Military Review

Amphibious boats of the А223 project for the Russian Navy

51
According to the online editionNews", The Russian Navy will consider the possibility of acquiring landing craft A223 project, developed at the Zelenodolsk plant.

Amphibious boats of the А223 project for the Russian Navy


They are intended for the transfer of military personnel and equipment to the unequipped coast, both in clear water and in conditions of small ice. Their difference from their predecessors, the landing craft of the 21820 “Dugong” project, is the ability to load from large amphibious assault carriers - ships-docks like Mistral or "Avalanche».

The length of the landing boat A223 is about 35, the width is about 7, and the draft is about one meter. The boat is driven by two water-jet engines, allowing to develop a speed of a loaded boat of about 40 knots. Depending on the modification, the ship takes on board up to 150 marines or from one to three tanks T-90, or from four to seven BTR-82A.

Thanks to the hydrodynamic scheme of the hydrofoil with two transverse swept redan, two integral cheekbones in the nose, variable deadrise on the midship and on the transom with a system of controlled intceptors and water-jet propulsion, the А223 launch boat provides a rational combination of speed, seaworthiness (in 5 points), optimal fuel economy and reduction vertical overload on the wave.
Photos used:
https://www.business-gazeta.ru/article/84962
51 comment
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avt
    avt 12 July 2017 09: 05
    +2
    Their difference from their predecessors, landing craft of project 21820 "Dugong", is the ability to load from large landing helicopter carriers - dock ships of the Mistral or Avalanche type.
    How do you command me to understand? Said. Type through deck and can be loaded onto the aisle?
    1. drunkram
      drunkram 12 July 2017 09: 11
      0
      like on ferries in crimea
    2. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 12 July 2017 09: 12
      +1
      Shove not push in.
      1. screw cutter
        screw cutter 12 July 2017 10: 01
        +2
        Correctly write "shove neprihivaemoe".
    3. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 12 July 2017 09: 13
      +5
      Quote: avt
      How do you command me to understand? Said. Type through deck and can be loaded onto the aisle?

      As you wish, colleague, understand it. This is a promising boat for a promising UDC for the future. smile
    4. donavi49
      donavi49 12 July 2017 10: 20
      +5
      Campaign there loading through the backside. It’s very difficult to judge. On a modelka it can be conditionally not shown. But apparently the Nose there is a maximum with an infantry ramp.
  2. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 12 July 2017 09: 11
    +10
    Thanks to the hydrodynamic design of the glider with two transverse sagittal redans, two integral cheekbones in the nose, variable pitching on the midship and transom with a system of controlled receptors and jet propulsion
    - even though I studied the theory of the device of the ship, but to cover this globally, there wasn’t enough paperwork! wassat
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 12 July 2017 09: 15
      +3
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      although I studied the theory of the device of the ship, but to cover this globally, there wasn’t enough paperwork

      And so that you feel completely ashamed of skipping classes, go to the source: "Ships using this effect are also called" levitating. " So, did not know about such ships? smile
      1. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 12 July 2017 09: 21
        +7
        I did not skip TUK, but when I studied about levitation they did not write even in science fiction.
        I mean that they like to insert abstruse terms for the weight of what has been said. hi
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 12 July 2017 10: 07
          +2
          Quote: Uncle Lee
          I mean that they like to insert abstruse terms for the weight of what has been said.

          Comrade, I’ve joked. hi
          1. Uncle lee
            Uncle lee 12 July 2017 13: 36
            +5
            I also ! May I exercise .... hi
        2. inkass_98
          inkass_98 12 July 2017 10: 15
          +5
          but when I studied levitation, they didn’t even write in science fiction works.

          Wrote, Wrote laughing . "Monday starts on Saturday":
          "I used to levitate like Zeks, but now I am not able to bring out the vegetation on my ears" (C).
          1. Uncle lee
            Uncle lee 12 July 2017 13: 41
            +5
            And I read about levitation, I’m not so ancient! hi
            And so, A. Belyaev wrote about Ariel, the boy flew! Then it was called levitation. tongue
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 12 July 2017 21: 33
      +1
      redans for gliding, transverse (naturally), arrow-shaped (similar to an arrow when viewed from below from under the body), integral that is cheekbones inscribed in the body, variable pitching (natural result of the presence of redans), water cannon
  3. 3officer
    3officer 12 July 2017 09: 13
    +1
    It would be more logical to first build the carriers of these small boats (Mistral Avalanches and other Storms) and then take care of delivery vehicles directly to the beach. request
    1. VadimSt
      VadimSt 12 July 2017 11: 39
      +1
      Clever! Why design a new car if you have not built a road ?!
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 12 July 2017 21: 34
      0
      you can do without fishing gear for delivery to the beach directly from the port
  4. kouldoom
    kouldoom 12 July 2017 09: 15
    0
    Well, I hope they’ll build in 5 years
    1. shark
      shark 12 July 2017 10: 00
      +1
      laughing laughing 5 years? not even funny. How long did they build a landing ship in Kaliningrad? And then, it was created according to a familiar, still Soviet scheme. Here udk ... Not funny. 7-10 years old Maybe that will come out in a single copy
  5. alstr
    alstr 12 July 2017 09: 54
    +1
    I’m somehow not catching up, but why not make a new hovercraft for this?
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 12 July 2017 10: 23
      +1
      Green Dol is obvious. Well, that is, the designer does not deal with pillows. Plus, the pillow also has disadvantages. Especially if you shove MurenuNG what. For good, you just need to pile up the LCAC clone or buy a ready-made Type-728 from the Chinese and not strain. Especially when you consider that the media, if any, will be 1-2-3. Total for the sake of 10 boats you can buy.
      1. VadimSt
        VadimSt 12 July 2017 11: 44
        +5
        Already bought "aircraft", "ships", diesel and more. His shirt is not only closer to the body, but also warms the soul!
      2. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 12 July 2017 20: 14
        +3
        No one plans to strain. At VP, we will produce the Zubr recreation center in any quantities that the customer wishes. What the hell is LCAC? What the hell is China (he ordered them from us)? !! belay
  6. ProkletyiPirat
    ProkletyiPirat 12 July 2017 14: 11
    0
    one question the answer to which this vessel will immediately render useless
    How will he deliver the tank ashore at a draft of 1 m (2-5 m from the water edge)? Well, let's say once we’ve dispersed and expended the belly on the stones, he will get out, and then what? sink? painfully expensive lol I won't even say anything about the Marquise Puddle.
    Well, if you don’t like the seaworthiness of a clean narrow air cushion, make a “hybrid” VP + cavity, especially since there are already projects in the Russian Federation (VP + water jet) and abroad (VP + cavity).
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 12 July 2017 21: 00
      0
      let it be known that tanks can overcome such water obstacles much deeper than a meter and two meters and immediately into battle https://topwar.ru/12548-tanki-idut-pod-vodu-ot-t-
      54-do-armaty-vospominaniya-military-eksperta-polk
      ovnika-zapasa-viktora-murakhovskogo.html
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 12 July 2017 23: 22
        0
        cram a tank with a pipe for underwater driving into a landing boat so that it can drive several meters that the boat is unable to overcome fool okay, I agree, this is "viable" I have only one question, but will a tank with a pipe fit into this boat in height?
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 13 July 2017 00: 01
          0
          I think this problem can be solved, for the Marines to come up with a pipe with a hinge, it's easier than launching a rocket
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 13 July 2017 00: 09
            0
            This is solved VERY simply, you just need to introduce the requirement: Landing Ship (hereinafter referred to as DS) must be able to move along the shore.

            And yes, by the way, your proposal with a pipe does not work
            it's a muddy bottom with puddles at low tide.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 13 July 2017 18: 12
              0
              any technical solution is a compromise, possible and desirable, an hovercraft is good, but it is noisy and energy-intensive, therefore it has the right to exist and what is offered, although hovercraft can also be used
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 13 July 2017 18: 48
                0
                chants about compromises go where there is no desire to do something, in the Russian Federation in the civilian fleet (Baltic) ships are used on the airborne with water-jet engines, why can’t you do the same for DS? Tolley felts in Sweden Tolli fenders in Norway use VP hybrid vessels + air cavity, why can't the same be done for DS? Okay, let's say there are reasons not to use the VP, well, let's say there are no skirt engineers, let's say there are no design bureaus for such ships and there are only boats. The question is why it is impossible to integrate caterpillar swamp-rovers in the DS?
                It is precisely because this problem is solvable but it does not solve it, and I consider all this to be the MO wiring to the headstock.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 12 July 2017 23: 43
        0
        So they don’t deliver nichrome, not to the "not equipped shore" where the mines are removed, where the bottom is explored, and even during the "demonstration training" they will drop something, but during the war there’s a lump. In order to prevent the landing, it is enough just stones, hedgehogs, and other garbage to throw in and the ship will destroy the belly and get stuck. Because the commanders simply refuse to approach the shore and throw troops for hundreds of meters (at best). Actually because the Marines and use only floating equipment. In general, all these "landing" vessels are the greatest wiring from the design bureau. (with rare exceptions)
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 13 July 2017 00: 03
          0
          before disembarking from the BDK, reconnaissance of the bottom
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 13 July 2017 00: 15
            0
            yeah especially in front of the enemy’s nose lol
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 13 July 2017 18: 54
                0
                You have not revealed a great secret to me. But your objections that about the 775th and about the bottom check do not change the fact that our marines are forced to abandon non-navigational equipment because it is impossible to land ashore, and does not change the fact that PCBs involved in the development of DS do not offer ways to solve the stated problem.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. ProkletyiPirat
                    ProkletyiPirat 14 July 2017 13: 02
                    +1
                    Quote: rudolff
                    Is it original? Yes, how! Just not viable.

                    The fact of the matter is that we have the entire fleet "Original! Only not viable!".
                    Quote: rudolff
                    Design bureaus offer various solutions.

                    I don’t know what they offer MO there (because unfortunately I don’t work there), but everything that gets on the Internet, causes only crying. For the jamb on the jamb and the jamb drives. Here is what is strange (in my opinion):
                    1) There are research institutes (the same TsAGI) - they are specialists in scientific and engineering analysis
                    2) There are design bureaus - they are specialists in engineering and production analysis
                    3) There are military (General Staff of the Navy) - they are specialists in military-practical analysis
                    4) There is no organization and therefore specialists in conceptual and technical analysis who would combine all the other analyzes together and determine from them the most optimal combination of characteristics.

                    But in the end, we have incomprehensibly what, it is not clear why. We have a "BDK" that can land on not equipped the coast is only floating equipment, and not the floating only with pontoons (which automatically makes the coast “equipped” and then it’s not clear why the hell needs this BDK and civil RO-ROs can replace it). We have an "armed aircraft carrier" who still needs an escort for security. Well, the most "original" "decision" to build six different ship projects to perform one combat mission (with the same weapons) fool
                    but in general you very accurately put it: good
                    Quote: rudolff
                    Is it original? Yes, how! Just not viable.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 14 July 2017 16: 31
                        0
                        Quote: rudolff
                        Yes, our military scientific and technical planning has actually actually died, turned into empty balabolstvo.

                        I do not agree PMSM we (the USSR / RF) have never had analytics in this area, and therefore there was no PLAN, so there were "planchiki" who, as a rule, grew out of regular Wishlist-dreamers of the next commander-in-chief.
                        Quote: rudolff
                        There is no clear, understandable, and scientifically based concept for building a fleet.

                        NO NO! do not need this "scientifically sound"! there is already an example of the USSR where there were no follow-ups for these “scientists”, there aren’t the case, “military scientists” who have nothing to do with science at all, in fact most of these “military scientists” are just owners of a piece of paper from the Russian Academy of Sciences and often do more harm than good from them . In order to make sure of the dangers of these paper-holders, it is enough to recall that the USSR, with a prohibitive defense budget, was unable to ensure its own security. At the same time, the same USSR refused to create technologies such as personal computers, the Internet, GPS, although ATTENTION! they were proposed in the USSR before they were created in the USA. And if the Russian Federation still has a good reason in the form of the “90s,” then the USSR does not have these reasons.
                        So it’s not about “collapse”. but as I said in the conceptual and technical analysis, due to the lack of which there is no concept of the fleet.

                        And there is nothing complicated in conducting such an analysis, it’s not the design of ships, you just need to correctly ask questions and structure the information to determine the “boundaries” when designing specific ships (this requires a concept).

                        Quote: rudolff
                        For ro-ro, this percentage is even lower, due to its displacement and hull design.

                        Well, ro-ros have different sludge for the same ferries as for 775 in 3-4m, and when you put in a "floating pier" (your idea with pontoons in the implementation of the USA) there will be no difference that BDK is ro-ro ...
  7. ronnon
    ronnon 12 July 2017 16: 13
    +1
    What kind of boat is this? can take on board up to three T-90 tanks ... This is a full-fledged landing ship.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 12 July 2017 21: 04
      0
      A good idea, I have already expressed it, the naval fleet of the Russian Navy needs to be equipped with landing crab of exactly this and similar type (they used to be called the middle landing ship) capable of transporting along rivers and canals between fleets, and transferring most of the BDK to the oceans, replacing with new KFOR ... therefore, the construction of the BDK can be postponed for a sufficiently long time, and the UDC should not be built at all
  8. magadan72
    magadan72 12 July 2017 16: 47
    0
    Doubtful seaworthiness-redans sharply worsen it. There is no visible passage for the nose feed technique. how to load equipment inside the docking camera!? The point is to make the transported landing boat closed-oversize isn’t loaded. Again, the extra iron ...
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 12 July 2017 21: 07
      0
      5 points are declared, this is a vessel for coastal operations on the seas, seaworthiness is not so important for him, after all, he can’t land a landing like that, I crossed the Baltic on a 12-meter yacht, I think that a 35-meter vessel can handle
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 13 July 2017 00: 08
      0
      apparently the boat is closed specifically for seaworthiness
  9. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 12 July 2017 20: 04
    +1
    I'm just fiercely starting to envy Zelenodolsk!
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 12 July 2017 21: 05
      0
      Who prevents to build it at different shipyards?
  10. askme
    askme 13 July 2017 16: 17
    +1
    Good little cutter. Right now it is needed at the Black Sea Fleet - at least in the Crimea, at least in Novorossiysk (landings from Sevastopol to Odessa from Tuapse to Gagra, etc. ....). At the Pacific Fleet - there is also work .... Dozens of such boats are needed on each of the fleets, IMHO. To storm the fjords on the SF is an ideal means ...
  11. Radius
    Radius 14 July 2017 04: 26
    +1
    A breakthrough in shipbuilding. Three tanks OR 150 fighters. And the Mistral is not necessary.
  12. 2534M
    2534M 14 July 2017 19: 11
    0
    another nonsense from Yzvest
    starting with the fact that this "developed" (in quotation marks) wasn’t at all ZSSZ at the trash, ending with how all this was distorted
  13. 2534M
    2534M 14 July 2017 19: 13
    0
    Quote: vladimir1155
    Who prevents to build it at different shipyards?

    probably that it "can’t swim", but only stand at the exhibition;)