Universal landing ships for Russian Navy

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Russia could just buy several of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makassar-class_landing_platform_dock

It fits the bill, it's already on the market and Indonesians would have no issues selling them

And they cost only 45 million $  they could even buy 10 of them.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Korean built ships will be more costly. They now have Mistral plans & will use them to design UDKs; smaller ships/UDKs could also be ordered in PRC with which there's more trade & mil. cooperation, & they r building LHDs now: http://www.janes.com/article/79354/dsa-2018-chinese-lhd-design-contends-for-rmn-s-mrss-programme
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-new-amphibious-assault-ship-big-waste-time-19961
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_075_landing_helicopter_dock

LMFS wrote:Maybe buying foreign ships would help plugging holes in the navy, but how is then Russian shipbuilding expected to recover and raise their game, if they don't get important and challenging projects? Does anybody think that after the Mistral fiasco and the need to redesign dozens of pieces of HW due to the coup in Ukraine Russia is going to allow major projects to be handed to foreign countries? No way in my opinion...

kvs wrote:So much BS speculation in this thread.   I guess it escapes the critics that Russia gives submarines more priority because they
are vital to the nuclear defense of the country.   Building conventional ships, including landing ships, is not a strategic priority
for Russia since it is not a colonial power like the USA.    Russia does not need to project conventional power against 3rd world
countries.    Only the clueless would believe that any major conflict with NATO will be conventional.   Of course, NATO's leadership
thinks that it can somehow engage in conventional war on Russia, but that is utter delusion based on their desire to leverage
NATO's much larger economy, which is the main element in maintaining conventional war.    In the real world, there will be no
NATO economy if it goes to war on Russia.

Isos wrote:

LMFS wrote:Maybe buying foreign ships would help plugging holes in the navy, but how is then Russian shipbuilding expected to recover and raise their game, if they don't get important and challenging projects? Does anybody think that after the Mistral fiasco and the need to redesign dozens of pieces of HW due to the coup in Ukraine Russia is going to allow major projects to be handed to foreign countries? No way in my opinion...

During soviet times they used to build ships in all the shipyards so russian shipbuilders aren't that much experienced in big ships.

The other thing is that the last generation that build big ships is retired and new guys there haven't that experience.

Using help from south korea or china isn't bad if they do it correctly. China did that and now can do everything by itself. Russia could do it alone but it will take time and money. Better buy it specially if the price is 50 million per ship ... a small frigate or a big corvette is easily 250 million.

Landing ships don't need to be state of art only good for their job.

South korea is a better choice even if more expensive than china

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
It would be a mistake to order military ships from SK.

They are in our back pocket, China would be better simply because the Chinese would laugh it off us telling them not to deliver any ships to Russia.

Isos wrote:During soviet times they used to build ships in all the shipyards so russian shipbuilders aren't that much experienced in big ships.

The other thing is that the last generation that build big ships is retired and new guys there haven't that experience.

Using help from south korea or china isn't bad if they do it correctly. China did that and now can do everything by itself. Russia could do it alone but it will take time and money. Better buy it specially if the price is 50 million per ship ... a small frigate or a big corvette is easily 250 million.

Landing ships don't need to be state of art only good for their job.

South korea is a better choice even if more expensive than china

PapaDragon wrote:
And how is Russian Navy supposed to do it's job without ships?

Russian shipyards are clearly not capable of handling important and challenging projects right now but Navy still needs to handle important and challenging tasks.

So it sucks for Russian shipbuilders but facts are facts. No prizes for second place (not that they are anywhere near second place)

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

George1 wrote:Russia’s shipbuilding program envisages universal amphibious assault ship construction
[b]

good, the only thing left now  is the VSTOL fighter to complete picture

Russia’s first two helicopter carriers to be laid down in Crimea in spring 2020 — sources

The first helicopter carrier will be delivered to the Russian Navy by the end of 2027

MOSCOW, September 11. /TASS/. Russia’s first two amphibious assault ships will be laid down at the Zaliv shipyard in Crimea in May 2020, two sources in Russia’s shipbuilding industry told TASS on Wednesday.

"Two amphibious assault ships with water displacement of up to 15,000 tonnes will for the first time in the Russian history be laid down at the Zaliv shipyard in Kerch in 2020," the source said.

He added that the first helicopter carrier will be delivered to the Russian Navy before the current state armament program expires at the end of 2027.

The other source specified that "both ships will be laid down in May 2020."

According to him, the ships will be able to carry over 10 helicopters of various types and will be equipped with a dock-type chamber for landing craft utilities (LTU).

"The development of technical specifications of the new ships has entered the final stage. Once they are ready, in coming months, an agreement will be signed to build the helicopter carriers," he said.

TASS has been unable to officially confirm the information, provided by the sources, at the time of the publication.

The Zaliv shipyard in Kerch has facilities to build vessels up to 300 meters in length and up to 50 meters in width and, therefore, can build ships with a displacement exceeding 150,000 tonnes.

Earlier, a source in Russia’s shipbuilding industry told TASS that no later than by the end of the year, the Defense Ministry will complete developing technical specifications for a universal amphibious assault ship. There are plans to build the lead universal amphibious assault ship and deliver it to the customer under the state armament program through 2027 while the work on the first serial-produced vessel will be completed before the early 2030s, the source said.

Universal amphibious assault ships, also called helicopter carriers, are distinguished by their large displacement (20,000 tonnes and more) and can carry a large group of heavy helicopters of various designation (up to 16 helicopters aboard Mistral ships and more than 30 aboard US Wasp-class vessels), and also vertical take-off rotorcraft.

Universal amphibious assault ships can carry from several hundred to over one thousand marine infantry personnel, boats and other craft for landing the assault force and transport the armor. Universal amphibious assault ships normally feature a powerful combat control system and can act as a command and control vessel for a grouping of forces.

PapaDragon wrote:
There are no plans to build helicopter carriers in Russia

https://ria.ru/20190911/1558560906.html