Military Review

Large landing ship project 11711 "Ivan Gren" and its capabilities

46
The large landing ship Ivan Gren of project 11711 (according to NATO codification by Ivan Gren) will soon become the most modern BDK as part of the Russian fleet. BDK "Ivan Gren" is intended for landing, transportation of military equipment, as well as various equipment and cargo. In total, two ships of this project were laid for the Russian Navy. The lead ship, Ivan Gren, is undergoing the final stage of state trials, the second Peter Morgunov DBK is preparing to launch. The Russian military refused to build further ships of this project in favor of creating even larger and larger vessels of this class.


At the end of December 2017, the general director of the Yantar Baltic Shipyard, Eduard Efimov, told reporters that the large landing ship Ivan Gren had entered the final stage of state trials. Shortly before this, the newest Russian ship conducted its first shootings and checked the naval artillery in the Baltic Sea. It is worth noting that the “Ivan Gren” ship with a very difficult fate, it was laid in Kaliningrad still 23 December 2004 of the year, but was only launched 18 in May 2012 of the year and is still not included in the fleet. At the initial stage, the assembly of the ship was seriously complicated by unstable financing and problems at the enterprise itself.

At the same time, a new ship in the Navy is no doubt waiting. Putting it in the fleet will significantly expand the capabilities of the Russian Navy at sea and in remote regions of the planet. Project 11711 landing ship of the Ivan Gren ocean zone will be able to take on board up to 300 marines, as well as 13 main combat tanks (weighing up to 60 tons) or a choice of up to - 36 armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles, military equipment is located on the tank deck. Also on board the ship there is an indoor hangar and a take-off area for helicopter equipment. It can take on board up to two Ka-29 transport and combat helicopters, or Ka-27 search and rescue helicopters. If necessary, the Ka-52K Katran attack helicopter will be able to accommodate it on board.


The large landing ships of the 11711 project are a further development of the Soviet BDK of the 1171 "Tapir" project. The design of the ships of the new project involved the Neva Design Bureau. The ship hull of the 1171 project was taken as a basis not by chance, it proved to be excellent for decades of service as part of the Soviet, and then the Russian fleet. In this case, most of the structures in the framework of the new project has undergone significant changes. Mainly superstructures were redesigned and the interior of the amphibious ship. During the construction of the Ivan Gren BDK, the most modern technologies were used, in particular, aimed at reducing visibility through the use of modern technical solutions and materials. In addition, special attention was paid to the conditions of placement of the crew and paratroopers. On board the BDK appeared gym, dining room, as well as more comfortable cabins and cabins.

Loading of military equipment on the ship can be performed either independently on ramps or with the help of cranes. Loading cargo and equipment in the troop compartment can be carried out through the cargo four-wing hatch, located in the upper deck using a crane with a lifting capacity of 16 tons. For loading aboard motor boats, boats and equipment on board there are also two boat cranes. Among other things, the cargo hatch of the ship can be used for ventilation, removing the exhaust gases, working equipment from the under deck (airborne compartment). Ventilation of the troop compartment is very important because it allows the equipment to be transported to warm up the engines, which is very important in conditions of low air temperatures. The exhaust gases of the idling machinery quickly fill the landing bilge, so ventilation through the upper cargo hatch is simply necessary, thanks to this, the paratroopers will not be poisoned by the exhaust gases.

The main feature or "chip" of the 11711 project ships is the so-called non-contact method of landing troops on an unequipped coast. For this purpose, engineering pontoons can be pushed out of the open nasal shutters, which, when coupled, form a bridge to the shore. This pontoon bridge is docked with the shore where the landing takes place, after which it is used to transport heavy equipment and marines. This landing scheme allows you to maintain a distance between the BDK and the coast, seriously reducing the risk of running aground.


Opportunities BDK "Ivan Gren" allow him to transport by sea tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, army trucks or towed artillery at a distance of 3,5 thousands of nautical miles (at a speed of 16 knots). Military equipment is transported on the so-called tank deck. The equipment on board can be loaded in different ways: by a deck or gantry crane, it can also board the vessel under its own power through the stern ramp. In addition to military equipment, BDK can carry a variety of cargoes, including standard 20-foot sea containers. In standard 20-foot sea containers, among other things, the Club-K missile system, which is a modification of the Caliber missile system, can be placed. At the same time, it is unlikely that any missile complexes will appear on board the Ivan Gren BDK, since countering enemy ships is not part of its direct mission.

Light floating armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and BMD can be released into the sea directly from the stern and bow of the ship, they are able to get to the shore on their own. The landing is possible when the sea is agitated up to 4 points. Due to the range of the course, "Ivan Gren" has the ability to remotely drop airborne, he is able to patrol a specific region for a month, the autonomy of navigation is exactly 30 days.

The total displacement of the assault ship is 5 000 tons, length - 120 meters, width - 16,5 meters, draft - 3,6 meters. The heart of the Ivan Gren BDK is two 16-cylinder V-shaped diesel 10Д49 with a gas turbine supercharged horsepower 5200. Powerplant capabilities allow you to accelerate the ship to a maximum speed of 18 nodes. The crew of the ship consists of 100 people. The most modern BDK in the Russian fleet before the advent of ships project 11711 were BDK project 755 Polish built. The Ivan Gren surpasses them in displacement - 5000 tons versus 4080 tons in 755 ships, in addition to this, the new Russian landing ship is longer on 8 meters, wider in 1,5 meters and sits deeper in the water. Accordingly, the above and its amphibious capabilities.


As part of work on the project and the construction of the ship, its weapons have changed. According to the original project, one 76-mm AK-176M artillery mounts, two Palash anti-aircraft artillery complexes and two Grad-M A-215 rocket launcher systems were to appear on board the BDK. However, due to the fact that the concept of using the BDK project 11711 has undergone changes, and to save money and time to build a ship in 2010, it was decided to change the composition of weapons, which today is purely defensive in nature.

The armament of the Ivan Gren BDK is represented by one AK-30-630 two-automatic naval 2-mm automatic artillery installation, two AK-630 installations with the radar 5P-10-03 radar control system, two 14,5-mm installations MTTU "Zhalo" , as well as the KT-308-04 “Prosvet-M” missile-impact complex, this complex protects the ship from enemy missiles.

AK-630-2 "Duet" is a modern two-automatic 30-mm automatic artillery mount, which provides a huge rate of fire - up to 10 000 rounds per minute. Its main purpose is to provide missile defense for Navy ships in the near zone. First of all, it is intended to destroy anti-ship missiles and other types of controlled weapons. Also, the installation can solve the problem of hitting enemy aircraft, helicopters and UAVs, small surface and coastal targets. The effective firing range is 4000 meters.


The AK-630М-2 and АК-630 units are built according to the scheme of multi-barreled weapons (6 barrels) with a rotating barrel unit (the so-called Gatling scheme). Automation of Russian installations of this type works at the expense of the energy of powder gases and, unlike foreign analogues (Phalanx CIWS and Goalkeeper), does not require external sources of energy to rotate the block of barrels. Installed on the landing ship "Ivan Gren" installation AK-630М-2 "Duet" was a further modernization of the complex AK-630М1-2, which visually differs from the tower, which received less radar visibility.

In addition to high-speed artillery weapons on board, there are two large-caliber machine guns. This MPTU "Sting" - 14,5-mm naval thumb machine-gun installations, which are designed to combat air, surface and coastal lightly armored targets. Large-caliber machine guns can effectively hit lightly armored objects at a distance of 2000 meters and 1500 meters in height. For firing at air, surface and coastal targets, cartridges with an armor-piercing incendiary bullet B-32, an armor-piercing-tracer bullet BZT, as well as an instant-action incendiary bullet of MDZ are used.

On the Internet and various media it was possible to find allegations that the new Russian BDK of project 11711 were supposedly a kind of replacement built in France, but never transferred to the Russian Federation - universal landing ship-docks of the Mistral type, but this is absolutely wrong. Firstly, the construction of the Ivan Gren BDK began long before the decision of the Ministry of Defense to acquire Mistral in France, and secondly, it is difficult to compare ships even in terms of their technical capabilities, mainly their size. It is incorrect to compare them due to the huge difference in displacement (more than 4 times), as well as size aviation groups (Mistrals can carry on board up to 16 light helicopters).

Large landing ship project 11711 "Ivan Gren" and its capabilities
AK-630-2 "Duet" - Russian naval two-automatic 30-mm automatic artillery installation

More correct is the comparison of the new Russian BDK project 11711 with the Chinese ships Type 072-III (class Yuting-II), which are large tank landing ships, which are the main amphibious means of the PRC naval forces. With similar characteristics and size, the Russian project to the advantageous side is characterized by the presence on board of a full-fledged helicopter hangar.

Despite the fact that Russian naval sailors are not interested in further acquiring the BNC project 11711 (information about this appeared in 2015 year), abandoning them in favor of larger ships of the new generation, it is too early to put an end to further prospects for the BDK project 11711. Currently, the ship already has an export passport, which is why Russia can move it for export. This was reported by the TV channel "Star" with reference to Sergei Vlasov, who is the general director of the Nevsky Design Bureau. Judging by the official catalog of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), we are talking about the project 11711E, which received a displacement increased to 6600 tons.

For larger landing ships, which in the future may appear in the Russian fleet, can be attributed ships of the project "Surf". Within the framework of the Army-2015 forum, a mockup of the universal landing ships of the Surf project with a displacement of more than 14 thousand tons and up to 500 paratroopers, 20-30 tanks or 60 units of various military equipment was presented for the first time. Among other things, the data of the ships will be able to take on board the Ka-8 or Ka-27K helicopters up to 52.

Information sources:
https://ria.ru/forces/20171229/1511888116.html
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201708030944-qlqy.htm
https://militaryarms.ru/voennaya-texnika/voennye-korabli/proekt-11711
Open source materials
Author:
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 10 January 2018 07: 42
    +4
    Judging by the official catalog of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), we are talking about project 11711E, which received a displacement increased to 6600 tons.
    It is a pity that we cannot build such a boat for ourselves, and even not one .... It has long been time to replace the BDK of Soviet buildings, everything has its limit
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 10 January 2018 08: 14
      13
      Welcome hi
      Quote: svp67
      It’s a pity that we cannot build such a boat for ourselves,

      The fate of the BDK pr.11711 is somewhat similar to the fate of the cruisers of the 68 project, i.e. both projects are out of date before commissioning! Amber’s attempt to modernize his native Tapir would be to the table at the end of the 80, but not in the 2018, but at the end of the 80, the 775 project was quite suitable for the Navy, and it’s cooler with weapons!
      Quote: svp67
      long time has come to replace the BDK of Soviet buildings,

      True, I would also like that they would not be driven in the role of transports but created a semblance of the Shipping Command!
      1. svp67
        svp67 10 January 2018 08: 16
        +2
        hi
        Quote: Serg65
        and created a semblance of the Shipping Command!

        Already then restored, so the structure of the Navy of the USSR was a similar structure
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 10 January 2018 08: 25
          +6
          Quote: svp67
          Already then restored, so the structure of the Navy of the USSR was a similar structure

          smile I wildly apologize, but there was no such structure; in the case of major exercises or transportation of military equipment, transport vessels mobilized or chartered at the MMF. The Navy did not have such a unit.
          1. svp67
            svp67 10 January 2018 08: 28
            +2
            Quote: Serg65
            The Navy did not have such a unit.

            And which support vessels were included in?
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 10 January 2018 08: 48
              +6
              Quote: svp67
              And which support vessels were included in?

              Support vessels are part of the Navy's naval fleet and are engaged in providing warships i.e. raid support, bunkering with fuel and water, loading - unloading ammunition, but not transportation of military equipment and cargo!
      2. Monarchist
        Monarchist 10 January 2018 14: 59
        +1
        Alas, dreams are broken cruel reality.
    2. max702
      max702 10 January 2018 12: 32
      +8
      It seems to me that the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense came to understand the impossibility of mass amphibious operations in the modern world .. And above all, because of the impossibility of covertly concentrating the necessary forces, this is connected both with the intelligence capabilities increased by orders of magnitude and also in connection with information transmission channels which accessible to any civilian .. that is, any major operation will be identified at the time of preparation for it, and therefore surprise will not work, respectively, there can be no talk about any success of the landing operation .. By e they don’t need highly specialized tools for these tasks .. Here either a small MTR group can perform the task which doesn’t need ships with thousands of tons of displacement, like planes capable of carrying tens of tons or VKS plus "calibers" .. Other tasks (like Syria) they require a long and thorough preparation to provide the operation with everything necessary, and again the landing craft are not needed there. So it turns out that we are now observing, the fleet relied on universal supply vehicles, and in the airborne forces they gave reinforcements to the tank .. On mind parachutes leave MTR and exploration, and the money saved on the transplant Airborne turntables and increase mobility and strike capabilities ..
      1. sd68
        sd68 10 January 2018 12: 36
        0
        the whole world is building UDC, actually
      2. Monarchist
        Monarchist 10 January 2018 15: 06
        +2
        Do you have a rational grain and I think the General Staff is also able to analyze the situation, otherwise we will keep the General Staff in FIG? There are a lot of couch analysts and politicians on the forum, everything will be decided in an instant
        1. Captain Pushkin
          Captain Pushkin 10 January 2018 21: 33
          +1
          At times, it seems that our GS makes its decisions based on an analysis of the Internet reasoning of sofa analysts. And sofa analysts, depending on the decisions of the General Staff, develop their theories further.
          Everything is like in that joke about a catapulted pilot who fell on the head of a shaman and accidentally killed him. After which he was forced under the threat of death to play the role of a shaman of the tribe - to predict the weather for the season ahead. And the Chukchi, depending on the forecast, will decide to drive deer to the mountains or to the valley. The pilot at random predicted a cold and rainy summer. The Chukchi drove the deer into the valley. And then he saw a weather station, went there and asked what the summer would be like, they answered him that it was cold and rainy. He asked how they know this. He was told that there was no need to know anything, see the Chukchi deer being driven into the valley?
      3. Olezhek
        Olezhek 10 January 2018 16: 53
        0
        about there is any major operation will be identified at the time of preparation for it, and therefore suddenness will not work, respectively, there can be no talk about any success of the landing operation .. Therefore, specialized tools for these tasks become unnecessary .. Here either a small group can perform the task MTR which does not need ships with thousands of tons of displacement


        The adversary may speculate, but may not know exactly where we will land ...
        EW funds also have not been canceled
        So what about operational suddenness, I would not be so categorical.

        and in the Airborne Forces tanks were given to strengthen.


        fool
        Why?
        1. Golovan Jack
          Golovan Jack 10 January 2018 17: 17
          +7
          Quote: Olezhek
          The adversary may speculate, but may not know exactly where we will land ...

          To "land", you must fly.
          If the enemy is aware that you are about to fly, then, with a high probability, you simply will not fly.
          Quote: Olezhek
          EW funds also have not been canceled

          And how do you suggest using them? When preparing and conducting an amphibious operation?
          Quote: Olezhek
          I would not be so categorical

          Think ...
          Quote: Olezhek
          Why?

          Then. That no one is going to use (mainly) airborne forces in the "classical style".
          Five hundred times this has already been said and written, by the way.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 10 January 2018 19: 47
          0
          Quote: Olezhek
          The adversary may speculate, but may not know exactly where we will land ...

          If the fleet has only classic BDKs, the number of possible landing sites is sharply reduced.
          And the possible losses increase sharply - because the BDK works in small moves or even on the foot in the reach of even ATGMs and mortars. Unlike UDCs, which require either long-range artillery with good ASLD and long-range adjustment, or coastal anti-aircraft missiles (which are obviously much smaller - especially considering that there are much more landing sites for UDCs than for BDKs). And in the zone of fire of mortars and anti-tank systems from the UDC only small-sized high-speed targets operate.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 10 January 2018 20: 51
            0
            Udk is easy prey for everyone, and its landing facilities are more vulnerable than the BDK, and the main one is weaker, and a weak small landing will simply be destroyed on the shore
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 11 January 2018 10: 25
              0
              Quote: vladimir1155
              easy fishing for everyone

              Like the BDK.
              Quote: vladimir1155
              and its landing facilities are more vulnerable than BDK

              On the foot or on the hover - yes. But the problem is that in this mode they spend much less time than the BDK - simply because they do not need to unload a whole battalion with equipment from each of the means. And with the defeat of each of the UDC landing facilities, not all the landing is lost, but only a small part of it.
              Quote: vladimir1155
              and a small, small landing force will simply be destroyed on the shore

              And why is the battalion at the UDC weaker than the battalion at the BDK? wink
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 11 January 2018 10: 34
                +1
                If the landing means are enough to drop the entire battalion in one echelon, nothing.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 11 January 2018 20: 14
                  0
                  by definition, there are not enough of these funds at the UDC, either two small boats or a helicopter platoon, especially if we compare the parallel landing with four BDKs, and preferably with 10 SDKs
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 11 January 2018 20: 26
                    +1
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    by definition, there are not enough of these funds at the UDC, either two small boats or a helicopter platoon, especially if we compare the parallel landing with four BDKs, and preferably with 10 SDKs

                    Compare. Just do not forget at the same time - how much BDK will crawl to the shore and how much they will unload their battalion on the shore. And what calibers are able to work on them at this time.
                    I immediately remember the Theodosian landing - when the "landing cruiser" "Red Caucasus" almost flew into the air. Or an amphibious assault in South Ozereyka, where the amphibious assault landing boats failed, and the Elpidifora landing ships could not: when approaching the shore, the surviving points of the German-Romanian BO began to inflict unacceptable losses on them. Despite all attempts to suppress coastal fire from the Black Sea Fleet.
                    1. 4thParasinok
                      4thParasinok 14 January 2018 01: 39
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      I immediately remember the Theodosian landing - when the "landing cruiser" "Red Caucasus" almost flew into the air ....
                      and these are not isolated cases, it was so everywhere, almost always with successful landings, the bridgehead was captured when the first wave was on torpedo boats, and only the third with the use of destroyers and transports.
              2. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 11 January 2018 20: 15
                0
                udk is a large noticeable and unarmed target
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 11 January 2018 20: 22
                  +1
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  udk is a large noticeable and unarmed target

                  Like the BDK. At the same time, only the BDK is also forced to operate in the area where all calibers of coastal defense can work on it, up to mortars. And do not cut into 40-50 knots, but crawl in small speed (so as not to scoop up the ramp) or even work from the stop.
                  And while SCRC and long-range artillery, which could threaten UDC, can still be reliably suppressed during the "processing" of the landing zone, then it is unrealistic to suppress all firing points of BW capable of working on the BDK, even in theory. Is it possible to use SBN ...
              3. Vladimir 5
                Vladimir 5 1 August 2018 16: 03
                -1
                With modern reconnaissance means, landing by landing, that UDC, that BDK will be fixed, and the route is determined (analytical and intelligence services will establish), therefore, it all depends on the confrontation, in the "hot" phase the landing will obviously not reach the landing point, because our capabilities at the maritime theater, by orders of magnitude lower than probable opponents, together ... Only in local conflicts with third-rate countries will the UDC and BDK with a landing party and other things come, but then enough rockers and other bulk carriers, as was the case with Syria ... That's the question, - and why dig a garden b, since there will be no harvest ...
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 10 January 2018 19: 55
          +2
          Quote: Olezhek
          Why?

          Based on the prevailing practice of the combat use of the Airborne Forces over the past 60 years: landing - only landing, use - as an elite infantry or to strengthen motorized riflemen. And in order to exclude the prevailing practice, when the units of the airborne forces that arrived to strengthen the motorized riflemen themselves require reinforcement with tanks and artillery, thereby actually weakening the reinforced ones (this is a paradox).
          So they decided that the Airborne Forces needed their own heavy equipment, with which, in addition, it would be possible to work out the interaction in advance. Fortunately, there is experience - 345 guards. The Afghan PDP was completely rearmament in general with army armored personnel carriers and artillery.
          The second plus of its heavy airborne units ... I do not need to explain to you which personnel and which equipment is usually tear from the heart infantry and tank fathers commanders, sending them to strengthen in the "alien" part. smile
          1. 4thParasinok
            4thParasinok 14 January 2018 02: 04
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Based on the prevailing practice of the combat use of the Airborne Forces over the past 60 years: landing - only landing, use - as an elite infantry or to strengthen motorized riflemen.

            No, that’s not why (there were operations with the use of parachuting), but because they saved on kerasin for 25 years and almost didn’t jump from military (military transport) aircraft. So if my father, serving in the 60s, made for a hundred jumps (this is for 3 years), then I know the paratroopers who served in the late 90s for the service had 3-4 jumps, and not a single one with equipment. Only in recent years, the landing party began to jump again, but still not enough. And the use of the Landing Force in Avgan and Chechnya, not for its intended purpose instead of infantry, is simply a crime and nothing else. The task of the landing is to capture objects and bridgeheads to which then the usual infantry with tanks and artillery will be thrown by planes, rather than sitting at checkpoints.
      4. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 10 January 2018 20: 55
        +1
        a rational and natural solution, by the way, airborne operations have always been risky and local operations, and only in the minds of sofa analysts, airborne operations turn into landings of armies in Alaska with the support of atomic cruisers, the main thing that an airborne force needs is stealth surprise
        1. Captain Pushkin
          Captain Pushkin 10 January 2018 21: 37
          +1
          Quote: vladimir1155
          vladimir1155 Today, 20:55 ↑ New
          a rational and natural solution, by the way, airborne operations have always been risky and local operations, and only in the minds of sofa analysts, airborne operations turn into landings of armies in Alaska with the support of atomic cruisers, the main thing that an airborne force needs is stealth surprise

          One of the landing operations in Crimea in 1942 ultimately led to the crossing of two combined arms armies to Crimea.
          1. 4thParasinok
            4thParasinok 14 January 2018 02: 24
            0
            Quote: Captain Pushkin
            One of the landing operations in Crimea in 1942 ultimately led to the crossing of two combined arms armies to Crimea
            the task of landing is to seize the bridgehead for the landing of the army, but there is a difference at what distance from the bases this happens. So the Kerch Strait has a width of about 4 kilometers. The distance to Novorossiysk is less than 100 km, but this is for large transports, but patrol officers and torpedo boats took the landing much closer, to Temryuk less than 50, to Anapa 65 km. It’s less than 200 km to the airfield, so the air cover was albeit weak ... But here they suggest sailing to the landing point of 2000 km without any air cover. catch the difference?
      5. captain
        captain 12 January 2018 10: 21
        +2
        Quote: max702
        It seems to me that the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense came to understand the impossibility of mass amphibious operations in the modern world .. And above all, because of the impossibility of covertly concentrating the necessary forces, this is connected both with the intelligence capabilities increased by orders of magnitude and also in connection with information transmission channels which accessible to any civilian .. that is, any major operation will be identified at the time of preparation for it, and therefore surprise will not work, respectively, there can be no talk about any success of the landing operation .. By e they don’t need highly specialized tools for these tasks .. Here either a small MTR group can perform the task which doesn’t need ships with thousands of tons of displacement, like planes capable of carrying tens of tons or VKS plus "calibers" .. Other tasks (like Syria) they require a long and thorough preparation to provide the operation with everything necessary, and again the landing craft are not needed there. So it turns out that we are now observing, the fleet relied on universal supply vehicles, and in the airborne forces they gave reinforcements to the tank .. On mind parachutes leave MTR and exploration, and the money saved on the transplant Airborne turntables and increase mobility and strike capabilities ..

        As for the landing ships, as a former commander of the Marine Corps, I do not quite agree with you. Yes, such as "Ivan Gren" are not needed; small landing capacity, a funny air group, fairy tales about a contactless landing. UDC like "Mistral" is needed. Yes, large amphibious operations such as Norman conduct against a large and powerful power like the United States is ridiculous. But the operation in Syria, in the Crimea, in Abkhazia, in Libya showed that we do not have universal airborne assets. UDC and aircraft carriers are needed to solve problems far from the Russian Federation.
        1. max702
          max702 12 January 2018 13: 06
          +1
          So I have nothing against the UDC, just such ships are needed due to their versatility, that's why Mistral was not sold to us so that the logistics in Syria would not be easier (and not because of the 404th) .. And Ivan is fucked up yesterday’s trough ..
          RS: Today, we primarily need ships of the Captain Smironov type for the rapid and massive transfer of troops in Syrian-type conflicts
          https://topwar.ru/18367-sovetskiy-korabl-v-sostav
          e-sil-bystrogo-reagirovaniya-vms-ssha.html
          and as it turned out, the ships are primarily protected by the FLAG of the country to which they belong, and then the rest .. Military transport with minimal cover can’t be drowned referring to some kind of rebels like they like to do with land databases, here everything was clear only one or two Powers .. Accordingly, this is a clear Bellus Case, or do you think the NATO fleet would have the problem of blocking the same Syrian Express?
        2. bk0010
          bk0010 13 January 2018 22: 08
          0
          As a former commander of a marine brigade, remember what you practiced at the headquarters exercises? As far as I know, the BDK was created to ensure the capture of the straits and the northern coast of Scandinavia, to ensure the deployment of Soviet fleets at the beginning of the Third World War. That is, the BDK is actually a one-time ship. The small capacity and lack of a serious air group is not an obstacle for him - he has no task to capture Istanbul (he will be burned a little earlier, the landing will take place as soon as the earth cools down), he has the task of ensuring the passage of our ships if something suddenly survives. If necessary, all the surviving forces of the Air Force and Navy will support him. UDC for such purposes is too expensive. If the straits no longer need to be captured, then yes - BDKs are not needed.
      6. CTABEP
        CTABEP 13 January 2018 14: 34
        +1
        Gold words! And we still have airborne divisions (on which they will only be planted in the rear). And the best trained troops in real databases use cardboard BMDs, losing soldiers when this could be avoided. Airborne (precisely parachute landing) as a reserve of the high command of 2-3 brigades - ok, but no more.
  2. ICT
    ICT 10 January 2018 09: 20
    +1
    from which it visually differs by a tower that has received less radar visibility.


    well now everything is not visible on the radar at all


    although looking at the photo I'm not sure


    but the old man disguised himself from radar
  3. sd68
    sd68 10 January 2018 09: 33
    0
    Gren's most interesting constructive solution in the photo was implicit.

    But seriously, without the possibility of helicopter landing, a large landing ship can now be considered unless in addition to the UDC
  4. Bronevick
    Bronevick 10 January 2018 10: 51
    +1
    He already rusted all. Oh Ivanushka, your fate is not easy. Hold on there, don't freeze in cold waters.
  5. San Sanych
    San Sanych 10 January 2018 16: 45
    0
    It seems to be a good ship, but they have been building it for a very long time, and it is still not clear why it needs 2 add-ons, would it be more reasonable to combine the 2nd add-on with the 1st? and the vacated space would increase the area for helicopters, at the same time it would be more spacious to arrange a hangar for them
  6. Olezhek
    Olezhek 10 January 2018 16: 55
    0
    At the same time, a new ship in the Navy is no doubt waiting. Putting it in the fleet will significantly expand the capabilities of the Russian Navy at sea and in remote regions of the planet. The landing ship of the Ivan Gren ocean zone of the 11711 project will be able to take on board up to 300 marines, as well as 13 main battle tanks (weighing up to 60 tons) or a choice of up to - 36 BTR / BMP, military equipment is located on the tank deck. Also on board the ship there is an indoor hangar and a take-off area for helicopter equipment. It can take on board up to two Ka-29 transport and combat helicopters, or Ka-27 search and rescue helicopters.


    Duck, we wouldn’t have been disturbed by such a ship now, it’s a pity there isn’t ...
  7. vadivm59
    vadivm59 10 January 2018 19: 31
    +1
    there’s already a mention in any article about equipment and armaments of “low radar signature.” Soon they will write about pistols like that. Like a spell.
  8. Sergeant71
    Sergeant71 10 January 2018 19: 55
    +1
    Build 14 years .... It's not even funny.
  9. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 10 January 2018 20: 49
    +1
    the ship is good, but it’s no longer necessary to build any amphibious ships until the Polish construction of the BDK is decommissioned, and serve them for at least 20 years
  10. tchoni
    tchoni 11 January 2018 08: 10
    +1
    The construction of this naval misunderstanding can be considered a recognition of the fact of the catastrophic position of the fatherland Navy in terms of the availability of means of transportation and landing of troops.
  11. garri-lin
    garri-lin 11 January 2018 11: 23
    0
    BDK without artillery looks like wretched. He asks for a couple of towers of the KOLITSIA in a numbed version to cover the landing zone and also to clear possible barriers. It's a shame when they save.
  12. Ryazan87
    Ryazan87 12 January 2018 17: 49
    +2
    Suddenly, awareness came of the utility of Mistral. Especially compared to this rusted "nano-BDK." And how much scream there was.
    Given the number of errors and shortcomings, be Grena in the eternal "trial operation". Stability problems certainly cannot be fixed ..
    "Gorshkov" would at least be brought to mind, otherwise the engine would be burned again (((
    1. captain
      captain 13 January 2018 19: 06
      0
      Quote: Ryazanets87
      Suddenly, awareness came of the utility of Mistral. Especially compared to this rusted "nano-BDK." And how much scream there was.
      Given the number of errors and shortcomings, be Grena in the eternal "trial operation". Stability problems certainly cannot be fixed ..
      "Gorshkov" would at least be brought to mind, otherwise the engine would be burned again (((

      Where patriots look, your comment undermines faith in victory.
      1. Ryazan87
        Ryazan87 17 January 2018 14: 21
        0
        The bombings continue (sorry if that):
        "... The large landing ship of project 11711 Ivan Gren, being built at the Baltic shipyard Yantar, cannot be handed over to the fleet due to problems with reversing. Tests suspended until the end of January. "
        https://flotprom.ru/2018/%D0%AF%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0
        %D1%80%D1%8C31/
        R.S. I wonder if this miracle will be part of the fleet?
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. Div Divich
    Div Divich 4 March 2018 00: 05
    0
    Not all is lost yet. I figured out how to remake Ivan Gren to current requirements.



    Carry cargo boats like Koreans, but on the aft deck. And to abandon the permanent placement of a helicopter on a landing ship, the hangar can be used to transport various cargoes. Thus, it is possible without increasing the size of the ship and not greatly changing the design to improve performance. Of the weapons, I would leave anti-aircraft guns one at the front and the back, and also 4 torpedoes from each side, this will be enough for the cargo ship.

    You can even transport Poplar M, but for unloading you will have to replace the boats with pontoons.

    This is much cheaper than making an analogue of the Mistral, but a more flexible configuration, which Mistral does not have.

    It will only be possible to get rid of the nose ramp in the next generation of ships, after 30 years. Now it makes no sense to remake the entire ship in order to eliminate the ramp, you can just use it less often.