Military Review

Attack from the sea. How to return the navy amphibious capabilities

113
The abundance of criticism of domestic fleet, and especially of the direction in which naval construction is developing, should, in fairness, be accompanied by a certain explanation of how everything should have been done.


Past article about the crisis of amphibious capabilities of the Russian Navy deserves such a continuation. Consider how you can return the Navy opportunities for amphibious assault landing, without resorting to expensive solutions.

Attack from the sea. How to return the navy amphibious capabilities


This is especially important now, when economic realities will absolutely not allow the Russian Navy to develop extensively. Of course, to develop extensively is great. There is no possibility to use helicopters in the landing operation - we are building the DVKD or the UDC in general. Few landing ships? Build more ...

The trouble, however, is that on such a path in the budget there will be no money for many years. This means that we have to find another way. Cheap. Its, such as no one has ever used. There is no money, but you hold on there. So it will now be, apparently.

Is it real? Yes, quite, and these opportunities need to "run in the info field" right now.

In order to assess the prospects of the “budget” modernization of the landing forces of the Russian Navy, we first write out the boundary conditions:

1. It is necessary that the new amphibious ships could release military equipment on the water at a great distance from the coast.
2. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure the possibility of delivery to the landing zone of combat helicopters and helicopters with a landing force.
3. It is necessary to ensure the landing of heavy equipment - tanks and sapper equipment in the first wave, self-propelled artillery, more tanks and transport vehicles in the second.
4. In the event of a landing operation failing, the naval personnel must ensure the possibility of evacuating most of the people from the coast, even without the equipment.
5. At the same time it is necessary to do without large specialized landing ships.

Conditions somewhat contradict each other, but, oddly enough, there are solutions that satisfy them.

Historically, Russia, forced to have a large land army, could not invest in the fleet as well as the British, or the Americans. And if the latter, during the last great war, massively built amphibious ships, the Soviet Navy was forced to mobilize combat ships and transport ships for the landing. The landing of the marines from cruisers should be left behind the brackets, but the mobilization of transport ships tells us a relatively unexpected way out.

In 1990, an unusual vessel for the Soviet Navy, the Anadyr high-speed sea transport, entered the Pacific Fleet.





The ship was hardly intended to carry weapons from port to port.

First, its cargo compartment was optimized to accommodate lighters, and lighters are needed to transport heavy loads to an unequipped shore. Secondly, and most importantly, the ship was equipped with cockpits to accommodate the personnel, which in number approximately corresponded to the reinforced battalion - according to various sources, from 650 to 750 people.

Thirdly, in the standard version, the Anadyr had a hangar for two Ka-27 helicopters. And a huge flat cargo deck. The ship in fact most closely corresponded to what in the West is called the Landing ship dock - the landing ship dock. The aft ramp completely allowed the equipment to be loaded onto the water, like a landing ship, and other vessels could have been used instead of lighters. Differences from the landing ship by and large simply did not exist.



In order to engage the Anadyr in the landing operation, he did not need any improvements - none at all. And if the Soviet marines had the naval armored personnel carrier - an analogue of the American LVTP-7, then from Anadyr, using these machines, it would be quite possible to carry out the same over-horizon landing, the same as the Americans are preparing to conduct from their UDC. The downside was only a small hangar, but here we have historical precedent, however, is not domestic.



This is "Konderder bizent." One of the mobilized transport ships that the British used on the Falklands. The flat cargo deck is covered with flooring and turned into a flight deck, and a hangar for Chinook helicopters is mounted from the containers. This ship was not used as a landing ship, but the principle is important to us. If we assume that we are using an analogue of Anadyr as a DVKD, and we need to place more helicopters on it, then it is quite possible to attach a lightweight, fast-built aircraft to a permanent hangar and to add two or six helicopters in a permanent hangar.

If we land the MP battalion, and if the situation requires landing some of the forces in the form of an airborne assault force, then we need to raise a minimum company on helicopters. And these are eight Ka-29 or some hypothetical transport vehicles based on Ka-32. It would be nice to have two or four shock Ka-52K to cover the landing. On such a huge ship, like Anadyr, it is quite possible to place them.

On the other hand, if an airborne landing is not necessary or impossible, then all the helicopters on board can be shock. Or, if it is planned that there will be no resistance (well, you never know), then you can limit yourself to a pair of sanitary facilities and not to build any additional hangar at all.

Moreover. If you equip the ship with a lift for heavy equipment, now you can place helicopters inside, on the lower cargo deck, increasing their number to dozens. This will make it possible to land an air assault battalion immediately from the air, and to provide its actions with support for attack helicopters.

Or, alternatively, use the upper cargo deck to place ground equipment, as well as the lower one, lowering the armored cars and trucks down and rolling them out from there to the outside.

If necessary, such a ship becomes a very convenient and versatile base for special operations, it can be present at any point of the world ocean, carry special forces, helicopters, boats and boats, UAVs, container systems on board. weapons (cruise or anti-ship missiles) and a large supply of material and technical means. It can be used as a mobile anti-submarine base aviation somewhere in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, for example, and base on it anti-submarine helicopters.

But the most important thing is that beyond periods of use in combat operations, it is simply a transport, which is used as a transport, for transportation. The Ministry of Defense, as is known, has purchased a large number of vessels of various types to supply the grouping in Syria. Since MO still have to buy transport vessels, why not buy such a vessel? Yes, it is ineffective in comparison with ships specially built for commercial use, but in the end, the military is not required to compete in efficiency with civilian carriers. And surely, such a ship would be much more efficient as a transport in the same Syrian express train - in the upper cargo deck there may well be wide covers on the one side (they had an Anadyr) to load cargo on top with cranes, on the other , openings for container locks, so that, after loading the hold, put on top also piles of containers.

But we do need a dock camera. After all, without it, inside the ship you cannot place a large landing craft or several, and without them, the first wave of the landing will not receive tanks and engineering equipment. A dock camera will interfere with the work of shipping.

In this case, you can provide a removable deck or pontoon, which would align the floor of the dock with the airborne cargo deck. You can also provide on-board lazport for loading and unloading equipment when mooring side to the pier.

Thus, having invested money in high-speed transport of a similar design, the Navy does not lose anything - it still needs transport vessels both to participate in Syrian-type wars and to ensure its daily activities. They still buy. Having bought such a ship, the Navy also receives a large DKD / DVKD "in combination" and removes the need to build specialized ships of this class. In the "Syrian express" similar transport would be most useful that it is now used. And in the landing operation, it is much more efficient than the notorious Mistral (if there are on board the appropriate command and control systems and a medical unit with personnel).

How many such ships are needed? At least one per fleet, except for the Baltic, so that at least one battalion combat group can be disembarked.

Preferably - at least two. Ideally, according to the number of battalions in the MP brigade subordinated to the fleet. Then the issues of landing troops in general will be removed completely, but this is likely to be unreal economically. The Baltic Fleet should be excluded due to the fact that all countries in the region are either neutral or are part of NATO and an offensive operation of such magnitude against them is still fiction, and it will not survive this ship during the first hours of a major war in Europe. But for the Black Sea Fleet, Pacific Fleet, and the Federation Council, the presence of such ships is mandatory.

Thus, the Navy must be “from” three universal transport docks, which must be adapted for use and as amphibious.

But, as has already been said, it would not be possible to put all marines on such vehicles economically. What to land second echelons? What will be the "peacetime landing ship" at the exercises? How to land, if necessary, the marines in the Baltic? At first, it may well be the available BDK. First, in the presence of a seaworthy BTR or BMMP, a BDK that has a fodder lazport can land this technique anywhere on the water. In fact, in the presence of a seaworthy BTR or BMMP, over-horizon landing becomes possible even with a BDK - simply without air landing and without tanks in the first wave. But for the airborne assault, we will have the above-described amphibious vehicles, and the option of parachuting from aircraft cannot be ruled out, it will simply cease to be the only option, and will be one of the possible ones.

So, it turns out that in parallel with transports it is necessary to build "classic" BDK? Not.

BDK should be used, while it is possible, before they are written off, but something else should come to replace them.

It is necessary to revive the now-lost class of Medium landing ships - KFOR. And if the landing of the forward echelon, as well as hypothetical expeditionary actions, fall on amphibious transports, then the reinforcement of the first echelon amphibious assault, the landing of the second echelon and amphibious operations in conditions of weak or absent resistance should be conducted by medium landing ships.

This decision seems paradoxical, but only at first glance. We will first consider what should be the new KFOR and why, and only then we shall understand what advantages this class of ships conceals in itself.

KFOR is a priori small ship. So, cheap compared to BDK. Mass. It can be built at once in all shipyards. With the defeat of such a ship, the loss is much less than in the case of one and a half times more BDK. Currently, Rosoboronexport JSC offers KFOR buyers of the 21810 project. One of the features of this ship is that it can pass through inland waterways. BDK do not have this feature.

What does it mean for amphibious forces to transfer ships from the theater to the theater? The fact that they can be built in limited series, if funding is also limited. Then it is enough for the country to have the number of ships necessary for landing one brigade of marines at once on three potential theater operations - the North, the Baltic and the Black Sea. Hypothetically and on the Caspian Sea. That is, the small size of KFOR makes it possible to save on the number of ships, at least for the first time. Of course, such a maneuver is not easy even in peaceful conditions. In winter, it will require icebreaking and serious engineering support, if only because ice on some rivers cannot be broken into a river icebreaker, it must be blown up first. But with relatively small ships, this at least becomes in principle feasible. With BDK it is impossible to do absolutely.

And it is also impossible to use BDK in river amphibious operations. And this, too, may be needed, at least in the last War - it took, let us recall at least the Tuloksin landing operation.

What should be limited to the size of KFOR? Gateways on inland waterways, the height of the passage of bridges over them and the depths of the rivers. Within these limits, the maximum possible size is necessary, but not exceeding these limits. Naturally, KFOR should have a power plant based on diesel engines, apparently, produced by the Kolomna plant. The weapon with which the ship is equipped should be minimized. The gun 76-mm, AK-630M, MANPADS managed by crew members, and one long-range ATGM to hit point targets on the shore and on the water.

But, and this is important, you should not make our new KFOR look like the old ones. Our ship should be completely different.

More recently, interested observers were shown a draft of the amphibious assault ship, created according to the concept of stern landing vessel, which can be roughly translated as “amphibious assault landing ship”.

The peculiarity of the concept is that this landing ship does not have a forward gate, and when approaching the shore, the ship has to turn around and unload the equipment to the shore using a stern ramp. This solution has a number of drawbacks. Firstly, it is required to ensure the performance and survival of the propeller-steering group with this kind of maneuver. Secondly, the turn is still a dangerous maneuver in conditions when there are a lot of other ships around, which also unfold. Thirdly, the commanders of ships can not “oversleep” the moment when it is necessary to proceed with the maneuver, otherwise it may have to be performed under fire.

But there are pluses. They are well shown here in this video.


Stern landing vessel

Let us briefly list the advantages of the scheme.

First, such a ship is seaworthy. Secondly, it is technically simpler - there are no gates and a mechanism for opening them, there is no weakened zone in the nose of the case. Thirdly, there is no risk of knocking down the door leaves when slamming. Because of this danger, sometimes landing ships have to go tack to be at an angle to the wave, there is no a priori problem here. Fourthly, if such a ship participates in the landing of the first wave of the landing force, the release of amphibious armored vehicles in any case is carried out through the aft ramp, and the presence of gates in the bow is simply not required. Fifthly, a smaller ship is more “profitable” when landing in the port simply because of better maneuverability and less exactingness to the size and location of the moorings. Sixth, this arrangement allows you to equip a sufficiently large helipad on each KFOR, which simplifies takeoffs and landings from it.

Why do you need a helipad? First, helicopters can also be launched from KFOR. They simply do not have and should not have a hangar, but with tactical landings at a short distance from the front line, helicopters can just stand moored on deck for half a day. Secondly, such KFOR can be used as “jump points” - a helicopter that has flown “from its own” shore can get on the deck of this ship, refuel, and continue the sortie. This scheme allows the use of coastal-based combat helicopters over a combat radius of many hundreds of kilometers, more than five hundred for most types of helicopters. In another situation, a modular air defense system or air defense system in a stand-alone module can be installed on a flat deck, additional loads are placed, etc. The small landing ship of traditional architecture is almost completely devoid of all these advantages. In extreme cases, the site for the helicopter will be there, but extremely cramped and dangerous.

For assault forces to ports, the ship must be able to release foot soldiers from either side.

How many such ships are needed? If the large amphibious assault vehicle described above should land a battalion, then it is logical to assume that all the remaining MP battalions in each of the fleets must land such KFOR (we do not know what the marines will be when they adopt the BMMP and how the MP and KFOR capacity will be adjusted, so the numbers are approximate). Then, if there is one transport, about thirty KFOR will be needed per brigade. This is a lot, but small ships give us the opportunity not to build as much for each fleet, but to have one brigade of six to eight ships in the Black Sea Fleet, the Northern Fleet, the Baltic Fleet and the Caspian Flotilla, and concentrate them together to carry out amphibious operations of each fleet. , driving ships on inland waterways. In a bad variant, when the transition was frustrated by the enemy, or when there was not enough time for it, any of the fleets, with the KFOR brigade, with boats and amphibious vehicles, as well as military transport planes, will be able to land at least three battalion troops, which is already much better than now.

It is worth noting that due to good seaworthiness, KFOR can be used at a great distance from its territory. The Pacific Fleet stands apart, but there you can have two vehicles, one MP battalion to use as a parachute, and then you need to have about 20 KFOR so that you can land all the marines of the Pacific Fleet in one operation. At the same time, the simplicity and small size of the ships guarantee the possibility of building them in the right quantity, and fast, and the small crew, diesel power plant based on proven and mastered units, and the same simplicity of the design guarantee low operating costs. And, of course, in transportation such ships can also be used, as well as in the role of mine and network barriers.

It remains to provide opportunities for the landing to protect against naval mines, and artillery support from the sea. But this should already be done by surface ships that are not part of the landing forces, frigates, corvettes and minesweepers. Although it might be worthwhile to work out further the creation of some extremely simple artillery ship armed with a pair of 130 mm cannons in two turret systems, a long-range MLRS, anti-tank systems for hitting target targets and necessarily radar reconnaissance artillery that allows you to fight enemy ground artillery. Such a ship should also pass on inland waterways, and be as simple as possible. In fact, we are talking about the reincarnation of the gunboat.

Naturally, there will not be many of them. It is quite possible that three or four such ships for each of the fleets will be more than enough. Which is also quite within our military budget.

Thus, having shown a non-standard approach, it becomes possible to recreate landing forces in the Russian fleet, which any potential adversary will have to reckon with.

Of course, the marines themselves will have to be transformed. States will have to adapt to the realities of the ship, with armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and armed MTLB marines will have to transfer to special landing machines that can go on a high wave. To save money, you can enter into a partnership with Turkey, which next year, 2019, plans to show its version of LVTP-7.



Although the project Omsktransmash mentioned in the last articleIt looks much better, but the budget is not rubber.

You will need tank landing ships that could be loaded with tanks inside the amphibious transport. Moreover, the size of boats should allow tanks to call in on them with mine trawls. This is a must.

Let us briefly list the current backlog of Russia in order to proceed with the implementation of the project to restore amphibious capabilities:

- There are the necessary diesel engines.
- There are all necessary radio and electronic weapons for ships, as well as weapons for them.
- There is documentation for BMTV Anadyr.
- There is a shipbuilder capable of doing just such technically complicated things quite quickly.
- There is a wonderful sea attack helicopter - Ka-52K.
- There is a suitable basic platform for creating a helicopter landing - Ka-32. Several special amphibious Ka-29 also available.
- There is a BMMP project from Omsktransmash
- It is possible to cooperate with the Turks, or, in extreme cases, buy a seaworthy BMP from the Chinese. This will seriously save time.
- There is a great marines.
- There are a small number of ships that can form the "backbone" of the second line, while everything unfolds.

This is more than enough.

Historical experience tells us that, firstly, when repelling aggression against our country, the ability to conduct amphibious operations is crucial, and, secondly, that without landing on the enemy coast, defeat the enemy “fenced off” from us unreal. In the extremely chaotic and unpredictable twenties of this century, we should be prepared for both.

Especially since it is not so expensive.
Author:
Photos used:
US Navy, forums.airbase.ru, Janes, V.Kuzin and V.Nikolsky
Articles from this series:
Landing without ships. Navy is not able to conduct large-scale amphibious operations
113 comments
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. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 27 November 2018 06: 13
    0
    - There is a shipbuilder capable of doing just such technically complicated things quite quickly.

    The author exaggerates the possibilities of domestic "legal proceedings"
    - There is a suitable base platform for creating a landing helicopter - Ka-32. Several special Ka-29s are also available.

    It is not enough, there is no heavy transport helicopter for the delivery of equipment, artillery and cargo.
    This is more than enough.

    Come on. And what about mine action forces and weapons? What about supply transports? When the ammunition runs out will the sounds imitate shooting sounds misleading the enemy?
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 November 2018 07: 51
      +6
      The author exaggerates the possibilities of domestic "legal proceedings"


      Well, you can build a trough. This is not a cruiser.

      It is not enough, there is no heavy transport helicopter for the delivery of equipment, artillery and cargo.


      The main forces should be connected with the assault force in about two hours. If the probability of this is low, then the landing does not land from the air, it lands only from the sea. In neither case, the use of heavy deck helicopters for the delivery of heavy weapons by air is not critical. In addition, in some cases it will be possible to use the Airborne Forces and the VTA, which can also do without such a helicopter.

      I understand that it is better with him than without him, and if we begin to revive this topic, it will also have to be done. I mean, you can do without such a machine.

      And what about the forces and assets? And how about supply transports? When will the ammunition run out of marines will imitate shooting sounds misleading the enemy?


      These are separate questions, I did not inflate the article, but, in fairness, I mentioned something at the end.
      It is clear that both the supply and the minesweepers and the airborne detachment will need, etc., but I wrote about the landing forces and means, allowing in principle to deliver the marines to the coast occupied by the enemy and fight for disembarkation, although would be with some bantustan.

      KFOR of the described scheme, by the way, can be used to receive cargo at sea, and transport immediately after the success of the landing force can be sent for cargo for it. Among other things.
      1. venik
        venik 27 November 2018 10: 42
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well, you can build a trough. This is not a cruiser.

        ==========
        И lot in Russia today, plants capable of building ships of such a displacement and size ?? And that they are completely not loaded orders ??? request
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 November 2018 14: 10
          +2
          There are a few, downloads for now around 85%. Can still take.
  2. kig
    kig 27 November 2018 07: 36
    +4
    There is a shipbuilding industry capable of doing just such technically sophisticated things quite quickly. - Well, this is unlikely. Anadyr was built in 1988 at the Finnish shipyard Vyartsilya. If it was intended for the Navy, it would be logical to build it at home, but for some reason the Finns were assigned. Accordingly, all the equipment, including a cargo crane that can move along the vessel, is not ours there. The Finns managed a little over a year. Something I doubt very much that we would have succeeded faster. The lighter carrier A. Kosygin, which served as the prototype of Anadyr, was built for more than 2 years. Moreover, they built in Kherson, in Ukraine, where now we do not go.
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 November 2018 07: 59
      +2
      Now for the Navy, rather large auxiliary vessels are being built in three to four years - tankers, rescuers, and weapons transports. Well, let them build it in three years, not in a year, let there be a Chinese crane.
      1. venik
        venik 27 November 2018 13: 02
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Now for the Navy, rather large auxiliary vessels are being built in three to four years - tankers, rescuers, and weapons transports.

        ==============
        And you, in general - looked WHAT displacement there ??? AND WHAT is the displacement of the "Anadyr" ??? No? Well, look - both the displacement and the dimensions !!! And compare, with the same "Anadyr" !! It will not hurt (to increase the "general level of erudition") !!! Ships of such class as "Anadyr" today (I emphasize - TODAY!) Few people in Russia can build ... Alas! There are very few such stocks and they are EXTREMELY LOADED! (After all, it is necessary to build not only warships!).
        After the Far East Shipyard Zvezda reaches full capacity, the situation will improve significantly, but! This requires at least several more years !!!
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 November 2018 14: 11
          +1
          Well, wait a few years, what is the question. Not twenty. And we will cut the size, if anything, we need to fit the battalion, completely copy Anadyr is not necessary.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 27 November 2018 23: 29
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And we will cut down the sizes, if anything, we need to fit the battalion, it is not necessary to completely copy Anadyr.

            We have built ones. "Northern Sea Route" for example. This atomic giant of 62 thousand tons is still not really known how to use it. But there will be more Kuznetsov, not only Mistral will fit into him.
            1. kig
              kig 28 November 2018 03: 55
              0
              Quote: Saxahorse
              "Sevmorput" for example

              Incidentally, it was built in Kerch. There was such a shipyard named the Gulf. Tell what happened to him?
          2. Wened
            Wened 30 November 2018 18: 45
            0
            Although the Omsktransmash project mentioned in a previous article looks much preferable, the budget is not rubber.


            Alexander, in my opinion, something hydrofoil still preferable.



            Is it 20 mm bushmaster or 25? not the essence, 30 mm Bushmaster 2 is the same.

            To get seriously damaged hydrofoil boats (BTR) with maneuvering is not fate, at least 50-60% calmly reach, and they also remove the curious from add-ons. And it’s almost calm without worry.

            1. The armored personnel carrier must be wheeled, that is, a wheel torn off by a mine is not a problem.
            2, The bottom is naturally V-shaped.
            3. The engine is 500-600 l / s with a gear to the shaft with sufficient force to push the amphibian onto the wings.
            4, Do you need to fix these hydrofoils, and discard them at the exit from the sea?

            I wrote to you in your last article.
        2. bayard
          bayard 27 November 2018 22: 17
          +1
          Donetsk.
          Precisely because right now there is no one to build such ships as Anadyr (huge displacement, lack of free production capacities ... it is not clear what engines, because Anadyr had gas turbines, and now diesel is needed), I suggest JUST continuing the Gren-Morgun series in the version of "Morgunov". Simply because these two pepelats, although it took a long time to build, are now mastered at the shipyard, there is equipment, competencies that have not yet been lost for this particular project, subcontractors ...
          In general, I propose to continue the series for six more such BDKs with a bookmark every six months, possibly at two shipyards at the same time. Total 8 BDK divided into two fleets - 4 to the North and 4 to the Black Sea. On Morgunov, a two-helicopter hangar, the Syrian Express, still has to work and work, with Sudan, Egypt and possibly Libya on the line. And all this is on the shoulders of the Black Sea Fleet and the 5th Mediterranean squadron - we need fresh blood in the form of new BDKs, and as soon as possible, the old people are already exhausted.
          The Northern Fleet also needs BDKs to service the polar bases and the NSR ... well, and according to the Norwegian soul if that. And here, neither KFOR, nor sea transports like Anadyr will do.
          The command also will not refuse from landing helicopter carriers - they are needed and multifunctional. Therefore, the idea with KFOR is interesting and relevant for the Baltic, partly the Black Sea Fleet and yes - the Pacific Fleet.
          But the new Anadyr industry just like this - at a time, will not pull. The star in the future can be puzzled, but the St. Petersburg shipyards will be engaged in "Avalanche" (or whatever else they will come up with a mistral-like one) ...
          ... Therefore, we must continue the series of Gren-Morgunov. And at least six.
          1. kig
            kig 28 November 2018 04: 01
            0
            Quote: bayard
            because Anadyr had gas turbines

            Anadyr had medium-speed WARTSILA VASA diesel engines, 4 units of 6000 kW each, and two propulsion engines of KaMeWa company as engines.
            1. bayard
              bayard 28 November 2018 04: 10
              0
              Donetsk.
              Sorry, maybe the memory failed ... or a source that was a long time ago. In any case, lighter transporters for our industry now ... the task is not easy.
  3. kote119
    kote119 27 November 2018 07: 57
    +4
    Thanks to the author for an interesting article. In my opinion, suggestions worthy of attention have been proposed.
    It’s a pity that we turned our shipbuilding industry into such a state that we cannot manufacture much. Maybe if we can’t build it ourselves, we can order lighters from third countries for our projects and then, after retrofitting, finally customize them to the requirements of our Navy. Roughly speaking, they make the case, and we will handle the filling ourselves, like the Chinese with the Varangian.
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 November 2018 08: 12
      0
      As an option, yes.
  4. Korax71
    Korax71 27 November 2018 08: 01
    +2
    Alexander hi article directly in honor of the holiday drinks I congratulate all those involved. Why not consider, as one of the means of over-the-horizon landing, BMP3.Of course, it can not boast of capacity, seaworthiness, but nonetheless, not bad driving performance, which is none, but the armor, as it were, is mastered by industry, export is supplied. You can argue with the rest of the article, you can agree, but as one of the options from the series, it’s cheap and cheerful, very good good
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 November 2018 08: 12
      +1
      Her every wave will turn. There was a project of a seaworthy machine on its aggregates, but with a different hull, at least it must be done, although it is also slow on the water.

      In general, a special car is required.
      1. Korax71
        Korax71 27 November 2018 12: 19
        +1
        You can’t argue with that. It’s just based on what we have. Ideally, of course, the analogue of the American EFV, but even for them it’s expensive recourse
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 November 2018 14: 12
          0
          This is what Omsktransmash has threatened. I would like that. But it is possible and easier to find solutions.
  5. Corn
    Corn 27 November 2018 08: 15
    +3
    The fleet would first be returned at least the opportunity to defend the approaches to its own shores, and then dream.
    The Airborne Forces will also do an excellent job with the landing, on which they emphasize, in which everything is relatively in order with the material part and with the delivery vehicles.
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 November 2018 09: 59
      0
      The Airborne Forces do not have heavy weapons, and this is a small branch of the armed forces, and most importantly, they do not hack the defense - they either throw them into a "vacuum", or as a means of developing success, after the defense has been broken through by someone. Otherwise it will be Vyazma-1942. Light they are strong, airborne forces.
      1. Corn
        Corn 27 November 2018 10: 17
        +3
        Why might there not be enough ATGMs, 100mm 2a70 and air support? (without it, any ground troops with 100% probability immediately turn into useless cannon fodder).
        Not so small, 45 thousand people, moreover, the most combat-ready in the army.
        Hack defense in the 21st century, are you serious ??
        The experience of wars of the past decade for verification turns out to be of little use for modern realities, and you write about the events of 1942 ... in this case, I can only offer to build a wooden fleet according to the patterns of Peter the Great.
        1. max702
          max702 27 November 2018 12: 38
          +3
          Quote: Corn
          Hack defense in the 21st century, are you serious ??
          The experience of wars of the past decade on verification is little applicable to modern realities, and you write about the events of 1942 ..

          The fact of the matter is that in the current realities against a less adequate opponent, no landing is possible! Not sea, not air! MTR or intelligence yes, but more massive no! For example, why there was no landing in the war 08.08.08? What prevented the parachute landing of another battalion 3-4 hours after the start of the conflict? And everything is simple, which no Georgian air defense, and the most suitable terrain for landing, was calculated at headquarters and decided not to take risks, but to make our way to besieged peacekeepers on the ground, apparently the calculated losses exceeded even the loss of all peacekeepers that would be destroyed if reinforcements were late. So forget about all these landings, these are the methods of past wars like the same attacks by infantry columns or Cossack lava ..
          1. timokhin-aa
            27 November 2018 14: 17
            0
            Strangely, the Americans quite a parachute brigade thrown into Iraq in 2003, and even the MTR for a couple of battalions, also from the air.
            Can you go to their advisers?

            A new weapon changes only tactics, fundamental things do not change at all. The landing party is military transportation, with a destination in the territory occupied and controlled by the enemy.

            This type of database even did not beat a nuclear weapon, but you already fucked up ...
            1. max702
              max702 27 November 2018 19: 26
              +2
              Quote: timokhin-aa

              Strangely, the Americans quite a parachute brigade thrown into Iraq in 2003, and even the MTR for a couple of battalions, also from the air.
              Can you go to their advisers?

              Was there a military need for these landings? Was it not ballet with the goal of justifying the existence of these troops? Order of the medal, participation in the database .. It seems that it was just a show-off, because these landings did not play the slightest role in these companies, and therefore could do well without them .. This example does not justify the forces and means that are spent on them .. And it’s not necessary to remember about nuclear weapons, this is a very extreme case, since nuclear weapons are not applicable in the current conditions, in principle .. Consequently, nuclear weapons again have nothing to do with ..
              1. timokhin-aa
                27 November 2018 22: 14
                0
                Learn the course of the invasion of Iraq, very instructive.
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 28 November 2018 10: 18
                  +1
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Learn the course of the invasion of Iraq, very instructive.

                  We are studying ....
                  Memories of Jos Pereira, member of the 10th Special Operations Airborne Group and Task Force Viking!
                  10-I group did not land, our plane landed. Personally, I landed on the MC-30 in Erbil at 0 hours 30 minutes local time.
                  When it became clear that the 4th Infantry Division would not be allowed to go through Turkey, it was decided to use the 173th Airborne Brigade Tactical Group, as they had fast-response companies with heavy and medium armor (Abrams M1A1 tanks and BMP "Bradley"), which we needed.
                  I and another gentleman instructed their command to enter the setting. They could not realize that a contingent of approximately 2700 people had already been deployed on our earth. They were set up for a D-Day operation (D-Day, as it is sometimes called the Allied landing in Normandy in 1944, translator's note).
                  We explained to them that there was no need to land with parachutes, that we had at our disposal 3 airdromes capable of receiving C-17 transporters and protected from air defense and small arms fire, but they did not listen.
                  Plus, they also wanted these stars on the wings of their badges (it’s a tradition for American paratroopers to attach a star to the wings of the parachutist’s breastplates for each combat jump, approx. Translator) and still present the world with the first mass airborne landing after the Second World War.
                  For this they chose the northernmost airfield (near the Turkish border), which was more than 100 km from the nearest Iraqi military units.
                  But even after landing more than 900 paratroopers and unloading heavy equipment already on the ground, they remained close to the border for more than a week instead of moving to Erbil, where we needed them. Their commander was a great opponent of all risk. In general, the bottom line is that there was no need for mass landing, and there was no equal opponent.
                  This short, but capacious story can be supplemented by the fact that paratroopers of the 173 tactical group jumped from a height of about 300 m. For delivery to the landing area, 17 C-17 transporters were used. In an area of ​​9 km in 58 seconds, an 964 paratrooper managed to land. 32 people did not have time to land (they were later delivered in a landing way). 19 paratroopers landed unsuccessfully, having received fractures, 4 of them with severe injuries were evacuated back to the base in Italy.
                  You can also supplement this short but capacious story with the fact that paratroopers of the 173th brigade tactical group jumped from a height of about 300 m. For delivery to the landing area, 17 C-17 transporters were used. In an area of ​​9 km in 58 seconds, an 964 paratrooper managed to land. 32 people did not have time to land (they were later delivered in a landing way). 19 paratroopers landed unsuccessfully, having received fractures, 4 of them with severe injuries were evacuated back to the base in Italy.
                  The weather before and during the jump was damp. Having landed, the paratroopers got bogged down in the mud and got out of it all night, only 15 hours after the jump completely occupied the airfield.
                  All equipment (381 units) and the remaining personnel (another 1200 people) were delivered over the next 3 days and unloaded by landing method. American paratroopers landed not on enemy territory, but nevertheless to the allies. No one shot at them. On the contrary, the Kurds soldered them, warmed them up. But the jump is counted as a battle.

                  hi Hello skydivers!
          2. Usher
            Usher 27 November 2018 17: 58
            0
            They were afraid of the public reaction to the losses.
            1. timokhin-aa
              27 November 2018 19: 11
              0
              They know how to hide losses.
        2. timokhin-aa
          27 November 2018 14: 14
          0
          Performing tasks on the battlefield today is determined by survival. With this, the Airborne is not very. Airborne is a rapier, not a hammer. And you need a hammer. Sometimes.
          I do not argue that sometimes the tasks in the coastal areas will be solved by the Airborne Forces, but this will not always be possible.
      2. venik
        venik 27 November 2018 13: 47
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The Airborne Forces do not have heavy weapons, and this is a small branch

        =========
        That is, you want to say that the Marine Corps - the Armed Forces - NUMEROUS ???? Immediately - the question: And what is the number of airborne and MP in Russia today ???
        The author (A. Timokhin) is obviously "not in the know" that the number of the Russian Airborne Forces is 45 thousand "Blue Berets", and the MP - 12.5 - 35 thousand "Black Berets"! fellow
        Guys from MP! Those whom I know and remember! Who is alive and who is no longer! There are few of you, but you are in VES! "From the sea - to the shore - INTO BATTLE!" angry
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 November 2018 14: 21
          +2
          I apparently inaccurately expressed. The Airborne Forces cannot be used precisely as amphibious units with the use of a large number of troops — we do not have and will not have the necessary number of aircraft for a long time. Today, if you collect all the aircraft in the Russian Federation, including confiscated civilians, from which you can land troops at least at a distance of 500 km from the airfields, then you can fly around 25000 people, and they will have nothing but personal weapons.
          BMD, avtotenik, group weapons, supplies, immediately roll down this value at times and it turns out that we cannot even lift one division into the air now.
          If you also use only BTA aircraft, without confiscations and expropriations, the brigade is the ceiling.
          Well, the enemy usually has an air defense system, and the risks during parachute landing are much higher than with properly conducted sea.
          If you don’t risk airplanes, then it turns out that no one will land anywhere more than an airborne regiment.
          And MPs can be landed by brigades if at least some ships will be.
          1. Operator
            Operator 27 November 2018 14: 54
            +1
            The Airborne Forces are now not paratroopers, but attack aircraft armed with tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and self-propelled guns.

            Parchitists are now special forces.
          2. Alex_59
            Alex_59 27 November 2018 15: 43
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            If you also use only BTA aircraft, without confiscations and expropriations, the brigade is the ceiling.

            Well, with BTA, of course, everything is sad, but not so much. In total we have about 120-140 living IL-76. One Il-76 raises a platoon (3 BMD).
            4 IL-76 (squad) raises a company of airborne troops (10 BMD, 1 BTR-D, 1 Gas-66).
            The Il-76 squadron (12 aircraft) raises the first echelon of the Airborne Battalion from 3's companies.
            The BTA regiment (30-40 Il-76) picks up either the full airborne battalion or the first wave of RAPs from 9 the mouth of the 3 battalions + control.
            Accordingly, the 3 regiment of the BTA (100-120 aircraft) is able to throw the first echelon of the division from the 2-x RAP and the artillery regiment. It turns out that we are recruiting aircraft for the division, and so far even with a margin. For two divisions - no longer.
            1. timokhin-aa
              27 November 2018 20: 30
              +2
              You think linearly. In the next sortie, slightly fewer planes will fly than in the first, in addition, without a quick connection of the Airborne Forces with the advancing ground forces, they will have to be supplied by air, based on the same "sea" tens of tons per person.
              This makes any landing on such a scale as you describe unrealistic.
              In addition, BMD-4, which is now being used, is heavier, and they are taken 2 pcs. on Board.
              That changes everything, too.
              Intelligence before the first echelon should be considered, and this is also 1-2 Sludge, depending on different conditions.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 28 November 2018 08: 03
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                In addition, BMD-4, which is now being used, is heavier, and they are taken 2 pcs. on Board.
                Well this is 100% nonsense, from one IL-76MD the technique of one platoon is still landing - three cars. For example, in July, on this occasion, there was a statement by Lieutenant General Kochetkov that for the first time in the exercises, the latest vehicles, the 2 BMD-4M and one BTR-MDM, would be landed from one side.
                Quote: timokhin-aa

                You think linearly.
                I think airborne standards in this case. The question was how many paratroopers will have enough live aircraft. The answer - on the first echelon of one airborne division is enough with a margin))) The fact that the second flight, etc. etc. - This is another conversation.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                This makes any landing on such a scale as you describe unrealistic.
                But not because of a lack of aircraft))
  6. Alex_59
    Alex_59 27 November 2018 08: 17
    +7
    The Navy does not lose anything - it still needs transport ships both to participate in wars of the Syrian type and to ensure daily activities. Buy them anyway. And having bought such a ship, the Navy also receives a large DKD / DVKD "part-time" and removes the need to build specialized ships of this class.
    This idea is not new and it is basically sound, but it has a number of pitfalls. To ensure the day-to-day operations of the fleet, such monsters as Anadyr are not needed at all - more modest ships are needed there. Partly because of this, Anadyr did not know where to put it and it quietly rusted against the wall. There was no work for him. And campaigns like the Syrian have the peculiarity of ending. That is, while such a campaign is ongoing, at the peak of traffic, the fleet needs a lot of transports and they plow without stopping, but as soon as the war is over they have no use. They must either be sold, or loaded with something in everyday peaceful life. Fleets of countries such as the United Kingdom prefer to lease civilian vessels for such campaigns, renting them back to their owners after the end of the war, and the United States has its own Sea Lift, which, thanks to the continuous activity of the US army around the world, is busy with work in peacetime. Our situation is closer to English than to American. The solution could be the creation of a commercial shipping company of the Navy, which in peacetime earns a penny, and in conditions of war, abandons all commerce and carries troops. But for this it is necessary to allow government agencies to conduct commercial activities, which is strictly forbidden today. And none of the private traders will buy a militarized ship - it is not competitive.

    Which means cheap compared to BDK
    Landing ships and so very cheap, it is not a destroyer or a frigate. The difference in price between the BDK and the KFOR is not many times, but both of them are many times cheaper than the frigate or corvette similar in displacement.

    With the defeat of such a ship, the losses are much less than in the case of a half times larger BDK
    This is a strange argument against the backdrop of the proposal to build such kids as Anadyr or UDC.

    Firstly, helicopters can also start from KFOR. It’s just that they don’t have and should not have a hangar
    BDK are usually included in the warrant forces located on the database in remote corners of the world, for example in the Gulf of Aden. Without a hangar there is no way, apparently in the case of the transfer of the amphibious forces to KFOR, the practice of supporting the naval group by the marines is canceled. KFOR will be hard there in all senses, and including UDC in a group for a pair of guardians to fight pirates is somehow ridiculous.

    One of the features of this ship is that with a draft of one meter, it can pass through inland waterways. BDK do not have such an opportunity.
    That is, until 1977, could the 775 project ships pass by inland waterways, and after 1977, did they lose this opportunity? ))))

    In general, the problem of KFOR was that they could not land an entire unit. KFOR did not contain a company, but was redundant for transporting a platoon. 6 armored personnel carriers got into it, but what kind of unit is armed with such an amount of armored personnel carriers is not clear. The concept of "half-company" is not used in our time, but in fact this is half the company. That is, to land one company with standard equipment, you need 2 KFOR. But the BDK in this regard is ideal - just for the same company with a small gain.

    In general - thanks to the author for interesting discussion material and constructive discussion in the comments! hi
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 November 2018 12: 05
      +6
      Quote: Alex_59
      But for this it is necessary to allow government agencies to conduct commercial activities, which is strictly forbidden today.

      He-he-he ... for the daughter of BTA - "224 LO" - for some reason this ban does not interfere.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 27 November 2018 12: 40
        +2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        He-he-he ... for the daughter of BTA - "224 LO" - for some reason this ban does not interfere.

        Yeah, I know that. Only there is such a murky topic - the 224th LO carries cargo "who needs cargo". And he is not trying to deal with the transshipment of parcels from Aliexpress from Hong Kong to Moscow. Perhaps, in addition to cargo "who needs cargo," they carry something else commercial, but I think it is clear why they made an exception. There must be some kind of legend to cover up this activity. )))
        1. bayard
          bayard 27 November 2018 22: 33
          0
          Donetsk.
          Do not shoot the Stirlitz office ...
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 28 November 2018 08: 03
            0
            Quote: bayard
            Donetsk.

            Not. There are the capitals of some Asian, African and South American states.
    2. timokhin-aa
      27 November 2018 14: 41
      +1
      To ensure the daily activities of the fleet, monsters such as “Anadyr” are not needed at all - there we need more modest vessels.


      The ship must be adjusted to the battalion. It will probably be similar to Anadyr, but the sizes will be smaller.

      They must either be sold, or something downloaded in everyday peaceful life.


      Well, then upload. The fleet carries a lot of things, just small flights. The garrisons have something to wind up remote. Slowly the old transport ships will be leached ...
      Well, that's all. Three ships somehow attached between exercises and military operations. Yes, and more attached.

      BDK are usually included in the warrant forces located on the database in remote corners of the world, for example in the Gulf of Aden. Without a hangar there is no way, apparently in the case of the transfer of the amphibious forces to KFOR, the practice of supporting the naval group by the marines is canceled. KFOR will be hard there in all senses, and including UDC in a group for a pair of guardians to fight pirates is somehow ridiculous.


      I am categorically opposed to the KUGI fighting the pirates. I believe that it is necessary to legalize PMCs and give this glade to them completely, leaving a couple of ships for special operations to free the hostages, which the mercenaries cannot pull. Something like Gren, but without a gate, with boats, a gun, a gym, a prison, a medblock, a pair of turntables.

      But this is not about the landing. Another topic at all.

      That is, until 1977, could the 775 project ships pass by inland waterways, and after 1977, did they lose this opportunity? ))))


      And what, under the Alexander Bridge (Syzran) BDK passed? He has been there for more than a hundred years already, and even Buyan-M is dismantled in order to get rid of him. And bypassing this bridge from the south to the Baltic Sea does not pass, well, and further along the White Sea Canal, too.

      But it is necessary that everything passes.

      In general, the KFOR problem was that they could not plant a whole unit. KFOR could not accommodate a company, but was redundant for the transportation of a platoon.


      Yes, but it turns out to be important when conducting a battle for landing on the water's edge. And we agreed that now we will have a different way, with the departure of the landing force on the water beyond the horizon, and the construction of battle formation afloat.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 27 November 2018 15: 22
        +1
        Well, they’ll download it. The fleet carries a lot of things, just small flights. The garrisons are something we have to catch off the remote.
        Does the fleet have many remote garrisons? For each border post, do you propose to drive the UDC (well, or not the UDC, but what do we get in the size of 10 kT displacement)? Well, I don’t know, I don’t know ... The captain of evidence suggests that it smacks of wastefulness.
        In general, the fleet and ground forces have no remote garrisons. There are only border guards, but they are supplied again by smaller ships, they have their own fleet. This is a PSKR type "Neon Antonov", project 1595 with barges of project 1785. A very modest vessel less than 100 meters long. They cover all the supply needs of the PV RF. And the fleet .... well, from Novorossiysk to Sevas, the diesel engine is probably transported by small sea tankers once a month. And then probably no longer.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        I am categorically opposed to the Kugi fighting the pirates.

        This was an example, about pirates, do not focus on pirates. My friend, for example, went to the base station in Middle-earth at the BDK Ave. 775, and there was not a fight against the pirates, but the development of the defense of the PMTO and the ships of his formation. This is only Middle-earth, and one would have to go to South China and Cuba, and much more. 775 does not have a helicopter, but in theory it is necessary, and in theory it fits there in size. And on KFOR does not fit. And KFOR there will also be dreary for seaworthiness, while the KFOR will not. Read how they dragged on a tie in such voyages MTSC and MRK. And this is still Soviet times.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And what, did the BDK pass under the Alexandrovsky Bridge (Syzran)?
        Let's make it pass. Let the mast fold like a Volgo-don. "Volgo-don" then goes back and forth there, it hurts to the eyes, but in terms of draft and dimensions, it is exactly the same as the BDK.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Yes, but it turns out to be important when fighting for a landing on a water edge.
        In no case. One vessel should contain one whole unit - this has long been an axiom. Crammed with cones of WWII and 50's. It concerns everything, and not just landing. Because when a mess and it’s not clear where anyone is going, this is the first step to losing command of the troops, and this is already a prerequisite for defeat. Therefore, they abandoned the BTR-50, which entered more than the 1th division of motorized rifles, from An-12, which entered two BMDs (2 / 3 platoons), and also abandoned the SDK for a reason - they have not built any ships with 1972 of the year! At least approximately, but they began to adjust the capacity of the ships for whole units, or for whole units with reinforcement. A reinforced company breaks into the BDK of 775 Ave., the first echelon of the battalion (without rear) is in 1171 and 1174. A platoon breaks into the MDK. And in KFOR it is not clear what fits.
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 November 2018 20: 46
          +1
          Now there is Syria, and this is just the beginning. Attaching such a ship "effectively" will never be a problem. The Syrian Express has already eaten so much tonnage, and there is no end to it.

          My friend, for example, went to the BS in the Mediterranean at the BDK pr. 775, and there was not a fight against pirates, but a working out of the defense anti-aircraft defense defense and the ships of his unit. This is only a Mediterranean, but it would be necessary to go to South China, and Cuba, and a lot more. 775 does not have a helicopter, but in theory it is necessary and he there in theory fit in dimensions.


          Well, there are already two helicopters on Grena. AND? For air assault this is not enough, for fire support, well, only if we have the entire brigade planted from the Grenov, and each has a pair of Ka-52K. And on a pair of ships at sea why are they? It turned out the way in ugly with a pair of turntables on such a small ship.

          Need to play expeditionary action? So dock ours, mini-Anadyr and take with you. There is a place for police officers, and a whole battalion for the people, and helicopters in abundance, etc.

          Or it is in the variant described in the article of the floating base for spetsn.

          One vessel should contain one whole unit - this is a long time axiom.


          I understand that this is more convenient. But during an over-the-horizon landing, everyone descends on the water at a safe distance from the enemy, is built into battle formation, a platoon for a platoon ...

          Well, or let's take a look at things. Suppose we 1 BMMP is strictly a branch. Three - a platoon. Nine + command vehicle - a company.
          Accordingly, we make a ship for nine BMMPs, with a dimension that allows it to go through GDP from White to the Black Sea. In the video, the ship is just about that.
          Let it not be called KFOR. But in any case, it will be less than 775. And easier.
          In long trips they have nothing to do, let big ships go on long trips.

          By the way, amers at DCD (LSD) do not have hangar hangars for them, and they live for nothing.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 28 November 2018 08: 31
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Now there is Syria, and this is only the beginning.
            To be honest, I would like it not to be "just the beginning")))
            Well, there are already two helicopters in Grena. AND? This is not enough for airborne assault, for fire support, well, only if we have the entire brigade being planted from the Grens, and each of them has a pair of Ka-52K
            If Gren acts alone and faces the local task of making a noise in some Somalia (see 1977 year, for example, how it might look like), then 2 helicopters land a reconnaissance platoon (or a group, what’s it like?) ashore while the ship comes ashore. After landing, the helicopters switch to the fire support of the landed. Then a company with equipment is landed ashore, well, etc.
            If we land a battalion, then we need 3 Grena and their 6 helicopters to land a company together, and while it dirty ships approach the shore, and 2 to land the remaining company and company of tanks - voila, the MP battalion on the shore. Well this is rude.
            This, in contrast to the "hypothetical" landing of a brigade with a UDC, is quite realistic, you can touch the Gren with your hands, it is already in the hardware, and if you wish, you can give a series of 12-15 ships, but there is no UDC and is not planned yet.
            So we’ll take our mini-Anadyr dock with us.
            It is on average repair for the next two years, you won’t take it))) The second one in the SF is serving in the Atlantic. On the BF - teachings, they will not give. Only a ship of this type is available in the Pacific Fleet. And you don’t have more ships of this type, because the entire series is limited to 4 cases. That's it, arrived))))
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            But with an over-the-horizon landing, everyone goes into the water at a safe distance from the enemy, is being built in battle formation, platoon to platoon ...
            In place of any sane commander (or admiral planning to order which ships), I would not ignore Murphy's laws. In other words - where it is possible to screw up, it will be screwed up. They will land in a complete mess at dangerously close distances, build crookedly, platoons will mess up, etc. Why exacerbate?
            By the way, amers at DCD (LSD) do not have hangar hangars for them, and they live for nothing.
            Freeboard height, dimensions of the vessel can you imagine? )))))
    3. PPD
      PPD 27 November 2018 18: 07
      +1
      Quote: Alex_59
      The solution could be the creation of a commercial shipping company of the Navy, which in peacetime earns a penny,

      At the beginning of the last century, these ideas were already trying to be implemented.
      Auxiliary cruisers Lena, Kherson, Moscow. Passengers had to carry in peacetime.
      As a result, they simply stood idle. There was no one to carry. But in the war it turned out to be of no use, in general.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 28 November 2018 11: 27
        +1
        Quote: PPD
        At the beginning of the last century, these ideas were already trying to be implemented.

        These ideas were successfully implemented in the planned economy of the USSR in the postwar period. But the fact is that they work only in the conditions of this very planned economy, because the owner of the MMF and Navy is the same - the state. And for the sake of saturating the MMF with mobilization courts, it is ready to subsidize some of the economic unprofitability of such vessels. See 450, 503 projects, etc.
        But how to compensate for the loss-making of such vessels to private companies in our time is not clear.
        1. PPD
          PPD 28 November 2018 11: 31
          0
          They do not compensate in any way. Now they are fleeing from a planned economy. Therefore no idea. Some expenses without income and a clear military application. Spend money on UDC-will not build anything else. Where to apply, except for open nonsense like Odessa and the Kuril Islands no ideas.
  7. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 27 November 2018 08: 21
    0
    As for the SDK and MDK, I agree that the future of the landing fleet, in any case, in the seas and the north, I don’t agree about the over-the-horizon landing, there are no such tasks, and modern means of destruction will get transport from over the horizon, and why such a hitch?
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 November 2018 10: 01
      0
      You are as usual. From over the horizon will reach, but at the coast of the BDK will not reach.
      1. max702
        max702 27 November 2018 12: 45
        +3
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        You are as usual. From over the horizon will reach, but at the coast of the BDK will not reach.

        Not quite correctly you formulated .. It will be correct so ..- They will reach both the coast and the horizon .. It makes no difference! And as you know, if there is no difference then why pay more?
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 November 2018 14: 33
          +3
          Well, first of all, the overwhelming majority of countries do not have anything that they can "reach over the horizon."

          Secondly, the practice of URO application shows that rockets are generally not very difficult to be diverted from the target by interference.

          Thirdly, the ship beyond the horizon is not one; it is under the protection of a warrant of ships with air defense missiles, which, by virtue of their value, will not go to the coast.

          Fourth, a ship near the coast is vulnerable to a much wider range of weapons than over the horizon.

          Fifth, stop writing nonsense.
          1. PPD
            PPD 27 November 2018 18: 29
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Fifth, stop writing nonsense.

            Reasonable offer.
            And where are you going to send the landing? To Washington? Or take Bristol first?
            About 2 years ago I was in Izborsk, at the same time I visited the Pskov-Pechersky monastery.
            The guide catch a glimpse of the border nearby.
            I ask where she drove waving for 200 meters of houses. I recall the NATO battalion there.
            Small, like a thousand 2 yeah, just. To Peter without traffic jams 5 and a half hours. It takes 1,5 hours to Pskov.
            Through Narva, closer, like. And nowhere the local Airborne Division if you do not need to land. Everything is nearby, Unfortunately am angry
            1. timokhin-aa
              27 November 2018 20: 48
              +2
              Well, then the army must be dissolved. Where to send it? And before the 2015, the air force could also be disbanded. Someone to bomb them, NATO, or what?

              Where do you all infect this game, huh?
              1. PPD
                PPD 27 November 2018 21: 13
                +3
                Your idea of ​​Manilovism reminds: "It would be nice to have a bridge, but merchants stood on it and traded in various goods." Well, it would be nice. Where are you going to land?
                First understanding of the needs, then building the necessary.
                Only in that order. Budget, you know, is it not rubber.
                Why did you need UDC?
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                he lands a battalion battle group with tanks and aircraft in one wave
                So name specifically where you gathered in December 18-March 19gg. to plant this group? Or just in case?
                Or are you considering the long term, just in case, so to speak.
                And how it fits with the needs and economic opportunities.
                Specify the shock capabilities of the same Pacific Fleet. It is advisable not on their shores, but where far away.
                Or will we send this conditional battalion separately? No pity? And where?
                1. timokhin-aa
                  27 November 2018 22: 19
                  -1
                  Dear, it’s good that you don’t make a career with such a head, otherwise we would live in a terrible world.

                  Where am I going to land the landing? Where the need arises, and immediately. Though near Odessa, at least under Tripoli, even with the liberation of Kaliningrad from the Polish invaders, at least to beat out the Japanese to the Kuril Islands.

                  War is a two-way street, some neighbor will put you in such a position that either you are on your knees or you are at war, and there is nothing for you to fight, you are not prepared, everyone is waiting for you to be shown the likely opponent.
                  1. PPD
                    PPD 28 November 2018 11: 23
                    +2
                    Dear, do not be rude!
                    If you are planning to land an airborne landing near Odessa, I don’t even know how to help you .. I inform you that there is a common border with Ukraine. A naval battle near Georgia, there the troops were transported, and if there really were 4 mrk there in the opponents, and not BOHR, they were all at the bottom. As you write, the 500 dead paratroopers raise morale. It will be easier to see in the Baltic.
                    And in the Pacific Fleet 4 BDK in the composition, unexpectedly, right? Doesn't it occur to you that 4 ships are harder to sink than 1?
                    The attack on Kaliningrad is the beginning of such a war that UDC, you can push it to hell. You also do not know how to read, from Narva to St. Petersburg 2,5 hours. Good luck in landing.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 27 November 2018 19: 03
        +1
        the difference is that the BDK does not hang out over the horizon for days and does not begin to roll out its ships and helicopters with flights to and fro, the BDK quickly approaches while the enemy has not yet recovered from the artillery bombardment, disembarks and leaves.
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 November 2018 20: 48
          0
          And the UDC doesn’t fit at all, it lands a battalion battle group with tanks and aircraft in one wave and that's it.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 27 November 2018 22: 31
            0
            it is in your dreams UDC does it in one wave, and existing udk do it for a long time
  8. Operator
    Operator 27 November 2018 10: 00
    +6
    NATO uses specialized landing ships (carrying self-propelled barges, SVPs, helicopters) only for window dressing.

    The main way to land a full-fledged amphibious assault in NATO is to deploy a floating pontoon pier at a right angle to the shore, to which ordinary civilian rollers then stick aft, from which armored vehicles, motor vehicles and everything else rolls out under their own power. On the shore with soil with low bearing capacity, rolled metal tracks unfold up to 4 meters wide.

    The bridgehead for pontoon piers is cleared with the help of missiles and bombs, then combat helicopters from helicopters land on helicopters. Helicopters are transported on the deck of a roller skater.

    Even easier (without the use of helicopters), the skaters participate in providing the expeditionary force in the territory of the Union State (such as the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in Syria) - the skaters are able to unload at any port on the quay wall.

    The maintenance of the rollers outside the period of the exercises, the landing operation or the delivery of goods for the expeditionary force does not cost the Defense Ministry a dime - at this time, the rollers transport commercial cargo.
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 November 2018 14: 43
      +3
      So only the second echelons and rears are planted when the front line was moved away from the coast behind the range of actual artillery fire and the MLRS, i.e. minimum 50 kilometers.

      Before that, everything happens quite differently, with blood, mountains of corpses in the style of Omaha Beach, etc.

      Then, yes, rocking with army units, but this is not the landing.
      1. Operator
        Operator 27 November 2018 14: 50
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        when the front line was pushed off the coast beyond the range of the actual artillery fire and MLRS, i.e. at least 50 kilometers.

        But what is the front line pushed aside - with nuclear weapons or marines? bully
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 November 2018 20: 51
          0
          Marines.
          1. Operator
            Operator 28 November 2018 16: 10
            0
            The corpses of the mines
  9. Eremin AB
    Eremin AB 27 November 2018 10: 16
    0
    Anadyr was built in Finland, now they will not build it for us for any carriages. we ourselves cannot build such a thing. 5 thousand vessels are hardly given to us, and here they are almost 20. They still need to be developed, and this is R&D, which means money. We have no engines for such a colossus. Well, do not make them atomic. Again, an over-the-horizon armored personnel carrier still needs to be developed, and this is R&D again. and our ship will be built in 15 years or more. plus to him, for any protection, you need at least a couple of frigates, but again they are not enough and will not be enough. So then, in principle, everything is the case. Just save on this will not work. you can't make an elephant out of a fly. if there is no money, then don’t twist the normal fleet.
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 November 2018 14: 47
      +1
      In general, Anadyr is given here as an example of what can be done by a ship, which will be transported during normal time, and during the war, the DVKD. You don’t have to repeat it, and 10 kilotons may be enough. I just can not do the comments in the comments. Anadyr is just an example.
  10. Eremin AB
    Eremin AB 27 November 2018 10: 19
    +4
    The main task now is for the MP and along the only it is the protection of the coast and you need to forget about the landings. without reliable protection, the landing ship turns into a mass grave. but as always, we have neither one nor the other nor the third for protection.
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 November 2018 15: 17
      +2
      Well, for example, the four frigates of the 22350 project and the three IPC 1124 will completely protect the convoy from everything except a massive air strike. If you add an air patrol from the 6-8 interceptors in the air, one DRLO aircraft, and an additional pair of any URO ships, then from a massive raid.

      On the guard against the average scall of the enemy and now there are forces, just not in all fleets.
      And for the landing - no.
  11. venik
    venik 27 November 2018 10: 38
    +2
    ".... There is a shipbuilding industry capable of doing just such technically not complicated things quite quickly ..."
    =========
    Oh god Well, nonsense !!! This is a ship with a displacement of a couple of tens of thousands tons - technically NOT COMPLEX things??? fool
    "And Ostap suffered ..." (Ilf and Petrov "12 chairs") request
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 November 2018 14: 49
      +1
      I see you have some sort of pain? And what is difficult in the case? In the ships of complexity with electronics, with the GEM, but to the hull, what problems? This is just a hull, and we do more, the same icebreakers.

      Well, alaverdi - fool
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 27 November 2018 19: 12
        +1
        the case is a rather complicated product, for example, it needs a dock or slipway, cranes are needed to feed the elements, procurement, accurate dimensions, high-quality seams,
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 November 2018 22: 19
          0
          This is all we do and quickly.
  12. Decimam
    Decimam 27 November 2018 12: 10
    +5
    I don’t want to offend the author, he obviously wrote the article with the best of intentions, although the idea of ​​the article is the most distant.
    Let's start with the statement "lighters are needed to transport heavy loads to unequipped shore "
    Alas, the lighter will not be able to unload anything on an unequipped shore. Moreover, he will not get to the coast, because the lighter is "a kind of barge, a non-self-propelled, unmanned, single-hold seagoing vessel with a watertight hatch cover, used for transporting goods using tugboats."
    Therefore, the "landing lighter carrier" will need to be attached to a flotilla of tugs, obviously "landing" ones, as well as a flotilla of "landing" floating cranes in order to unload lighters near the coast.
    But this is all the little things.
    To begin with, the landing force must be delivered to the landing site and given the opportunity to land the landing. . And given that the enemy will counteract this, then it, this compound, must be covered in air, on water and under water. Otherwise, they just drown him. Among the Americans, the main cover forces of the combined landing force are the AUG. AUG includes: an aircraft carrier, 8-10 escort and support ships, 1-2 submarines.
    If the author proposes a "budget" variant of landing ships, then it is necessary to look for a budget variant of cover ships.
    Move on. It is advisable to prepare the landing area in advance: to carry out the destruction of forces and means of airborne defense on the shore (positions of missile and artillery weapons, command posts, communications and other important facilities); establishing the location and destruction of minefields, identifying and destroying submarines, ships and boats located in the area of ​​operation; carry out reconnaissance in the landing area in order to clarify the location of important anti-airborne defense facilities, build defense, composition of PDO, district engineering equipment, identify the presence and location of reserves; provision of passages in anti-landing barriers in the water and on the shore, installation of navigation signs, isolation of the landing area; landing of demonstrative assault forces in order to distract the enemy from the main landing area; electronic warfare; collection of weather data.
    And for all this we need the appropriate strength.
    You can do without preliminary preparation and rely on surprise. But it is unlikely that a landing force unloaded from a lighter carrier and delivered to shore by towed lighters can count on it.
    Well, the supply. The reserves that the paratroopers took away on themselves, they will not take for a long time. They need to be provided with ammunition, food, medicine, fuel, to transport the wounded, etc. And this is again the ships, and those ships must be covered ...
    So I suggest that the author return the project for revision.
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 November 2018 14: 57
      0
      Let us better return your comments for revision.

      Point by point:

      1. We google a landing lighter, a whole branch of the development of such ships immediately falls from the British 1915 crust of the year to the mid-forties. Lighters are different.

      2.
      For Americans, the main covering forces of the combined assault force are AUG.


      Look how much AUG was in Normandy. How many AUG of the USSR used when disembarking on the Kerch Peninsula and in Novorossiysk. How many AUG USSR used in Norway and the Kuriles. Slowly return to reality.

      It is advisable to preliminarily prepare the landing area: carry out the destruction of forces and means of antiamphibious defense on the coast (positions of missile and artillery weapons, command and control posts, communications and other important objects); location and destruction of minefields, detection and destruction of submarines, ships and boats located in the area of ​​operation; to carry out reconnaissance in the landing area in order to clarify the location of important objects of antiamphibious defense, the construction of defense, the composition of the PDO, the engineering equipment of the area, the presence and the location of reserves; providing passages in anti-landing barriers in the water and on the shore, installing navigation signs and isolating the landing area; the landing of demonstrative landing forces in order to distract the enemy from the main landing area; electronic warfare; collection of weather data.
      And for all this we need the appropriate strength.


      Definitely needed. But after all this is done, it is necessary to SCCESS all the same, you know? And if, on small theaters (Ukraine, for example), all this can be done, relying on coastal aviation and the available forces, then to land the landing forces already now is NOT WHAT.

      No ships. Do you understand this? Generally no. Seven BDK and five boats, everything. And this is still the Black Sea Fleet lucky, on the Pacific Fleet of such ships THREE.

      Clear?
      1. Decimam
        Decimam 27 November 2018 15: 47
        +3
        No, it’s not clear.
        "We google amphibious lighter, a whole branch of development of such ships immediately drops out, from the British crust of 1915 to the mid-forties. Lighters are different."
        Google, not Google, but neither amphibious lighters, nor transport ships - you will not receive docks from Google. They need to be designed from scratch and built from scratch. Experience in the design and construction of neither one nor the other either. This is also from scratch.
        Further about Normandy. There was one aircraft carrier, but big Britain. Next google to find out what forces and means were involved to ensure the landing.
        For example, Soviet airborne operations should not be cited at all, since there is exclusively heroism and dedication, and we are kind of discussing the possibility of obtaining full-fledged landing-landing means and carrying out full-fledged landing operations of at least a tactical level.
        So before worrying that there is nothing to disembark from, you need to worry about how "there is nothing" to bring to the landing site and land there.
        By the way, all Soviet naval landings during the Great Patriotic War, landed from anything, but not from specialized ships. Therefore, you put them in vain as an example.
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 November 2018 20: 54
          +1
          Google, not Google, but neither amphibious lighters, nor transport ships - you will not receive docks from Google. They need to be designed from scratch and built from scratch. Experience in the design and construction of neither one nor the other either. This is also from scratch.


          Oh well. From scratch. So what? Everything is once the first time, and this too.

          Further about Normandy. There was one aircraft carrier, but big Britain. Next google to find out what forces and means were involved to ensure the landing.


          Yeah. And in Crimea 1941 - Caucasus. And in the Kuriles - Primorye.
          That is, you understand that it is possible without AUG, right?

          And what of the means we do not have? Minesweepers only if.

          So before worrying that there is nothing to disembark from, you need to worry about how "there is nothing" to bring to the landing site and land there.


          This question also requires a solution, but the article is not about him.
          1. Decimam
            Decimam 27 November 2018 21: 50
            0
            Alexander, I will not argue with you, I will only say that you cite the Red Army landing operations as an example, which, as I have already said, can serve only as an example of the heroism of the soldiers, but not an example of how to conduct landings. And Moscow was defended in 1941 by militias with three rulers and bottles. But this is not an example of how to fight.
            Oh, by the way, for the sake of interest, take the payroll of the Russian Navy and take away from it the ships built by the USSR. And take an interest in how many merchant ships of comparable displacement and size you have built shipyards over the past 25 years.
            1. timokhin-aa
              27 November 2018 22: 09
              +1
              These operations are an example of the fact that we may need to conduct such operations, and suddenly.

              And an example of the fact that the aviation forces located on the coast may well ensure the conduct of amphibious operations at our "home" theater of operations.

              It is now exactly the same, if that.
    2. kig
      kig 28 November 2018 04: 11
      +2
      Quote: Decimam
      Alas, a lighter will not be able to unload anything on an unequipped shore.

      That's right. The lighters carried by A. Kosygin had a draft of almost 3 meters.
  13. ccsr
    ccsr 27 November 2018 13: 26
    0
    Author:
    Alexander Timokhin
    Historical experience tells us that, firstly, in repelling aggression against our country, the ability to conduct landing operations is critically important,

    This is a strong exaggeration for the First World War, and for the Great Patriotic War, and for the military history of our country. And the appearance of nuclear weapons and intercontinental means of their delivery put an end to any amphibious landing operations, while planning to repel aggression from our probable enemy.
    Go down to the ground - we live in another world where launching cruise missiles from small tonnage ships of the Navy is able to decide the outcome of the war with any non-nuclear country, but other forces and means will be used against the United States where there is no room for landing ships.
    1. Operator
      Operator 27 November 2018 13: 39
      0
      If the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation for some reason need to land an amphibious assault in Alaska, then it will be landed in accordance with our naval tradition right in the port of Anchorage after the arrival of two 100-kt BRRS warheads (the only novation) from Chukotka / Kamchatka: one - to the ground bridgehead ( to eliminate airborne defense), the other - to the port water area (for clearance) bully
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 27 November 2018 20: 06
        0
        Quote: Operator
        If the RF Armed Forces for some reason needs to land an amphibious assault in Alaska,

        We would have to master our Siberia, but there aren’t enough people ...
        Haha, Alaska, if our people leave the Far East?
        So no naval landing in the foreseeable future is not expected, which means there is nothing to build landing ships.
        1. Operator
          Operator 28 November 2018 16: 12
          0
          And what I mean: "if ... for some reason" laughing
    2. timokhin-aa
      27 November 2018 14: 58
      +1
      The launch of cruise missiles even with LIH can not solve anything, so kill a hundred bogeyles, that's all.
      1. max702
        max702 27 November 2018 19: 46
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The launch of cruise missiles even with LIH can not solve anything, so kill a hundred bogeyles, that's all.

        Naturally 2/3 of the territory of Syria was conquered exclusively by naval and airborne assault forces .. Yeah .. The launch of cruise missiles was primarily not for the Barmels, but for their headquarters in Washington and, London, and Tel Aviv ..
        rs: Interestingly, was there at least one helicopter landing in this company?
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 November 2018 22: 12
          0
          I mean, who and why might need VKS in 2014? NATO is something to bomb? Your statement about the fact that the landing party is as logical as it would have been a logical call to disband the video conferencing system at the beginning of 2014.

          Who was they to bomb?

          Just a demonstration of the flawedness of your logic in a slightly different example. Your statements - they are just as absurd, it is a pity that you do not understand this.
      2. ccsr
        ccsr 27 November 2018 20: 09
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Cruise missile launch

        This was a demonstration of our ability to conduct combat operations in a non-contact manner, which is very important for the preservation of our small army. Moreover, it was a new technological level of weapons, which we will develop and focus on it in the 21st century.
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 November 2018 22: 13
          0
          This was the US level 1983 of the year.
          And one American destroyer by weight salvo.

          War missiles do not win.
          1. max702
            max702 27 November 2018 22: 51
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            This was the US level 1983 of the year.
            And one American destroyer by weight salvo.

            War missiles do not win.

            You are not from Ukraine? And then the logic is like that ..
            Regarding the level of 1983 .. It was initially broadcast that this action (launch of cruise missiles) was only for the light elves, but it turned out that Mordor was even very hoo .. And by number it is modest and not expensive, we know the whole world we do not plunder, and we fight for our money, there was no point in hundreds of rockets nailing lovers, they showed that we can, and enough .. I hope you understand perfectly well that in the case of the USA, not all kinds of landings will be used, but something more significant? And yet the question is what are these Pribluds of the past war?
            pc: But still, were there any landings in Syria, or did the airborne forces, MTR, plus staff work lead to success?
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 28 November 2018 10: 18
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            War missiles do not win.

            It is with missiles that they win the war — the world’s strategic nuclear war, and the local ones — the INF with conventional explosives. Everything else is lyrics on military topics.
  14. Wened
    Wened 27 November 2018 14: 13
    +2
    Happy Marines!
  15. Wened
    Wened 27 November 2018 14: 37
    -2
    - There is a suitable basic platform for creating a helicopter landing - Ka-32. Several special amphibious Ka-29 also available.


    First of all, you need those tasks for those old BDK, TDK, the design of which will allow you to remake the entire upper deck, namely to remove everything that will interfere with the creation of helipads for the Ka-32.

    Well, Duc, as he did with his minesweeper on which Jacques Cousteau went through the whole war.


    - There are the necessary diesel engines.
    - There are all necessary radio and electronic weapons for ships, as well as weapons for them.
    - There is a shipbuilder capable of doing just such technically complicated things quite quickly.



    Easy hydrofoil equipment is required for BMP-1 with a tower from BTR-82 of which there are 6 units in storage, and, accordingly, Anadyr-type vessels with a WIDE APPAREL through which the BMP-000 (BTR1) with pontoons on hydrofoils can exit.

    The project itself was created for T-55 tanks weighing 36 tons, because of the mass it didn’t work, BMP-1 with a 30 mm gun has a weight of 13 tons, theoretically, the idea of ​​Soviet engineers on such a mass should work.
    And most importantly, the landing on such a platform can be brought up to 15-20 people.
    Since the BMP-1 is not a tank, the use of an expensive duralumin is not advisable, ordinary steel with special foam inside is sufficient, which will prevent filling with water during bullet breakdowns.

    So we get a very cheap over-the-horizon landing system.

    All calculations on the hydrodynamics of the hydrofoils of this complex in the military-industrial complex are available.
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 November 2018 15: 13
      +2
      very expensive, and with the usual ship so do not get out (but necessary)
      1. Wened
        Wened 27 November 2018 17: 58
        +1
        This is so vainly what was in memory.
        But in no case can you go by blindly copying the mattress arsenal.
        Only in my own way. As a sample of T-34 Koshkin hi
      2. Wened
        Wened 27 November 2018 19: 28
        0
        very expensive, and with the usual ship so do not get out (but necessary)


        But this high cost for the Marines is 100% justified.
        Only for smaller sizes.


        Since the best reservation when approaching the shore is 50-20 meters of water. laughing

        Soviet scientists in the 1950s and 60s planned to build a cargo submarine for the Northern Sea Route. Historians found documents proving this in the Central State Archive of Scientific and Technical Documentation of St. Petersburg (TsGANTD SPb). What were the submarines supposed to be and why this project was discontinued, said Mikhail Savinov, a researcher at the Arctic Museum and Exhibition Center.

        The vessel, intended for the carriage of goods under the ice, had to develop an "under-ice speed of at least 20 knots", while having a cruising range in the under-ice position of at least 3000-4000 miles. Scientists from the Arctic Institute (ANII), other scientific institutes and Glavsevmorput, an interdepartmental structure that was in charge of work in the Arctic from 1932 to 1964, actively participated in the discussion of the project.

        "Of greatest interest is underwater and ice navigation, where this type of transport can be the most promising in solving the problem of regular transportation of national economic goods in the Arctic basin", - the interlocutor quotes the letter from acting. Director of the ANII P.A. Gordienko to the director of TsNII-45 V.I. Pershin. Among the advantages of the new type of vessel, the author of the letter called "the independence of the submarine's navigation from the state of the sea and weather, the absence of wave drag at a sufficient depth."


        In this way.
        1. High-speed sea transport of weapons "Anadyr".
        2. A series of submarines, which, like Anadyr, will be suitable on the SevMorPuti. Since the roads themselves are not justified, but submarines are part of the marine corps, they will even pay for themselves as dual-purpose submarines.
      3. Wened
        Wened 27 November 2018 19: 33
        +1
        In the United States, in the period from 1942 to 1970, six projects were developed: transport, including one submarine tanker, transport and landing - these were minelayers, and amphibious transport submarines, including nuclear ones. "All of them were brought to the level of serial construction. Some of them underwent modernization until 1993 and are still in service. These are nuclear submarines SSN-678, SSN-684, SSN-686," Valery Bobrus noted.
  16. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 27 November 2018 19: 06
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Fifth, stop writing nonsense.
    that’s exactly where you found the order you are writing about, and why Russia should offend the little ones who are not able to drown the ship beyond the horizon, for such boats like rooks or border ships like DON are enough
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 November 2018 20: 56
      +3
      Catapult for caps. To shower with hats. Tomorrow Ukraine will block transit to Transnistria, and it will be necessary to beat the corridor from its Black Sea coast to the border.

      Here at first you personally would go there on the Rook and send. Then, when you pay a tax on stupidity (and this will be fair), other people will solve this problem differently.
      I just want them to be easier, that's all.
      1. Consultant
        Consultant 27 November 2018 21: 01
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Tomorrow Ukraine will block transit to Transnistria

        And what prevented her from doing this the day before yesterday? Didn’t you just guess? laughing
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 November 2018 22: 21
          0
          They have repeatedly hinted.

          In response to this, they were also hinted at various bad options.

          But the ball is on their side, the curators will be told to do, and they will, that's all.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 27 November 2018 22: 36
            +1
            even if they do, I think that ours will not land a battalion of marines, rather they will turn off the gas or Kiev will be freed from the Nazis, or they will be thrown into the Transnistrian Airborne. You generally imagine the combat capabilities of the battalion far from the rear .... it’s more likely that the partisan detachment will succeed
          2. Consultant
            Consultant 27 November 2018 22: 36
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            the curators will say do, and they will do ...

            ... or they won’t do it, as they didn’t do it before ...

            You have no arguments, dear. You are here to one, conventionally, "landing" all the cunning and diversity of real life, I see, trying to reduce. It's ... unscientific request
          3. Wened
            Wened 29 November 2018 00: 25
            0
            Alexander question.

            On the basis of the Ka-32, you can create an amphibian type Mi-14?




            In my opinion, the Ka-32 amphibian is an ideal lifeguard.
            For the Ministry of Emergencies, as the Be-200 will be able to collect overboard water to extinguish fires of varying complexity.

            When extinguishing fires on military vessels in the open sea, during hostilities, well, in peacetime, it will theoretically be in demand.

            Especially valuable for swimmers, certainly not superfluous.
  17. Wened
    Wened 27 November 2018 19: 12
    +1
    Thus, having invested money in high-speed transport of a similar design, the Navy does not lose anything - it still needs transport vessels both to participate in Syrian-type wars and to ensure its daily activities. They still buy. Having bought such a ship, the Navy also receives a large DKD / DVKD "in combination" and removes the need to build specialized ships of this class. In the "Syrian express" similar transport would be most useful that it is now used. And in the landing operation, it is much more efficient than the notorious Mistral (if there are on board the appropriate command and control systems and a medical unit with personnel).


    Indeed, on several ships from the series of 7-10 units, judging by the entire upper deck, you can expand the superstructures without losing stability, so that more helicopters fit, the rest as they are. A good idea.
  18. serg2108
    serg2108 28 November 2018 00: 18
    +1
    Anadyr liked a good ship - for the Navy the MOST then, it’s a pity that they pissed off .... well, at least the admiral was convicted ... am
  19. ccsr
    ccsr 28 November 2018 10: 24
    0
    Quote: kig
    There was such a shipyard named the Gulf.

    He is there now, works, but not like in the days of the USSR.
  20. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 28 November 2018 13: 25
    0
    And where can I get all this money? And who will give? The Northern Sea Route is nuclear. Not all straits can pass. And the infrastructure for such ships. It is certainly good, but first you need to get money, build moorings, driveways. Or will the ship be on the raid? A question with the maintenance of these giants. Where? forever plants are free.
  21. Radikal
    Radikal 30 November 2018 02: 11
    0
    I just did not see in the article information about where "Anadyr" went .... winked
  22. exo
    exo 30 November 2018 18: 54
    0
    I really do not want to disappoint the author. But:
    -normal shipbuilding (set of technical equipment of plants +qualified frames in Russia, no.
    -On the issue and the quality of domestic ship diesels and gearboxes to them, it is written in the press, a lot. You can assume that they are not there either.
    So, today, we have very few chances to strengthen the landing fleet with large and medium tonnage ships.
    1. Newone
      Newone 24 December 2018 14: 51
      0
      Shipbuilding in the country is in decline, because there are NO ORDERS. There will be orders - there will be skilled workers and technical equipment.
      As for the article: Wrong premises - wrong conclusions. Although there is a healthy grain. The military transport fleet needs to be restored. But "over-the-horizon" landing in the era of drones, available even to small gangs, is nonsense, sorry.
  23. 072
    072 24 December 2018 15: 29
    0
    Or maybe you should take a closer look at the "partners". Holland has a supply ship "Karel Dorman", In the stern of the ship there are two ramps, one intended for loading and unloading equipment on the berth. The second for loading equipment on landing boats. Has a hangar for 2 Chinooks or 6 NH90 .. The ship has cargo decks with an area of ​​1730 sq. M for accommodation of military and transport equipment (including Leopard 2A6 tanks), as well as significant volumes for the carriage of goods and fuel - 7700 cubic meters of liquid fuel, 1000 cubic meters of aviation fuel, 450 tons of water and 400 tons of ammunition and other cargo,