In St. Petersburg, began to develop a new BDK

46
The Northern Design Bureau announced the start of conceptual work to create a new large landing ship in the interests of the Naval fleet Russia, TASS reports citing a source in the country's military-industrial complex. According to available information, during the implementation of this project a completely new ship will be created, and one of the existing projects will not be modernized.

In St. Petersburg, began to develop a new BDK




According to the agency interlocutor, only the Northern Design Bureau, located in St. Petersburg, will carry out work on the participation of other design bureaus in the creation of the BDK at the moment is not known. The project data is also not known, but the project has a displacement of at least 8 ths. Tons. At the moment, the biggest BDK is "Ivan Gren" of the 11711 project, preparing to join the Navy 20 on June 2018. Its displacement is 5 thousand tons. The previous project of the BDK 1171 "Tapir" has a displacement of 4,3 thousand tons. The exact timing of the creation of the new BDK is not called.

The Northern Design Bureau was formed in 1946 year. It is the only one in Russia engaged in the design of landing craft and aircraft carriers. Almost all the projects of the amphibious ships created in the Soviet Union and Russia were designed in this PKB. The project of the prospective destroyer "Leader" is also being developed by this bureau.
  • Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Our news channels

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

46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    18 June 2018 11: 57
    For a long time they harnessed, and 8 tt. so-so, it was possible to leave the 11711 project, almost the same thing.
    We will see what happens.
    1. +2
      18 June 2018 12: 00
      And they said instead of the BDK we will now build the UDC.
      1. +1
        18 June 2018 12: 06
        It is worth noting that the Nevsky Design Bureau also developed a project for the promising universal landing ship “Surf” with a displacement of 24 thousand tons, which was supposed to replace the unfortunate French “Mistral”, but information about this project after the presentation was no longer available on the Web.
        1. 0
          18 June 2018 12: 34
          Quote: Chicha Squad
          It is worth noting that the Nevsky Design Bureau also developed a project for the promising universal landing ship “Surf” with a displacement of 24 thousand tons, which was supposed to replace the unfortunate French “Mistral”, but information about this project after the presentation was no longer available on the Web.

          Sorry. It turns out that the UDC wasn’t pulled, but where are we going to put Katrana now?
          Quote: maxim947
          it was possible to leave the 11711 project, almost the same thing.

          It would be much better - both in terms of unification (spare parts, maintenance) and in cost (no need to spend money on development).
          1. 0
            18 June 2018 12: 37
            We will sell to Egypt. Who else.
            1. 0
              18 June 2018 17: 33
              Not yet evening. And what the project will be is not yet known. We’ll shake it, we will see, 2 tigers said when they saw the new trainer. hi
      2. +1
        18 June 2018 12: 06
        How unacceptably long under the current government everything is done, disgustingly long. But prices and the dollar exchange rate can soar negative
      3. +2
        18 June 2018 13: 39
        There is no pier on the Kuril Islands. So that the BDK has not lost its relevance. Not everywhere you need to land under fire. Sometimes you need to stupidly deliver people and equipment.
        1. 0
          18 June 2018 14: 50
          Quote: Angelo Provolone
          There is no pier on the Kuril Islands. So that the BDK has not lost its relevance. Not everywhere you need to land under fire. Sometimes you need to stupidly deliver people and equipment.

          In 99% of cases, there will be no landing under fire! And therefore, transport is needed for the transfer of troops, not the BDK capable of abutting the shore with the corresponding restrictions and bells and whistles. We need vehicles of the type Captain Smirnov and not pelvis for 5-8kT displacement ..
    2. 0
      18 June 2018 12: 39
      Quote: maxim947
      it was possible to leave the 11711 project

      he is so unsuccessful that his release was stopped, only 2 pieces will be in the Navy, so the decision is right - you need to build a new one and preferably not the BDK - but the UDC !!
    3. -1
      19 June 2018 09: 31
      The project of I. Green is clearly a failure, and the construction of the series was closed. Now they will tinker with Green-2 more, maybe they learned from mistakes with "Green-1". Yes, and you need a universal UDC, and not a "carrier", these can be, if necessary (which are not so frequent), and replaced with fractured bulk carriers ...
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. 0
    18 June 2018 12: 08
    Nevsky Design Bureau began to develop a new BDK

    Shaw, again? belay
    As one of the members of the ITC said over a hundred years ago: You will finally decide on something.
  4. +5
    18 June 2018 12: 15
    Need UDC, not BDK. The very concept of using the BDK is already outdated, especially since we have Ka-52K and DKVP Kalmar helicopters to equip the UDC, especially since the project has already been developed.
    1. +4
      18 June 2018 12: 18
      It’s a pity that it didn’t work with the Mistrals, as if they were needed now.
      1. 0
        18 June 2018 12: 51
        Quote: WATCH_OFFICER
        It’s a pity that it didn’t work with the Mistrals, as if they were needed now.

        What for?
      2. +2
        18 June 2018 12: 51
        Let them do their own !!!
        Hands-feet-head-resources, everything is in stock !!!
        And the Mistrals, many of our specialists do not praise Yes, and MO, it seems like they are not needed, it's all the blessing of an illiterate minister, Dima’s sidekick, who was smeared from the prison and turned into such a farce. The Mistral probably also got a strong rollback.
    2. +4
      18 June 2018 12: 51
      Quote: WATCH_OFFICER
      The very concept of using BDK is already outdated.
      Is it like “obsolete”, without any doubt, in the Caspian Sea, the Baltic and the Black Sea you need a UDC and a “over-the-horizon landing”? Of course, it is especially "unfortunate" that did not come out with these French pelvis, the Mistral, with a lousy metacentric height and sailboat of the board, and quite possible enemy bugs and bookmarks in a potential command-and-staff ship. If you think about it, we now need more BDK under our realities than UDC, which are doubtful without a powerful grouping of surface forces.
      Ex-Chief of the Coastal Forces (1987-1995), Colonel-General Ivan Skuratov told TsVMP correspondent that there is no need to copy American standards given the more modest Russian capabilities: "We have a completely different theater, more defensive nature. Russia does not need such landing operations "- says Skuratov.
      “Over-the-horizon landing is beautiful, but not very effective. Countries with advanced air forces or missile-artillery systems are able to sink amphibious ships even at such a distance, therefore the American way of landing troops is suitable only for overthrowing unwanted regimes in the banana republics. Even with the DPRK, this focus will not pass, "- added Colonel-General Skuratov.
      1. +3
        18 June 2018 13: 44
        Dear, have you ever landed with the BDK? It is necessary to have an overwhelming advantage in everything, so that the BDK safely approaches the shore and landed troops. I agree with you, in the Caspian, Baltic, and Black Sea, the BDK will be relevant in view of the small size of these seas, and when using these ships as transports, but the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet can use the UDK, and the best MP units are based there.
        1. +1
          18 June 2018 15: 42
          Quote: WATCH_OFFICER
          Dear, have you ever landed with BDK?
          Have you already landed with UDC? You can, of course, neglect my modest opinion, but Ivan Sidorovich Skuratov spent his life in the marines, and, in fact, we can assume that General Skuratov for the naval infantry is the same deserved person as the General of the Army, Hero of the Soviet Union V.F. Margelov. I gave you his statement. The fact that you at least agree on the Caspian Sea and the Baltic Sea is already a plus, eliminating extremes.
          1. +1
            18 June 2018 16: 48
            Quote: Per se.
            You can, of course, neglect my humble opinion, but Ivan Sidorovich Skuratov spent his life in the Marine Corps, and, in fact, we can assume that General Skuratov for the Marine Corps is the same well-deserved personality as the Army General, Hero of the Soviet, for the Airborne Forces Union V.F. Margelov. I brought you his statement.

            Oh-ho-ho ... pomnitsa, honored tankers ordered the development of multi-tower tanks until 1939 (the same KV before the famous show of new developments of IVS tanks was essentially an initiative project). smile
            Currently, the BDK is a huge target packed with people, moving at a slow speed to the coast occupied by the enemy (or even landing the equipment “from the stop”). The worst thing is that, unlike the UDC, all the weapons of war can work on the BDK, up to the anti-tank systems and mortars of coastal defense forces.
            UDC is good in that, in case of landing from it, a huge slow-moving target with an amphibious assault is out of the affected area of ​​90% of the BW means - only small SCRC or long-range artillery / MLRS can reach it. And in the zone of fire of the main firearms of the BO, high-speed small-sized means of landing operate, each of which carries a small part of the landing.
            1. +1
              18 June 2018 20: 21
              Quote: Alexey RA
              At the present time, the BDK is a huge target filled with people, going at slow speed to the shore occupied by the enemy (or even the whole landing of the "from the foot" technique).
              Any ship can become a target, the whole question of where and how a landing operation will be conducted, against which enemy forces, in which level of landing the same BDK will suit, and whether there will be any resistance at all to the landing forces. No one says that it is the BDK that is ideal, it was created for its combat niche, in which it is always possible to find the best or the worst application for ships, to recall from the history of successful and failed landings.
        2. 0
          18 June 2018 17: 42
          And where are you, excuse me at the Pacific Fleet or in the North, are you planning to land overseas?
          Can't we get Bagins to get ready?
          Or is it just Farmington?
        3. 0
          19 June 2018 13: 14
          Quote: WATCH_OFFICER
          It is necessary to have an overwhelming advantage in everything, so that the BDK safely approaches the shore and landed troops.

          You see what’s the matter, in modern realities there will be no more landing in Normandy ... The Marines today have practically lost their functions of seizing a bridgehead on the coastline. The suppression of coastal forces lies on the shoulders of missile ships and aircraft. Marines are needed for the defense and protection of bridgeheads and for other operations on the coast, as well as for the protection of ships. The most warring army today is the US Army, its combat experience suggests that the concept of "from water to fire" is not applicable, we need to prepare a bridgehead for missiles and aircraft, and deliver large forces with large transports that will develop the offensive inland. Based on the foregoing, I believe that we need large transport vessels.
      2. 0
        18 June 2018 13: 58
        It remains to add that in reality UDC may be needed only in the Pacific Ocean. In the North it is only possible to land on polar ice bears.
    3. 0
      18 June 2018 13: 26
      Quote: WATCH_OFFICER
      The very concept of using BDK is already outdated.

      Well, I don’t know how to land tanks and infantry fighting vehicles under shelling on an un-equipped shore?
      1. +1
        18 June 2018 14: 08
        Fleet and maneuverable TDK / LCAC. To get into them is much more difficult than to squeeze in at low speed BDK. And even if one LCAC / TDK - everything, only a few pieces of equipment die, and not all boxes of the first wave.

        The DKVD is outside the scope of certain defeat by local means (hidden guns, tanks, anti-tank systems, etc.).
        1. 0
          18 June 2018 14: 18
          There was a comment that the concept had changed - BDK to UDC, but we did not notice. So she changed again - back - UDC to BDK, but you did not notice. Today it is no longer a problem to get into everything that moves slower than 150 km / h. There are modern weapons, both air and ground. At the same time, the BDK can be protected by its own air defense systems / ZRAK, and this is a swindle - no
          1. +2
            18 June 2018 14: 38
            Not. Everything is simple:
            - DKVD is vulnerable to aviation, anti-ship missiles.
            its fleet landing facilities are vulnerable to guns / ATGMs, but they first high-speed second - there are several of them and the loss of one is not critical, which reduces the percentage of losses

            - BDK is vulnerable to aviation, anti-ship missiles.
            - The BDK is moving at a low speed to the line of landing, it is vulnerable to ATGMs, guns. And he is big and slow. Even one buried T-62, which could not be identified, will have time to do troubles.

            SAM / ZRAK

            Imaginary? Not a single BDK existing in the Navy has either an air defense system or an air defense system. Only MZA from museum ZIF-31 to AK-630M.
            1) Imaginary air defense systems and air defense systems - will help only at the approach stage if missiles fly (but here the task of the support group of frigates and other fleet forces).
            2) They will not help in the most dangerous area. When the BDK flies into low speed and maneuvering to the discharge line, all that could not suppress the landing support forces. That is, all sorts of Spikes, Tou, Cornets, shells from guns of all calibers, mortar mines, etc. Again - the 1 missed by the T-62M, in principle, per minute of life, could theoretically either seriously damage or simply disrupt the landing from one BDK. As for the landing by high-speed boats - in the same minute of life, firstly, boats will go through much more, and secondly, as the experience of real databases in the same Syria shows, striking a suicide bomber tank is very, very bad. The projection is straight - on the one hand, polygon conditions with a huge, practically stationary target, on the other hand, difficult conditions with several small and fast-moving targets.
            1. 0
              18 June 2018 17: 50
              Let’s say the landing gears are both fleet and relatively vulnerable. But they
              1. not eternal
              2. there are few of them, well, 2, well, 4 boats.
              With a densely defended shore, this is a shot for the elephant - even if they are not destroyed during the first walk, then with the second one for sure! And what is the use of the UDC standing 10 miles from the shore? Launch floating amphibious infantry fighting vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles a few miles from the coast in the state and modern BDK. So what's the point of making a garden?
              All the same, it is necessary to clear the coast before landing.
        2. 0
          18 June 2018 14: 29
          Quote: donavi49
          Fleet and maneuverable TDK / LCAC.

          Can you imagine how long it takes for one tank to be carried ashore for tens of kilometers, I’m not saying that the UDC is a huge defenseless barge that will be sunk before landing
          1. +1
            18 June 2018 15: 08
            Is BDK a fortress on the sea? I already wrote above:
            The BDK is scary both RCC / aviation and the immediate means of defense of the site (and even worse, because in fact it is a sedentary target).
            DKVD / UDC - only anti-ship missiles and aviation. The rest is the matter of amphibious groups and small landing craft.

            DKVD / UDC has at least 2 TDK / LCAC. In particular, even the homeless Makassar 2 TDK.
            Plus the amphibious group is under its own power.
            Plus 2-4-6 fast boats (LCVP or other small designed infantry) with infantry and weapons (mortars / AGS / ATGM, etc.).

            UDC is a huge defenseless barge that will be sunk before landing


            The BDK is also a smaller defenseless barge and will also be sunk before the landing. What's the difference? laughing If you raise the question of one landing compound - even against a banana country with P-15M and Su-17.
            1. +1
              18 June 2018 15: 50
              Quote: donavi49
              The BDK is also a smaller defenseless barge and will also be sunk before the landing. What's the difference?

              In order to unload the UDC, it takes several days, therefore it is an immovable huge target especially for submarines, and the BDK will unload in a few minutes and leave. I believe the fleet needs both types of ships. The BDK as part of the fleet is directly involved in taking the enemy’s coastline, and the UDC, after taking the coast, is building up the group for the subsequent offensive.
              1. 0
                18 June 2018 17: 57
                You can increase the group and the usual transports. For me, UDC is Americanism to suppress banana republics, but not a fighting unit in a war of equal rivals.
                BDK is transport with the possibility of quick unloading offshore. Sufficiently specialized car, but practical, for all occasions.
                And you can sink anything. But no one in their right mind will abandon the BDK on an uncleaned shore "under mortars".
            2. 0
              18 June 2018 17: 51
              Quote: donavi49
              DKVD / UDC has at least 2 TDK / LCAC.

              That's just the point, that only two. Damage one (not even drown, but damage) and the landing will be delayed for a week. And if both are damaged? Everything, turn home?
              Quote: donavi49
              Plus the amphibious group is under its own power.

              40 km from the coast at a speed of 10 km / h?
              I don’t know, not special. But from the point of view of logic, the task of the BDK of the first wave is to approach closer to the coastline, but quickly, to land an amphibious group in five minutes, and quickly leave. And already in the second wave, subject to the seizure of the bridgehead, to land heavy equipment from the shore. And again go for reinforcements. And to carry out air support by helicopters, to command the operation, to take the wounded, etc. should another ship, for example a helicopter carrier.
  5. +3
    18 June 2018 12: 16
    Those. there will be no “Surf”, no other ship of the standard size with the “Mistral”, but there will be something similar to the “bloated” “Ivan Gren”.
    1. +3
      18 June 2018 12: 21
      Judging by the article, yes.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +2
      18 June 2018 14: 18
      Well 8k = this is Makkasar.

      Another thing is that once the Navy ordered. That project will be terribly overtightened (an ice class such as to the North Pole in autonomy, slots for weapons and electronic equipment - like a good frigate). Therefore, such opportunities will not be guaranteed. And the price will fly to 3 Makassarov apiece.
      1. +1
        18 June 2018 18: 07
        Quote: donavi49
        Another thing is that once the Navy ordered. That project will be terribly overtightened (an ice class such as to the North Pole in autonomy, slots for weapons and electronic equipment - like a good frigate).

        I recall a story - how, after fulfilling all the requirements of the Navy for survivability and armament, "Khalzan" from the civilian roller corps grew to the size of the corps of pr. 1143.
        Quote: donavi49
        Well 8k = this is Makkasar.

        I’m afraid that we will only succeed in Massaraks! smile
        1. 0
          18 June 2018 19: 52
          Quote: Alexey RA
          I recall a story - how, after fulfilling all the requirements of the Navy for survivability and armament, "Khalzan" from the civilian roller corps grew to the size of the corps of pr. 1143.

          As in the comedy "Pentagon Wars" about the Bradley BMP, according to the book of one of the participants in those events.
  6. 0
    18 June 2018 12: 28
    Quote: Gargantua
    How unacceptably long under the current government everything is done, disgustingly long. But prices and the dollar exchange rate can soar negative

    Just like in that joke about a sleeping soldier. "There isn’t enough skin for everything ..." wink
  7. 0
    18 June 2018 12: 44
    I would not guess, but the key question in the future landing ship is which concept will be adopted: BDK or UDC? Perhaps the designers have their own original thoughts on this subject. Let's wait - we'll see.
    1. 0
      18 June 2018 14: 11
      Wrong. It is more correct that they choose:
      - landing equipment from the ramp of the landing ship ashore.
      - landing of equipment from a large landing ship through a docking chamber using high-speed TDK / LCAC.
  8. 0
    18 June 2018 14: 25
    Quote: Angelo Provolone
    There is no pier on the Kuril Islands. So that the BDK has not lost its relevance. Not everywhere you need to land under fire. Sometimes you need to stupidly deliver people and equipment.

    And for this, there are stupid bulk carriers and tankers.
    1. 0
      18 June 2018 18: 02
      But you can’t drop tanks from dry cargo ships to Gdansk beaches, but please from BDK.
      And the moorings in the same Gdansk (conditionally, conditionally!) Will be either destroyed or mined or under fire.
  9. 0
    18 June 2018 17: 17
    well, God forbid, to my pension pile laughing
    although what am I talking about? now with pension too laughing
  10. +1
    18 June 2018 23: 02
    Quote: figvam
    Quote: WATCH_OFFICER
    The very concept of using BDK is already outdated.

    Well, I don’t know how to land tanks and infantry fighting vehicles under shelling on an un-equipped shore?


    This shore will be ironed with missiles and aircraft bombs, and then ship’s weapons of destruction. Only then will the landing ships go. But before they approach, near the shore will be hosted by combat swimmers, paratroopers will land from the sky behind enemy lines, and from the same BDK turntables will fly from scouts in order to capture key positions. Even before the approach of the BDK to the shore, floating infantry fighting vehicles with an airborne landing will already be approaching it. The task of the BDK in this case is only to unload heavy equipment to enhance the firepower of the captured bridgehead.

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

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