Project 23900 UDC "Priboy": a waste of money or a highly efficient warship?

Universal amphibious ships (UDC) as part of the naval fleet (Navy) Russia is currently absent. Everyone remembers the epic with the acquisition of four French Mistral-class UDCs, which ended with the sale of ships intended for the Russian Navy to Egypt and the return of funds by France for their purchase. Even then, a lot of criticism sounded to the address of the Mistral-class UDC, ranging from the alleged design flaws and ending with the lack of goals and objectives for ships of this class. After the aggravation of relations with Western countries and the termination of the contract for the Mistrals, Russia had to solve the issue of creating the UDC on its own.

French UDC of the Mistral type. Photo wikipedia.org

Currently, two Project 23900 Priboi universal amphibious assault ships (UDC) are being built for the Russian Navy. And again, as in the case of the Mistrals, the opinion is often expressed that these ships are absolutely useless for the Russian Navy.

Consider, is this really so? What tasks can the UDC of Project 23900 "Priboy" solve as part of the Russian Navy?

Anti-submarine defense (PLO)

Enemy submarines are one of the most significant threats to the Russian Navy. A particular threat is the possibility that enemy multipurpose nuclear submarines (PLA) can "sit on the tail" of Russian strategic missile submarine cruisers (SSBNs) when they leave their home bases, and then simultaneously destroy them as part of the enemy's application sudden disarming strike.

On the problems of Russian anti-submarine defense in general, and anti-submarine aviation in particular, it was repeatedly said on the pages of the Military Review. The UDC of project 23900 under construction is capable of carrying, according to various sources, about 16-20 helicopters. When solving the problems of PLO, UDC of project 23900 "Priboy", equipped with an air group consisting only of Ka-27M anti-submarine helicopters (or those that will replace them), is able to significantly enhance the anti-submarine capabilities of the Russian Navy, ensuring the safe deployment of SSBNs.

Helicopter Ka-27M of the Black Sea Fleet naval aviation. Photo function.mil.ru

The development of a modern anti-submarine helicopter and its large-scale production are one of the main priorities of the Russian Navy.

In addition to anti-submarine helicopters UDC project 23900 "Priboy" instead of landing ships can be carried in the dock chamber unmanned boats (BEC) и autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles (AUV), also optimized for anti-submarine missions.

Thus, in solving PLO problems, the UDC of project 23900 "Priboy" will not yield, and in some ways even surpass the "classic" aircraft carriers. Of course, this will only be so if the UDC is equipped with modern and effective anti-submarine helicopters, BEC and AUV.

Previously, the advantage of Nimitz-class aircraft carriers was the ability to carry carrier-based PLO aircraft, but now such aircraft are not in service with the US naval forces. Perhaps China will be the first to build carrier-based PLO aircraft in the new millennium. In any case, for the deployment of SSBNs, coastal-based ASW aircraft are quite enough. But PLO helicopters do not have a long flight range, so a floating airfield will be very useful for them.

Deck aircraft PLO Lockheed S-3 Viking - removed from service. Photo wikipedia.org

Air defense (AA)

The most important task of an aircraft carrier is to provide air defense for an aircraft carrier / ship strike group (AUG / KUG). The best way to solve this problem can be aircraft carriers equipped with catapults capable of providing takeoff of airborne early warning aircraft (AWACS). In turn, carrier-based fighters should ensure the defeat of attacking aircraft and anti-ship missiles (ASM) of the enemy.

Of course, the capabilities of the UDC in this regard are much more modest, but, nevertheless, this type of ships is also capable of significantly strengthening the air defense of the KUG.

First of all, we are talking about AWACS helicopters - they are quite effectively used by those countries that cannot afford AWACS deck aircraft. For example, on the newest British aircraft carriers of the Queen Elizabeth type, it is the AWACS helicopters that are deployed - the absence of catapults prevents AWACS aircraft from being deployed, despite the aircraft carrier's impressive displacement of about 76 tons.

Helicopter AWACS Merlin HM2 Crowsnest. Photo en.wikipedia.org

The Russian Navy also has an AWACS helicopter - Ka-31. This model is already somewhat outdated, although it can be used, but still, the Russian Navy needs a new AWACS helicopter equipped with a modern radar station (radar) with an active phased antenna array (AFAR). Such a machine will be useful not only for the Navy, but also for providing air defense (air defense) of ground targets. When repelling massive attacks of low-flying air attack weapons (EAS), the possibility of increasing their detection range and the possibility of over-the-horizon destruction of missiles using target designation from AWACS helicopters will be extremely useful given the chronic shortage of AWACS aircraft of the A-50M type or promising A-100.

Russian helicopter AWACS Ka-31. Photo wikipedia.org

The development of a modern AWACS helicopter should become one of the most important priorities for both the Russian Navy and the Russian Air Defense Forces.

An AWACS helicopter can not only warn of the approach of enemy low-altitude air defense systems, but also carry out over-the-horizon guidance of anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAMs) with an active radar guidance head (ARL GOS) or an infrared homing head (IR GOS), such as those used in anti-aircraft - missile systems (SAM) "Polyment / Redut", which are equipped with modern Russian warships (or "land" S-350 "Vityaz"). Without an airplane / helicopter AWACS, the detection range of low-flying EHV will always be limited by the radio horizon. The presence of 4-6 AWACS helicopters on board the UDC will ensure their round-the-clock watch in the air during a threatened period.

Article The interaction of ground-based air defense missile systems and airplanes the risks of "friendly fire" were indicated - the defeat of air defense aviation by air defense missile systems due to the presence of many rapidly moving air targets and the operation of electronic warfare equipment. AWACS helicopters in such a situation will have a certain advantage - they can occupy a strictly defined echelon in the air, which will be excluded from the shelling sector of shipborne air defense systems.

The capabilities of the UDC air defense are not limited to the use of AWACS helicopters. In general, a helicopter is a rather difficult air target for the enemy. Air battles between planes and helicopters did not happen very often - most helicopters were not at all adapted for air combat. However, when they happened, the planes did not always come out victorious. There is no doubt about the destruction of an Iranian F-24 fighter jet by an Iraqi Mi-4 combat helicopter. There is also unconfirmed information about the destruction of the American F-24 fighter by the Syrian Mi-14 combat helicopter - and this is no longer a joke.

Nevertheless, helicopters of the past were poorly adapted for air battles, but now the situation is changing.

The newest Russian combat helicopter Ka-52M carries the Rezets radar with an active phased antenna array, including 640 transmit and receive modules (PPM), capable of detecting air targets at a distance of up to 50 kilometers. Previously, Ka-52 helicopters were tested with short-range air-to-air missiles. There are no technical obstacles to equipping the Ka-52M with both RVV-MD (short-range) missiles with an infrared homing head (IR seeker) and RVV-SD (medium-range) missiles with ARL seeker. In this case, target designation of the RVV-SD outside the range of the "Rezets" radar can be issued by AWACS helicopters. Similar solutions can be implemented on the Ka-52K naval combat helicopter.

The prototype of the Ka-52 combat helicopter with the R-73 short-range air-to-air missile. Photo wikipedia.org

Potentially, the Ka-52M / Ka-52K are capable of carrying 4 RVV-SD, or up to 8 RVV-MD, or 2 RVV-SD and 4 RVV-MD (in the worst case, 2 RVV-SD and 2 RVV-MD). Air-to-air missiles based on portable anti-aircraft missiles (MANPADS) or promising small-sized air-to-air missiles developed on the basis of missiles, a Ka-52 helicopter can take even more - about 16 missiles per combat vehicle (or even more ).

Thus, in the variant of manning an air group for solving air defense tasks, the UDC of project 23900 "Priboy" can carry 4-6 AWACS helicopters and 12-14 Ka-52K combat helicopters, capable of collectively lifting about 50-200 air-to-air missiles into the air of various types.

The advantage of combat helicopters, especially those placed on the UDC deck in advance, is their ability to take off as quickly as possible, quickly engaging in battle and avoiding the destruction of anti-ship missiles on the UDC deck.

The combination of AWACS helicopters, combat helicopters with air-to-air missiles and shipborne air defense systems, capable of receiving target designation from AWACS helicopters, will significantly increase the protection of shipborne strike groups from enemy air forces.

In the dock chamber, BECs can be placed, capable of carrying electronic warfare equipment, false targets and reconnaissance equipment, which additionally increase the capabilities of the KUG to repel an air raid.

Anti-ship capabilities

The capabilities of the Project 23900 Priboy UDC to combat enemy surface ships will be determined by the composition of its air group. And here the Russian Navy has a serious advantage. The fact is that the Ka-52K Katran combat helicopters presumably should be able to use the Kh-35 subsonic low-flying anti-ship cruise missiles with a firing range of up to 300 kilometers - a more modern analogue of the American Harpoon anti-ship missiles, as well as the Kh-31 anti-ship missiles with a flight speed of more than three strides and a flight range of about 100 kilometers.

From top to bottom - Ka-52K Katran carrier-based combat helicopter, Kh-35 and Kh-31 anti-ship missiles. Photo wikipedia.org

Thus, in the variant of manning with an air group for solving anti-ship tasks, the UDC of project 23900 "Priboy" can carry 4-6 AWACS helicopters and 12-14 Ka-52K combat helicopters, capable of collectively lifting 24-28 anti-ship missiles of various types into the air.

The interaction of AWACS helicopters capable of detecting enemy surface ships at a considerable distance, as well as combat helicopters capable of launching anti-ship missiles "from a jump", will make it possible to deliver sudden and rather intense anti-ship missile attacks against the enemy's KUG that does not have air support.

You can pay attention to the fact that the composition of the air group in the anti-ship version is the same as in the version of manning the air group for solving air defense missions - only the composition of the weapons will differ, that is, this type of UDC air group will be quite universal.

Do not forget about the possibility of using anti-tank weapons from combat helicopters, for example, the Hermes-A guided weapon system, with a firing range of about 15-20 kilometers - such ammunition can be effective against small ships and auxiliary ships of the enemy that do not have strong air defense ...

In the anti-ship version of the Project 23900 Priboy UDC, instead of air-cushion landing ships, they can carry BECs and AUVs, optimized for anti-ship missions, including reconnaissance, jamming, deploying sea mines and striking anti-ship missiles.

Projection of force

Let's make a small digression. One of the most important tasks of the fleet is expeditionary operations - what to do, in the real world it is not ideals that rule, but economic interests. Even the Soviet Union, despite its communist ideology, actively promoted its economic interests abroad.

Now we are capitalists - everyone wants to live well, and preferably even better. The trade balance of our country is such that a huge amount of household goods, attractive to ordinary citizens, is supplied from abroad. And those made in Russia often consist of foreign components. This situation will not change soon. Foreign goods are purchased for freely convertible currency, and this currency must be taken somewhere.

We have products that are interesting to many foreign countries - these are weapon, resources, food, nuclear power plants, and much more, and our own production of high-tech products with high added value is gradually developing.

The problem is that the free market exists only in the minds of especially "stubborn" liberals. In reality, the leading economies of the planet are mercilessly fighting for sales markets, sparing neither enemies nor allies (suffice it to recall the French, whom the United States put in a "well-known position" first with the Mistrals intended for Russia, and now with nuclear submarines, intended for Australia).

In other words, you will have to gnaw the place in the sun with your teeth - to displace unwanted regimes in third world countries, to support “ours”, to “push” allies a little and to “hint” to opponents. Considering that ninety percent of the world's trade is carried out through shipping, approximately 70 percent of the world's population lives within 100 kilometers of the seas and oceans, and most of the marine activities, such as merchant shipping, fishing and offshore oil and gas production , are carried out within a two-hundred-mile zone from the sea coast - the fleet must play one of the most important roles in solving these problems.

Most of the expeditionary wars in our time are waged by special operations forces (MTR), private military companies (PMCs), the supply of weapons and military advisers to "friendly" regimes.

Periodically, situations arise and will continue to arise when their own may need emergency air support - striking the enemy, delivering ammunition, and evacuating.

In such situations, UDC can prove to be an invaluable resource. In the expeditionary version of the Project 23900 Priboy UDC, 2-3 AWACS helicopters and 8-12 Ka-52K combat helicopters and 6-7 Ka-29 transport and combat helicopters (or transport and combat helicopters that will replace them) can be carried.

The combination of Ka-52K combat helicopters and Ka-29 transport and combat helicopters can be extremely effective for solving expeditionary missions. Photo wikipedia.org

The maximum range of the Ka-52K combat helicopters is about 500 kilometers, the Ka-29 transport and combat helicopters - about 350 kilometers. The use of outboard fuel tanks (PTB) will increase this range by about 20%. And this is not the limit.

Ka-52 with outboard fuel tanks

Equipping combat and transport-combat helicopters, as well as PLO and AWACS helicopters with air refueling systems, should become another top priority for the Russian armed forces.

In this case, a part of the air group can act as fuel tankers, providing a significant increase in the range of combat and transport-combat helicopters, as well as the patrol time of PLO and AWACS helicopters.

Thus, the UDC of project 23900 Priboy can potentially provide a solution to the tasks of air support, supply and / or evacuation of MTR fighters, PMC specialists, military advisers, as well as other persons, within an approximately 500-kilometer zone from the coastline.

And of course, Project 23900 Priboy UDCs can not only provide air support, but also land about 1000 marines and 75 units of military and automotive equipment of various types. A decrease in the number of combat helicopters, and an increase in the number of transport-combat helicopters as part of the UDC air group, will make it possible to promptly supply the landing force and evacuate the wounded, while maintaining the possibility of air support (for example, the composition of the air group may be as follows: 2 AWACS helicopters and 4-6 Ka combat helicopters -52K and 10-12 Ka-29 transport and combat helicopters).

Someone will say that the expeditionary capabilities of the Project 23900 Priboy UDC will be limited to actions against third world countries. But we are not talking about actions against a stronger, or even equal enemy - no one is going to throw UDC against Japan or Turkey, and in general, expeditionary actions are just being carried out in third world countries. In addition, the reality is that without an extraordinary strain of forces and means, as well as huge losses, not a single country in the world, including the United States, will currently be able to conduct expeditionary operations or carry out a large-scale amphibious landing from the sea against states possessing any modern and a motivated military.

Conclusions

The UDC is only a means for deploying its air wing, landing force and its delivery vehicles. The effectiveness of the UDC itself depends on their composition and effectiveness.

Many of the complexes listed in the article are not yet available in the Russian armed forces - there is no modern AWACS helicopter, the PLO helicopters and the Ka-29 transport and landing helicopters are outdated, the Ka-52K Katran combat helicopters have not yet received all the capabilities described in this article: no BEC and AUV, capable of performing anti-submarine and anti-ship missions, to solve air defense missions. At the same time, two UDCs of project 23900 "Priboy" have already been laid and are under construction.

On the other hand - "there would be bones, but the meat will grow." The progressive development of promising weapon systems will make it possible to gradually build up the capabilities of the Project 23900 Priboy UDC and expand their functionality.

UDC of project 23900 "Priboy". Photo wikipedia.org

If the UDC project 23900 "Priboy" is fully equipped with the combat units described in this article, then the Russian Navy will receive an extremely flexible tool capable of solving strategic nuclear deterrence tasks (safe deployment of SSBNs), act in the interests of general-purpose forces (increasing the effectiveness of air defense KUG and strikes against anti-ship missiles), to defend the economic and political interests of the Russian Federation in the framework of expeditionary operations.

The potential of the Project 23900 Priboy UDC will be fully revealed when various options for air groups and amphibious forces are formed for them, both relatively universal and optimized for performing highly specialized tasks.

Comments

[Vladimir_2U]

Well, the UDC with helicopter armament as an air defense ship is unscientific fantasy, and with VTOL aircraft it is also fantasy, but at least scientific! And AWACS helicopters fit well into ship hangars. Perhaps I agree with the rest of the UDC applications proposed by the author.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Well, UDC with helicopter weapons is like an air defense ship, unscientific fantasy,

It is rather an additional opportunity to strengthen air defense, of course, one should not consider the construction of the UDC exactly as the purpose of using it for air defense.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

and with VTOL aircraft, too, fiction, but at least scientific!

We will return to VTOL aircraft later.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And AWACS helicopters fit well into ship hangars.

There are few of them. If we place AWACS helicopters, for example, on frigates / destroyers, then there will be no room for PLO helicopters. The UDC allows you to carry enough vehicles to keep them on duty in shifts, without undue burden on the crews and technicians. And they could also cover the KUG, and, if necessary, additionally also the missile-dangerous direction (for example, having advanced 100 km).

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: AVM

If we place AWACS helicopters, for example, on frigates / destroyers, then there will be no room for PLO helicopters. UDC allows you to carry enough vehicles so that they are on duty in shifts, without unnecessary burden on crews and technicians

This is so, I don’t argue about AWACS helicopters, but I’m more about the fantastic nature of helicopters as fighters. Because there are much more helicopters shot down by airplanes than vice versa, the more we are talking about action over the sea, and then the helicopter will not even be able to hide behind the folds of the terrain.

[Per se.]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

I'm more about the fantastic nature of helicopters as fighters.

The Americans, at one time, expressed concern about the Ka-50, that it could fly tail first and use its weapons against attacking enemy aircraft, up to and including shelling from an onboard cannon.

According to the UDC, it would be better to immediately build it with a springboard, for a short start of future VTOL aircraft.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Per se.

exchange their weapons against attacking enemy aircraft, up to and including shelling from an onboard cannon.

If the avionics allow, then it is probably possible, BUT the helicopter glows much stronger than an aircraft like the F-35, and it will be able to use the weapon from a shorter distance than the F-15 or Su-35, for example. And even against the background of the sea.

[bayard]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

If avionics allow, then it is probably possible, BUT the helicopter shines much stronger than the plane

Quote: Vladimir_2U

and it will be able to use weapons from a shorter distance

Not at all, if you initially set yourself the task of creating a helicopter for air combat. In fact, what's the difference on which platform the radar and explosive missiles are located, if their characteristics are comparable, then the outcome of the battle will be 50/50. And for this, it is enough to place an on-board radar in the nose cone, say, from the MiG-35 (and the same one with AFAR) and, of course, a BC with R-77 and R-73 explosive missiles. In this case, such a helicopter will quite cope with the tasks of the order's air defense and will be especially effective against low-flying anti-ship missiles at the borders remote from the order. Of course, under the control of an AWACS helicopter.
Yes, the helicopter has a lower speed and altitude, but in this case it is not that important, because the Ka-52 can instantly turn in any direction to view its own radar and launch a rocket. The initiative in the raid will belong to the enemy, but having timely detected it with the help of an AWACS helicopter and raised fighter helicopters, it will be met fully armed - air defense systems of the ships of the order and rotary-winged fighters on the outer frontier. This is much better than without fighters at all in the DMZ, and slightly worse than with a VTOL aircraft on the deck of the UDC.

[Wildcat]

In fact, what's the difference on which platform the radar and explosive missiles are located, if their characteristics are comparable

a carrier that has a high speed in a missile battle will have better conditions for an attack. To get out of the attack, the situation is more difficult, but the faster car also has more advantages.

[bayard]

No one denies the advantages of a fighter jet over a helicopter. I considered the situation of reflecting an air raid on an order. And if we take into account the fact that the attack will be carried out by air-launched anti-ship missiles with a range of 200 km, then it will be the raid of the CD, moreover, of low-altitude and subsonic ones, that will have to be repelled. And against them, such helicopters will be very effective as the first line of defense, because shipborne air defense systems will see them at a distance of 15 - 20 km. and they will have less time to react. And of course, the availability of AWACS helicopters is critically important.
But the fact that

Quote: bayard

the helicopter has less speed and altitude

и

Quote: bayard

The initiative in the raid will belong to the enemy

I indicated above.
With the planes themselves, they will engage in battle if they come up to a distance of about 120 km. , and only if the radar is a radar from the MiG-35 or something like that.
And you need to have such helicopters as part of the air wing 4 - 6 pieces.
Such helicopters will cost significantly more (airborne radar and control systems are expensive), but it's worth it.
And we will not have VTOL aircraft for a very long time.
So far we have not even been able to repeat the An-2.
The Il-76MD90A is not capable of serial production - again instead of 6 units this year, only ONE.
Failure with a catastrophe and casualties on the Il-112V ...
Stupor with IL-114.
Su-57 is still in service - ONE.
The Ka-62 has been shown in advertisements and mock-ups for 15 years, but there is no engine for it - just as not.
Ansat and Ka-226 are still without domestic engines.
Deck helicopters are not produced and it is not known whether there will be anything new.
This year KLA disappointed us very much ...
But the Ka-52M was made and it went into production. And if you make a modification for the deck version for air combat with enemy aircraft and missile defense, this will be a very useful help for deck aircraft.

[Wildcat]

"Not at all, if you initially set yourself the task of creating a helicopter for air combat. In fact, what's the difference on which platform the radar and explosive missiles are located, if their characteristics are comparable, then the outcome of the battle will be 50/50."

No one denies the advantages of a fighter over a helicopter

- there is either one or the other, you yourself will decide.

the attack will be carried out by air-launched anti-ship missiles with a range of 200 km, then it will be the air raid of the CD, moreover, low-altitude and subsonic ones, which will have to be reflected. And against them, such helicopters will be very effective as the first line of defense.

"against them" effective jamming systems, multi-channel short-range air defense systems and Volcanoes with Millenniums.
Do you imagine helicopters in the form of an air patrol controlled by an analogue of the Ka31? Think how many helicopters are needed for such a case and what will happen to them, with helicopters, when the enemy prepares such an action as "the attack will be carried out by air-launched anti-ship missiles with a range of 200 km."

It is especially interesting, how do you imagine - hypothetically - the interception of "CD, moreover low-altitude and subsonic" helicopter, which even has a speed 3 times less than the target? So the information has gone that CDs are approaching from different directions, and?

With the planes themselves, they will engage in battle if they come up to a distance of about 120 km. , and only if the radar is a radar from the MiG-35 or something like that.

well, here, as in a joke, first you need to take "radar from the MiG-35 or something like that" and "and of course a BC with R-77 and R-73 explosive missiles" ... and ... "tie it tighter" , .... and "and now we'll try to take off with all this." And if we take off, the enemy, even with the same "BC with R-77 and R-73 explosive missiles," will have an advantage and will be able to fight without giving the helicopter the opportunity to use weapons.

"And if we make a modification for the deck version for air combat with enemy aircraft and missile defense" - it can be done, only it will be an analogue of An2 in terms of performance characteristics, if so it is clearer.

Yes, helicopters are equipped with air-to-air missiles, and it is likely that if they are in the data exchange system with AWACS, then some air targets such as drones / helicopters or, if the CD is successful, they can potentially hit.
But "it is not necessary to pass off the need for virtue", no replacement of a normal aircraft or air defense system from a helicopter will work.

[bayard]

Quote: Wildcat

- there is either one or the other, you yourself will decide.

There is no contradiction here. In a single combat between a fighter and a helicopter, both initiative, speed advantage, and BC size are the fighter's advantage.
It's another matter if this is a defensive battle to protect the order under the control of an AWACS helicopter. With equal characteristics of the radar and the range of the SDVS missiles (we have R-77), the chances will be approximately equal, because the fighter will still enter the warrant and he will go to meet the helicopter himself - a dueling situation, both may fail.
But since the target of the fighter will most likely not be a helicopter / helicopters, but ships, it will launch its anti-ship missiles from a distance greater than the range of explosive missiles - we assume 200 km. +.
In this case, our helicopter will have to fight the CD, which are not complex and maneuvering targets, and therefore will be intercepted within the helicopter's BC without any problems. The standard armament of such is supposed to be two P-77 (on near pylons) and 4 P-73. In total, the Ka-52I (the conditional index "fighter) is capable of intercepting up to 6 missile launchers. And those are supposed to have 4 - 6 units on the UDC."

Quote: Wildcat

"against them" effective jamming systems, multi-channel short-range air defense systems and Volcanoes with Millenniums.

Our ships have other systems, but no less effective.

Quote: Wildcat

Think how many helicopters are needed for such a case

I already thought, and not only me.

Quote: Wildcat

and what will happen to them, with helicopters, when the enemy prepares such an action as "the attack will be carried out by air-launched anti-ship missiles with a range of 200 km."

And I have already told about this.
Do not forget that we are considering a modification of the Ka-52 with a radar from the MiG-35.

Quote: Wildcat

It is especially interesting, how do you imagine - hypothetically - the interception of "CD, moreover low-altitude and subsonic" helicopter, which even has a speed 3 times less than the target? So the information has gone that CDs are approaching from different directions, and?

It's very simple - on a collision course, like partridges, when your "setter" frightened them off at you.
And the speed of the helicopter has no special meaning here - the RC go to the ships of the warrant, the helicopter between them and the first to open fire. All the shortcomings are finished off by the ship's air defense systems.

Quote: Wildcat

Well, here, as in a joke, first you need to take "radar from the MiG-35 or something like this" and "and of course a BC with R-77 and R-73 explosive missiles" ...

This is exactly what I suggested doing when the problem of providing air defense to the UDC was discussed (a few years ago). Since then, something has already been done in this regard - the Ka-52K can already carry the P-73 (range up to 40 km.)

Quote: Wildcat

... and ... "bind it tighter", .... and "and now we'll try to take off with all this."

And it will take off, what's the problem? The MiG-29 had a payload of 2 tons and took off perfectly, while the Ka-52K lifts 2,5 tons. Exactly he will raise 2 R-77 and 4 R-73 ... and a little more on the "Willow" will remain - they can slip into pursuit if the distance allows.

Quote: Wildcat

And if we take off, the enemy, even with the same "BC with R-77 and R-73 explosive missiles," will have an advantage and will be able to fight without giving the helicopter the opportunity to use weapons.

How is it? Circling out of reach of his missiles?
So then he himself will not be able to apply his own.
We're talking about parity in airborne radar and RVV SD.
It’s the plane that needs to break through to the warrant, not the helicopter to catch up with it. The helicopter can even hang in place, waiting for the enemy to reach a distance.
And there can be up to 4 - 6 such helicopters. as part of an air wing.
With such a radar, he will be able to give target designation with his own forces to the X-35 - at the limit of range - if he already decides to work on enemy ships.

Quote: Wildcat

"And if we make a modification for the deck version for air combat with enemy aircraft and missile defense" - it can be done, only it will be an analogue of An2 in terms of performance characteristics, if so it is clearer.

Yes, even from the position of hovering, he can wait for his fighter ... and it is not a fact that the fighter will be ready for such a surprise.

Quote: Wildcat

Yes, they use air-to-air missiles on helicopters

Yes, they are already putting it, and already the R-73. And such he can up to 6 - 8 pieces. take on the pylons.

Quote: Wildcat

and it is likely that if they are in the data exchange system with AWACS,

They are not. AWACS must give target designation to the helicopter itself, and already, having switched on the radar to radiation, will direct its missiles at the target. AWACS operates in standby mode, and the helicopter's radar is switched on only in combat mode - during an attack or battle.

Quote: Wildcat

then some aerial targets such as drones / helicopters or, if the CD is successful, they can potentially hit.

Yes, they can hit any targets. And this does not depend on the characteristics of the platform (helicopter), but on the capabilities of its airborne radar and RVV.

Quote: Wildcat

But "one should not pass off the need for virtue"

From want and virtue appears - direct dependence. We have no aircraft carriers. There is no VTOL aircraft either. But a properly armed helicopter will also cope with the function of the extended air defense line.
But he won't be able to chase a fighter.
But the order will protect.
And he won't let himself be offended.

And I don’t need to get nervous - I provided all my service with such interceptions. As an officer in the combat directorate of an air defense formation.

[Wildcat]

It's very strange to read you.
For example:

Since then, something has already been done in this regard - the Ka-52K can already carry the P-73 (range up to 40 km.)

- do you know for which carrier parameters the maximum range is given?
Just considering

I provided all my service with such interceptions. As an officer in the combat directorate of an air defense formation. yes bully

how strange it is to see all this helicopter-air defense text.

Yes, they are already putting it, and already the R-73. And such he can up to 6 - 8 pieces. take on the pylons

- Do you think by weight of V-V missiles? Without taking into account the possibility of installing launchers?

There is no contradiction here.

if it is a defensive battle to protect the order under the control of an AWACS helicopter. With equal characteristics of the radar and the range of the SDVS missiles (we have R-77), the chances will be approximately equal, because the fighter will still enter the warrant and he will go to meet the helicopter - a dueling situation, both may fail.

- well, against the background of the rest, it really does not matter. They can survive. Or they may not survive.

multichannel short-range air defense systems and Volcanoes with Millenniums.
Our ships have other systems, but no less effective.

our air defense officers are brilliant.

This is generally lovely:

It's very simple - on a collision course, like partridges, when your "setter" frightened them off at you.
And the speed of the helicopter does not really matter here - the RC go to the ships of the warrant, the helicopter between them and the first to open fire

The helicopter can even hang in place, waiting for the enemy to reach a distance

Although I like it better

Yes, even from the position of hovering, he can wait for his fighter ... and it is not a fact that the fighter will be ready for such a surprise.

But another surprise awaits us:

How is it? Circling out of reach of his missiles?
So then he himself will not be able to apply his own. request

- so helicopter pilots will be surprised that the same missiles fly farther from an airplane than from a helicopter, if the speed / height of the carrier is greater ...

Thank you very much for the discussion, I learned a lot not only about the latest developments and concepts in the field of air defense. I learned even more about air defense officers. Now I will need a lot of time to comprehend all this.

[Yarhann]

what a mess. goods in a modern naval battle wins the one who has carrier-based aircraft in the order, that is, AWACS and MFI aircraft (UAV) on board. Forget already dreaming about subsonic missiles which are easy to hit - everyone will have supersonic and hypersonic anti-ship missiles - the appearance of these weapons on board the aircraft carriers of a potential enemy is a matter of the near future.
Helicopters at sea with any type of weaponry are fodder - except as a means of delivering troops to the shore and ASW.
Precisely because everything is so tough at sea in the USSR, and air defense / anti-aircraft defense aircraft carriers were built as the same project 11435, depending on the task. Project 1123 is a PLO helicopter carrier predecessor of a long-passed stage. By the way, at the dawn (11435) of its formation, 1143 was also very poor in terms of air defense - or rather, it did not exist at all - because the Yak 38 could not show anything intelligible at sea, like other aircraft wing options. And only after the release of Mig29K and Su33 - the ship became a full-fledged air defense aircraft carrier, with the possibility of also providing anti-aircraft weapons in the event of a change in the composition of the air wing.
Therefore, for a hypothetical reflection of an air raid on an order, you need to have an aircraft carrier of at least Admiral Kuznetsov's level with heavy Su 33 hawks in the order, which have a powerful onboard radar, a large fuel supply, a large ceiling and thrust-to-weight ratio.
Shoot down flying anti-ship missiles is the task of the missile defense of the ship, not of the aircraft. The task of the air group is to prevent the launch of anti-ship missiles. And after the conquest of air superiority over the sea, it is a matter of technique to roll out the enemy. There is nothing new here, just like nd land. The only thing that still needs to be ensured is the submarine, especially now when almost all submarines have anti-ship missiles on board.

[bayard]

Quote: Yarhann

what a mess

in your head.
Have you even bothered to see what the discussion is about?
And it goes that there are no aircraft carriers in the Russian Federation today and will not be for a long time. The only "Kuznetsov" in modernization and will not be released soon. may not come out at all due to the lack of a dry dock, which is being built for too long and, as they say, in violation of technical standards. As a result, the base of the dock may not withstand the aircraft carrier after being placed there and simply split, sink and destroy both the new dock and the aircraft carrier itself ... But let's hope for the best.
In the meantime, there are no aircraft carriers in our fleets and will not be for a VERY long time.
But two UDCs are already under construction in Kerch.
And how to provide air defense orders without monitoring extremely low altitudes at a distance of more than 20 - 35 km. from the order?
From the very anti-ship missiles that the enemy has AT ALL not supersonic, and even less hypersonic. They are pre / transonic. With a low-altitude flight profile to the target.
They will not have supersonic anti-ship missiles - they are too heavy and will require ships specially built for this, the BC of which will be limited as in our project 1164. This is from their analytical reports and proposals.
They have now begun work on hypersound, but how they succeed remains to be seen. And these missiles will be HIGH-ALTITUDE, and they will really have to be fought only with the S-400-level shipborne air defense systems (they will be on the Admiral Nakhimov).
We discussed (and in the article too) how to solve the problem of an air defense order without an aircraft carrier, but having a UDC.
Do you understand?
This is when "Legs are stretched over clothes."
Until the end of this decade, we will definitely not have a single AB, except (possibly) "Kuznetsov".
So we are talking about how to give Ka-52K deck helicopters the ability to fight air targets. And this is quite possible. Moreover, the existing set of weapons and available equipment.
The radar from the new MiG-35 will fit well under the Ka-52K fairing; the APU from the same MiG-35 will provide power for it. The payload of the helicopter allows you to take on suspensions from 4 to 8 explosive missiles. The optimal composition of the BC can be considered two R-77 and four R-73.
Their range of destruction when launched from a helicopter will be slightly lower than from a fighter (due to the lower speed of the carrier, but this difference will not be critical. Moreover, these helicopters will have to deal mainly with subsonic low-altitude anti-ship missiles, and not with combat fighters who themselves would not risk getting too close to the warrant.
This is what the discussion is about - how with the AVAILABLE means to solve the problem of providing an air defense order with a UDC in its composition.
And being rich and healthy is always healthier.
But not always and not for everyone it depends only on their desire.
And in order to build aircraft carriers, the economy and industry of the Russian Federation still have to solve a lot of complex issues, accumulate the necessary competencies, train personnel and ensure reliable industrial cooperation.
And this is difficult.
Especially for the current authorities.
And this is reality.

[Osipov9391]

The burnt-out ship was laid down 10 years ago, when the Mistral procurement process was active and it was the first two of these dock-ships that were supposed to go to the Pacific Fleet.
And this burned one was intended to accompany them. They had to walk around the Kuril Islands. With Ka-52K helicopters.

And if at least about a dozen Yak-38s of late releases were revived, there would be light aircraft carriers and a full group including corvettes, MAPLs and DPLs.
Of course, there is little use from the old VTOL aircraft, but as a training one could be used.
And if you liked to design a new VTOL aircraft for the Mistral.
There is nothing wrong with that, the Harrier is still flying in many countries.

[Yarhann]

The Yak 38 is garbage, that is why it was not accepted at 1143 and there is nothing to modify there even at the modern technical level - therefore, the same garbage will come out like Harier at best. Therefore, the Americans created the Fu-35 with vertical take-off for the UDC - which is at least a full-fledged MFI - though not as good as the land versions, but head and shoulders above the rubbish of half a century ago, such as the Harier and Yak 38.

[bayard]

Simply amazing, but assertive ignorance.

Quote: Yarhann

Yak 38 is rubbish, which is why it was not accepted at 1143

All four "Krechets" were equipped with an air wing on the Yak-38, later replaced by the Yak-38M - aka Yak-39. Which (Yak-39) surpassed the "Harrier" in all respects.
And a colleague actually suggested looking for Yak-39s suitable for revival - as training ones.
But this is unreal .

[Yarhann]

oga only even the old attack helicopters of the Ka 29 type were in all performance characteristics (not to mention reliability and accident rate), except for speed, better than this garbage with vertical take-off, and about modern Ka 52 there is nothing to talk about stupidly head and shoulders above this misunderstanding. the best thing they could do with this garbage and did - put it in the scrap.

[bayard]

Yak-38 was our first VTOL aircraft, they studied on it, created a school.
The Yak-38M (Yak-39) was already much better than not only the Yak-38, but also the Harrier. Quite a decent VTOL aircraft with a payload like the MiG-21 and the same maneuverability.
And do not forget that it was a light aircraft, the size of which was limited by the engine.
But the Yak-141 is already a full-fledged GDP fighter in terms of characteristics (except for maximum speed) equal to the MiG-29 and having an even greater range. And a slightly larger payload. Its main characteristics (except for the payload) corresponded to the newest then F-18. I just did not have time to get into service.
The next VTOL aircraft, which was already in the project, would have been equal to the entire F-35. But instead of creating it, a group of designers from the Yakovlev Design Bureau left for the United States to create the F-35. And they created it.
I met with one of this group of designers in 2005 after his return.

[Osipov9391]

I think the Yak-141 could have revived one of the existing ones and brought to mind. It was possible to create a single-engine version with a classic takeoff.
But we have long ago rejected these VTOL aircraft.
Then the Yak-141 ha has a pair of lifting motors in the cockpit, which are not used in any way in a normal flight and serve only as excess weight.
The Americans abandoned this design, and the Harrier did not have it.

[bayard]

Quote: Osipov9391

I think the Yak-141 could have revived one of the existing ones and brought to mind.

As far as I know, Yakovlev's design bureau received funding several years ago and is dragged along with one of the surviving gliders and an engine demonstrator.

Quote: Osipov9391

But we have long ago rejected these VTOL aircraft.

They were completely unnecessary - there were no carriers for them.
And not today.

Quote: Osipov9391

Then the Yak-141 has a pair of lifting engines behind the cockpit that are not used in any way in a normal flight and serve only as excess weight.

The fan, the power take-off shaft, the duct-casing, the mechanization of the sash - weigh no less (somewhat more) than the low-resource TRDVT. And at the same time, they occupy a MUCH less volume and do not inflate the fuselage to the disgrace of a pregnant penguin. This is bad for speed and aerodynamics in general.

Quote: Osipov9391

The Americans abandoned this design, and the Harrier did not have it.

The Americans took as a basis the development of the Yakovlev Design Bureau for the Yak-201 - just with a lifting fan.
And Harrier generally has an engine with a very developed bypass, the second circuit of which feeds cold nozzles and gas-dynamic control nozzles at the ends.
The experience of using both of these schemes shows that by abandoning the lifting fan in favor of the TRDVT, we save the dry weight of the structure, simplify it, and the fuel that is spent by these engines during takeoff / landing will not exceed the weight gain from the lighter airframe design. In this case, the fuselage will be more structured and aerodynamic, and therefore the speed and dynamic characteristics of such an aircraft should be higher.
So we have the choice of a VTOL aircraft scheme, as well as experience in the development, testing and operation of such aircraft in the Soviet / post-Soviet period. Is there any interest in them now and is it interesting for the management - time will tell. So far (as far as I know) funds have been allocated to "study" this issue ... True, later, through the mouth of this leadership, it was announced that work on VTOL aircraft was underway.

[Osipov9391]

Even besides the Yakovlev Design Bureau, there have been and still are private projects. But they will not be given anything, for they are not from "their".
So it was with the SR-10, so it was with the Rysachk.
But in the last two cases, there is a special insult that, apart from private owners, no one in the country has designed or designs such aircraft.
And they were rejected. They were not even allowed to do it for export.

[bayard]

Now such ships are being built by the Aursk plant, even if it is building. And the Admiralteyskiy now has one task - to build 22350, 22350.1 and prepare for the laying of 22350M.

Quote: Osipov9391

And if only about a dozen Yak-38 of late issues were revived

This is physically impossible - in our conditions, flightless aircraft are not stored for more than several years. Moreover, they were written off without conservation.
VTOL aircraft is not a bad thing if there is someone to do it. If there is a suitable engine and if such aircraft are in demand.
Now there is no main thing - a suitable engine.
Like ned for him and the carriers.
For the sake of two UDCs, this is not worth undertaking. And if they build AB, then it is wiser to build classic ones - with a catapult.

[link]

This whole war in Syria was conceived by Putin a long time ago, and Putin needed these Mistrals as ships for delivering military cargo and troops to Syria. Did not work out. For the delivery of troops to Syria, they had to take the rap with the old Soviet-built large landing craft. As combat units, these "Mistrals" are good for nothing. Large floating targets. Why they are to Egypt is a general question. ))

[Yarhann]

Why is it wrong with the authorities? The ships are not built by the authorities, but by specialists, only not by the Internet, but by real ones - and there are none thanks to the saints of the nineties. I understand perfectly well that the best specialists on the Internet, and as a rule, all the underestimated underpaid everyone because they work as taxi drivers and security guards))) Pay more for the fact that you do not know what the point is, or if the taxi driver is paid a salary of 500k per month, he will suddenly become a physicist -nuclear worker)))) Because everything goes in an evolutionary way, cadres are revived and accumulated, who doesn’t suit who goes to work as a taxi driver - no one will pay more because there’s nothing.
And to defend a warrant without fighter aircraft is delusional, it is even more delusional to shoot down anti-ship missiles with watchmen, and not carriers - they will simply score under the set interference and that's it.
So do not write too much in 2 years, the AK will return to the composition, in 4-5 the UDC will be lowered, in 10-15 just in time for the decommissioning of the AK a new aircraft carrier will be launched.

[bayard]

Quote: Yarhann

Why is it wrong with the authorities? The ships are not built by the authorities, but by specialists

USC is a state corporation. Managemant is appointed by the government and the Kremlin cabinet.
Or do you think that even SUCH a case (as well as the drowned dock with "Kuznetsov") should not lead to the responsibility of those responsible for this? This is not the first joint at USC of this level. And the MANAGEMENT is obliged to answer for the failures of the corporation.
Is not it ?

Quote: Yarhann

specialists, only not on the Internet, but real - and there are none thanks to the saints of the nineties.

Roman, and WHO is responsible for the fact that since 2000 we have not trained specialists? And not only engineers, but also assembly fitters, turners and millers of the 5th - 6th grade, other specialists?
22 years have passed!
As a result, over the years, all the specialists from the USSR have died or finally become old and ... EVERYTHING.
And already NOTHING comes out of the capitalists.
In order to do something new, it is not enough to throw money off the "master's shoulder", you need a SYSTEM! From education, scientific organizations and industries that WORK and naturally ensure the continuity of experience and skill, knowledge and production culture.
These never thought so.
To this day, they believe that it is enough to throw a bone, and the experts themselves will come running and do everything.
And the specialists died out during this time. As a species.
This is a systemic crisis and it comes from the Head. (Remember "Heart of a Dog" and Professor Preobrazhensky)

Quote: Yarhann

I understand perfectly well that the best specialists on the Internet, and as a rule, all the underestimated are underpaid because they work as taxi drivers and security guards)))

And many are simply retired for a long time or ... in the war.

Quote: Yarhann

Pay more for what you do not know

And you, a young man, WHAT did you glorify yourself for? How did they serve the Motherland and the Capitalist Society?
Do you have merit?
By the way, it is not the taxi driver who speaks to you.

Quote: Yarhann

or if a taxi driver is given a salary of 500k per month, he will suddenly become a nuclear physicist

What do you yourself know about nuclear physics? What was the grade at school?

Quote: Yarhann

Therefore, everything goes in an evolutionary way, cadres are revived and accumulated

Have you already worked out?
Already a specialist?
Or a taxi driver?

Quote: Yarhann

- no one will pay more because there is nothing.

Did you yourself give someone a salary?
Did you hold any leading positions?
Maybe some production has been raised from scratch?
Maybe you also have an academic degree?

Quote: Yarhann

And to defend a warrant without fighter aircraft is delusional, it is even more delusional to shoot down anti-ship missiles with watchmen, and not carriers - they will simply score under the set interference and that's it.

Do you also have a military education?
Is it a corn by any chance? ... education too, isn't it?

Quote: Yarhann

So don't piss too much

Are you an enuresis specialist?
Do you have a lot of experience? Personal?

Quote: Yarhann

in 2 years AK will return to

We all heard about this two years ago.
And before that - two years ago.
What do you know about the quality of construction of that very dry dock?
Are you sure everything is fine there?
That its bottom is strong enough to withstand the AB installed there?
But some experts doubt this. And they even sound the alarm.
But we will wait with conclusions, and when - "in 2 years" it will take place, we will rejoice together.
Are you ready to rejoice at the successful serial production of the Il-76MD90A in Ulyanovsk?
How many have you promised to hand over this year?
Five ?
Six ?
How much did you pass?
ONE !
And so for more than 10 years.
NOT ABLE!
How are you doing with the Il-112?
After all, why is it easier to build a light VTA aircraft to replace the An-26?
AND HOW is the result for you?
Like ?
And how many confident speeches and odes of praise were sung to "Gray Handsome" ?!
So let's brag about achievements, not plans.
And boast ONLY your achievements.
And don't argue with experts.
Those who acquired their qualifications not on the couch, but in service, production, in science.

Quote: Yarhann

in 4-5 the UDC will be lowered

And they promised earlier.
The first one is to DELIVER (do not lower it from the slipway for completion, but rather DELIVER) by the end of 2025.The second one - in 2027.
Do you believe?
Believe it is your religion. But do not impose your egregorial predilections on others. After all, we have freedom of religion in our country.

Quote: Yarhann

in 10-15 just in time for the decommissioning of the AK will launch a new aircraft carrier

Take a closer look at the burnt out corvette
Pay attention to the year of its laying and the degree of readiness for the moment of fire.
Extrapolate these terms, the displacement of the corvette on the aircraft carrier's VI (say, the VI of 50 tons), the complexity of the corvette's design overlay on the complexity of the aircraft carrier project .
And try to draw a conclusion.
Are you capable of that?
So try to accomplish this feat.
And then share your optimism.

[Yarhann]

My you are a good specialist trained and are preparing only these are not experts, but shit - semi-finished products - Buratina. at the same time, they do not want to study in production or in research institutes, they can do everything at once and want to get a lot of good money (guys who know how to force 2-3% in the entire issue). that is why all these Buratin's go to state-owned enterprises at best - because a private trader will never take this trash after a techie or university to work, because they cost nothing and they do not know how to do anything. But the state and the job gives, gives the opportunity to gain experience but for a symbolic fee. Well, a lot of these semi-finished products went to work for the sake of experience and knowledge? The answer is naturally no - because everyone wants and it’s easier for a Chaldean or a taxi driver to get a job than to dry the brain or work with his hands. And as a rule, no one allocates state orders to a private trader - everything is sawn as in the Pentagon at the level of the Ministry of Defense and court hangers-on - then there is no reason for him to keep qualified highly specialized personnel - it is more profitable for him to work with Chaldeans and taxi drivers
Wanted capitalism - eat not crap. Throughout the country, homosapiens were replaced by oranuses, and not by force, but independently made a choice and the whole herd strove for this.
And the power in the Russian Federation is not a campaign of people? she is some kind of special breed))) in my opinion the same oranuses - who do not want and cannot create, and so on from bottom to top. In the XNUMXs, when the whole country totally papuan oil tanks on a golden rain and was driven down a slope by oranuses into the jungle of a banana republic, then everyone was happy and satisfied, and somehow it was all the same that we weren't building planes, not ships)))) And then suddenly they realized! No guys, this does not happen - you or homosapiens and evolve or you oranus and degrade - it is impossible to sit on two chairs with one booty.
So Russia now lives exactly the way it wants and how it deserves - without straining it easily and satiatingly popuking - reeling from evolution into man and degradation into oranus.
So stop whining about the construction of boats - they didn't fall to anyone, not to the people, not to the authorities - not in terms of construction, not in terms of the need for them. Both those and others in the boats see one thing - the loot that they can earn on them. If it were inappropriate to involve engineers and highly qualified specialists in the construction, then there would be no limit for these dough-winners - but damn a modern ship is not just a steamer - therefore, without an oranus, even having gathered in large numbers, they are unable to build something more complicated than a barge. And they have to share it with intelligent people, but it is not always possible, even for a lot of money in our country, to find intelligent people in certain areas of science and technology.
So I don't care if they build it or not, they build it as they promise well, they will detain and stand up well too - it's bad only if nothing is built and all the loot goes to the Oranuses. And so at least something reasonable people will be able to bite off from these construction projects.
About the burnt out corvette)) I burst out when I read the news. For some reason, some are building and launching nuclear submarines and the most complex modern frigates such as Gorshkov, while others manage to burn unfinished or drown the dock))) I think the problem is clearly not in the power. So it is with apartment renovation, car repair, construction of houses, etc., and so on - someone does everything right, someone oranusit. I think it is clear that even at the household level, the authorities are clearly not to blame)))

[bayard]

Judging by the syllable and "intellectual" pressure, you are not even an "oranus", but a conditionally intelligent insect ... that has lost touch with the anthill.
And for your information - the frigates "Gorshkov", "Kasatonov", and the now burnt out corvette, were built at the same enterprise - "Admiralty shipyards".

[Osipov9391]

You see what the dog is buried in, now in Russia there is not a single flying Yak-38 or other similar aircraft.
And without them the training of personnel, the development of equipment for promising SVPPs is impossible. There is simply no platform, a flying laboratory for this.
Everything, even the latest Yak-38, was mercilessly cut in the 90s. Although they already regret it very much - at least 2-3 of them are needed sometimes.
For example, in LII or GLITS. There are certain things and certain tests that can only be done on them.
Some part of the Yak-38 of late releases was lying somewhere in landfills and storage bases. There were attempts by private enthusiasts to restore something privately.
But the military was against it. And this is already in modern times.
Although the military did not need to give the go-ahead, a couple of decommissioned cars and documentation for them.
How to understand, evaluate, weigh the last spans from the point of view of practice? After all, where do specialists and new aircraft come from if they do this? After all, they did not ask for money ...
And the presence of even 2-3 flight models would greatly simplify the development of equipment / weapons for promising VTOL aircraft.

[bayard]

30 years have passed since the end of the Union, nothing is left. If you need a VTOL aircraft, then you need to immediately do a twin.

[Yarhann]

Well, what does it change)))) the ships probably were not built by Putin and Shoigu)))) who built the one and screwed up. Or do our ships rarely burn during repairs? No, they burn as expected, because the ships are not repaired by robots, but by two-legged ones who have always mowed and will mow. The same is true abroad - there, too, from time to time, something will be burned during repairs - this is normal.
Apparently you are from the oranuses, since you got so excited))))

[Angry]

The number of UR explosives must be increased by creating new ones based on the NURS S-13 and S-8. There is nothing difficult in this. MANPADS "Verba" in a smaller caliber and has folding airfoils. According to the same principle, it is necessary to create aviation UR explosives. Despite the fact that they can be placed in the S-13 launcher (5 units) and S-8 launcher (20 units). At the same time, they both have the same weight - about 500 kg. On the S-8, you can screw the head from the outdated Strela models, and the S-13 from the early R-60 models, which will be enough for a group interception of anti-ship missiles.

[bayard]

You can’t create an explosive rocket on the basis of NURS, it’s a guided missile, with aerodynamic or even gas-dynamic rudders, a controlled (deflecting) nozzle, a homing head, an onboard power source ... This is a very complex and expensive product.
And one more nuance - helicopters will have to intercept the KR mainly on a collision course, and this is the speed of approach and a short reaction time. Missiles must be full-fledged, so you should not engage in nonsense and take what is. despite the fact that even today the R-73 rocket of the latest modification is the best in its class. The best in the world. Yes, and the R-77 is among the best.
And the KR, although the target is not too complex and not particularly maneuverable, but small in size, and when intercepted in the front hemisphere, it requires a serious attitude.
No "Arrows"\"Needles"\"Willows" are suitable in this case.
Firstly, they have infrared guidance, and this is only possible when intercepted in the rear hemisphere.
Second, they have too short a range. And our helicopter will have to intercept more than one missile, and having a multiple of lower speed, it will essentially be a low-speed platform that intercepts the missile defense system in the PPS from the standby position, forming an external air defense curtain of the order with several similar sides.
And the payload of the Ka-52, like the early MiG-29 and Yak-141, is about 2,5 tons.

Quote: Angry

P-60

This is a very old missile, not very successful due to the weak warhead (its power was not enough to reliably hit the target). And she had an infrared seeker.

[silver_roman]

Helicopter engines will not give out the necessary energy for serious AFAR, standing on fighters. So she correctly noted: the helicopter shines much more strongly on the enemy's radar and also the speed of the helicopter will not give the same rocket air - air of the necessary kinetic energy at the start. It turns out that the missile will have a shorter range.

[bayard]

Quote: silver_roman

Helicopter engines will not provide the necessary energy for serious AFAR

The energy on the avionics is provided by the APU, not the engines. Just put a more powerful APU and that's enough.

Quote: silver_roman

the same speed of the helicopter will not give the same air-air rocket the necessary kinetic energy at the start.

Well, the range will drop a little, it's still much better than nothing. Especially in the fight against RCC.
We will not have another carrier-based aircraft for a long time - "Kuznetsov" is alone and when it will come out of repair.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: bayard

Not at all, if you initially set yourself the task of creating a helicopter for air combat

Not at all, is it about visibility? But the hub of the propeller with a swash plate is on (coaxial), the outboard armament, which has nowhere to put it, and containers with avionics, are on.

Quote: bayard

will be especially effective against low-flying anti-ship missiles at the borders remote from the order. Of course, under the control of an AWACS helicopter.

I agree with that!

Quote: bayard

The energy on the avionics is provided by the APU, not the engines. Just put a more powerful APU and that's enough.

There is NO APU on fighters (I do not know), and it will be problematic to stick it into a re-compressed KA-50-52, only as a container, but this is some kind of nonsense.

[Barberry25]

and you can still build tiltroplanes ...

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: Per se.

it would be better if it was immediately supposed to be built with a springboard, for a short start of future VTOL aircraft.

Russia does not and will not have such aircraft in the next 30-40 years.

[Avior]

helicopters were shot down by planes much more than vice versa

Is there in general at least one reliable and confirmed case when a helicopter shot down a combat fighter?
Regarding the downed Iraqi, they compose who in what garazd

attacking the Iraqi Mi-24 and missing, the Iranian fighter itself came under attack. The helicopter launched a Falanga anti-tank missile in pursuit of the plane, which reached its target and shot down the Phantom in front of the astonished infantrymen.

http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/persg/f4/f4.html

"Noticing the F-4" coming in "on himself, the Iraqi pilot did not make an evasive maneuver, but" lifted his nose "and, pressing the trigger, released a" cloud "of unguided C-5 missiles towards the enemy aircraft. fuselage, turned the Iranian F-4 into a pile of wreckage, "Zvezda reports.

https://rg.ru/2019/10/27/vertolet-protiv-istrebitelia-kak-irakskij-mi-24-sbil-iranskij-f-4.html
there is such

In 1982, in the skies over Libya, a Syrian Mi-24 shot down an Israeli supersonic F-4 Phantom, which attacked a helicopter, but gave out itself by radar radiation. The Crocodile turned in the air and launched two R-60 air-to-air missiles from a distance of 8 kilometers. Both hit the mark.

https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2021/12/10/14302663.shtml?updated
A reliable case is when, for example, the Belarusians shot down a balloon that flew towards them across the border during the competition. I remember this case, it raises no doubts.

On September 12, 1995, three gas balloons taking part in the Gordon Bennett Cup race entered the airspace of Belarus. One of the balloons approached the airbase, did not respond to radio calls and warning fire from the Mi-24V of the Belarusian Air Force, after which it was shot down. As a result of a hydrogen explosion and a fall from a height, both crew members, US citizens Alan Frenkel and John Stuart-Jervis, were killed. Two other balloons were forced to land and their crews were detained.

But the descriptions of fighters shot down by helicopters cause strong doubts.

[lucul]

"This is so, I don’t argue about AWACS helicopters, but I’m more about the fantastic nature of helicopters as fighters."

You just don't follow trends)))
UAVs began to actively take away their niche from helicopters, so helicopters have to expand their habitat.
And equipping helicopters with long-range radar is one of the inevitable elements of evolution. Ka-50 with 50 km radar becomes a good UAV hunter.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: lucul

I'm talking about the fantastic nature of helicopters as fighters "

Eh, you retarded, old man, element!

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: lucul

Ka-50 with 50 km radar becomes a good UAV hunter.

So it is possible to write down "Carapace" in fighters.

[Nazar]

AVM - Where are the helicopters for these UDCs? The shock ones seem to be there, but there are no anti-submarine and landing ones at all. All such helicopters that are still in the Navy were produced more than thirty (!) Years ago, back in the USSR. In the article, it was noticed in passing - a quote: "... equipped with an air group consisting only of Ka-27M anti-submarine helicopters (or those that will replace them)," - but there is nothing to replace the ancient Ka27 and K-29, and these completely outdated production models do not exist either.
So there is simply nothing to carry out any functions of the AWACS and the actual landing. The result is a fancy barge for transporting the K-52K.
Two ships have been laid down, and there are no new deck helicopters yet even in the sketches.

[Castro Ruiz]

There / for UDC razches for "Lamprey" in the versions of PL, TB and PS. But with her it is still very vague.

[Garris199]

As for air defense against drones, it’s nothing. A helicopter with an airborne radar, explosive missiles and a cannon on board must be effective against UAVs.

[Vladimir1155]

everything is beautifully written, only the low security of the udk itself is missed, and its sinking nullifies all these beautiful functions, ... conclusion = use it as a transport of weapons in peacetime, during war it will not go to sea, it has no cover and escort .. .. in general, it is better to Kuzi only because it does not require monstrous docks

[Sandor Clegane]

Quote: vladimir1155

generally better than Kuzi

not a single post that would not belittle Kuznetsov, my minus to you!

Quote: vladimir1155

conclusion = use it as a weapon transport

are just talking nonsense

[Artyom Karagodin]

Danila, you do not understand! The man is fighting, I quote, "the destructive sect of aircraft carrier witnesses", and is not talking nonsense. Plus, he personally took part in the redrawing of the borders of modern Europe (I can find the corresponding commentary). Look, and it will not seem a little for you how your borders will begin to be redrawn)))).

[Sandor Clegane]

Quote: Artyom Karagodin

Plus, he personally took part in the redrawing of the borders of modern Europe (I can find the corresponding commentary).

and he also told me that he worked in the General Staff and was an adviser to Putin - this is already a diagnosis, coupled with what he writes

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Sandor Clegane

I also said that he worked in the General Staff

you have hallucinations, get treatment soon

[Nemchinov Vl]

Quote: Sandor Clegane

are just talking nonsense

.... well why ?! in part, -

Quote: vladimir1155

he has no cover and escort ...

unfortunately, but he's right ... Currently, only 2 frigates 22350 ... (!) ....
Well, maybe three more will have time to transfer to the fleet, in the next 3-4 years ...
and now (unfortunately), in fact, there are no main ships (frigate / destroyer) to form the KUG / KPUG ... The speed of construction and transfer to the fleet of the 22350s is lower than the rate of wear and tear of the remaining EM / BOD ships. ... It is regrettable, but this is an objective fact !!!. ...

[Sandor Clegane]

Quote: Vl Nemchinov

unfortunately, but he's right ...

he writes in 90% of posts that Kuznetsov is to blame for everything
he claims that the UDC can run to the Far East between the Kuril ridge and Sakhalin - what kind of escort is there ???
can walk to Syria accompanied by a Grigorovich type SRC

[alexey sidykin]

Quote: vladimir1155

everything is beautifully written, only the low security of the udk itself is missed, and its sinking nullifies all these beautiful functions, ... conclusion = use it as a transport of weapons in peacetime, during war it will not go to sea, it has no cover and escort .. .. in general, it is better to Kuzi only because it does not require monstrous docks

Yeah, especially your statement looks ridiculous against the background of monstrous aircraft carriers, it takes almost a squadron to protect each ...

[Kalmar]

Quote: vladimir1155

missed the low security of the udk itself

Will he hang out alone in the sea? Such ships always operate as part of some KUG. Here, it is not the low security that is more confusing, but the modest speed characteristics, which will limit the maneuverability of the KUG, but there's nothing to be done about it.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Kalmar

Such ships always operate as part of some KUG.

so the fact of the matter is that there is no such KUG and is not expected, a drastic reduction is coming and that small surface fleet that is still listed ... in the next few years we will write off all 1164 956 1135 and all Soviet ships of the third rank. We'll have to transfer all frigates and corvettes to the North and the Pacific Fleet, covering the seas with Karakurt and Buyan M, there are no minesweepers ... there is a fleet to guard the water basin around the nuclear submarine base (and that is quite modest) and that's all ... and in this situation, one 1144 will rise as the leader of frigates in the north, and a pair of UDC = weapons transport ... the apotheosis of stupidity will be a lonely, senseless and vulnerable Kuzya devouring budgets and completely useless even against the background of UDC = dry cargo ships

[lucul]

"there is a dramatic reduction of the small surface fleet that is still listed ..."

Check out US Navy cuts. But the other day they were going to send 7 Ticonderogs to the scrap, and they are not going to replace them with anything.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: lucul

But the other day they were going to send 7 Ticonderogs to the scrap, and they are not going to replace them with anything.

the Americans are not fools, the whole world turns out to be from large surface ships and for a long time, in most fleets there are not even destroyers, and in the Russian Federation they are no longer there either, the Americans decided to eliminate the cruisers as a class, and objectively, in a few years, we will have one or two 1144, Of course, countries with powerful economies claiming to fight far from their shores against weak countries where they have economic interests may need UDK and AB, but not Russia

[Nemchinov Vl]

Quote: lucul

Check out US Navy cuts. But the other day they were going to send 7 Ticonderogs to the scrap, and they are not going to replace them with anything.

are you kidding ?! there is a minimum (!) plus two "Burks" for every 2-3 years ...

[Serge-667]

What to do, what to do ..
Set normal power plants so that the speed is 30 knots or more.

[Kalmar]

Quote: Serge-667

Putting normal GEM

When there are such, they will probably deliver. So far - that is.

[lucul]

"only the low security of the udk itself is missed"


Well, Polyment-Redoubt will stand there anyway. And with a huge number of helicopters on board, submarines are not a problem.

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: vladimir1155

only the low security of the udk itself has been missed,

ALL UDKs in the world have low security !!!! I think that KUG go to BZ, and not alone!

Quote: vladimir1155

conclusion = use it as a weapon transport

maybe it is better to use dry cargo ships in peacetime?

Quote: vladimir1155

he has no cover and escort ...

one kuzma, two eagles, three atlantes, two pots, etc. we will recruit cover for a one-time action !!!!

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: KIND LAVRENTIUS

one kuzma, two eagles, three atlantes, two pots, etc.

Kuzma himself requires cover, the eagle is no more than one (in turn to be repaired) Atlanteans will not survive until the UDC is launched into the water, but their combat effectiveness is questionable even now, when you saw the last time the Vulcan was launched? it will be like from 1135 it will fly not where it should be .... a couple of three pots? and who will remain to guard the area at the port?

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: vladimir1155

it will be like from 1135 it will fly not where it should be .... a couple of three pots? and who will remain to guard the area at the port?

ay, don't stir up panic.
The Russian Navy is one of the five (if not the three) MOST STRONG FLEETS IN THE WORLD !!!!!!
for a minute !!!
Therefore, we will be able to collect pennants from all fleets for one KUG expedition !!!!

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: KIND LAVRENTIUS

The Russian Navy is one of the five (if not the three) MOST STRONG FLEETS IN THE WORLD !!!!!!

are you talking about SSBNs and nuclear submarines? I agree then, but they have little to do with KUG

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: vladimir1155

but they have little to do with KUG

Why?
SSGN The purpose of these boats is to launch missile attacks on enemy ships or coastal targets.
multipurpose nuclear submarines with cruise missiles will fit here just as well !!!

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: KIND LAVRENTIUS

Premier League

love silence and loneliness

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: vladimir1155

love silence and loneliness

however, they are present in American AUG, right ?! ...

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: KIND LAVRENTIUS

are present in American AUG, right ?! ...

but definitely not convoy ships

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: KIND LAVRENTIUS

We can collect pennants from all fleets for one KUG expedition !!!!

how do you imagine? and why?

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: vladimir1155

Is this how you imagine?

about how Kuzma went to the SAR.

Quote: vladimir1155

and for what?

dictate your will.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: KIND LAVRENTIUS

about how Kuzma went to the SAR.
Quote: vladimir1155
and for what?

dictate your will.

made me laugh! KUG from a pair of 1155, but back in general alone ... and this is all that he managed to scrape together in the most powerful fleet ... and to whom he dictated there, except for the indelible shame of smoke in the fog of albion, the loss of a pair of aircraft and inaction from impotence

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: vladimir1155

made me laugh! KUG from a pair of 1155, and the oratono is generally alone ...

KUG corresponded to BZ. what's so funny?

Quote: vladimir1155

and this is all that we managed to scrape together in the most powerful fleet

I mean, in the most powerful fleet? who / where / when he wrote about the MOST POWERFUL fleet? .... wow, right now you remind me of clerks from a neighboring country ... and it's sad ...

Quote: vladimir1155

and to whom he dictated there,

whoever needs it, he dictated to him.

Quote: vladimir1155

except for the indelible shame of smokes in the fog of albion

what a shame then? ... if you can explain it, if you can!

Quote: vladimir1155

loss of a couple of planes and inaction from impotence

war without loss does not happen!
what is inaction and powerlessness? - Explain what you mean.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: KIND LAVRENTIUS

war without loss does not happen!
what is inaction and powerlessness? - Explain what you mean.

these were non-combat losses, all the planes flew to the ground base, this is where the powerlessness lies, that with Kuzya it’s too early to fly from a ground airfield without him, that the losses are non-combat so why destroy the planes in vain, and therefore there is no point in blowing smoke besides

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: vladimir1155

these were non-combat losses,

any aircraft have non-combat losses! EVERYONE HAS!!! especially since the pilots survived.

Quote: vladimir1155

all planes flew to the ground base,

what is this statement based on?
known facts:
On November 12, 2016, the aircraft carrier group "Admiral Kuznetsov" began maneuvers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Syria. On November 15, Su-33 aircraft, for the first time in the history of the Russian Navy, flew combat missions from an aircraft-carrying cruiser, striking the positions of ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists in the Syrian provinces of Idlib and Homs. For two months at the end of 2016, while participating in hostilities in Syria, two MiG-29K and Su-33 aircraft were lost while landing on the deck. The ship returned to its permanent home base in February 2017.
On November 14, 2016, a MiG-29K fighter crashed in the Mediterranean Sea during an approach to board the ship after a training flight to the shores of Syria. The pilot managed to eject, was discovered by the rescue service a few kilometers from the ship and brought on board.
On December 4, 2016, when boarding a ship, due to a break in the air arrestor cable, the Su-33 was lost. The pilot managed to eject and was brought aboard.
question: if the planes worked from the ground, how did they crash when landing on Kuzya?

Quote: vladimir1155

then the losses are non-combat, so why destroy the planes in vain, and therefore there is no point in the smokes except to let smoke

even commenting is disgusting ... no specifics, you have some emotions ... how ... how ... how, oh god, a woman

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: KIND LAVRENTIUS

On November 4, 2016, a MiG-29K fighter crashed in the Mediterranean Sea during an approach to board the ship after a training flight to the shores of Syria. The pilot managed to eject, was discovered by the rescue service a few kilometers from the ship and brought on board.
On December 4, 2016, when boarding a ship, due to a break in the air arrestor cable, the Su-33 was lost. The pilot managed to eject and was brought aboard.
question: if the planes worked from the ground, how did they crash when landing on Kuzya?

horror two planes in a month, after this outrageous fact all the planes were transferred to a land airfield and your kuzya proved his complete failure and senselessness ... he destroyed more of our planes than enemies

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: vladimir1155

horror two planes in a month,

and what? ... I don't see any problems at all.

Quote: vladimir1155

toggled fact

straight blatant ??? ))))))))))))))) at first you upset me, now make me laugh)))))))))

Quote: vladimir1155

were transferred to a land airfield

Give a link to the fact you indicated, I did not find information about the transfer of the air wing to Khmeimim.

Quote: vladimir1155

and your Kuzya has proved his complete inconsistency and senselessness ...

Your? those. you do not consider him yours!

Quote: vladimir1155

he killed more of our planes than enemies

take more !!!!
planes do not need to be built because in a few decades they will need to be written off !!!!! )))))))))))))))
ps
at first you seemed to me more adequate ...

[Vladimir1155]

Moscow. November 26. INTERFAX.RU - Deck fighters from the Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser have landed at the Russian Khmeimim airbase in Syria, Western media reported.

IN THE WORLD
Deck fighters of the cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" destroyed a large bandit formation
November 17, 2016
Deck fighters of the cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" destroyed a large bandit formation
Read more
The website of IHS Jane's, referring to satellite images from November 20, reported that at the Khmeimim base there were eight Su-33 carrier-based fighters and one MiG-29KR along with the aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces air group in Syria - Su-24M, Su-34 and Su-35. https://www.interfax.ru/world/538734

[KIND LAVRENTIUS]

Quote: vladimir1155

after this outrageous fact, all the planes were transferred to the land airfield, and your kuzya proved his complete inconsistency and senselessness ...

in the link you gave it says:
on Saturday, that the aircraft wing of "Admiral Kuznetsov" - Su-33 and MiG-29 - has experience of landing on "Khmeimim". "The pilots got experience of taking off from the deck, landing on" Khmeimim " and return to the cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov"... Such flights were especially active at the very beginning, during the study of the theater of military operations ...
why are you wrong then all?

[Yarhann]

do not feed the troll. the student does not understand at all why the AK went to the SAR and what tasks he performed there together with other ships off the coast of Syria. And when they start to mention the exhaust of fuel oil boilers of an aircraft carrier - well, this is already a clinic, I would still be able to understand the indignation if the gas turbine engine was smoked, but damn it when boilers smoke is generally the norm - because this is essentially an ordinary stove.

[Romeo]

Less than a month later, the RK Varyag was the main one shot

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Romeo

Less than a month later, the RK Varyag was the main one shot

made me happy, thanks, so they will still serve

[Nemchinov Vl]

Quote: KIND LAVRENTIUS

one kuzma,

- eternal REPAIR ..

Quote: KIND LAVRENTIUS

two eagles

maximum one .. the second - REPAIR and modernization (!) ...

Quote: KIND LAVRENTIUS

three atlantes

- on different fleets (!), of which: one (Ustinov) is alive, one (Varyag) half-banned-half-dead, according to the degree of wear of the power plant, and one (Moscow) is more likely half-dead-what is alive, for the same reason ...

Quote: KIND LAVRENTIUS

two pots

on the SF, of which one (Gorshkov) is tied to the tests of the "Zircon", and thereby distracted from carrying real BS (at least for now) ...

Quote: KIND LAVRENTIUS

.. etc

if you are talking about 956/1155, then they are written off (and put on repairs and upgrades) much FASTER than the new 22350 are transferred to the fleet .... (!).
So from three scattered and isolated from each other SF / Black Sea Fleet / Pacific Fleet, it will be quite problematic for you to collect at least one sensible and powerful KUG ...? !!!

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Vl Nemchinov

on different fleets (!), of which: one (Ustinov) is alive, one (Varyag) is half-driven-half-dead, according to the degree of wear of the power plant, and one (Moscow) is rather half-dead-than alive, for the same reason ...

Ustinov also served for 6 years after the repair, and after three four years it turns out that there are no atlans at all, there are neither geu nor their main weapons, they cannot be modernized ... so they will follow the 956 for scrap, or at best, like the old people 1135 will turn into an artillery ship to display the flag

[Doccor18]

The potential of UDC project 23900 "Priboy" will be fully revealed when various options for air groups and airborne forces are formed for them ...

The maximum potential of the UDC will be revealed as part of a powerful Navy ...
When the Fleet lacks the most important thing: MAPLs and frigates, about which UDC we are talking. The lonely UDC will face the fate of Yamato, 45 ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Doccor18

The potential of UDC project 23900 "Priboy" will be fully revealed when various options for air groups and airborne forces are formed for them ...

The maximum potential of the UDC will be revealed as part of a powerful Navy ...
When the Fleet lacks the most important thing: MAPLs and frigates, about which UDC we are talking. The lonely UDC will face the fate of Yamato, 45 ...

It depends on what scenarios.

If we use UDC to deploy SSBNs, then what does Yamato have to do with it? An attempt to actively destroy SSBNs, incl. the sinking of the UDC is an open invitation to nuclear war.

UDC use in expeditionary forces? After all, the United States does not bomb our base in Syria, for the same reasons as in the first paragraph.

As for the rest - against the United States, yes, the UDC will be sunk. Against others - the required escort may well be formed.

I do not consider UDCs to be a priority of national security, but I think that since they have been tackled, it is necessary to squeeze the maximum out of them.

[Doccor18]

Quote: AVM

incl. the sinking of the UDC is an open invitation to nuclear war.

If you have a machine gun at home, then this makes you feel better. The only problem is that you are unlikely to ever be able to use it ... Also with nuclear weapons. It is and guarantees, but is not a 100% guarantee. Moreover, because of the UDC, the nuclear apocalypse will not suit. And without good air support (fighters) or a dense air defense / missile defense system (frigates), the UDC is doomed.

[Doccor18]

Quote: AVM

I do not consider UDC to be a national security priority ...

And I don’t count.
1. The fastest and high-quality repair of Kuznetsov.
2. Bookmarking of two classic aircraft-carrying ships of moderate displacement, if opportunities permit. No. So no. Concentration on priority tasks. In the end, it is better to saturate the fleets with inexpensive mass large landing ships of 4-5 kt. displacement. UDC is an expensive excess for us now.

[lucul]

"UDC is an expensive excess for us now."

UDC is a semi-finished product for the industry, so as not to lose competence in the possible construction of aircraft carriers.

[Doccor18]

Quote: lucul

UDC is a semi-finished product for industry,

Oh, what an expensive "semi-finished product" it turns out ...
And this with groans that "there is not enough money" and "the budget is limited."

[Yarhann]

UDCs are needed to support operations in the same Africa; in Syria, they would also be very appropriate, especially at the beginning of the mission. Although there is a base in Tartus, it was still required to deploy a base at the Khmeimim airport. But where there is no such possibility, there is nothing to do without UDC.
The Americans always visit with a pair of UDCs - because these are universal ships to provide and support the landing - nothing better on planet Earth has yet been invented. That is why in the United States there are now 9 UDCs in service - one of them is a new type of America - just a monster - and not only with guards but also with carrier-based aircraft. By the middle of this century, there will be 11 America-type UDCs in service, 11 airborne transport docks (read UDC).
It goes without saying that in order to provide air defense, an air defense aircraft carrier of the AK type and a pair of modern frigates of the Gorshkov type must be included in the order. As for me, now is the time to build the UDC, by the time they enter service the AK will be already operational with modernization and full combat readiness. After the UDC, I think with a high probability they will lay down an aircraft carrier (because the AK will last more than 10-15 years to build in any case) - in similar tasks as in the AK - that is, the first priority is to conquer air superiority, ensure anti-submarine defense and secondly strikes on the ground. Although, again, if the air wing changes depending on the mission, then there may be hawks and attack aircraft (their functions will most likely be performed by attack drones) and PLO helicopters.

[jonht]

Andrey, you grow as an author with every new article! Very much for you. Probably the more you immerse yourself in the subject of the Navy, the more accurately you begin to express and formulate your ideas. You can agree with many things, something raises doubts, but with something not. But the articles have definitely become more interesting and informative. Thank you.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quiet horror:))
Errors in almost every thesis ... But in a structured way, yes

[arkadiyssk]

This is not horror, it is worse - especially when the author invents key figures and draws conclusions about the greatness of the shock UDC on them. Those. he took a "practical range" of 52 km for the KA-500 helicopter and said that it was a "combat radius". Then he added outboard fuel tanks to it, but he was ashamed to say that then no weapon would fit in the takeoff weight. How is it? 7600 empty Ka-52, 1500 fuel, 1700 hanging tanks. And the maximum take-off is 10600. Will they arrive and wave a pen to the enemies? In fact, there will be at least 150 km of combat radius with a good load of weapons. Taking into account the need to stay farther from the coast, and the fact that it works not so much in depth, but to the sides along the coast, such a UDC will work at a depth of 70 km from the coastline, and this is somewhat less than the 500 km fantasized by the author !!!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: AVM

Practical range, km 1160

Nothing that on your very first link

Practical range of 460 km.

And that the official website of the Russian Helicopters holding (rhc.aero) gives exactly 460 km? Andrey, they already show you a mistake in plain text, and everything is not for the future

[lucul]

"In fact, there will be at least 150 km of combat radius with a good load of weapons."

The author wrote that the possibilities of installing Calibers on the Ka-50 are being worked out, and this is already 400 km of range at once.

[Pashhenko Nikolay]

The flight of dreams is exciting. Then the truth is, you have to descend from heaven to earth and realize that reality is a little sadder.

[Pavel57]

It is necessary to decide either an PLO ship, or an amphibious assault ship with attack helicopters.

[hostel]

The essence of the article can be characterized by two expressions "pull an owl on the globe" and "we have a ship and we need to come up with a combat purpose for it." Any plane will be cheaper than using UDC. The radar of the AWACS helicopter, due to its limited internal volumes and carrying capacity, is not able to provide the U function. The author forgot that the full designation of Hokkai is an AWACS aircraft and U. Litera U is over-the-horizon control (guidance) of the missile defense system. An AWACS helicopter, at best, is a retractable ship mast that illuminates targets for the ship's radar. I will not say anything about anti-ship capabilities.

[lucul]

"An AWACS helicopter is, at best, a retractable mast of a ship that illuminates targets for the ship's radar."

Retractable mast with a ceiling height of 3m? ))) He has a radio horizon range of at least 000 km, which is quite good.

[hostel]

Of course this will help, but there is a question. What time should it be raised? It was too late when the attack began. In addition, in order to ensure round-the-clock patrolling of AWACS helicopters, you need to have at least 14 of them on the ship. Will the hangar allow?

[eehnie]

The main role and value of Project 23900 Priboy is the role of the landing ship. This role has proven necessary in the Russian aid operation to Syria, and Project 23900 is just a modern ship for this role, corresponding to the level of projects of a new generation of weapons and auxiliary materials that are actually in development.

The project is key in its role as a Landing Ship and not in other roles. As a consequence, it is unlikely that ships will be deployed for operations that do not require the transport of cargo, and ship planes are more likely to be designed for the ship's self-defense and some escort if necessary.

I am inclined to think that combat missions will be carried out by combat aircraft, which can be manned or unmanned. It is logical to think that over time, the entire fleet of Project 23900 combat aircraft can become unmanned, including previously manned aircraft, upgraded by robotization. If the commissioning of the first block of the project is completed around 2030, the entire fleet of the ship's warplanes could be unmanned from the outset, thus avoiding the need for robotization.

Logically supporting functions (maritime patrolling, reconnaissance, surveillance, early warning, control, air transport ...) will be handled by auxiliary aircraft, some of which have important dimensions and range. In this case, I expect all shipborne assisted vehicles to be unmanned from the outset.

Obviously, we are talking about the full range of shipborne unmanned aerial vehicles. But that was one of the goals set by the 2015 Russian Maritime Doctrine for this decade. Another goal of this decade was the development and construction of the first ships of the project 23900 (then not yet numbered).

The result of all this will be the most modern landing craft in the world. Not the biggest, but yes, the most modern. Work continues and deadlines are met.

(Automatically translated from English. Below is the original commentary in English)

The main role and value of the Project 23900 Priboy is the Amphibious ship role. This role has proven to be necessary in the Russian operation to help to Syria, and the Project 23900 is simply a modern ship for this role in line with the level of the projects of the new genearito of armament and auxiliary material actually in development.

The project is key in its role as Amphibious Ship, not in other roles. As a consequence, it is unlikely to see the deployment of the ships for operations that require not cargo transport, and the shipborne aircrafts very likely will be for self-defense of the ship and some escort if necessary.

I tend to think that combat roles will be solved by combat aircraft, that can be manned or unmanned. It is logical to think that with the time, the entire fleet of combat aircraft for the Project 23900 can become unmanned, including previously manned aircraft modernized by robotization. If the commission of the first unit of the project is done around 2030, the entire fleet of combat aircraft of the ship can be unmanned since the begin, avoiding the need of robotization.

Logically auxiliary roles (maritime patrol, reconnaisance, surveillance, early warning, control, air transport, ...) would be solved by auxiliary aircrafts, some of them with important size and range. In this case I expect that all the shipborne auxiliary aircrafts be unmanned since the begin.

Obviously we are talking about a complete range of shipborne unmanned aircraft. But this was one of the goals stabilshed by the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 for this decade. The development and construction of the first ships of the Project 23900 (then not numbered) was other goal for this decade.

The result of all it, will be the most modern Amphibious Ship in the world. Not the biggest, but yes the most modern. The work is ongoing, and the timeline is being respected.

[hostel]

To supply troops in Syria, the UDC is not needed. For this, a dozen transport ships of the Liberty or Red Oak type are enough.

[Dmitry Ivanov_8]

In the UDC picture it is not clear whether there is a below-deck hangar or not. If suddenly there is - then this is a classic light aircraft carrier.

[Barberry25]

what does it mean to have it or not? it is there in any case, in fact, the UDC is a large barge with lifts, the only thing that needs to be taken into account is the further creation of a full-fledged PLO helicopter carrier i.e. alteration of landing pads for basing helicopters and thinking over logistics. And there, on the next version, you can put a springboard, taking into account the size there, in principle, and the mig-29K can be based without problems large

[alexey sidykin]

Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8

In the UDC picture it is not clear whether there is a below-deck hangar or not. If suddenly there is - then this is a classic light aircraft carrier.

Considering that it can accommodate up to 20 helicopters, then there is such a hangar

[Dmitry Ivanov_8]

Judging by the presented photo of the model in the article, it is unlikely. In addition to the hangar deck for aviation, there is still needed as (according to statements) 1000 infantry and 75 units. place armored vehicles. Yes, there is something like an airplane lift next to the superstructure under the helicopter. But not a fact. It would be just time for ours to understand that building station wagons is cheap, but stupid. "Either the chest is in crosses, or he is in the bushes."

[Barberry25]

that's all they are building, but we are just stupid ... The same Rhino, with 3 times less displacement, could take 500 marines, 4 helicopters and 80 armored vehicles .. There is more than enough space with 30 tons of standard displacement

[Wiruz]

Tell someone, is there any point in reading the article if the author confuses UDC "Priboi" and UDC by 23900. These are two completely different projects from different design bureaus. And if at least something was known about "Surf" (how many times it was taken to exhibitions), then absolutely nothing is known about the second one. Well, except for that blurry photo from the stand, where its architecture is more or less visible and the characteristics are poorly read.
And given that the displacement of ships under construction in official statements constantly grew by leaps and bounds, it is generally not known what is being built there in the Crimea. There, according to some rumors, our UDC will not be so much amphibious ships as drone carriers. With a catapult, aerofinishers and other chips.
Yes, these are all rumors, albeit not without reason. But still, let's at least wait for the launching of the ships. Let's see what we built in the end - and only then we will not rant whether we need it or not

[Glagol1]

Somewhere on the VO there was information that one costs 70 billion without an air wing. This is just a building. It is also necessary to analyze from this angle. Complex issue.

[Barberry25]

Well, in general, you need to analyze, first of all, for what, and there already with the prices of other solutions to these issues ... In principle, I have long suggested starting to build UDCs, then on their basis to make helicopter carriers / PLO cruisers, and there it is already possible to think about light aircraft carriers , and if, say, we also develop AWACS tiltroplanes, then it will generally turn out to be cheap and cheerful ... But there is one BUT, you need to achieve high cooperation and competence of enterprises, otherwise you will not be able to build quickly and a lot, and without this any idea is nothing

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

AWACS helicopters in such a situation will have a certain advantage - they can occupy a strictly defined echelon in the air, which will be excluded from the shelling sector of shipborne air defense systems.

The first thing that comes to mind when building a missile order is an attack either from different directions, if the order is known, then a massive attack from the least protected direction, in order to overload the air defense.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Potentially, the Ka-52M / Ka-52K are capable of carrying 4 RVV-SD, or up to 8 RVV-MD, or 2 RVV-SD and 4 RVV-MD (in the worst case, 2 RVV-SD and 2 RVV-MD). Air-to-air missiles based on portable anti-aircraft missiles (MANPADS) or promising small-sized air-to-air missiles developed on the basis of missiles, a Ka-25 helicopter can take even more - about 16 missiles per combat vehicle (or even more ).

Enchanting fantasies.
The author seriously suggests preparing for the "last war"?
Given the fact that the Russian Federation has set the goal of speeding up the arms race and is adopting hypersonic anti-ship missiles, it would be worth predicting the introduction of similar high-speed missiles of a potential enemy into service no later than 15 years.
Those. create air defense weapons capable of capturing not HARPOONS, but potentially hypersonic targets.
Set the rules of the game, get ready to play with it.
It would be nice if the author would compare the time to climb a Ka-52-type helicopter - how much it will take to reach the turbines and propellers mode and the flight time of the HARPOON-FANTAZER anti-ship missile system!

[Castro Ruiz]

The author missed, INTO UDC must have min. 2 PS helicopters.
The air defense function for the UDC is very limited.

[Wildcat]

What a charm: "Thus, in the variant of recruiting an air group for solving air defense tasks, the UDC of project 23900" Priboy "can carry 4-6 AWACS helicopters and 12-14 Ka-52K combat helicopters, capable of collectively lifting about 50-200 missiles into the air" air-to-air "various types." Such even .... no one even dreamed of such air defense.

But we are missing two obvious opportunities:
1. "Thus, in the variant of recruiting an air group for solving fishing tasks, the UDC of project 23900" Priboy "can carry 4-6 AWACS helicopters and 12-14 Ka-52K combat helicopters, capable of collectively lifting 6-7 fishing nets of various types."
2. "And of course, UDC of project 23900" Priboy "can not only provide aviation support, but also service about 1000 distinguished guests with friends and 75 units of entertainment type equipment (aquadiskotheque, etc.)." My beloved "messenger ship" ...

[lopuhan2006]

If there are no questions about the presence of 3-4 Surf, then in the case of the need for aircraft carriers there are problems. To begin with, you need to at least create light PLO and AWACS aircraft,

[Scharnhorst]

Reading in the article the options for the use and composition of the air group under construction of the two UDCs involuntarily compared their total capabilities with the only heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser in the fleet (under repair). If we discard the so far abstract BEC and AUV, then the same 4-6 AWACS helicopters, 12-14 PLO helicopters and 8-12 MiG-29K helicopters will sit on the TAVKr in the PLO version (the latter will save on escort ships to provide the KPUG with anti-ship and air defense) The air defense option of two UDCs with helicopters against the TAVKra with the classics from the Su-33 and MiG-29K is simply not comparable. The anti-ship version of the UDC is just hypothetical.
For "power projection", again, a classic aircraft carrier is preferable.
2000 people even of the Russian marines with 150 armored vehicles with two UDCs and a support group 1000 kilometers from their native shores in the modern world around them - irreparable losses!
From the title of the article

Project 23900 UDC "Priboy": a waste of money or a highly efficient warship?

I would answer with the first thesis. I hope many have not forgotten the arguments from the criticism of the project of the Russian "Mistrals"? I would choose the new TAVKr!

[Serge-667]

will make it possible to deliver sudden and rather intense attacks by anti-ship missiles against the KUG of an enemy that does not have air support.

Maybe the author will tell you at least one composition of the current KUG, or from the recent past, which does not have aviation support?
(Do not offer variants of Tsushima times).

[Dart2027]

The UDC is only a means for deploying its air wing, landing force and its delivery vehicles. The effectiveness of the UDC itself depends on their composition and effectiveness.

Very accurately noticed.

[AC130 Gunship]

"Everyone remembers" the epic about 2 Mistral. Not everyone remembers the epic about 4 Mistral. And what happened to 3rd and 4th? Also went to Egypt?

[Avior]

3 and 4 were to be built in Russia.

[DMi]

UDC makes sense, unlike aircraft carriers.

[timokhin-aa]

And nothing that for its use it is necessary to win air supremacy?
Otherwise, they will sink.

In fact, on the contrary - there is no point in UDC without an aircraft carrier.

[DMi]

UDC makes sense for peacetime and colonial wars. In a big war, if it happens, any fleet is meaningless. For RF. In a big war for the Russian Federation, everything will be decided on land and with nuclear weapons, maybe tactical nuclear weapons.

[timokhin-aa]

A landing is impossible without air supremacy, if the enemy has aviation and the will to resist
And almost everyone has it.
And what kind of colonial wars do we have?

[DMi]

In fact, attempts to move old players in Africa are in full swing. And the Airborne Forces with the marines are being reformed and re-equipped for these tasks. And the PMC has two feet up there and head over heels. To solve problems in Somalia, Sudan, or Ethiopia, air supremacy is completely unnecessary. There simply are no such opponents. A mobile battalion on helicopters might be appropriate.

[timokhin-aa]

Ethiopia has no access to the sea, but there is aviation, and there is a chance to revive it.
In Somalia, it turns out, you have to fight without air support, right?
Isn't that too heavy a price to pay for the adorable believing in the uselessness of aircraft carriers?
A simple question - your mobile battalion needs to take a defensive midfielder with savages, about 200 people, at a height, with mortars, out of range of actual artillery fire.
What will you take? Throw corpses?
I can throw hundreds of such examples.

[DMi]

Yes, it’s cheaper to throw corpses than to pay for the construction and maintenance of the AUG. The cynicism of war.
And for about 200 people, half a dozen calibers are enough to break the defense.

[timokhin-aa]

Honesty check - are you ready for the corpses of one of your children to be among those corpses, so that Russia does not build an aircraft carrier?
Answer yes or no.

And for about 200 people, half a dozen calibers are enough to break the defense.

Fantasy on the second floor is where adults have gathered.

[DMi]

The Expeditionary Forces will not have any green rookers. There will be only experienced adults who voluntarily chose such a job and the associated risks. So yes, ready. And if they go to a PMC and go to bed there, I'm ready. This is their choice.

[timokhin-aa]

Well, first of all, you apparently have no idea who and where is fighting in our country.
Well, that’s okay.
We fix our positions - in order to prevent Russia from using aviation far from its territory, you are ready to sacrifice your children, right?

[DMi]

Demagoguery manipulation. Cheapest as much as possible. Just like that in diapers and crawling to fight, yeah. You should conduct master classes for Solovyov and other propagandists. Or vice versa, take the basics of the profession from them. Until I figured it out)
If the kids grew up and went to serve in the army under a contract, then they may die there. This is an objective reality, and letting snot, or noisy and flat tantrums on this matter, is ridiculous. For an adult.

[timokhin-aa]

Yes, I know who and where is fighting, I don’t need to fill in here about 100% of the contractors, we did not receive the whole draft of the Airborne Forces in 2014, because instead of passing it, it was clear where.

But that was not the question for you, I asked you a simple introduction - are you ready to sacrifice your children for the sake of the Russian Federation not being able to use strike aircraft outside its combat radius from Russian air bases? This is a very simple question and the answer to it can be simple - yes or no.

There are planes to clear the road with bombs and prevent anyone from flying overhead (from an aircraft carrier) - the children are alive.
No - the children are not alive.
With a certain probability, of course, this is understandable.
What do you choose?

[DMi]

Yes, I'm ready. The value of human life is greatly exaggerated) we will all be there. And the value of my own children for me is not higher than any other life.

[Tomas palmer]

There are still some nuances. And it's not that it's more expensive
and what is cheaper is what is possible. To great
unfortunately, your opponents believe that
highly motivated manpower ready to go
into battle with any losses kakbe by itself
implied. And if not really? On loss
mercenaries on ... the drum of society, but hardly
the PMC fighters themselves are indifferent. The dead are not
need money. Yes, for good money go to that
or another risk - there will be those willing. But repeat
exploits of the marines during the Second World War ... For the colonial
any interest? Is not a fact. And yes, a situation where
the order will be carried out, and then those who wish are not particularly
there is ... Also not so hot. And if you have to fight
send regular parts ... And there will be resonance.

[Biodred]

And how to cover this bucket when the ships in the far zone are left - you can count on your fingers? And what for for PLO purposes a universal AMP ship? For the same price, you can build a dozen BODs.

[mmaxx]

All this can be written about any UDC. Greetings to Mistral and its opponents!

[abc_alex]

The newest Russian combat helicopter Ka-52M carries the Rezets radar with an active phased antenna array, including 640 transmit and receive modules (PPM), capable of detecting air targets at a distance of up to 50 kilometers. Previously, Ka-52 helicopters were tested with short-range air-to-air missiles. There are no technical obstacles to equipping the Ka-52M with both RVV-MD (short-range) missiles with an infrared homing head (IR seeker) and RVV-SD (medium-range) missiles with ARL seeker. In this case, target designation of the RVV-SD outside the range of the "Rezets" radar can be issued by AWACS helicopters. Similar solutions can be implemented on the Ka-52K naval combat helicopter.

To begin with, the Kamovites have not yet integrated anything into their helicopter on their own initiative. The helicopter receives weapons as part of the unification with the Mi-28. And when they undertake to integrate something themselves, then even the ready-made Sturm complex gets the worst opportunities. Therefore, there are many technological obstacles to equipping the Ka-52 with aircraft missiles. The Kamovites have no experience for this and there is no cooperation of developers either. This time.
Two. The radars of the Ka-52 and Mi-28 helicopters are designed for forward-downward search in a narrow sector. To adapt these stations for air defense, it is necessary to change its attachment angle and it is desirable to also increase the field of view, otherwise the aircraft will fly through the FANCY radar mounted in the nose swiftly, downright.
Three. The static ceiling of the Ka-52 is 4000 meters. At this height, fighters operated during WW2. Now the working height of the fighter is more than 10 (modest) kilometers. I think there is no need to explain why superiority in altitude is critical for air combat.
Four. For a system of air defense missiles with guidance from an AWACS helicopter, the Ka-52 as a missile carrier is not needed at all. Isn't it easier to install a missile launcher on a ship? Complex Buk-M3, for example? Or the Thor complex?
Five. And exactly for aircraft missiles it is possible to start and achieve the specified performance characteristics at a near-zero speed of the carrier?

In general, what a strange fad on the pages of a topvar, to try to "make" from assault helicopters carriers of weapons requiring third-party target designation? Either the mythical Hermes with a range of 100 km, or an air-to-air missile ... It's not effective.

[sailor roman]

The main problem of using ships of this class is the lack of sufficient forces and means for effective combat, special-technical and logistic support of actions, especially in the course of hostilities.

[Kusja]

Not prevent

[Stepan S]

And in the meantime:

[timokhin-aa]

I can still understand when the "Avalanche" (modelka in the pictures) from the State Research and Development Center is issued for "Priboy" - this is a scam to replace a good project with a bad non-project.

But what does all this have to do with 23900? Avalanche, Surf and 23900 are two different things!

[Andrey151122]

The main task is to control sea routes. UDC can paralyze (redirect) the movement of all ships in a large radius by landing troops and inspection teams on them.

[Shkiper]

Rave! As soon as, in the first lines, I read that we were going to purchase 4 UDCs, I understood that it would start now, if only a koba. And so it happened. I have one question for the author, what do you have to do with the fleet, in which "regiment" did you serve? Rather, on what ship?

[clidon]

The Tomahawk is a disgusting craft. Winged skinny sausage. Gets knocked down by a felt boot. The only point is wasting money when shooting donkeys.
"Caliber" is an inevitable blow from beyond the horizon. It is invulnerable to air defenses due to its low flight altitude. Perfectly destroys terrorist vehicles. What is not a shot is in the bull's-eye.

"Stealth American" - seen by any tube radar thousands of kilometers away. Worth billions, going to hell knows what, reliability in the little finger, zero sense.
"An inconspicuous domestic apparatus" is a fusion of technologies, new materials and advanced thought. Penetrates through any air defense, it costs a penny millions of full-weight rubles, is reliable, all pilots show only their thumbs.

And so on ... and so on. So with the "Mistrals", poor cruise barges are turning into a prospect for our fleet. Not everyone succeeds in changing consciousness so quickly. I think that they just need to be equipped with more missiles and the rusky military couch will accept them. Albeit with a creak of springs.

[Radical]

Everyone remembers the epic with the acquisition of four French Mistral-class UDCs ....

Of course they do, they just don't remember who answered for this "jamb" .... I suggest Vadim237, and carstorm answer .... They probably have, as always, an explanation that, in their opinion, will solve all the issues ...

[Vladimir SHajkin]

It is necessary to build and operate one at the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet.
A lot can be theorized, but only application, operation and maintenance will give the same irreplaceable experience, which will confirm, refute and expand theoretical knowledge and give new knowledge and experience.
In addition, humanity has already developed to such an extent that it can begin to fight for water spaces (before there were wars only for land), but the water surface is still 70% of the entire surface of the Earth and it is necessary to control them, which means that large platforms are needed, with the necessary displacement for receiving aircraft, and it is this experience that is necessary for future sustainable development and state as a strategic subject in world politics.

[JD1979]

Interesting article. Nice flight of imagination, laughed a lot.

[Tomato]

Lots of great ideas. But I would like to remind you that the UDC is intended for landing operations.
Building a UDC to perform anti-submarine missions, air defense, trawling or transporting fuel and lubricants is not the most rational idea. Although ... the rich have their own quirks.

[highlight]

IMHO the fleet is not in a condition to use the seven functions of this ship. And the letter D will be clearly superfluous here, where is the landing planned to be carried and landed from an ocean ship? Small and medium landing ships are in demand in our closed seas, but for the Baltic and Black Seas it is redundant. For the Syrian express function, it is better to order specialized supply ships with ferry and helicopter decks.
There was once a project 1123 Moscow cruiser, it would be better if they took it as a basis, throwing out all the landing stuffing. It would have been approximately 16-17 thousand tons of displacement, by lengthening the hull and aft hangar, 16 helicopters can be safely placed there with a simultaneous take-off of 8 vehicles and there is room for anti-aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles equivalent to two 22350 frigates. Such a ship would be more useful for the current few ocean-going ships . He needs less protection than the udk and is himself capable of providing most of the air defense and anti-aircraft defense of the detachment.
The variant with the multifunctional ka-52 is good and has the right to life. A bunch of helicopter / drone drone + 2 patrol 52s in the air and 2 on duty on deck will be of great help in providing air defense
Only helicopters are no longer being built well / drills, and the remnants of the Ka-27/31 are not enough to provide existing ships, about the obsolescence of avionics and search and sighting equipment, Timokhin’s large article came out with extremely pessimistic conclusions. We are naked in general on helicopters

[Diviz]

Many aircraft carriers for the near future we have no constructions. One aircraft carrier is like a prototype for the rear defense.
But to build such as Lun or the Caspian monster, even in the form of an aircraft carrier, even one, this gave an advantage in speed and delivery of goods in the Arctic.

[max702]

For VTOL aircraft, you must immediately put it against the wall for sabotage and sabotage ..