our Navy? recourse
  6. evgen1221
    evgen1221 25 March 2021 06: 18
    -2
    Is there any point in taking the kamenyuki of the Kuril Islands to the Japanese without suppressing and protecting themselves from the continental threat from the main territory of the Russian corporation? Therefore, either no one will take anything or they will take a decent piece together with China (for example, all of Kamchatka and Sakhalin with a love of seafood) will go with a bang. But only on condition of blocking and lack of opportunities for the Russian Federation to retaliate. That, when dealing with China, it is quite solvable.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 25 March 2021 12: 12
      +4
      Quote: evgen1221
      That, when dealing with China, it is quite solvable.

      It’s necessary not to know history! China will never agree to a military alliance with Japan!
      The Chinese treat the Japanese in the same way as we did, in our time, to fascist Germany! These are their bloodlines. And the Hunfuz memory, unlike us, is VERY good. For the next couple of centuries, these are their enemies to death.
      Let me remind you that it was the Japanese who mercilessly slaughtered 24 (according to other sources - up to 28 !!!) million whales in the 30s and 40s of the last century.
      1. evgen1221
        evgen1221 25 March 2021 12: 37
        -2
        And here is not an alliance, but a race for distillation, who will be able to snatch faster and more, the rest is already the lyrics of diplomats for many years to come. And the point was for the Bulgarians and all sorts of vergram to climb to us in the Second World War, however ...
  7. mark1
    mark1 25 March 2021 07: 14
    +8
    UDC is a universal amphibious assault ship. As soon as I read the alternative interpretation, I immediately understood who the author was.
    In general, regarding this article, I am on the side of P.P. Sharikov. -
    Yes, I do not agree
    with whom? in this case with Roman Skomorokhov.
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 25 March 2021 07: 35
      +1
      Our media know how to catch up with the wave
      The same can be said about some of the authors on VO. How many more can you use one computer drawing, enclosing it with different verbiage?
  8. geniy
    geniy 25 March 2021 08: 51
    -6
    Russia needs a universal catamaran ship. The fact is that the stability of catamarans is about ten times that of monohull ships. And warships are killed just most often from capsizing - that is, from loss of stability. And it often happened in all wars that, having received a very small amount of water inside the hull, a single-hull ship immediately heeled and then capsized. A catamaran will allow you to receive dozens of torpedoes or missiles and remain almost without roll and trim.
    And besides, the tremendous advantage of catamarans is that they have a huge deck area. That is, this is an excellent ship as an aircraft carrier and helicopter carrier. Moreover, in the side hulls of the catamaran, you can easily make opening and removable deck sections. And here in the hold, you can lower planes or helicopters by crane, as well as tanks and armored personnel carriers and MLRS, and in these sections of the deck you can place deck artillery installations with ammunition under them. Or vice versa - vertical launch missile silos. And under the connecting bridge of the catamaran, landing boats or barges raised or lowered with the help of winches can be suspended. Yes, and still very important - if the bow underwater end of such a catamaran is made sloping in the form of an icebreaker, then this catamaran will be able to crawl out with the bow end directly to the shore, and if you also make a forward ramp, then tanks and armored personnel carriers directly from the upper deck of the catamaran along the ramp will be able to move ashore.
    And besides, you can also use aircraft not of vertical, but of shortened take-off and landing - in fact, the same MiG-29 and Su-33. That is, you just need to increase the angle of attack on takeoff, this will significantly increase the lift and decrease the takeoff and landing speed. And then on takeoff and landing, the takeoff and run length will be reduced by 2-3 times. And if you also equip such a catamaran with gas turbines using kerosene, then, if necessary, it can give all the kerosene to the aircraft, or vice versa - to increase the cruising range, the aircraft can give all the kerosene to the control system of their ship. Moreover, some of the SU gas turbines can be turned off to increase the economy in the economic run. And due to this, the cruising range can be increased many times - so as to protect not only the Kuril Islands, but also operate in remote areas - somewhere in the region of Cuba, Venezuela, or Brazil with Argentina, Or the Philippines, Indonesia, New Guinea. This is how it will be possible to create a universal amphibious assault ship. Moreover, it can be not only a combat ship, but also a transport one. If we recall the Second World War, then warships very often performed tasks for the banal transportation of goods or troops, for which they were completely unsuitable. For example, the cruiser "Red Crimea" near Odessa landed troops, and the destroyer "Tashkent" took out people and goods from Sevastopol.
    1. Glory1974
      Glory1974 25 March 2021 09: 55
      +4
      you need a universal catamaran ship. The fact is that the stability of catamarans is about ten times that of monohull ships.

      there are also trimarans, whose average hull cannot be hit at all.
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 25 March 2021 13: 13
        +2
        Quote: glory1974
        They don't have an average body at all.

        and it depends on how you undress. Maybe someone will succeed.
    2. moody
      moody April 25 2021 22: 53
      0
      And if the floats are made elliptical, then maybe they will also swing less (like in Livadia II-nd 1880).
  9. Doccor18
    Doccor18 25 March 2021 08: 52
    +2
    "Varan" - is it worth wasting time

    Do not be.
    On the article too ...
    catch up with the wave

    The reason for the appearance of this work.
  10. Butchcassidy
    Butchcassidy 25 March 2021 09: 01
    0
    I have been at VO for too long: I have already begun to define not only Damantsev, but also Skomorokhov by the style of writing: the boss is all gone! The plaster is being removed the client leaves ...
  11. prior
    prior 25 March 2021 09: 21
    +3
    Monitor lizards are not found in Russia.
    Means and "Lizards" will not start. smile
  12. Soldatov V.
    Soldatov V. 25 March 2021 09: 39
    -3
    I liked the article, it is short and clear. In general, it would be interesting to look at the projects of other shipbuilding design bureaus, or aircraft-building ones (the take-off deck is still an airfield).
    Maybe "Voennoye Obozreniye" organizes a competition-review of the flight of engineering thought. Now is the age of computer graphics, draw what you want. Once I tried the Russian FreeShip curriculum, it immediately gives out the performance characteristics of the drawn vessel. By the way, the OSK organized a similar competition with FLOT.RU.
    I am waiting for other authors of the site on this topic.
  13. vvvjak
    vvvjak 25 March 2021 09: 40
    +3
    For example, if the Tu-95 seriously decides to offend the boat with all available ...

    Then nothing will happen, tk. Tu-95 is not yet a carrier of anti-ship missiles. The photo shows the X-101 (if I'm not mistaken), which are designed to destroy stationary targets at a great distance (5500 km), including nuclear charges (in the X-102 configuration).
  14. yehat2
    yehat2 25 March 2021 09: 45
    -1
    that the UDC is precisely an assault landing ship, that is, a ship of an attacking plan, and, moreover, with almost no possibility of double interpretation.

    but here I disagree.
    for example, take the Khmeimim base.
    If next to it there is a conventional Mistral with an effective air defense system, a modern command post, a group of helicopters and a normal set of boats, this will significantly expand the operational capabilities of the base. There is a hospital on the same ship, which is never superfluous.
    He can also drive to the Black Sea for replenishment. And note, no shock features, pure support.
    1. andrew42
      andrew42 25 March 2021 11: 26
      +4
      A little expensive for a "command landing stage", isn't it? UDC must work to capture the bridgehead, to capture! Not hanging out by the coastline. For the full-scale transfer of equipment (including helicopters and attack aircraft) and manpower, for this there are normal capacity transports with security. There would be a land bridgehead, where to transfer. It is also much more suitable for basing aircraft, helicopters, hospitals, MTO bases, air defense systems and coastal defense. The UDC should work "in the moment", and not in the standby mode, hanging out at the coast, - this will only work with the Papuans, - it will not work even in the Falklands mode, - the floating circus will be drowned.
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 25 March 2021 11: 42
        -1
        Quote: andrew42
        UDC must work to capture the bridgehead, to capture!

        not only to capture.
        and what is expensive in a floating hangar?
        Ships are the cheapest logistics.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 28 March 2021 20: 55
          +1
          Quote: yehat2
          Ships are the cheapest logistics

          tell this to the passengers of the Titanic lying at the bottom of the ocean ... the headquarters on the ship is idiocy, the headquarters should be in a concrete bunker and preferably very deep
          1. yehat2
            yehat2 29 March 2021 09: 38
            0
            Can you tell this to the management of the Khmeimim base, which has not been able to build a single bunker for itself for many years? laughing
            Or maybe you will tell this to the Americans, who converted all the URO cruisers for headquarters functions, so that they could be transferred to battleships? Stop posting demagoguery!
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 29 March 2021 10: 22
              +1
              Quote: yehat2
              you will tell this to the Americans, who have converted all URO cruisers for headquarters functions,

              clearly these headquarters are intended for aggression against innocent small states, in a real big war they will not survive ... this is what happened in the Suez Canal, another proof of the uselessness and inconvenience of suitcases without a handle, ships constrained by their draft, losses of $ 10 billion, and if there is stuck an unnecessary aircraft carrier that Timokhin is going to plant in the Persian Gulf for some reason ... who would pay these losses? planes and missiles ...
              1. yehat2
                yehat2 29 March 2021 10: 24
                0
                Quote: vladimir1155
                in a real big war they will not survive

                Do you know how much time the United States itself gives its aircraft carriers during a big war?
                according to estimates of different specialists from 12 hours to 7 days.
                And these are the most tenacious surface ships in the world today.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 29 March 2021 10: 30
                  0
                  Quote: yehat2
                  Do you know how much time the United States itself gives its aircraft carriers during a big war?
                  according to estimates of different specialists from 12 hours to 7 days.
                  And these are the most tenacious surface ships in the world today.

                  here she really will take her! the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier has been proven! funny 12 hours and even then at best ..... the entire destructive totalitarian sect of the aircraft carrier witnesses put to shame! ..... well, about survivability, this is not the case, submarines can not only survive the war, but also act, the same applies to bunkers with headquarters, videoconferencing bases inside the country, and just tanks, there are very many chances not only to survive, but and to fight, in comparison with the vulnerability of a surface ship, a well-known slow-moving and relatively weakly armed, all military means are less vulnerable ...
              2. andrew42
                andrew42 29 March 2021 13: 34
                0
                Well, about "insidious to ruin" it got excited. I perfectly understand Timokhin's love for aircraft carriers, in his youth I myself read articles from "Model Designer" about the entire genesis of the aircraft carrier fleet, beautiful! WWII - if not the culmination of efficiency, then the previous rise. But there is as it wants, and as it is. In the realities of the Russian economy, an aircraft carrier is the last thing a budget should invest in. This is the cherry on the cake, and so far we are only able to bake pies, cakes are not our lot, alas. But the multipurpose airborne and aircraft carrier mega-troughs, into which (due to "versatility") it is still necessary to cram a minimum air defense / anti-aircraft defense or to issue an order, is an absolute evil, and real, in contrast to the aircraft carrier, which is obviously not located of money. Landing helicopter carriers of limited displacement, for group use, is a matter, the rest is from the evil one.
                1. yehat2
                  yehat2 29 March 2021 16: 22
                  0
                  Quote: andrew42
                  airborne-aircraft carrier-staff mega-troughs,

                  and where is this line - mega and nedomega?
                2. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 29 March 2021 19: 10
                  +1
                  Quote: andrew42
                  But the multipurpose airborne and aircraft carrier mega-troughs, into which (due to their "universality") it is still necessary to cram a minimum air defense / anti-aircraft defense system or furnish an order, is an absolute evil, and a real one.

                  yes it is, I agree
  15. yehat2
    yehat2 25 March 2021 10: 00
    0
    and the second point is to make the plane more efficient than the F-35, really only for a catapult.
    just forget all other options. There is no catapult - there is not even a chance of some kind of counteraction in the air.
    But besides the catapult, it is necessary to carry out a number of R&D, so that heavy aircraft do not fall from the deck in batches. And this is not only an aerofinisher. It takes a lot of effort to improve the landing procedure and other procedures. The funny thing is that most of the developments are in the public domain, mainly from sources from the United States, but no one even itches to use their experience.
  16. Maks1995
    Maks1995 25 March 2021 10: 14
    +7
    Summary of the article:
    The media and the state make a fool of people.
    Nobody needed a lizard, nobody needs it now, there is no money, no planes, no ships of the squadron for it,
    but "have no analogs in the world of REVUnderwaffe" for PR
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 28 March 2021 20: 57
      +1
      Quote: Max1995
      Summary of the article:
      The media and the state make a fool of people.
      Nobody needed a lizard, nobody needs it now, there is no money, no planes, no ships of the squadron for it,
      but "have no analogs in the world of REVUnderwaffe" for PR

      I fully support Max
  17. Denis Rumyanny
    Denis Rumyanny 25 March 2021 10: 36
    +1
    Monkey disease, or Cargo Cult. You need to build a glass skyscraper like NY or Abu Dhabi. Otherwise, the big white monkey from Voronezh does not feel full. So they built Gazpromovskaya glass in St. Petersburg. Opening and closing the gas taps is enough for a couple of floors. There will also be a pool, bar and blackjack casino. But you have to repeat after the Arab monkey or the Asiatic ...
    Now our northern primates want to wear flippers and a mask to become sharks in the ocean. I do not want to be a noblewoman, I will be the mistress of the seas.
    We urgently need another Kuznetsov at the wall to collect bird droppings on the deck.
    And let the Chinese cut down the entire forest in Siberia. Nothing can stop us.
  18. andrew42
    andrew42 25 March 2021 11: 04
    +3
    Come on, "Varan", conceptually more than dubious. Here and the "2-battalion" UDC already laid down raise a lot of questions. UDC is the landing functionality, firstly, and the landing cover, secondly, the most powerful cover for the landing, if possible. Third, it is the limited possibility of a single use of the UDC, or a group of UDC, - situationally limited !! According to this logic, the carrying capacity of the UDC (for modern realities and tasks) should be distributed approximately as 50% of the landing force with equipment, 40% of combat helicopters for work on the coast, 10% of PLO helicopters. And there should be a group of such UDCs (at least two or three, so that the only trough is not drowned with the entire landing), carrying no more than a battalion group, with POWERFUL helicopter support. Air defense means by itself, but in a serious case, you still cannot do without security. And then the UDC "Varan" with aircraft carrier functionality. There is an attempt to shove the unpushable. No, you can even build a monster, undress the entire Navy, invest in this miracle in a number of 1 pieces, only confusion will turn out, cut and spray.
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 25 March 2021 13: 17
      0
      Quote: andrew42
      and cover for the landing, secondly, the most powerful cover for the landing.

      it is you who set out the requirements for the Soviet UDC for direct landings, but they may be different. for example, the Soviet project Ivan Tarava
      1. andrew42
        andrew42 26 March 2021 12: 56
        0
        I tend to believe that, besides the landing force, the UDC should be, first of all, a Helicopter carrier, to the maximum. Aircraft on the UDC are superfluous, especially for the realities of our fleet. There are full-fledged avics for aircraft. And from the point of view of support for the landing, there will be little sense from the aircraft, and the placement of an insufficient number of aircraft a priori requires a deck with a runway of a decent length, to the detriment of everything else. This is an ineffective increase in displacement from the point of view of the main functionality of the UDC. However, if you remove the coastal assault function from the UDC, then you can make any laibu with the headquarters and other fashionable control functions of the squadron, but it will already be a Control Ship, not a UDC. an increase in size, where they are trying to shove everything at once, so that everyone drowns - the headquarters, and the planes, and the landing force with equipment. I insist that, in fact, Landing Helicopter carriers are needed, moreover, of limited capacity - up to 1 BTG, but in larger quantities.
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 26 March 2021 13: 09
          0
          Quote: andrew42
          And from the point of view of supporting the landing

          there are 4 types of landing - in the port, directly to the shore, swim up to the shore and ferry by boats / sharks / helicopters and OVER-HUNDRED disembarkation. The latter is the safest, but there are long distances and in this case the planes are quite appropriate.
          1. andrew42
            andrew42 26 March 2021 13: 18
            0
            Forgive me, I am skeptical about the over-the-horizon landing of the troops. For this is the lot of the DRG, not the landing. Surprise, secrecy and small numbers. When a large number of amphibious assault vehicles are under their own power over a long distance, the probability of their destruction is extremely high, because "because of the horizon" air defense cover from ships is impossible. It should be considered as the main option landing from an average "helicopter" distance, of course, with landing boats, on which the displacement should be spent, and not on aircraft hangars and fuel depots / MTO.
            1. yehat2
              yehat2 26 March 2021 13: 29
              0
              Quote: andrew42
              When a large number of amphibious assault vehicles are under their own power at a long distance, the probability of their destruction is extremely high, because "because of the horizon" air defense cover from ships is impossible

              cover forces can be positioned in different ways. It means precisely a vulnerable ship full of troops and supplies, which is not substituted under any conditions
              Americans have demonstrated many times that this works with proper preparation.
              It doesn't work for us because it all comes down to "cheaper".
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 28 March 2021 20: 59
      0
      Quote: andrew42
      No, you can even build a monster, undress the entire Navy, invest in this miracle in a quantity of 1 pieces, only confusion will turn out, cut and spray

      yes so
  19. 75 Sergey
    75 Sergey 25 March 2021 11: 21
    +2
    Let's do this, the World Revolution does not shine in the near future, we do not bring democracy to other countries, so why do we need aircraft carriers in such quantities, one in each water area is quite enough
  20. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 25 March 2021 13: 24
    +3
    Interestingly, the author understands the difference between the UDC and an aircraft carrier, albeit a small one?))) Or does he have a concept - since the box is large, then an aircraft carrier?)))
  21. Undecim
    Undecim 25 March 2021 13: 46
    +2
    In South Korea - 2, Tokushima and Maro classes.
    This is which Korea from which reality. What is Tokushima in South Korea? This is a prefecture in Japan.
    South Korea has two Dokdo class helicopter carriers, four tank landing Cheonwangbong class, and four tank landing Gojunbong class.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 25 March 2021 17: 44
      +1
      More in the topic:
      "In Japan, 4, two" Izumo "and" Hyuuga "." Actually, ships of these types are not at all UDC. UDC for the Japanese type "Osumi".
  22. Soldatov V.
    Soldatov V. 25 March 2021 15: 30
    0
    The UDC is needed for the fleet. Here we have an aircraft carrier Kuznetsov and on its basis we know about what kind of exploitation we need or not. The same is with UDC. Build at least one and play war with it. Walk from Syria to Sevastopol, or from Kronstadt to Syria. It's good that we have our own project and body movements have begun in Crimea, but I would pay attention to the Japanese UDC destroyer. I think this is the best option of all projects. By the way, can the UDC be passed through the Bosphorus? And so the destroyer, why did they dock.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 28 March 2021 20: 47
      +1
      Quote: V.
      Build at least one and play war with it. Walk from Syria to Sevastopol, or from Kronstadt to Syria.

      "home to madam nannies dolls", tea is not spillikins to play war then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKXx8VW2y94
  23. Looking for
    Looking for 26 March 2021 15: 42
    0
    Manilovism in Russia is indestructible. Still, this is how much money can be stolen on all sorts of utopian "projects"
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 28 March 2021 20: 45
      0
      Quote: Seeker
      Manilovism in Russia is indestructible. Still, this is how much money can be stolen on all sorts of utopian "projects"

      to point
  24. Thompson
    Thompson 27 March 2021 13: 11
    0
    The author may not even subscribe, and it is immediately clear who mailed the paper.
    And if on business, there are no air and helicopter carriers .. ugh, weaklings, you don't even have that.
    It's worth planning them ... why do we need them! Are we going to attack? Ahhh, our taxes go where ... etc.
    So you don't have to go far for an example - post above
  25. Karl Ivanovich
    Karl Ivanovich 28 March 2021 14: 44
    +1
    Any projects grow from military doctrine - if it is not clearly defined, then nothing worthwhile can be created.
    If we are going to "vitrify" the advancing enemy with nuclear ammunition, then landing on the processed territories will be unhealthy at first, and then it will be possible to land there from an ordinary barge ... true ... in the UZK.
    If we are preparing for war according to the yellowed scenario of World War II, then first we need human resources commensurate with India or China, and the Russian Federation simply does not have them.
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 28 March 2021 19: 34
    0
    meaningful ideas in the fevered brain of the designers of the Nevsky Central Design Bureau who dream of sawing more people's money into a stupid unnecessary trough, if there are no tasks for the UDC, then it is simply not needed
  28. Sevastiec
    Sevastiec 29 March 2021 02: 47
    -1
    Our media know how to catch up with the wave. Especially in the field of shipbuilding.


    And the author himself, what is he doing? Well, only "mass media" about "Kuzkin's mother", and the author about "everything is gone."

    The fleet takes a long time to build, and articles are written quickly. Lately, many have noted here. Having written one, second, third article in a few months, and without waiting for the result in the form of a built powerful fleet, taking into account all their wishes, they move on to articles like "we will never have anything."
  29. Basarev
    Basarev April 24 2021 12: 08
    0
    You need to build what you can do. To begin with, finally get to grips with the engines. Already just a large-scale diesel engine of a purely Russian component will become a huge success. Then under it and build ships, we can only use RTOs. And then, based on the available forces, build tactics. And I see that we need Mighty air defense ships, up to the floating S-500 - all-all systems on one vessel. There is no need to sink an aircraft carrier when it is enough to simply knock down all of its aircraft.
  30. moody
    moody April 25 2021 23: 53
    0
    I don’t want to say anything, but it’s enough to look at the drawing where the bump stop was attached. And you don't have to be a literate person in naval and aviation matters to realize that no one will fly anywhere.


    I cannot call myself very competent in naval and aviation matters, but I would be careful not to draw such a conclusion unambiguously. The length of the object is declared 250 m; by eye, the length of the line from the bumper to the edge of the deck is not less than a third of the length. If it is possible to fit a catapult into this length, it may fly.
    I am confused by something else: the power plant, I think, is a gas turbine. Something I do not see on the island of characteristic dimensional pipes.
    In general, there is some kind of confusion. All disputes about the UDC, although in the figures given in the article of the UDC, i.e. light aircraft carrier. And the UDC is declared one third less in weight and other characteristics and with 7 helicopter pads.