Military Review

Borisov: “We will build amphibious ships” with 2018

65
The construction of large amphibious ships, which will replace the Mistrals that were not received by Russia, will be included in the armament program for the period from 2018 to 2025, reports TASS report of the Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Yury Borisov.


Borisov: “We will build amphibious ships” with 2018


"We'll build landing ships ... I think that this will be a question of the 2018-2025 state armaments program",
said Borisov.

In 2015 g, the command of the Navy stated that by 2020 g they plan to receive the first BDK of a new generation with a displacement of about 16 000 tons. At the same time, the shipbuilding industry noted that they had not received an order to develop a new ship.

Also, according to Borisov, by 2025, the issue of building an aircraft carrier will be resolved.

“I think, most likely, this (the signing of the contract) will be closer to the end of 2025 of the year. We have three projects proposed by the Krylov Center, they are not bad, the decision on the aircraft carrier will be made closer to 2025, ”
he said.

The agency reminds that at present the Navy has only one aircraft carrier - the Admiral Kuznetsov cruiser, which this year "will receive a regiment of MiG-29K fighters".
Photos used:
ITAR-TASS / Vadim Zhernov
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avvg
    avvg 20 May 2016 09: 55
    +2
    Everything depends on financing and it is possible to build earlier at the Yantar plant in Kaliningrad, especially since there are developments.
    1. razmik72
      razmik72 20 May 2016 09: 59
      +11
      I don't even want to remember the Mistrals, it takes such anger.
      1. cniza
        cniza 20 May 2016 10: 03
        +8
        Everything will be determined by expediency and military doctrine.
        1. Thunderbolt
          Thunderbolt 20 May 2016 10: 06
          +1
          Quote: cniza
          Everything will be determined by expediency and military doctrine.
          As well as the possibilities of industry and finance.
        2. Dam
          Dam 20 May 2016 11: 21
          +10
          It’s good that we are building and planning. I saw a cut of the fleet at the Kronstadt wall with my own eyes, it was like the shooting of prisoners. Gorbachev, lousy female dogs, live to see the trial
          1. cap
            cap 20 May 2016 16: 05
            +2
            order of judah
            Quote: Damm
            It’s good that we are building and planning. I saw a cut of the fleet at the Kronstadt wall with my own eyes, it was like the shooting of prisoners. Gorbachev, lousy female dogs, live to see the trial


            Personally, my opinion. Mr. "G-v" has long been a living corpse.
            Speaking.
            Judas Iscariot
        3. dmi.pris
          dmi.pris 20 May 2016 11: 39
          +3
          I would say a little differently .. Will be determined by the power that will be in two years. If liberal "economists in defense and industry" strengthen (I do not exclude such a possibility, Putin played with them), there will be no ships, no future. There will be industrialists and a patriotic part of financiers (who do not put Amerz papers at the forefront) - there will be a sense.
      2. x.andvlad
        x.andvlad 20 May 2016 10: 20
        +4
        We must not recall, but draw conclusions for the future.
      3. Blondy
        Blondy 20 May 2016 10: 34
        +5
        Actually, there was a political sense in this order. It was meant to establish stronger ties, including in the military sphere, and give impetus to an independent policy from the United States. When they work together, there is less desire to water each other, and even more so, to fight it first. Secondly, when it comes to blood grandmothers, their selfish interest is already awakening there, and not joy for the interests of someone else's uncle. But as they say - could not.
      4. silver_roman
        silver_roman 20 May 2016 11: 12
        -3
        Quote: razmik72
        such anger takes.

        why? normally fucked with them. So, in fact, the grandmas invested, repelled tens of percent from above and did not accept the troughs that were not needed at this stage.

        In general, plans for 2015 look ridiculous. Just to wag your tongue.
        1. kepmor
          kepmor 20 May 2016 12: 46
          +1
          Do you really think that we "got them from them", and not they (frogs) in that situation with mistrals from us ?!
          I repeat ... the French built a mistral with our money, they threw us with the final product, although the money was returned, BUT the profit (financial and economic benefit) was not received by us, but by them!
          And the Egyptians managed to shove the boat!
          And we did not get any interest from them - only the net costs were returned to us!
          This is called - "divorce a sucker in the dark", when they use your grandmothers, then they are reluctant to return them to you, but without any interest and deviants, and they put the profit in their pocket!
          Well, "who fucked whom" in this situation ?!
          1. silver_roman
            silver_roman 20 May 2016 15: 27
            +2
            and let’s take our emotions aside and look differently:
            gave the euro at one rate, got it differently + there were costs due to the development of the ka-52K. Therefore, the profit is on the course and it is decent: tens of percent + recaptured the costs (or part of the costs) for the development of the ka-52K, which by the way we will sell to Egypt, who bought Mistral + we will equip it with some kind of iron, sort of.
            The frogs acted extremely disgusting, it would have cost much more to rip off, but the fact of our benefits is obvious. Let it be a coincidence, the devaluation of our currency, etc., but arguing with this is stupid. And some argue, and "hamsters" minus, not even understanding the essence.
            By the way, profit can be obtained not only in the form of money. Who knows what France paid for? maybe loyalty to the UN or something else? Silence in Syria ... are you up to date with everything? I definitely do not. But I know that we did not lose money and that’s good!
    2. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 20 May 2016 10: 07
      +4
      Quote: avvg
      Everything depends on financing and it is possible to build earlier at the Yantar plant in Kaliningrad.

      For starters, a finished project is needed, with all the documentation, not layouts from Krylov. Last year they promised to lay in 2016, but as expected, the deadlines went right
    3. Monge
      Monge 20 May 2016 10: 58
      0
      it is possible to build earlier at the Yantar plant in Kaliningrad, especially since there are developments.
      What are the developments? It is declared about the ship of 16000 tons of displacement! Something I have not heard about the construction of warships with a displacement of more than 5000 tons. We need to return the shipyard in Nikolaev !!!
      1. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 20 May 2016 11: 14
        +2
        Quote: Monge
        Something I have not heard about the construction of warships with a displacement of more than 5000 tons.
        We need a lot. However, there is where to build this ship:
        1.Shipyard "Bay" (Kerch). He built a series of “Crimea” type supertankers with a displacement of 150 thousand tons
        2.Shipyard "Admiralty Shipyards" (Petersburg). Construction of ships with a displacement of up to 70 thousand tons. True, it is now fully loaded.
        3.Northern Machine-Building Enterprise, aka Sevmash (Severodvinsk)... Built the nuclear submarine of the 941st project ("Shark"), a displacement of 48 thousand tons. They also finished building the "Gorshkov", which is now the Indian "Vikramaditya" (ugh you, Lord - you will utter hell smile)
        4.Baltic Shipyard (Kaliningrad)... Now he is building the Akademik Lomonosov floating nuclear power plant with a displacement of 22 thousand tons. Plus nuclear-powered icebreakers of the Arktika project with a displacement of 34 tons.
        So there is where to build ..
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 20 May 2016 11: 27
          +3
          1) Built. This is the main thing. To fix the deadbolt of the leaking dock, I had to exert a lot of strength and connections (in view of the loss of documentation, we looked for the designer who designed the deadbolt in the 60, and he drew a new deadbolt from memory and drafts). Which is now done (or rather now, temporary hut, in June they will unload it and will change it to a capital one). With crane facilities there is no better. For good, it needs to be updated, the more modern Chinese Goliaths are a new level, in accuracy and weight. Now he is doing what under Zhevago — he is picking up a tanker, this time not for picking up in Turkey and Italy, but for surrendering to the Navy, which again forced to revive several workshops that were reduced to zero under Zhevago. Collect your own outfitting base, recruit people (AK Bars helps with this).

          2) The Admiralty is full of orders for 2020.

          3) Sevmash is packed with orders. Moreover, there is an 1 slot for BNK and it has been busy for a long time.

          4) The Baltzavod is again clogged with orders.

          But you can pull the window. Here already rests on the project, the Navy’s Wishlist and money.
        2. Monge
          Monge 20 May 2016 11: 45
          0
          However, there is where to build this ship:
          With all due respect to the worthy list, I dare to remind you that it was in Nikolaev that the cruisers of project 68 bis, helicopter carriers "Moscow" and "Leningrad", TAKRs 1143 projects, including "Admiral Kuznetsov", were built. Somewhat more impressive.
          1. co-creator
            co-creator 20 May 2016 14: 13
            0
            Quote: Monge
            what exactly were built in Nikolaev

            There the stocks were cut long ago and there is no place to build such ships.
        3. spravochnik
          spravochnik 20 May 2016 17: 06
          +1
          Quote: Ami du peuple

          4.Baltic Shipyard (Kaliningrad)... Now he is building the Akademik Lomonosov floating nuclear power plant with a displacement of 22 thousand tons. Plus nuclear-powered icebreakers of the Arktika project with a displacement of 34 tons.
          So there is where to build ..

          Baltic Shipyard if that is in St. Petersburg.
        4. igor.borov775
          igor.borov775 22 May 2016 06: 21
          0
          Hello !! The list is normal for today. Dear Komsomolsk, too, is packed to capacity with hulls. The first corvette was dropped for completion. This is the first warship for KTOF and so far the only one. Nikolayev had the most powerful cranes because orders were very solid there. Now all this is past. Now all efforts are directed to Zvyozdochka in Kameshka. There the foundation is laid for a large shipbuilding of decent displacement under 350 thousand. Difficulties are unmeasured. None of the neighbors are interested in this. The most modern methods of processing and cutting steel sheets are laid there. For the first time in Russia, the ability to build such giants is decided. Finally, a small clarification. The problem is in equipping ships hull systems and equipment. Here are the problems also missing. It’s not just that they talk about 18 years old. Around this time, the production facilities that are being built are working. It is not in vain that our colleagues are closely monitoring the new industries and trying to slow down their commissioning. We have built the eastern factory from scratch, so we can cope with these problems no matter what. Regards
      2. spravochnik
        spravochnik 20 May 2016 17: 03
        0
        Quote: Monge
        What are the developments? It is declared about the ship of 16000 tons of displacement! Something I have not heard about the construction of warships with a displacement of more than 5000 tons. We need to return the shipyard in Nikolaev !!!


        What are you talking about? If about "Yantar", then by. BDK pr.1174 "Rhino" was built there, ask what its displacement (full 14060 tons, for reference). And the BDK pr. 1155 is slightly more than 5000 tons.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 20 May 2016 17: 38
          0
          Quote: spravochnik
          BDK pr.1155 is slightly more than 5000 tons.

          Sorry BOD pr.1155.
    4. g1v2
      g1v2 20 May 2016 11: 51
      0
      Not only from financing. According to the plan this year they should have laid the udk. I really doubted that they would have time to prepare the project and it seemed that he was right once postponed to 2018. It's a pity, however. request
    5. Alex777
      Alex777 20 May 2016 17: 32
      0
      Quote: avvg
      Everything depends on financing and it is possible to build earlier at the Yantar plant in Kaliningrad, especially since there are developments.


      It seems that something also depends on domestic gas turbine engines.
      Atomic UDC no one will cost. wink
  2. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 20 May 2016 10: 01
    0
    Once there is an order, money will be pledged, no matter how difficult it is. The only question is the timing of the project.
    1. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter 20 May 2016 11: 44
      +1
      Quote: avg-mgn
      Once there is an order, money will be pledged, no matter how difficult it is. The only question is the timing of the project.

      The question is still in capacities and personnel.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 20 May 2016 10: 08
    0
    Will it be a BDK (like the Soviet ones) or still UDC (like the ill-fated Mistrals and the like)? .. If the latter, then just building a ship is not enough. Here it is also necessary to work out the "technology" of the so-called. over-the-horizon landing (for which, in fact, all UDCs are intended). Fortunately, there are no kag-be problems with the aviation component ...

    And one more thing - for all the ugliness of the situation that developed with the Mistrals, there is also a positive moment. And, in my opinion, considerable. This is the development of a deck-based attack helicopter (Ka-52K) and the acquisition of certain experience in the construction of ships of this class (construction of aft parts at our shipyards) ...
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 20 May 2016 11: 17
      +3
      As for the construction, there are more waving statements.

      The real thing is quality control, yes. Exposure to Western tolerances (more stringent) - yes.

      However, the most difficult part - the bow, which is assembled from blocks of high availability in 400-630 tons, was made in France. Aft, collected from small blocks (less than 100 tons) and they are actually empty.

      Although, you can build in the old way, it will be long, expensive, but it will. On the other hand, modern shipyards offer enormous opportunities for cheapening. Again Makassar - 8-10k displacement, dock, an extensive helipad (on 2-3 seats + hangar in the superstructure), two cargo decks, an airborne assault battalion with equipment and all this is done for 1,5 of the year and at the price of a fully equipped ship (without means of reception, helicopters, equipment of course) in 38-50 million dollars, from custom equipment and short / long version. This is cheaper than Morgunov (which is Grains sistership, but already without overpayments for downtime and reworking the project)! Yes, he is going to a large civilian shipyard in Indonesia (PAL), according to purely civil standards, but this is 50 million dollars in the best configuration for a practically full DKVD for bat marines with equipment, with a construction period of 1,5 of the year (the head one came to the Philippines a year later after signing the contract - they promise to accept the Philippine Navy by the end of summer).
      1. Demeter
        Demeter 20 May 2016 15: 49
        0
        Savings are certainly not bad, but most experts say that to destroy a landing ship of the Mistral type, one anti-ship missile, and not the most powerful and modern, is enough, because the survivability of this ship is very low. Does Russia need floating coffins?
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 20 May 2016 15: 55
          +3
          With 95% probability, Gren will also drown from Harpoon, like 775 and 1171.

          Today, even to Western missiles (with a small warhead, for example, Exozet and the Chinese have less than 200kg), the resistance is very low. Not to mention all sorts of large calibers with 400kg + warheads.
          1. Demeter
            Demeter 20 May 2016 16: 30
            +1
            In the photo, the US missile frigate Stark, it remained afloat after being hit by the Exocet anti-ship missile system. If the Mistral were in its place, it would go to the bottom. It is not worth saving on the survivability of warships.
          2. spravochnik
            spravochnik 20 May 2016 17: 28
            +1
            Quote: donavi49
            With 95% probability, Gren will also drown from Harpoon, like 775 and 1171.

            Today, even to Western missiles (with a small warhead, for example, Exozet and the Chinese have less than 200kg), the resistance is very low. Not to mention all sorts of large calibers with 400kg + warheads.


            Here you are wrong. The fact is that the Mistrals are designed and built according to the standards of civil shipbuilding. And there the requirements for survivability are somewhat different request
            1. Botanologist
              Botanologist 20 May 2016 17: 55
              -1
              Quote: spravochnik
              Mistrals are designed and built according to civil shipbuilding standards. And there the requirements for survivability are somewhat different


              And by what standards did Sheffield design?
              1. spravochnik
                spravochnik 20 May 2016 18: 01
                +1
                According to the English military of that time, which allowed, for example, aluminum superstructures. Now, by military standards, this is strongly discouraged.
            2. The comment was deleted.
      2. spravochnik
        spravochnik 20 May 2016 17: 23
        +2
        Quote: donavi49

        However, the most difficult part - the bow, which is assembled from blocks of high availability in 400-630 tons, was made in France. Aft, collected from small blocks (less than 100 tons) and they are actually empty.

        Yes, that you are attached to these blocks of high availability. I have already explained to you what this means. They can be of any weight, the WHOLE ship is now assembled from such blocks, and the stern is far from empty.
      3. jktu66
        jktu66 21 May 2016 00: 32
        0
        Filipkovsky handsome! And what about the money, in the Republic of Ingushetia people all happened to collect grandmothers in the fleet. I would ask what the president’s fund would be, I would donate money, I think, and not just me.
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 20 May 2016 17: 25
      0
      Here it is also necessary to work out the "technology" of the so-called. over-the-horizon landing (for which, in fact, all UDCs are intended). Fortunately, there are no kag-be problems with the aviation component ...

      This technology was developed back in the USSR - BDK pr.1174.
  4. Demeter
    Demeter 20 May 2016 10: 10
    +6
    Before building landing ships, you need to build a sufficient number of modern corvettes and frigates, because landing ships need an escort of warships and to protect naval bases, at least multipurpose corvettes are needed. In addition, the landing ships of the Mistral type have been built according to the norms of civil shipbuilding, they have not the best seaworthiness and frankly not satisfactory survivability. For example, Australia abandoned the French Mistrals in favor of Spanish ships of a similar purpose ...
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 20 May 2016 10: 24
      0
      Go to the commander of the Russian Navy, Admiral Korolev Vladimir Ivanovich, and tell him how to properly develop the Fleet. And then it’s worse for him to the admiral than you. Yes, for one, justify the lack of vitality of Mistral compared to the Spanish trough. Tell us how you checked the Mistral for this survivability and what standards the Spaniards stand for their ships.
      1. Demeter
        Demeter 20 May 2016 10: 27
        +1
        My dear, I am bored to death with `` generals '' like Pasha Grachev, who are only capable of drinking with prostitutes, in parquet rooms and sending people to certain death ... Spanish landing ships have a springboard and can be used as light aircraft carriers, and their seaworthiness is better than that of the Mistrals, learn the motor unit ...
        1. fzr1000
          fzr1000 20 May 2016 11: 16
          0
          No need to write so derogatoryly about the Hero of the USSR, who fought beautifully in Afghanistan. Do not forget about the political scum surrounding Grachev during the war in Chechnya, which betrayed us at every turn.
          1. Demeter
            Demeter 20 May 2016 12: 04
            0
            Tell me who your friend is and I will tell you who you are. A decent person in the company of scum will not appear ...
      2. spravochnik
        spravochnik 20 May 2016 17: 32
        +2
        Quote: Engineer
        Go to the commander of the Russian Navy, Admiral Korolev Vladimir Ivanovich, and tell him how to properly develop the Fleet. And then it’s worse for him to the admiral than you. Yes, for one, justify the lack of vitality of Mistral compared to the Spanish trough. Tell us how you checked the Mistral for this survivability and what standards the Spaniards stand for their ships.

        You’re an engineer if you don’t know that civil standards in shipbuilding are different from military ones. What, many - a long time to explain, but if you are still an engineer - you will figure it out for yourself.
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 20 May 2016 11: 42
      +2
      Well, here in Syria there are enough escort ships, unlike delivery ships.

      Therefore, the same BDK Saratov, which is 50 years old, drives the rest of the resource. Successfully bought Turkish ships, for the most part they died and went into the bulkhead of cars (2 died right on the flight). Tkachenko, will soon have to return to the civilian line. To carry Raptor Collectors, too, did not come up with a good life.

      And one Mistral or even a cheap DKVD would take both the Raptor and the equipment with the 2 BDK 775 (and a large double deck and like the 2x Tapir with a mountain full of stuffed ones), plus helicopters, it took Ruslan to unload 1-2 from the deck. And the same Mistral, for example, 8 Mi-8 / Mi-28H / Ka-52 helicopters without removing the blades - with the admission and departure on their own.

      Yes, and look, today, the connection is going to be easy.
      The same Grigorovich.
      TFR Wise - who will start running again in the summer after treatment of the turbine.
      1 cruiser 1164 or even Peter.
      1-2 BOD - although they were driven.
      Small forces from the nearest fleet, and this can be 20380 corvettes, RTOs including Caliber, IPC.

      On a decent KUG you can scrape together. And then more, more 4 frigate to 2018. A pair of new corvettes, including from UKKS.

      But the landing forces, nothing shines. Gren da Morgunov, hardly compensate for the withdrawal of pension Tapirs. And there, the first 775 series is also for the fortieth.
      1. Demeter
        Demeter 20 May 2016 15: 42
        0
        My dear, to remind you of how during the First World War Germany handed over to Turkey the battle cruiser Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau. Where is the guarantee that tomorrow some anti-Russian bandits will not be handed over, for example, missile boats that attack Russian landing ships? The cruiser Moskva is still a serious warship, but it is not new, and the Turkish fleet significantly outnumbers the Russian Black Sea Fleet in terms of the number of warships. Turkey has already shot down a Russian Air Force bomber, and where is the guarantee that Turkey will not attack the Russian landing ships? Of course, you can send all the ships of the Black Sea Fleet of Russia to Syria, but who then will defend the Black Sea coast of Russia if Russia already has fewer warships than Turkey, which has already shown its teeth? You want to send the frigate of the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Federation, Yaroslav the Wise, to Syria, but the Russian Federation in the Baltic has only this frigate and 4 more combat-ready universal corvettes, which can be called new ships ... Everything else is outdated, or is in endless repairs and probably will not return to service ... Do you think that Russia has enough new modern warships? I do not think so. I believe that Russia needs to build more new universal combat ships, otherwise we will remain in the role of a shoemaker without boots, Soviet-built ships do not last forever and they need to be replaced ...
    3. Verdun
      Verdun 20 May 2016 14: 07
      +2
      Quote: Demeter
      Before you build landing ships, you need to build a sufficient number of modern corvettes and frigates
      Totally agree with you. Landing ships and helicopter carriers - only a means of delivery. They need serious support and the forces of the mosquito fleet being created cannot do here.
      Well, here in Syria there are enough escort ships, unlike delivery ships.
      If someone believes that one RK Moscow or a couple of BOD is enough with a serious development of events, read the series of articles on the Folklands posted on the same site.
  5. x.andvlad
    x.andvlad 20 May 2016 10: 17
    +1
    Considering the fact that the first Mistral was built in 2005, then the conditional lag is 20 years. Maybe not everything is so hopeless?
    Although the first UDC were built in the 70s.
    The LHA-1 (Landing Helicopter Assault) Tarawa, built in 1969-1973 at the Ingals Shipbuilding shipyard and commissioned in 1976, was the world's first universal amphibious assault ship. http://flot.com/nowadays/concept/reforms/needinmistral/?print=Y
    The point is not even the need of the UDC itself, but the development of new technologies for our shipbuilding.
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 20 May 2016 14: 31
      +1
      The point is not even the need of the UDC itself, but the development of new technologies for our shipbuilding.
      In order to acquire new technologies, it is not at all necessary to acquire a finished product - in this case, the notorious Mistral. On the other hand, buying a finished product, and even a finished product, does not mean transferring new technologies to you.
  6. Taygerus
    Taygerus 20 May 2016 10: 20
    +2
    the main thing is in your own strength, you need to load your plants, the news is good and it pleases
  7. 33 Watcher
    33 Watcher 20 May 2016 10: 25
    +1
    "I think most likely this (contract signing) will be closer to the end of 2025."

    Well, thinking and will be, these are two different things. It would be nice of course, but for 10 years, at least, they discarded us in this matter ... Only curses against all those involved were further.
  8. Oleg L.
    Oleg L. 20 May 2016 10: 25
    -1
    the question will be solved by 2025)) funny and how much will you build? also 10 years old
    1. Abbra
      Abbra 20 May 2016 11: 04
      0
      We will!!!! Build and equip. There is petty envy in your phrase. I respect and love the brotherly people of Belarus. It’s not our fault that you have no sea.
  9. Abbra
    Abbra 20 May 2016 10: 25
    +2
    Three ships to the Black Sea, a couple to the Pacific Ocean. The Black Sea is called "Poti", "Trabzon" and "Dardanelles". Pacific - "Sapporo" and "Kitami". Yes, I forgot, one - to the Baltic fleet. To call it quietly - "Taaalliinn". For the leaders of the respective countries, this is just a joke request love
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 20 May 2016 14: 56
      0
      Black Sea then immediately call Constantinople laughing
      1. Manul
        Manul 23 May 2016 15: 49
        0
        Quote: Wiruz
        Black Sea then immediately call Constantinople

        Or Constantinople. winked
    2. Wiruz
      Wiruz 20 May 2016 14: 56
      0
      Black Sea then immediately call Constantinople laughing
  10. atamankko
    atamankko 20 May 2016 10: 26
    +1
    I am an optimist, and these statements make me happy.
  11. iliya87
    iliya87 20 May 2016 10: 48
    0
    They say our docks are crammed with orders to the eyeballs. In Crimea, a factory for the production of warships will be re-equipped, because of the great Ukrainian power there now only small boats can be made there, after modernization, it will be possible to build different tonnages.
  12. basy66
    basy66 20 May 2016 11: 26
    0
    it would be better if they built anti-submarine boats, otherwise there’s nowhere to dive into the sea
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 20 May 2016 14: 54
      0
      Use the UDC as a carrier of anti-aircraft helicopters - a lot of mind is not needed. Much harder to transport landing on anti-aircraft helicopter carriers
  13. Stas157
    Stas157 20 May 2016 11: 59
    +2
    The Navy stated that by 2020 they plan to receive the first new-generation combat-production complex with a displacement of about 16 tons.
    I hope the BDK will be at a cost much cheaper than Mistral, taking into account the cheap ruble!
  14. Wiruz
    Wiruz 20 May 2016 14: 53
    0
    Hmmm ... But at the last naval salon they talked about their readiness to lay down a series of new UDC immediately in 2016 ...
  15. Sergey333
    Sergey333 20 May 2016 14: 53
    0
    Quote: Stas157
    I hope the BDK will be at a cost much cheaper than Mistral, taking into account the cheap ruble!

    In vain, you hope that a cheap ruble will only have an effect on the wages of workers, while metals and components will still cost almost world prices in foreign currency. And the percentage of salary in the cost of the ship is a penny.