USC is ready to build amphibious ships and aircraft carriers

43
Over the past few years, there have been active discussions of two promising projects of military shipbuilding. The first is the order from France of two Mistral-type landing assault helicopter dock ships (DVKD), the second is the construction of aircraft carriers for the naval fleet Of Russia. The implementation of such projects is usually associated with some problems of a different nature, for example, a contract with France is now under threat due to the dubious position of official Paris. Accurate information about the construction of the aircraft carrier is also not yet available.



The other day, the President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), Alexei Rakhmanov, on the radio station Ekho Moskvy, revealed some plans of his organization, and also touched on the most topical issues in the field of military shipbuilding. As it turned out, the USC is able to provide the fleet with the necessary equipment and even has some thoughts on this matter. At the same time, however, the Corporation cannot work without an appropriate order from the Ministry of Defense.

According to A. Rakhmanov, the United Shipbuilding Corporation is fully capable of building ships that, in their characteristics, are similar to the French MKDD-type DKKD. If the Defense Ministry believes that the Russian Navy needs such ships with certain features related to the climate and the main provisions of the current Military Doctrine, the USC will build them. “There is nothing super complicated there,” the Corporation President summed up.

Naturally, to start such work requires an order from the Ministry of Defense. A contract and a clear technical task for which the project will be developed. The USC leadership already has a certain idea of ​​where and how new ships can be built. A. Rakhmanov believes that the shipbuilding enterprise “Baltic Plant” (St. Petersburg) will cope with the construction of new DVKD.

Earlier this plant built two fodder sections of the hull for the Mistrals ordered by Russia. In the future, he can master the full cycle of building such ships. The modernization of production facilities will allow the Baltiysky Zavod plant to build ships up to 250 m in length - about 50 m more than amphibious ships ordered from France.

A. Rakhmanov noted that the construction of new DVKD at Russian enterprises will cost less than the order of similar equipment from foreign partners. However, he did not give exact numbers. USC President mentioned that Russian submarines are about 2,5 times cheaper than their foreign counterparts, and in the case of surface ships, the difference in price should depend on their class.

At the moment, USC is considering the possibility of building landing ships of its own design, but so far it does not intend to start it due to the lack of a corresponding order from the Ministry of Defense. The management of the Corporation does not have any information about such plans of the military department. As a result, the project to build our own helicopter landing craft docks so far remains only in the plans and at the level of discussion of the opportunity itself.

Recent statements by the President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation raise certain questions regarding another promising project - the construction of a new aircraft carrier. Not so long ago, in early March, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, said that at present Russian specialists are engaged in preliminary work on the project of a new aircraft carrier. Now is the formation of the appearance of such a ship. In addition, the commander-in-chief emphasized that work was being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the fleet command.

Responding to a question about the participation of organizations that are part of the USC, in the development of a new aircraft carrier project, A. Rakhmanov said that there were no orders for such work. The task to develop a draft aircraft carrier has been reported. However, when the Ministry of Defense makes an appropriate order, the specialists of the Corporation will definitely be engaged in such work. In addition, the USC President noted that so far there is not only an order for the development of an aircraft carrier, but also a technical task for such a project.

From the words of A. Rakhmanov, it follows that domestic shipbuilding is ready to fulfill any order of the Ministry of Defense, including building ships of new classes for themselves. There is the possibility of building amphibious helicopter-carrying dock ships that can replenish the combat strength of the navy, including as a replacement for the Mistrals held by France. In addition, USC is ready to take part in a project to develop and build new aircraft carriers.

It should be noted that in the implementation of some promising projects, primarily in the construction of new amphibious ships, there should not be serious technical and technological problems. Thus, in the eighties of the last century, Soviet shipbuilders developed a draft amphibious helicopter-carrying ship dock "11780". For a number of reasons, such ships were not built, but the project showed the fundamental possibility of constructing a DVKD at Soviet shipyards. The participation of the Baltiysky Zavod in the construction of two Mistrals, in turn, confirmed the potential of Russian enterprises in relation to similar projects. Thus, if necessary, the plants of the USC can really engage in the construction of promising DVKD. In this case, all the main issues will be reduced to the cost and terms of work.

The statements of A. Rakhmanov about the absence of orders for carrying out work on the aircraft carrier project may be associated with certain features of the organization of domestic shipbuilding. It is known that several years ago the Krylov State Research Center, which actively cooperates with USC, but is not part of it, began working on aircraft carrier subjects. Thus, at the moment, scientific and design organizations that are not part of the Corporation may be engaged in shaping the appearance of a new aircraft carrier. As a result, the words of A. Rakhmanov and V. Chirkov do not contradict each other, and it follows from them that at present, work is actually under way to create a project for a new aircraft carrier.


On the materials of the sites:
http://tass.ru/
http://echo.msk.ru/
http://vz.ru/
http://ria.ru/
Our news channels

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

43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Favorite
    +7
    25 March 2015 05: 47
    Borrow money from France and build their own DVKD on them!
    1. +2
      25 March 2015 08: 37
      Actually, under the contract, it was planned to build four Mistrals, two of them here!
      1. PHANTOM. 91
        0
        25 March 2015 11: 28
        Have we already been given Mistral or at least money for them ??
      2. +1
        25 March 2015 15: 10
        The contract provides for the construction of two ships, with an option for two more, these are two different things.
    2. 0
      25 March 2015 11: 34
      with all the forfeits and other things, but according to the new course, it’s not even bad
    3. +4
      25 March 2015 13: 41
      something tells me that Mistral will be given to us at the very last moment ...
    4. -1
      25 March 2015 23: 05
      I think it would be better now to build more submarines, corvettes and frigates, IPC and RTOs are like a "burning question" - and aircraft carriers and mistrals could wait later - there may be more expensive oil
  2. +7
    25 March 2015 05: 59
    USC is ready to build amphibious ships and aircraft carriers
    I don't even doubt it. Building a "box" is difficult, but possible. Now the main thing is to quickly establish the production of powerful and reliable power plants, both gas turbine and diesel, well, the rest of the modern filling of warships
    1. +3
      25 March 2015 09: 11
      Not only. Although, say, the construction of corvettes is being slowed down. Main power plant: diesel-diesel company MTU (Germany). Something like: "The United Shipbuilding Corporation plans to start a legal battle against the German manufacturer MTU, which refused to fulfill the terms of a previously concluded contract and to ship diesel engines used in the construction of Russian warships."
      The main thing is different. So far, neither aircraft carriers, nor Mistral type, have a clear place for their application.
      1. 0
        25 March 2015 09: 29
        Quote: mark_V
        So far, neither aircraft carriers, nor Mistral type, have a clear place for their application.

        Well, you can think of aircraft carriers - reconnaissance (AWACS carrier) and cover of the main forces, so the aircraft carrier will not be the central figure
        1. 0
          25 March 2015 09: 55
          In fact of the matter. And its construction, operation and use (with a "bunch" of ships and submarines for cover and support) is not a cheap business. Again, coming up with an application is not very promising.
          I can hardly imagine the picture - a Russian carrier group in the ocean (no matter which one).
          1. +2
            25 March 2015 11: 29
            Quote: mark_V
            (with a "bunch" of ships and submarines for cover and support)

            Among the Americans, he plays the main striking role in the group, around him the anti-aircraft missile defense missile defense destroyers, from below the submarine, everyone covers him because with his damage the whole essence of what this group was going to be lost for, and if you imagine that the missile cruiser plays the main role (and ), accompanied by destroyers and a cover aircraft carrier, then its failure - an aircraft carrier, will not affect the others so much, and the squadron will be able to continue to carry out its combat mission
        2. +2
          25 March 2015 13: 25
          Quote: saag
          Well, you can think of aircraft carriers - reconnaissance (carrier AWACS) and cover the main forces,


          Sorry, spending enormous financial resources on building a ship for which THEN coming up with tasks is now impermissible luxury for Russia ...
          In principle, this should not be forgotten (aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers), but now, it seems to me, it is urgent to build up striking power, which is at the same time a deterrence force - these are submarines with various types of missiles ... Aircraft carrier-helicopter carrier Especially - single) he will divert the threat of an attack on Russia, but two or three extra submarines - maybe by cooling some of the inflamed brain ...
          1. 0
            25 March 2015 14: 51
            Quote: veksha50
            Sorry, spending enormous financial resources on building a ship for which THEN coming up with tasks is now impermissible luxury for Russia ...

            And what happened with the Mistrals, on the contrary?
            1. 0
              25 March 2015 17: 47
              Quote: saag
              And what happened with the Mistrals, on the contrary?


              Yes, I'm talking about a momentary situation ...

              And there, even without a tender, Serdyuk also didn’t buy a chair, so I ordered it with permission ... And I expressed my opinion - at the moment (and during the order of these Mistrals) shock submarines are needed ... What Hitler’s wolf packs come to mind ... I don’t remember the numbers, but at that time Germany submarines riveted like cans ...
              1. -1
                25 March 2015 22: 34
                Submarines are weapons of deterrence, and UDCs and aircraft carriers are projections of force. These are different things.
                1. 0
                  26 March 2015 00: 11
                  Our projection of force is real and necessary - missile defense, air defense, airborne forces, submarines the entire spectrum, corvettes, destroyers. We do not need any aircraft carriers - we don’t have these toys for our pockets and there is no need. Active layered defense and the possibility of guaranteed destruction (unacceptable damage, at least) of the States - this is what we need so that lunatics outside the puddle dare not attack us.
                  1. 0
                    26 March 2015 19: 29
                    Quote: NordUral
                    so that lunatics beyond the pool do not dare to attack us.

                    The projection of power is not a defense, but an opportunity to advance one’s interests outside one’s territory. Even now, we can guarantee the destruction of the United States, and so what? Will we do it? No, because there will be no winners in the atomic war. And for conducting various kinds of peacekeeping operations, they are very useful.
                    And by the way, aviation is also needed to cover the deployment of submarines.
        3. 0
          26 March 2015 00: 39
          Quote: saag
          Quote: mark_V
          So far, neither aircraft carriers, nor Mistral type, have a clear place for their application.

          Well, you can think of aircraft carriers - reconnaissance (AWACS carrier) and cover of the main forces, so the aircraft carrier will not be the central figure



          what are the aircraft carriers ???
          Do you know how many real landings and by whom was made on the only one that exists with us?
          no? and so, I’m reporting - not even twenty people will be recruited. and these are the aces who retire the day after tomorrow.
      2. 0
        26 March 2015 07: 05
        Quote: mark_V
        The main thing is different. So far, neither aircraft carriers, nor Mistral type, have a clear place for their application.

        and here in more detail where and who told you this?
    2. +10
      25 March 2015 12: 37
      USC is ready to build landing ships and aircraft carriers.
      Piz .. don’t mess with children. We built something larger than 100000 tons? We do corvettes for 5 years. They are already coming out of stocks. And all the same aircraft carriers give them. Correctly, the larger the order, the more it drank.
      By agreement, the first ship of the Mistral type will be built within 36 months after the first down payment. Second ship - for 48 months. Russia will carry out 20% of the construction of the first Mistral-class helicopter carrier at the STX shipyards in Saint-Nazaire (France). This is a steamboat with up to 32000 tons of displacement, and we are doing corvettes of 2200 tons for 5-6 years. If we are to estimate a normal aircraft carrier in We’ll do 100000 for 30 years.
      1. 0
        25 March 2015 18: 44
        There is absolutely nothing to add, but we are for your money anytime, anywhere! In other words, Mr. Rakhmanov is ready to master any means with an indistinct result!
        1. 0
          26 March 2015 00: 12
          Exactly - lumberjacks.
    3. tyson7
      0
      25 March 2015 20: 14
      Not so long ago, being on a business trip to one oil field, I was pretty surprised by the following fact: the main diesel power plant is based on diesel engines produced in Kolomna. As the initial fuel (for starting diesel engines), a normal diesel diesel engine is used. But after warming up the diesel engines they are converted to oil. The usual commodity .. Damping diesels - transfer to a solarium, working 10-15 minutes on it to clean the combustion chambers and jamming ..
  3. +12
    25 March 2015 06: 49
    The construction of ships of large and medium displacement is always a locomotive of the economy. Not for nothing The Korean economic miracle is largely connected not with microelectronics, but with the successes of Korean shipbuilders. Construction of a series of DVKD or several aircraft carriers will create entire industries in the economy. Further on these slipways it is possible and necessary to produce our own container ships, lighters or gas carriers and large tankers. The main thing is not to go in cycles like in the USSR only on the defense industry and give technologies and capacities to work for the whole economy.
    1. 0
      25 March 2015 13: 31
      I think that for this it is necessary at least to begin the construction of these largest ships, and not to order the Mistrals in France, which apparently Russia will never see again, unless in France the ship is changed ahead of time.
    2. +2
      25 March 2015 13: 32
      Quote: D-Master
      Further on these slipways it is possible and necessary to produce our own container ships, lighters or gas carriers and large-capacity tankers



      The question is different ... It seems that you forgot that we have not lived in the USSR for a long time ... I agree with your conclusions that this will benefit our shipbuilders, etc., etc.
      Question: who will order these container-lighter-gas carriers and tankers? Who will pay for them? For whom and under whose direction will they work ???
      Roma Abramovich’s trick is to build a super-duper yacht for YOURSELF ... And I don’t see something of shipbuilding oligarchs ... Some of them who plundered our merchant and fishing fleet have built at least one WORKING ship bought-commissioned ???
      So - in some way it would be useful to gain skills in building these ships, but who would order and pay for them ??? Ugh, only spoiled my mood .... Nobody ... and nobody needs ...
    3. 0
      25 March 2015 19: 02
      Some kind of manilism! Translated into modern Russian-FANTASER!
    4. 0
      25 March 2015 21: 21
      It may make sense to swap AB and gas carriers in order of importance. The Koreans don’t build an AB, but gas carriers bake like pies. By the way, a gas carrier is very difficult to build a steamboat, much more complicated than a frigate or corvette. We just poorly build them, but gas carriers have not built any lacking competence.
    5. 0
      26 March 2015 00: 14
      Several dozen destroyers or corvettes (where we need them much more) will create the same effect and strengthen our defense many times over.
  4. +9
    25 March 2015 06: 50
    Dear, this is not great news, shipbuilders and before the Mistrals said if there was a tender for the construction of helicopter carriers, our shipbuilders won it and built ships, as for aircraft carriers, it’s necessary to develop, but now the most important are submarines and surface ships of the ocean class and a lot, therefore need to build new modern shipyards
    1. BMW
      +3
      25 March 2015 07: 12
      I’m afraid that our government, picking its nose, would not wait for Ukraine to fall apart, and the Nikolaev shipyards would leave for us.
      Now is the time when you need to build your shipyards.

      Quote: D-Master
      The construction of ships of large and medium displacement is always a locomotive of the economy. Not for nothing The Korean economic miracle is largely connected not with microelectronics, but with the successes of Korean shipbuilders. Construction of a series of DVKD or several aircraft carriers will create entire industries in the economy. Further on these slipways it is possible and necessary to produce our own container ships, lighters or gas carriers and large tankers. The main thing is not to go in cycles like in the USSR only on the defense industry and give technologies and capacities to work for the whole economy.

      I totally agree.
  5. +7
    25 March 2015 07: 15
    Well, what is this, it means that the "frog pots" can build, but we, what can not? Yes, of course we can, such a power as Russia can do anything. And it will show the West another "Kuzka's mother." soldier
    1. PHANTOM. 91
      +1
      25 March 2015 11: 35
      But will he be able to launch detection tools that the old aircraft carrier could not?
      1. 0
        25 March 2015 14: 38
        But will he be able to launch detection tools that the old aircraft carrier could not?

        Someone stuttered somehow that work was underway in the Russian Federation to create an electromagnetic catapult. So, in the long run, yes, he can. The main thing was to launch something, because the Yak-44 project was never brought to mind because of uselessness.
    2. 0
      25 March 2015 18: 36
      The movie is wonderful.
  6. +6
    25 March 2015 07: 51
    The question is not "we can or cannot", but the availability of free capacities and qualified personnel. And also the presence / absence of a suitable power plant plays a huge role. In light of recent events, it is the engines that are the stumbling block.
  7. +7
    25 March 2015 08: 15
    We have experts in everything to promise that the electorate will sleep peacefully, but as it comes to business, there is no funding, sanctions have prevented it, foreign components are not being received. And at the same time, McDonald's opens 800 of its vomiting in the Russian Federation. The question is, what about sanctions? The question is, what is happening in the Kremlin? No, of course not, and Putin has nothing to do with it, after all, the rating is 88%. This is probably some kind of radish from the moon and arranges its black dealings.
  8. +1
    25 March 2015 09: 59
    We can build everything, but in addition to "we can" we need an understanding for what, the 2nd question is technical specification and design, the 3rd question is equipment, the shipyard boxes will be built, and who are the engines? and the filling? It is necessary to ensure that everything works in a complex. I think at the moment we need to establish the production of our electronics for filling any equipment and engines, and then orders will go.
  9. +1
    25 March 2015 10: 39
    I wonder why all these directors go to the enemy station and chatter whatever comes into their heads. Where are their superiors? After all, this is tantamount if Tupolev shared on Radio Liberty what he was going to do. And again silence, again no one for anything otvetstvenno.Just do not write that this is a "cunning strategy", throwing disinformation, etc. This is the real sabotage.
  10. +3
    25 March 2015 11: 03
    Of course, the news is good, but they don’t have to talk about bagging ... for starters, let the corvettes learn to build .. 4 years for the ship at 2200VI is too much ...
    1. munez
      +2
      25 March 2015 11: 34
      That’s why, when they say that we can do no worse and cheaper, they never talk about deadlines? After all, whatever one may say, the French only took 1,5 years from the moment of laying to the moment of launching.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  11. +4
    25 March 2015 12: 17
    Might or may not, is that the question? I would like to remind some too ardent jingoistic patriots that the USSR could build aircraft carriers. Well, Russia has only mastered the construction of small ships, and even those run on foreign diesel engines. Almost all those in power have perfectly mastered the boltology, but the real thing, alas ..... We are doing well so far, only the development of the budget, and then with a criminal bias, and production only survives, thanks to the remaining enthusiasts for whom the phrase "is insulting for Russia "is not just an empty phrase. Over the past 25 years, we have lost too many technologies, and most importantly, personnel. So don't be too hard on believing some of the so-called "city managers". Sincerely.
  12. +1
    25 March 2015 12: 29
    The USA living on the outskirts in order to somehow influence the Eurasian continent is forced to contain aircraft carriers. We live in the very center of this (Eurasian) continent, self-sufficient
  13. +2
    25 March 2015 13: 27
    Alexey Rakhmanov on the air of the Echo of Moscow radio station

    Ordinary gentlemen are not invited to "Echo of Moscow". Not an ordinary Mr. A. Rakhmanov on the air of "Echo of Moscow" passes off wishful thinking, or misleads the liberal public. Or he meant that he was ready to build AV for fifteen years, billions in seven or eight , and that in the end there will be an empty box, and the equipment for it will have to wait another five years and spend the same amount.The French brought Mistral out for testing in a year and a half, Mr. The simplest question - what kind of propulsion system will stand and who will make it cannot be answered at all. Because we do not produce installations like on Mistral in principle. He is ready. I am sure this gentleman will not establish the production of nails from scratch, but will gladly share on the air of Echo of Moscow how he mastered three budgets.
  14. +4
    25 March 2015 13: 34
    We can build, the only question is time and funding! there was an article, Rogozin was shaking with money, that money was allocated for the modernization of factories, that everything is just fine, and we will build new loading docks, and we will update production capacities, and raise wages! But then, a small note slipped by, in connection with that. that the order book has not been formed, neither for the northern plants, and for St. Petersburg, nothing will change. Only one thing is interesting. where did the money go, as usual, our highly efficient managers. smuggled into pockets. and gave themselves prizes! Construction time. are determined only by the capacity of the plant, and the number of people involved, and the assembly technology. So you can build. and for those terms. what France is doing, but the question will be different, why should our managers complicate their lives. and pay extra money to attract people, if possible. and seven years. Build one ship by hiring two cripples and one pensioner! And the saved funds, successfully put into your bonus! And while, there is no firm hand, and for the disruption of the construction time, they are not sent to warm lands, then nothing will change! so, you need a tough leadership, and the will of the government, and the people will build everything, only give a command! Right now. we are all suing, then the Germans, then Ukraine, do not supply diesel engines, turbines, gearboxes! And in the USSR, all this was produced, where now these factories, where workers, all factories, were converted, or into business centers, or shopping centers! The workers, however, were expelled by recruiting labor emigrants, for the reason that they can be paid less, but how they will do it, and in what time frame, no one cares! And the same “Mistrals” were ordered in France, not because they are better and cheaper, but for political reasons, in the hope of a friendly attitude! And someone, got a kickback, in his pocket, because of that money. it was possible in Korea to buy not two, but 4 ships of the same class! So, the fish, as always, starts to rot from the head! Although the tail is still trying to push it forward!
  15. +2
    25 March 2015 14: 24
    Yes! There are too many kindergartens on the Military Review. Instead of a thoughtful discussion of the problems facing Russia, only "urya-quacking". Well, you won’t scare me with cons, and I don’t strive for the stars either. For me it is much more important to discuss with like-minded people, the questions about which my soul hurts. I perfectly understand that as long as gentlemen like Shuvalov and others like him are in power, the country's defense will be strengthened only because of fear of Western "partners" who can take away everything "honestly" earned. And such "hurray-patriotism" has already happened in the history of our country, when they were going to fight with small forces on foreign territory. Sincerely.
  16. 0
    25 March 2015 18: 45
    Of course, an aircraft carrier is wonderful. And shipbuilders do not care what to build - the main thing is to cut the loot. After all, you can agree to a lower price for an aircraft carrier, but then, the state will have to pay extra if there is not enough money (crisis or something). Do not throw the unfinished ship! But a few points confuse.
    1. What does the Russian Defense Ministry think? Only not admirals!
    2. What other means, more effective, can be built to replace an aircraft carrier (or rather an aircraft carrier group of 10-15 escort ships with submarines, berths, warehouses, bases), for example, the Baguzin MRC?
    3. The construction time of large ships is delayed by 10-15 years, and then they become obsolete.
    4. Russia should not blindly copy the United States. Different features and tasks.
  17. +1
    26 March 2015 00: 04
    What for us it? Landing ships and aircraft carriers, why do we need them? We need to take care of active defense. Who are you planning to attack and why?
  18. 0
    26 March 2015 00: 08
    No, I get sick of these businessmen. Build! At your own peril and risk, build, offer MO, if you like it, and the price suits, then they will buy. Have you even proposed a project? Or do you want ready-made drawings and design documentation for you, and you will set a price that, during the construction process, will increase ten times, in view of the artistic sawing of the dough with a jigsaw? "Abrams", for example, designed two kompashki, and one won, which is Chrysler, and GM wiped out. How is it? Do you want to make money? R&D, project, estimate, suddenly you like it, risk, noble business, only, I'm afraid that you don't even have a design bureau, and if you do, then there are also defective managers as designers, and shipbuilders have been retired long ago.
  19. 0
    26 March 2015 06: 10
    Yes, a lot of things to build. Starting from tugs and ending with mega-ships that destroy the planet. And now it is easy to concentrate on closing the existing or soon emerging "holes" of certain classes of ships.
  20. 0
    April 23 2015 06: 13
    I see everyone right here are super strategists-specialists in the field of forecasting and analyzing the military doctrine of the Russian Federation. For those who have not lived on the sea coast of the Far East, I recommend just looking at the map thereof. Further, measure the distances from the main bases of the Pacific Fleet, the presence and composition of air defense units, anti-aircraft defense units, land units and tie the Kuril Islands to the possibility of providing free passage to the clean operational space in the Pacific Ocean of the same nuclear submarines and submarines, not to mention the BOD and corvettes. I hope then all smart strategists will guess why the stupid and mediocre Defense Ministry, led by the VG, ordered the construction of two Mistrals for the base in Vladivostok. By the way, for the Mistrals, everyone understood for a long time that there would be a bummer in the supply, and the infrastructure for them continues to be built, however.

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

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