US Navy abandons rail gun

62

One of the first experimental railguns built under the EMRG program

Since the mid-XNUMXs, the US Navy, in cooperation with a number of scientific and design organizations, has been working on the study, creation and improvement of the so-called. rail guns. The ElectROMAGNETIC Railgun (EMRG) program has yielded certain results, and in the future such weapon it was planned to put on warships. However, by now the situation has changed, and over the next few months all work in this direction will be curtailed.

Draft budget


At the end of May, the draft US military budget for the next FY2022 was published. A significant part of this document is devoted to the planned spending on the maintenance and development of the naval forces. Among other things, the costs of promising developments are discussed - and this section contains very interesting data.



The new draft indicates that the budget for FY2021 is within the framework of “applied research of prototypes for fleet(Innovative Naval Prototypes, INP) the fleet requested and received $ 9,5 million for the development of railguns. In addition, Congress, on its own initiative, through INP Advanced Technology Development, allocated $ 20 million for this program. Apparently, the development of this money is still ongoing, but it will be completed in the coming months - by the end of the current financial year.

For FY2022 INP funding is not requested. The INP ATD table also contains zeros. As the reasons for this, the completion of research work and the development of a promising direction are indicated. The documentation for the EMRG program will be retained, but no plans for further use are mentioned. All this allows us to speak about the complete cessation of work - without the transition from the research stage to the experimental design stage.


Shot from an early EMRG cannon, November 2007

Thus, the program for the development of a combat railgun for ships EMRG stops, at least indefinitely. A decade and a half of active work, research and testing will not give the desired results in the foreseeable future.

Long story


The Pentagon began researching rail guns back in the eighties of the last century. At the same time, the first laboratory prototypes appeared, showing the fundamental possibility of creating such combat systems. Work on railguns for the Navy began later. The EMRG program started only in the middle of the XNUMXs, but quickly enough gave real results.

Already in the middle of the 2019s, General Atomics and BAE Systems presented their rail gun projects. Soon, prototypes were made, the tests of which were carried out for a long time at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division in pieces. Virginia. In XNUMX, the tests were moved to the White Sands proving ground in New Mexico.

According to early estimates, it took about ten years to create a combat-ready model. In 2015-16. an experienced cannon could be tested on a real ship. It was planned to spend a few more years on fine-tuning, and by the mid-twenties, the Navy would have received full-fledged combat-ready weapons. However, for one reason or another, the dates were repeatedly shifted to the right. Tests on an experimental vessel have not yet been carried out - and, as it is now clear, will no longer take place.


Flight of a projectile with a muzzle energy of more than 10 MJ, January 2008 The ammunition has already begun to penetrate the target with the program logo

In recent years, a specific situation has developed around the topic of rail guns. For example, the Navy and members of the EMRG program rarely talked about their successes. At the beginning of 2018, news about the possible rejection of the development of the railgun - this is how the foreign media interpreted the sharp reduction in funding for the program. However, the work continued, although in the future the Navy allocated no more than $ 8-10 million annually for them.

FY2021 Defense Current Budget allows for the continuation of the EMRG program, but now it is only about the completion of ongoing work. Recent news shows that the Navy is no longer planning to continue developing new weapons. However, rail guns still have some chances. The Navy can transfer the program to secret budget items, and Congress has the right to insist on the continuation of the project and provide the necessary money.

Technical advances


The first rail gun, created by order of the US Navy, was shown in 2006. The stationary proving ground model ejected a 3,2 kg projectile with a muzzle energy of 8 MJ. In terms of its energy and related characteristics, such a product approached the standard tank NATO guns. At the same time, not only the advantages, but also the disadvantages of such a design were shown. The prototype gun was excessively large and heavy, and needed powerful power supply and cooling systems.


Rail gun from BAE Systems with an energy level of 32 MJ

In early 2008, General Atomics fired for the first time from its rail cannon equipped with a new type of power system. It was possible to obtain a muzzle energy of more than 10,6 MJ and an initial velocity of over 2500 m / s. At the end of 2010, BAE Systems set a new record. Her weapon showed an energy of 33 MJ. Two years later, General Atomics responded with its cannon with similar characteristics and reduced dimensions. Such a product could already be considered as a ship's armament.

In the middle of the last decade, it was reported about the continuation of work and the expected creation of a full-fledged gun mount suitable for installation on Navy ships. In 2014, two developers presented full-size mock-ups of artillery systems. They were even placed on the deck of the ship for demonstration. Underdeck units, as far as is known, have not been demonstrated in this way.

As the main carrier of railguns, destroyers of the Zumwalt type, distinguished by a high-power power plant, were considered. Their generators have a total capacity of 78 MW, which is enough to supply power to all onboard systems and at the same time ensure the efficient operation of the rail gun. Integration into the complex of weapons of other ships was not ruled out, but it could be associated with serious difficulties. In particular, existing weapons would have to be sacrificed to accommodate all new units.


Layout of the artillery unit of the complex from BAE Systems on the deck of the USS Millinocket (T-EPF-3), July 2014

Some materials on EMRG featured the concept of a stationary coastal artillery battery with rail guns. For all its fire advantages, such a complex has obvious disadvantages, and this idea was later abandoned.

The development of a promising guided projectile corresponding to the characteristic loads at launch and capable of flying over a distance of hundreds of kilometers was carried out. The most ambitious plans were announced, but, as far as we know, there have not yet been any real results suitable for practical application.

Objective problems


It took about 17-18 years and more than $ 500 million to develop a rail gun for the US Navy. Despite all the efforts and expenses, the promising weapon has not even reached the stage of testing on a ship. Moreover, they plan to abandon the project, at least for a while. Obviously, such a negative decision must have good reasons. The Navy and the Pentagon have not yet raised this topic, but some assumptions and conclusions can be made.

Throughout the EMRG program, the fleet and its contractors faced a problem of overwhelming complexity. The creation of a rail gun - a stationary test bench or a prototype for ship tests - was difficult, time-consuming and expensive. At the same time, as can be judged, the assigned tasks could not be fully solved. Accordingly, the program risked becoming even longer and more expensive, with no guarantee of successful completion.

US Navy abandons rail gun

The use of railguns and other advanced weapons in the operation of the Navy

However, even the successful creation of a ship installation would not guarantee success. Such weapons have long been left without potential carriers. Initial plans called for the construction of 32 Zumwalt destroyers, each of which could receive a railgun. Subsequently, the shipbuilding program was reduced to three hulls. Nothing is known about the development of a new ship of a close class equipped with a comparable power plant.

Thus, the successful completion of the development of a new gun would allow re-equipping only three ships in the short and medium term. Further production of combat railguns would be questionable - as well as the feasibility of spending on such a project.

For undefined period


The final decision was probably made with all these factors in mind. In the current situation, having soberly assessed its needs, capabilities and potential, the US Navy came to the conclusion that it was necessary to close the interesting and promising, but controversial EMRG program. As a result, ships will have to continue to use barreled artillery, mostly of old types. Fundamentally new ammunition for it is also canceled.

However, it cannot be ruled out that the idea of ​​a rail gun will still be returned. In the medium or long term, the US Navy and industry can solve a number of pressing technical issues, which will create a groundwork for resuming the development of railguns, already with real prospects. How soon this will happen and what consequences it will have - it will not be known soon.
Our news channels

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

62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    3 June 2021 18: 07
    Even the Pentagon's budget does not allow further work.
    1. 0
      3 June 2021 18: 17
      Even the Pentagon's budget does not allow


      The game is not worth the candle.

      The huge declared projectile speeds and firing range are not achievable for technological reasons. So far, no materials and alloys have been created that can withstand such loads.
    2. +8
      3 June 2021 18: 38
      victory of the rail gun over common sense))
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +1
        4 July 2021 11: 59
        Someone thought they won
  2. +2
    3 June 2021 18: 17
    Now, somewhere in the corner, Zamwalt is crying wassat
    1. 0
      3 June 2021 18: 27
      Quote: Marachuh
      Now, somewhere in the corner, Zamwalt is crying wassat

      And who is it?
      1. +5
        3 June 2021 18: 59
        This is a very very expensive floating iron wassat
  3. +1
    3 June 2021 18: 54
    In vain it is they, such a scam was financial, it was necessary to attach such a cannon under the F35, and from behind so that the Boeing 777 would transfer energy to it through the cable. ... and now such a feeder is closed. ...
    1. +1
      3 June 2021 19: 23

      In vain it is they, such a scam was financial, it was necessary to attach such a cannon under the F35, and from behind so that the Boeing 777 would transfer energy to it through the cable. ... and now such a feeder is closed. ...
      Something about sho, and a lousy about a bath ... laughing
  4. +8
    3 June 2021 19: 02
    The main reason is that there are no modern, compact and powerful energy sources (super-capacitors are also still in their infancy). Building a cannon that should be powered by an entire destroyer-class ship or half a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier-class ship is crazy. Another issue is that the Americans have done quite impressive R&D, which may well be a groundwork for the future.
    Chess-speaking, such a finale was obvious even in the midst of development and enthusiastic reports. Exactly the same as the development of combat lasers of high temperatures and energies (to blind, damage electronics - please, physically destroy - no). Everything rests on the masters of the world who really do not want to get off the oil needle. And this is for a long time, and in many areas of science and technology.
    1. Cat
      +5
      3 June 2021 20: 33
      Another reason is the difficulty of aiming at any serious distances. This applies to both lasers and railguns. It seems to me that within the atmosphere, the future belongs to guided munitions.
    2. +4
      3 June 2021 20: 42
      The problem there was in the rate of fire.
      The rate of fire of the electric rail gun during the tests was approximately
      ordinary gunpowder.
      And it was supposed to bombard the enemy with shells twice (or more) often,
      than usual.
      There was no need to store gunpowder charges on the "electro" ship.
      But the shells could be loaded many times more.
      1. +1
        5 June 2021 03: 10
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The problem there was in the rate of fire.
        The rate of fire of the electric rail gun during the tests was approximately
        ordinary gunpowder.

        Not. The problem turned out to be the inability of the developers to achieve the desired barrel energy. They did not even approach the issue of rate of fire, because at first they were glad that the new power system could, in principle, be placed on the ship.
        And again, what kind of "powder" cannon are you talking about? Muzzleloader 18th century? The AK-130, for example, has a rate of fire of 90 rounds per minute. This is a powder cannon. The creators of a scam could not even dream of such a rate of fire.

        Quote: voyaka uh
        And it was supposed to bombard the enemy with shells twice (or more) often,
        than usual.

        Seriously? What for? They also raved about high-precision shots. For 400 km straight almost to the window of the Kremlin. Where to shoot twice as fast as even AK-130? And what's the point in that? The projectile cannot, in principle, carry explosives inside itself; there is no sense in shooting them in areas at all.
      2. 0
        10 July 2021 19: 57
        I'm sorry. Throw shells weighing the size of a "forty-five" shot? The battleship "Iowa" was invented long ago for shooting in the squares and for the total demolition of all coastal fortifications))
    3. +1
      3 June 2021 21: 45
      Quote: Al_lexx
      The main reason is that there are no modern, compact and powerful energy sources (super-capacitors are also still in their infancy). Building a cannon that should be powered by an entire destroyer-class ship or half a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier-class ship is crazy. Another issue is that the Americans have done quite impressive R&D, which may well be a groundwork for the future.
      Chess-speaking, such a finale was obvious even in the midst of development and enthusiastic reports. Exactly the same as the development of combat lasers of high temperatures and energies (to blind, damage electronics - please, physically destroy - no). Everything rests on the masters of the world who really do not want to get off the oil needle. And this is for a long time, and in many areas of science and technology.

      No, the problem is in the materials
      1. +3
        4 June 2021 00: 32
        Quote: Vol4ara
        No, the problem is in the materials

        Materials of what? At the level of a laboratory model, there is no problem to create a railgun. The problem is that a priori it will turn out to be too large, with all the energy storage circuits, cooling circuits and the energy source itself. To get an acceptable rate of fire, you need to fence in a fucking cloud of capacitor banks of the storage buffer. Modern ships do everything from tin anyway, due to the huge amount of copper (mass) in the conductors that power the mountains of electronics. And even the low power consumption of modern microchips does not help. And here is the railgun, with his appetite.
        If you are talking about the materials of the accelerating section, then this can also be solved by means of magnets, which can provide contactless acceleration of the working fluid. But then the construction is even more monstrous, following the example of the synchrophasatron. Yes, even without a magnetic suspension, you can make a very hardy acceleration section. Only it will cost more than gold.

        ...
        IMHO, the problem is not so much in the materials as in the physical principles of energy sources and storage devices. If these tasks are solved, then the civilization of the oil and gas eaters will disappear into oblivion. I cannot say with complete certainty whether a solution to this problem is possible today, but I am 100% sure that no funding will be provided for this. Downloading and trading oil is easy and fun.
        1. +2
          4 June 2021 03: 59
          But won't a projectile on an electromagnetic cushion swing in the longitudinal direction?
          1. 0
            4 June 2021 07: 46
            Quote: Siberian54
            But won't a projectile on an electromagnetic cushion swing in the longitudinal direction?

            Is it swinging in an ordinary cannon?
            1. +1
              4 June 2021 13: 06
              Two copper rims .. and a barrel .. several magnetic fields instead of copper bands?
        2. +1
          4 June 2021 12: 15
          Quote: Al_lexx
          Materials of what?

          Paper runs out, dollars to print.
        3. +1
          4 June 2021 15: 53
          Quote: Vol4ara
          No, the problem is in the materials
          Al_lexx
          Materials of what?

          the trunk.
          bam - bam - and there is no trunk. redhead spits.

          .
          I wrote about Max PV below.
          plus, Max
    4. 0
      4 June 2021 20: 56
      super capacitors
      This is called a supercapacitor. And they are far from in infancy. And the problem is not with them. How do I charge them? Is that yadryonbaton. And this is not Zamwolt's level anymore.
    5. 0
      30 August 2021 14: 40
      The main reason is that there are no modern, compact and powerful energy sources.

      Not immediately, but the problem may be resolved. Now a lot of money is being thrown into the development of alternative energy sources, so at some point in time something interesting for railguns may appear.
  5. +3
    3 June 2021 19: 18
    In my opinion, the railgun is fundamentally impossible as a full-fledged weapon. The reason here is not even complexity, but in the concept of guiding the projectile / pusher along conductive rails. No, the scheme works - there are no questions here. The thing is that because of the speeds commensurate with the speed of sound in metal, the material of the rail begins to behave like a liquid (imagine that you are pushing a piece of honey over butter), and besides, the specific currents flowing during a shot exceed those with a contact welding, and, as a result, there is no need to talk about any rail resource - a couple of shots, and a replacement is needed. The only solution for such speeds is contactless projectile guidance, which contradicts the very principle of railgun operation, and is realizable, and only theoretically, in Gauss cannons. However, no, there are already Gauss cannons with contactless guidance of the "projectile", but specific ones, under a very high-speed and absolutely light "projectile" - synchrophasotron and other magnetic accelerators of subatomic particles.
    1. +1
      3 June 2021 20: 44
      The resource of the rail was approximately the same as that of a conventional one.
      howitzer barrel.

      Roughly the same as for a tank OBPS: a "coil" guide and a "crowbar" projectile
      1. -1
        5 June 2021 02: 59
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The resource of the rail was approximately the same as that of a conventional one.
        howitzer barrel

        My standard question is: where did you subtract it? The rails are made of silver-plated copper. Perhaps aluminum. This is a system requirement: minimum rail resistance. And behind the projectile is plasma. The shtatovites also have light metal ions. What resource "like a howitzer barrel" are you talking about? The rails are enough for just a few shots. I don’t know, maybe in Israel howitzer barrels cannot withstand fifty shots, but in Russia they have a much longer resource. :)
        1. +1
          5 June 2021 08: 08
          Read English-language resources (originals), not truncated translations for
          Russian language, and your horizons will expand significantly. smile
          Railgun provided both power and range.
          The rails withstood several hundred shots.
          There was no: design rate of fire and design accuracy.
          The Navy's near-term goal is a 20- to 32-megajoule weapon that shoots a distance of 50 to 100 nautical miles. Navy officials want a rate of fire for the electromagnetic railgun of at least 10 rounds per minute.
          The sailors wanted 10 rounds per minute. This has not been achieved.
          The comparison was with a 155 mm howitzer firing shells with
          rocket boosters. It was a "competitor".
          1. 0
            6 June 2021 01: 18
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Read English-language resources (originals), not truncated translations for
            Russian language, and your horizons will expand significantly.

            I asked you in Russian: where did you read that. Give a link, I read in English. I repeat to you once again: the material of the rails is sputtered copper. Plasma behind the projectile. No fairy tales from Lohokid Martin. Give a link to a PROVEN resource, and not to the statements of developers who have been caught in a lie many times. You saw the video of the shot: If there is no gunpowder in the barrel, then what flies out of it in a fountain of flame and smoke?


            Quote: voyaka uh
            The sailors wanted 10 rounds per minute. This has not been achieved.
            The comparison was with a 155 mm howitzer firing shells with
            rocket boosters.

            So you really say that you mean AGS, the miracle Yudo, whose shell costs 800 thousand dollars? Was it really a competitor? In my opinion, they began to prepare him as a substitute. You wrote about an ordinary howitzer, I really don't know if there are exactly howitzers in the fleet now, but naval guns shoot a little faster ...

            Now what they wanted: they wanted (according to the program coordinator, Rear Admiral Nevin Karr) a gun with a firing range of at least 400 km with a projectile weighing about 10 kg and a speed of at least 4 km / s. This required the energy of the projectile "at the barrel cut" of at least 60 megajoules. And it was just that it was not possible to get it since 2012. There were very specific problems associated with the imperfection of the theory.
            1. 0
              6 June 2021 11: 01
              "If there is no gunpowder in the barrel, then what flies out of it in a fountain of flame and smoke?" ///
              ----
              Is this really incomprehensible? smile
              The projectile takes off at a speed of 6-7 MAX.
              And behind it, a cocoon of plasma naturally forms in the atmosphere.
              As with any hypersonic vehicle.
              As you brake on a ballistic trajectory, the cocoon disappears.
    2. 0
      4 June 2021 02: 11
      So Gauss's efficiency is negligible.
  6. +3
    3 June 2021 19: 33
    Well, the eggheads frolicked, quenched their scientific and creative itch. Practical guys most likely deposited not frail amounts on their accounts. And the gunners will be in the old-fashioned way from the cannons to the white light as a pretty penny. Life. winked
    1. 0
      5 June 2021 19: 27
      In the 70s and 80s, a program for the creation of laser weapons was abundantly funded in the USSR. Even the first persons were invited, they hung noodles, well, where are the serial samples?
      The Americans gained experience, an experimental prototype worked. There will be new materials and the need to resume experiments.
      1. 0
        10 July 2021 20: 08
        serial samples in the same place where the USSR is now
  7. +1
    3 June 2021 20: 18
    The only reasonable argument for the creation of such systems is laboratory testing of stands on which the problems of anti-meteorite protection of spacecraft are solved. It is clear that you do not need to disperse kilograms for this, a few grams will be enough. Usually, light gas cannons are used for these purposes, but the railgun may well compete with traditional stands. And as a weapon - this is nonsense and a cut of the budget.
  8. +5
    3 June 2021 20: 25
    I can hardly restrain myself from the temptation to rummage through here two or three-year-old topics with uryakalka about the prospects of American rails.
  9. +1
    3 June 2021 20: 28
    I think they hoped to get a decisive gain in weight, size, cost of operation and reliability relative to the existing classic art. samples for ships - and did not receive. At long distances, missiles of any type are more profitable and more accurate - moreover, they come out even more economically justified, because the missile, although expensive, its launcher is a much less technological and expensive thing than a large barrel, which, in addition, gives a larger spaciousness in the installation platform.
    At short distances, they do not need to reinvent the wheel - there are fine-tuned art samples and a fine-tuned nomenclature for them. In terms of accuracy, the rail is inferior to corrected projectiles, since air resistance is still a factor affecting the spread. But at the same time, due to the specifics of the launch / size, it is much more difficult to make a controlled projectile for rails. Fussing with the rails turned out to be more than with the traditional art - cooling, the life cycle of the rails (probably), condenser piles and providing all this with energy without sagging the power supply of the entire ship is a task.
    So I'm not surprised.
  10. +4
    3 June 2021 20: 45
    Nice thing. You can bang once a year at the stand and pull, pull money. And the sailors immediately understood everything, let's, they say, we'd rather have a ship for such a wonderful cannon, and better than 30, preferably more expensive. But the Air Force grinds its teeth: such a thing cannot be fastened to the plane.
  11. -3
    3 June 2021 20: 50
    I'm just curious. Does everyone in Russia think that they are the smartest, and everyone else is bad? Have you looked at the budget, made conclusions, hung another star (in your back)? If you admit that military expenditures can be covered by civil expenditure items in the Russian budget, then do you really think that this is entirely your invention?)))
    1. +2
      4 June 2021 05: 13
      There are statistics - 10% reach the consumer, 0,01% of them shoot, 3% give a stable result, 4% at risk, 3% become classics. No need to flatter, a large amount of theory and practice in a decade will shoot a fundamentally new type of weapon
  12. -3
    3 June 2021 22: 16
    With the advent of modern missiles, all floating vessels larger than a destroyer are turning into low-speed, easily accessible targets.
    1. 0
      3 June 2021 22: 58
      The enemy must have modern missiles available. Not only everyone, few people ..
      The enemy should have a lot of them (sane hippos do not walk alone, with an escort)
      The enemy should have the courage to use modern missiles at the behemoth, realizing the non-illusion chance of getting from the behemoth, because modern missiles are not a panacea.
  13. mvg
    +2
    3 June 2021 22: 26
    It is not possible to read. I do not know how you can draw "articles" so illiterately from year to year. Just a mockery of the brain. Finish
  14. +3
    4 June 2021 00: 39

    Early 20th century: Medium "caliber" electric cannon. (project)

    The beginning of the 21st century: the newest "electric gun" USA
    How is it? Have you gone far in a century? what
  15. +1
    4 June 2021 08: 58
    Quote: El Chuvachino
    I can hardly restrain myself from the temptation to rummage through here two or three-year-old topics with uryakalka about the prospects of American rails.

    )))) Until recently, Rushen Liberda sprinkled boiling water after the news of successful tests. on the echo, the Maui were already discussing with might and main how the Americans would punish Putin with a railgun, it was time for Russia to surrender, etc.
    1. +1
      4 June 2021 13: 56
      Quote: fuffi
      Quote: El Chuvachino
      I can hardly restrain myself from the temptation to rummage through here two or three-year-old topics with uryakalka about the prospects of American rails.

      )))) Until recently, Rushen Liberda sprinkled boiling water after the news of successful tests. on the echo, the Maui were already discussing with might and main how the Americans would punish Putin with a railgun, it was time for Russia to surrender, etc.


      This is the flow of ... Consciousness ...
  16. 0
    6 June 2021 04: 09
    Well, actually, what was required to prove. The Americans are in their repertoire. They boast, they saw that no one bought it and quietly deflated. But there were conversations, conversations. In 4 years they will start a new one.
  17. 0
    7 June 2021 03: 05
    Maybe these electroelectromagnets would be useful for the ship's air defense of a small caliber? In the near zone
  18. 0
    29 July 2021 13: 15
    When an engineer like Shukhov appears in Russia, or a nugget like Kalashnikov, then a Russian rail gun or something similar will appear. The problem is still in the leadership, which is not competent to the point of decency, the industries are run by people who do not have the appropriate basic education. Humanitarians such as lawyers, accountants. journalists, actors cannot screw in a light bulb or fix an outlet, but try to manage production where at least a doctor of technical sciences is needed. In spite of everything, I think in Russia in 10 years a combat railgun will appear.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"