Military Review

Car carrier: an ideal transport ship for war

189
Car carrier: an ideal transport ship for war
Sunrise Ace in all its splendor


Outwardly, this ship looks strange: a huge box with screws and a rudder. Its silhouette is most reminiscent of a cruise ship, but with absolutely no portholes - a blank side. At first glance, the ship causes a slight rush and even some rejection, yet we are used to a certain marine aesthetics. But this is only until we have looked inside.

Inside the ship is able to cause delight in any army rear. And there is something: 11 cargo decks and a “garage” - a superstructure on the upper deck, 54,8 thousand square meters. meters of deck area, the capacity of 5196 cars. Is this not a dream for military shipping? Tonnage - 60,9 thousand tons, maximum deadweight - 20,4 thousand tons. Length - 200 meters, midship width - 32,2 meters, midship height 34,5 meters, draft - 9,7 meters. From the waterline to the upper decks, the height is almost like that of a 9-story building. And this box can develop a stroke of up to 20 knots.

This article will focus on car carriers: Sunrise Ace and Carnation Ace. Both are built at Shin Kurushima Dockyard Co., a Japanese shipyard. Ltd and the same type.


Carnation ace

I pay so much attention to the details of the construction of these vessels because they delight me and delight in how much they can give for transoceanic shipping of troops, equipment and supplies. If you are going to seriously fight overseas, you cannot do without such ships. The problem of transporting troops and goods across the ocean is a very serious problem, not without reason Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, in response to the harassment of army generals, as soon as possible to start a war against the United States, answered briefly and succinctly: “Will you cross the bottom of the Pacific Ocean?” Therefore, do not underestimate this task. I would even say that without such transport vessels the rest of the navy, with all its aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, corvettes, submarines, is essentially useless, since the Navy itself is not able to achieve complete victory on the enemy’s shore and the crushing of an enemy located overseas. If we ever get ripe to challenge the United States, to smash through the Capitol Hill with pickaxes and write something indecent on the ruins of the White House, then this type of transport ship will win this victory.

Transport ship - the root of victory


The experience of many wars shows that it is not so difficult to seize a bridgehead or port, to land troops. The most serious problems begin later, when a large group of troops landed on the coastal bridgehead, which was drawn into fierce battles. Battles for coastal bridgeheads are usually stubborn and fierce; the enemy understands perfectly well the importance of owning a coast and, all the more, a port, is doing everything possible to drop troops in the sea. Procurement becomes the key to the whole operation; fighting troops must receive everything in full and without delay, and this supply falls primarily on transport ships.

Procurement is the key to operational-tactical operations to capture, hold and expand a suitable coastal bridgehead. But then, when the enemy was driven away from the coast and an offensive inland develops, supply is still the key to victory, since the group of forces must be supplied and equipped. For this, we also need vessels, large, spacious, which can carry a lot of various cargo in one voyage.

The requirements for such vessels are as follows: large capacity, the ability to carry a wide variety of cargoes, from heavy armored vehicles to personnel, speed, seaworthiness and maneuverability, as well as the ability to quickly load and quickly unload. The last very important requirement: time plays a role, and the speed of unloading reduces the likelihood that the enemy will be able to cover the ship with cargo aviation or missile strike in port.

In my opinion, a car carrier of the type under consideration meets these requirements to the greatest extent compared to other types of sea vessels, in particular dry cargo vessels and container ships. But first things first.

Vessel capacity


So, as already mentioned, the Sunrise Ace car carrier has 11 cargo decks, numbered from top to bottom. The main deck is the 7th, onto which cars enter through the stern and side ramps. The communication between the decks is carried out using internal lifting ramps leading from one deck to another. After loading, they rise. The 4th and 6th decks can be moved up and down in separate sections to increase the height of the 7th and 5th decks if necessary.



Deck 7 is the main deck for three reasons. Firstly, through it, cars enter the ship from the pier and from there are placed on all other decks. Secondly, it is on this deck that heavy equipment can be placed up to 100 tons in weight. Thirdly, the strength of this deck is determined by the fact that it provides a waterproof volume of the vessel, which ensures its unsinkability. The inner ramp from the 7th to the 8th deck also closes like a waterproof hatch. Essentially, the hull is a structure from the keel to the 7th deck, and everything above it is a solid superstructure. Unusual architecture, nothing to say.

For military traffic, the ship’s ability to transport cars is of little interest, although there will also be such needs, since any large army will obviously be highly motorized in the future. More interesting is the ability to transport heavy equipment. From a typical loading plan, you can find out that a truck can take on board either 40 units of cranes 80 tons each, or 32 units of bulldozers 100 tons each, or 24 units of trucks of 80 tons each, or 41 units of trucks of 50 tons each. Heavy equipment is located on the 7th deck. If you take dump trucks of 20 tons each, then on the 7th deck you can place 90 units and on the 5th deck 82 units, a total of 172 cars.

Thus, a car carrier can transport Tanks and other armored vehicles, tactical missile systems, anti-aircraft missile systems, engineering and pontoon equipment.

The remaining decks can be adapted to accommodate other goods in pallets, plastic containers, crates, barrels; a kind of floating warehouse that can be easily loaded and unloaded using forklifts. The 1st and 2nd decks can be set aside for personnel, which are equipped with berths and temporary bathrooms.

How much will fit?


On such a vessel, it is advisable to transport any part entirely, with all units, equipment and supplies, which can immediately turn around and engage in battle. However, preliminary estimates showed that of all the units that are in the Russian army, only the air assault brigade fits into the car carrier entirely.

It has 2700 personnel, 13 T-72, 33 BMD, 46 BMP-2, 10 BTR-82A, 18 BTR-D, 6 2S9, 8 ZSU-23 "Shilka" and 616 vehicles. Heavy armored vehicles - 13 units (for 41 pieces), light armored vehicles - 121 units (for 172 pieces). It fits perfectly, and even with additional ammunition, food and fuel.

Tank brigades no longer fit on the ship due to the large amount of heavy equipment. For example, in the tank brigade there are 94 tanks, 37 BPM-2, 6 armored personnel carriers, 18 Msta-S and other equipment. There are too many tanks; it will take three flights to transport them, with the need to divide the brigade in parts. The motorized rifle brigade has 31 tanks and 268 armored personnel carriers, which is also a lot; there are not enough cargo spaces for light armored vehicles. In general, this is not surprising, since our tank and motorized rifle brigades were created as land brigades and they never had the task of completely diving into a sea vessel.

Hence the conclusion: if you fight overseas, you will have to reform the tank and motorized rifle brigades so that they correspond to the capabilities of the transport vessel. In fact, to create parts of overseas operations, you need to do this: there is a fleet of transport ships of the type in question, there is their loading plan, and based on this plan, the staff of the brigade is developed.

Sharing is a bad decision. You never know what can happen during transportation and unloading, and there is nothing worse when the brigade enters the battle in parts, when the tanks are in place, and the motorized rifle and headquarters are not known where.

Three unloading options


The main advantage of a car carrier over other types of bulk carriers is two points. Firstly, unloading cranes are not required. There may not be cranes in the captured port if the enemy prudently knocked them out and left you with your nose. Cranes installed on the ship itself partially solve this problem, but unloading, especially of heavy equipment, takes a long and painful, piece by piece. The enemy can send a tactical missile to help unload, since the coordinates of the berths in the port left by him are well known to him. Equipment leaves the car carrier on its own, which greatly speeds up unloading. Secondly, all cargo in small containers can still be loaded on board in advance in vehicles, which eliminates the need to transship this cargo from a vessel into cars on a berth. Say the ammunition leaves the truck together with the trucks under its own power. This is very beneficial, since the brigade deployed by the car carrier is immediately loaded with ammunition, fuel and food on wheels and is thus ready for battle as soon as it leaves the pier.

The second variant of unloading is when the car carrier operates as a floating warehouse full of a wide variety of cargo. On board are two automotive units of 80 trucks each (occupy the 7th and 5th decks). Before entering the port, trucks on the 7th deck are loaded and leave the ship immediately after mooring. The car carrier immediately withdraws and goes into the sea, so as not to be an immovable target, at this time the trucks from the 5th deck are transferred to the 7th, loaded and also leave as soon as the ship is moored. After the loaded cars leave, empty cars call on the ship, the ship again goes to sea, loads empty cars and enters the port. And so on until all the cargo is on the shore, and not dumped into the mountains at the port, but delivered to its destination. Then the ship picks up both units and leaves for the next batch of cargo. It is advisable to go to sea with each cycle of loading cars on board in order not to turn the vessel into a fixed target and not to occupy a berth.



A third variant of unloading the vessel is also possible, when the port has just been captured, it is unsafe to enter it, but troops on the shore require supplies. Cargo from the ship can be removed by helicopters. This will require some refinement. At the top of the “garage” a technological opening is cut out, into which a crane is placed and fixed. The deck under the crane is suitably reinforced. In the "garage" next to the crane, consignments are formed in accordance with the carrying capacity of the external suspension of the helicopter and are folded into the cargo net. The crane lifts this net with the load to the top of the “garage”. The helicopter hangs, releases slings, hooks the net and lifts it from the ship. Mi-8 can lift up to 5 tons on external sling, Mi-26 - up to 20 tons.

In principle, it is possible to convert part of the top of the “garage” to the shipyards into a full-fledged helipad, which allows the helicopter to land and load cargo into its cabin. In this case, the car carrier becomes partly a landing ship and can operate together with the UDC, helicopter carriers, destroyers and corvettes, taking part in the landing operation itself. As soon as the marines more or less seized and secured the port, the car carrier landed an entire airborne assault brigade in it, the appearance of which would greatly change the operational situation. The whole brigade with all the equipment and supplies is a very weighty argument in any landing operation.

How to sink?


Alas, so far we have no such wonderful vessels, and it is not known when they will be. The probable adversary has such vessels and there is no particular doubt that they will be used in the event of war for transport operations. Hence the task: how to sink?

Car carrier is quite vulnerable to sea arms. The hull below the 7th deck is single-breasted, about 25 mm thick; superstructure - thickness 8-10 mm. For machine-gun fire (except for the bridge), the ship is slightly vulnerable. Large-caliber machine guns and 20-mm or 40-mm guns are better, but it is doubtful that they would cause significant damage to the ship.

Therefore, the main argument against him is torpedoes. But how many do they need? The vessel has an interesting feature: it is more vulnerable with partial load than with full load. For example, flooding when one, two, or even three compartments of a waterproof hull is fully loaded will only lead to a more or less noticeable roll that does not threaten the ship. With partial loading, even one compartment may be enough to cause the ship to tip over and sink.

A review of the tables from the Damage Control Manual, used to quickly assess the situation, shows that the flooding of compartments located along the midship of the vessel is the most dangerous for him; with partial loading, this leads to the death of the vessel or to a strong roll. Therefore, comrade submariners, if you attack such a ship, shoot in the midsection. At least three hits - and it will go to the bottom. In wartime, ship loading will in most cases be partial. It is better to use torpedoes with a contact fuse when deepening about 2-3 meters; in this case, the hole will be on the lower automobile decks.

Anti-ship missiles. You can try to destroy the bridge, break through the board on the upper decks to cause a fire or explosion of the cargo placed on them. Not a very effective solution, it will take 4-5 missiles to inflict damage on the vessel.

Artillery. If your ship has a gun of 76 mm caliber and higher and you have the opportunity to fire a ship, then you can do something. It is best to shoot at ramps, stern and airborne. With damaged or broken ramps, the vessel is almost useless, cannot load and unload, and will require factory repairs. You can also shoot aboard the upper decks (approximately in the middle of the freeboard height) in order to cause a fire or explosion. Fire for such a ship is very dangerous. If it was loaded with ammunition and explosives, then consider yourself lucky.

With a cash naval weapon, such a transport vessel can either be drowned or permanently incapacitated. Everything else depends on luck and cheek.

There are still moments connected with vessels of this type, for example, questions of its construction in sufficient quantity, its modifications for military needs or various subtleties of cargo transportation on it. On this we, perhaps, will stop.
Author:
189 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. K298rtm
    K298rtm 18 May 2020 18: 11 New
    +2
    It is to attack such "transports" that "thick" torpedoes are needed. By the way, it will fall not in the midship area, but in the area of ​​the screws. Drowning will not drown, but most likely it will lose the move. For my taste, tactical nuclear weapons are better (in the center of the order).
    1. tanki-tanki
      tanki-tanki 18 May 2020 18: 16 New
      +1
      Why immediately nuclear weapons? stop
      1. Insurgent
        Insurgent 18 May 2020 19: 08 New
        15
        Quote: tanki-tanki
        Why immediately nuclear weapons?

        That is, if you can simply set fire to the eyeballs of fuel and ammunition loaded with equipment transported by the vessel.
        And for this, an anti-aircraft missile is enough.

        And the khan brigade ...

        only an air assault brigade breaks into a car carrier.
        It has 2700 personnel, 13 T-72, 33 BMD, 46 BMP-2, 10 BTR-82A, 18 BTR-D, 6 2S9, 8 ZSU-23 "Shilka" and 616 vehicles. Heavy armored vehicles - 13 units (for 41 pieces), light armored vehicles - 121 units (for 172 pieces). It fits perfectly, and even with additional ammunition, food and fuel.
        1. Brylevsky
          Brylevsky 18 May 2020 20: 01 New
          21
          Man, you don’t know how powerful the fire extinguishing system is on such ships. Almost like on a tanker ... In the event of a serious fire, all the decks there are simply flooded with high-frequency air-mechanical foam, which, stupidly, covers burning equipment with your head ... And this is not the only means of extinguishing the fire there. About 400 pcs of powder fire extinguishers; about 200 pieces of fire hoses, portable foam sets ... It is very difficult to burn such a ship (in cargo), but it is possible; and there’s nothing to burn in the ballast ...
          1. Insurgent
            Insurgent 18 May 2020 20: 22 New
            +4
            Quote: Brylevsky
            Man, you don’t know how powerful the fire extinguishing system is on such ships. Almost like a tanker ...

            You, in turn, missed the point that it would not just burn, but explode and detonate, turning cargo decks into extremely dangerous impassable wilds, in which -
            about 200 pcs of fire hoses, portable foam sets
            become simply unsuitable ...
            Look on the net for information about warships that burned out like a matchbox, on which the BLC (the battle for the survivability of the ship) was and is the basis for survival.

            But nonetheless...
            1. sabakina
              sabakina 18 May 2020 21: 05 New
              0
              Insurgent hi ferry "Estonia" sank. soldier
              1. zadorin1974
                zadorin1974 19 May 2020 08: 36 New
                +6
                Dobrogo Vyacheslav. There are many questions about "Estonia" to this day. Not a correct example - the water went through the front ramp (on the given steamer it is not) and, as it happened, to this day there are no intelligible answers.
          2. sabakina
            sabakina 18 May 2020 21: 03 New
            -2
            Quote: Brylevsky
            Man, you don’t know how powerful the fire extinguishing system is on such ships. Almost like a tanker ...

            As a matter of fact, you've never watched the movie "Troubled Sunday". And I think the film consultants were no more stupid than you.
            1. Brylevsky
              Brylevsky 18 May 2020 21: 30 New
              +9
              Looked. In the distant Soviet childhood. As far as I remember, the tanker was burning there? But is it nothing that a tanker and a car carrier are completely different design types of ships and does this specificity affect the nature of the fire?
              Maybe they were not dumber. So, after all, I am not building a “wise guy” from myself. I just worked on both of these ships (named in the article), and in their arrangement, not at all much, but I understand. They will not burn like the ship burned in that movie.
              1. sgrabik
                sgrabik 19 May 2020 10: 47 New
                0
                If the vessel is to be used for the transportation of military cargo, it must be borne in mind that, in addition to automobiles and military equipment, it will most likely carry very large quantities of fuel and lubricants and ammunition, which in turn are a very serious danger in the defeat of this vessel, because this will inevitably lead not only to instant large-scale ignition, but also to numerous powerful explosions, which will inevitably lead to damage to various equipment of the vessel and even deformation of its bulkheads and hull, from here and the conclusion is that such ships are defenseless and are excellent floating targets.
                1. Brylevsky
                  Brylevsky 19 May 2020 10: 57 New
                  +5
                  such vessels are defenseless and are excellent floating targets.

                  Please read my comments on this article. Yes, this ship is unarmed and needs combat protection, which will, including including protect it from combat damage. No one will set him the task of securing self-defense. The main idea of ​​the article is that in the event of the outbreak of war, ships of this type can be an important tool in ensuring landing operations and military logistics.
            2. Valter1364
              Valter1364 18 May 2020 22: 51 New
              +8
              "Troubled Sunday" was filmed in Novorossiysk. I don’t remember the exact year, but during my studies at NVIMU. Rather in 1983. The guys from our company were involved in the detachment on the pier in the crowd. The smallest were selected so as not to obstruct the main character, because she was one meter tall with a cap. The shooting was done more on the tanker mockup. It was 6-8 meters and kept afloat with the help of empty 200-liter barrels. There were either no consultants at all, or everyone was drunk. From a professional perspective, the film is technically absurd. I will not penetrate the subtleties, but the sailors will understand me. And the firemen, looking at the plot, are also twisting at their temples.
          3. tech3030
            tech3030 19 May 2020 15: 33 New
            0
            At the end of December 2018, a major fire occurred on board the 198-meter Japanese ship Sincerity Ace, carrying three and a half thousand new Nissan cars.
            1. Brylevsky
              Brylevsky 19 May 2020 15: 40 New
              +1
              Yes, I heard from the bottom of my ear about this incident ... Extinguished?
              1. tech3030
                tech3030 19 May 2020 15: 57 New
                0
                About the consequences that I could not find.
                1. Brylevsky
                  Brylevsky 19 May 2020 16: 12 New
                  +3
                  They had to put out, there was everything for that. The only thing, it is not clear why the development of events was allowed according to the worst of the scenarios ... I have one idea in this regard, but this is only my guess. Perhaps in a stressful situation, the crew closed ventilation flaps, and when the foam generators began to produce foam, and it went into the hold, the air became nowhere go out, and he began to interfere with normal foaming. This is a human factor, unfortunately ... It's just that most fires always happen in the engine room, and it is protected by a carbon dioxide system, which requires exactly closed clap, because the increased pressure of the air does not interfere with the evaporation of carbon dioxide. Apparently, the “template” worked for the men ... But I repeat, these are just my assumptions based on my experience.
                  1. frog
                    frog 19 May 2020 20: 35 New
                    +2
                    the ship arrived at Sibushi Bay in southeastern Kyushu, Japan, on the morning of January 30, in tow of the rescue tugboat KOYO MARU (IMO 9162148).

                    http://images.vfl.ru/ii/1589909687/ee0ab7cc/30559284.jpg
                    Alas, I did not find anything whipped up ....
                    1. wehr
                      19 May 2020 21: 32 New
                      +1


                      Wow, how is it! The board burned out from the 7th deck to the "garage".
                      Here it is, the likely effect of the entry of anti-ship missiles into a loaded ship.
                      1. frog
                        frog 19 May 2020 21: 50 New
                        0
                        Given the fact that he was carrying - hardly. Most likely, I would just fill up the famous Lloyd's list)))) There are so many suitable materials inside .....
                      2. Brylevsky
                        Brylevsky 20 May 2020 05: 42 New
                        +1
                        A perfect illustration of the ability of this type of vessel to withstand potential combat damage, can you find it, Dmitry? The melting temperature of steel was approximately 1500 degrees, you can imagine what temperature was inside his superstructure, and at the same time its water resistance was not violated! This indicates: 1) high quality design; 2) high quality construction; 3) we were practically convinced that such a vessel is able to maintain combat stability when RCC gets into it. What was required to prove to the comrades "naval commanders of peacetime" who were preparing for the wars of the past.
                      3. wehr
                        20 May 2020 10: 49 New
                        +1
                        Rather, it is not melting, but the destruction of steel from a loss of strength during strong heating. The board slid down and fell off. 1 sq. a meter of steel 8 mm weighs 6,9 kg, and there are about a thousand meters of destroyed side, that is, almost 7 tons of metal, standing upright.
                        Combustion alone rarely exceeds 1000 degrees, and pressurization is needed to reach the melting point of steel.

                        The vessel can be dragged to the factory, cut off the burnt parts of the superstructure and weld new ones. In two months it will be like new.
                      4. frog
                        frog 21 May 2020 17: 49 New
                        +1
                        Mmm ....... I have nothing against the box itself. And I did not)))) But what about combat resistance when used in ..... "special conditions" ......
                        After it, after all, not one pencil will be worked out. And cars there will stand not only with fuel. And much more that just depends on the layout, as you know ....
                        That is, it is possible and necessary to use something like that when needed. But I personally have no special illusions about "indestructibility". But I may be wrong))))
                      5. Brylevsky
                        Brylevsky 22 May 2020 02: 09 New
                        0
                        Greetings, colleague! I ask you to understand me correctly: I am not a fan of ships of the RCC type and am fully aware of both their advantages and disadvantages. I do not make a “fetish” of them ... Nevertheless, you saw the “work” of a volumetric fire on this ship; I consider it my duty to remind you that fighting ships died from minor damage (after the Great Patriotic War). But what can be thought up to counteract explosions inside the ship: to unload ammunition from military vehicles even in military units, before loading the vehicles onto the ship. Put the cars inside as usual, and deliver the ammunition to the port by truck and place it on the garage deck. In this case, even its explosion, of course, will tear out the "roof" of the garage (there is thin steel, not intended to accommodate cargo on it), but at the same time the whole temperature of the fire will go into the atmosphere. This is one of the measures, I have one more thing: the "wet" deployment of ammunition. Please also take into account that the penetration of anti-ship missiles into a ship is a phenomenon probabilistic, not 100 percent; such a ship should move as part of a ship warrant, which will protect it, including from RCC ...
          4. ccpmo
            ccpmo 20 May 2020 10: 52 New
            +2
            The fire worked at night on the second deck. High Expansion Foam Fire Extinguishing System the crew could not start correctly. As a result, 16 people were evacuated only after 10 hours, 5 people disappeared and they were not found sad ... Zone "A" burned out completely, the car, superstructure and "B" zone suffered from temperature.
      2. traper
        traper 19 May 2020 18: 31 New
        0
        I have been doing fire extinguishing systems for 20 years, and I know that they come in very different technical conditions. Here, the Japanese last year such a car carrier burned, so they could not put out 10 days. I did not follow further, but in my opinion the vessel sank.
        https://cont.ws/@ComandanteOleg/1187360
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 18 May 2020 19: 03 New
    +2
    Quote: K298rtm
    By the way, it will fall not in the midship region, but in the screw region. Drown will not drown, but the move
    Well, anti-ship missiles in the engine room will lead to the same results, and a vessel without a turn as part of a convoy, usually after drowning people, was drowned in the Great War for sure.
    1. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 18 May 2020 19: 23 New
      +7
      Why do you consider the “peak” situation when the anti-ship missiles fly precisely into the area of ​​engine separation? The vast majority of anti-ship missiles have an active radar seeker, far from the fact that from the entire area of ​​the side projection of the ship (and there are about 5500 sq. M.), The rocket will choose the area of ​​the engine room. Well, at least he’ll choose ... Mathematics says that if the Sunrise Ace is fully loaded, when the engine room is completely flooded, it will not sink. I can throw you the relevant technical descriptions from the Japanese shipyard, so that you would be convinced of my words.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 18 May 2020 19: 29 New
        -2
        Quote: Brylevsky
        Why do you consider the “peak” situation when the anti-ship missiles fly precisely into the area of ​​engine separation? The vast majority of RCCs have active radar seeker
        For a long time we have been talking about multichannel seeker anti-ship missiles, and about the choice of a hit point according to the "portrait" of the ship.
        Quote: Brylevsky
        Mathematics says that if the Sunrise Ace is fully loaded, when the engine room is completely flooded, it will not sink.
        More closely, I wrote about the loss of course, and not about flooding.
      2. Insurgent
        Insurgent 18 May 2020 20: 30 New
        +1
        Quote: Brylevsky
        Why do you consider the “peak” situation when the anti-ship missiles fly precisely into the area of ​​engine separation? The vast majority of anti-ship missiles have an active radar seeker, far from the fact that from the entire area of ​​the side projection of the ship (and there are about 5500 sq. M.), The rocket will choose the area of ​​the engine room. Well, at least he’ll choose ... Mathematics says that if the Sunrise Ace is fully loaded, when the engine room is completely flooded, it will not sink.


        Of course yes

        But upon closer inspection, all of the math is being poured under the blow of the warhead of the RCC ...

        [media = https: //youtu.be/dwqPcZkvgOw? t = 52]

        Unfortunately, the link for some reason does not want to be inserted normally into the comment ...
      3. sgrabik
        sgrabik 19 May 2020 10: 59 New
        0
        Three or four hits of an Onyx-class missile on an aircraft carrier with a tonnage of 100 tons produce destruction, leading to its failure and sinking, you mean , more likely to survive than an aircraft carrier ???
        1. Brylevsky
          Brylevsky 19 May 2020 11: 02 New
          0
          you want to say that this big galosh, not having a single system of self-defense and perfectly detected for many hundreds of kilometers, has a better chance of survival than an aircraft carrier ???

          No I do not think so. A detailed answer about exactly how I think I gave you in your first comment.
    2. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 18 May 2020 19: 25 New
      +4
      For some reason, the author does not consider the problems of transporting personnel on such a vessel. No, if they are thrown across the Kerch Strait, then the soldiers will suffer, and if at least a week? Okay, sleeping in hammocks, but latches? What kind of galley, a refrigerator for food, showers, a sun block, and other nuances? It all also takes up space and adds weight.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 18 May 2020 19: 31 New
        +4
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        For some reason, the author does not consider the problems of transporting personnel on such a ship
        I’m not the author, but a couple of three (ten) trailers with jerks and the same number of galleys on a car carrier is not a problem to place, don’t you?
        1. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins 18 May 2020 19: 38 New
          +1
          Water supply, waste response, generators and freon storage. All this can be solved, I think it would be much more correct to have fast-mounted modules designed specifically for this vessel.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 18 May 2020 19: 39 New
            +6
            Quote: Leader of the Redskins
            It would be to have fast-mounted modules designed specifically for this vessel.
            For starters, it would be nice to get hold of such a vessel, otherwise we still have the Japanese. )))
            1. bayard
              bayard 19 May 2020 06: 26 New
              +6
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              For starters, it would be nice to get hold of such a vessel, otherwise we still have the Japanese. )))

              To get hold of such a ship (s), you need to have an appropriate task for them. If, say, in Venezuela, our interests remain and talk about a naval base by 2027 turns out to be not just a fantasy, then such ships will be quite useful for the transfer of troops and their supply. And in peacetime, let them carry "Lada", "Oise", "Kamaz" and other "Aurus" to Latin America and accustom Latinos to the Russian car industry. repeat
              Why not ?
              It is possible to build such auto transporters on the "Zaliv" - the capacity allows, and in previous years, ships and larger were built.
              Right after the UDC series, you can start. smile
              And I share the author’s admiration for such ships as a military vehicle. good
              For dual-use car carriers! drinks bully
        2. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins 19 May 2020 09: 21 New
          +2
          Can I insert five cents?
          Mobile toilets only. Well, those blue booths that we have on construction sites. I just came across, so I want to give some calculations ...
          Normally, the barracks should have 10-12 people per point. Divide 2700 by 12 = 225.
          The width of one booth is 1,35.
          This is what rows in length will need to build them?
          More ... The tank is designed for 570 visits. That is, the fighters will fill it quickly. Maximum per week. Now imagine the sea roll and full tanks ....
          Can you defecate right on the lower deck right away?
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. Engineer
          Engineer 18 May 2020 20: 43 New
          +1
          eat dry

          In general, they will walk less at the same time))
      3. Undecim
        Undecim 18 May 2020 22: 03 New
        +3
        During World War II, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth drove 15000 people from the United States to Britain and their Australia to Africa.
      4. Sasha_rulevoy
        Sasha_rulevoy 19 May 2020 01: 05 New
        -2
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        personnel


        The Americans transported personnel on transport aircraft.
      5. Per se.
        Per se. 19 May 2020 06: 01 New
        +2
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        the problems of transporting personnel on such a ship
        Yes, everything can be sunk, and even on some warships, as they say, all the "amenities" were on the deck, but this is not the main thing when it is very necessary. When there is a war, and it is very necessary, such ships are from the civilian fleet and can become military transport, hospital ships, or amphibious helicopter carriers. The same "Mistral" is very similar in design.
        1. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 19 May 2020 17: 47 New
          +2
          Mistrals, by the way, were also built according to the standards of civil shipbuilding, because it is so inexpensive. The French did not bother with BJZS issues at all
      6. mitrich
        mitrich 20 May 2020 09: 56 New
        0
        Coupled with this trough is a cruise ship. There are all amenities. And on this, only iron.
    3. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 20 May 2020 05: 57 New
      0
      This vessel without a course as part of a naval travel order is likely to be towed. Because for the sake of this ship a naval traveling order was created. It will be too valuable a load to just take and drop it. For the sake of justice, I can tell you that the usual towing speed in the ocean is 3-5 knots, in bad weather it drops to 1-2 knots, in very good weather it can increase to 6-7, but this is unlikely. I suppose that this vessel will nevertheless be dragged "by the nostrils", this is when its anchor chain is riveted and connected to the backstay or cable of the towing vessel or ship. Moreover, such an option is prescribed for this vessel in its “Emergency towing guide” - Emergency towing guide ”.
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 18 May 2020 21: 36 New
    +4
    Given the fact that the ship was built according to the standards of civil shipbuilding, and to fight for the survivability of such a huge barn, the forces of a not very large crew is very problematic, one torpedo can be enough.
    1. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 18 May 2020 22: 06 New
      +1
      It may be enough, or maybe not enough, it must be considered. Well, the Japanese themselves already calculated, without us ... The conclusions of these calculations are as follows: provided the vessel is fully loaded, any one flooded compartment will not sink the entire vessel. That is, either the engine room, or one of the three holds. Even if one of the above is flooded as a result of combat damage, the ship will not sink. All this is reflected in the Damage Control Plane, designed by a Japanese shipyard, plus then I recounted to make sure of the truth and draw conclusions for myself - it really is: it won’t drown.
      1. wehr
        18 May 2020 23: 21 New
        +2
        Since the submariner does not know for sure what kind of vessel the load is, I proposed a three-torpedo volley so that it could be fully loaded.

        I had a question that I did not particularly consider. The question of non-contact torpedoes and ground mines, that is, an explosion under the bottom. There are ballast tanks at the ship. What effect will be in such conditions?
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 19 May 2020 04: 30 New
          +5
          cargo displacement may occur after being hit. also dangerous. it didn’t sink, by the way (but the torpedo didn’t fall into it either)
      2. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 19 May 2020 17: 44 New
        0
        And if a torpedo (rocket) explodes on a watertight bulkhead and two compartments + fire are immediately flooded?
        1. Brylevsky
          Brylevsky 19 May 2020 18: 05 New
          +1
          Then he will certainly drown, even without a fire. These two car carriers are designed to flood any one compartment, and moreover, in full load. Incomplete loading will only aggravate the situation.
    2. Podvodnik
      Podvodnik 18 May 2020 23: 11 New
      +8
      one torpedo can be enough.


      The whole dispute about the necessary sleeping places, the number of torpedoes for destruction / damage, refrigerators / provisions is biased for a very simple reason. This ship is "sharpened" for specific purposes. It is a commercial project and is used to make a profit. All of its premises are designed to perform specific functions. And they cannot. The crew is not ready to fight for survivability during combat damage. Moreover, the technical means of the vessel itself are not ready either. If the vessel is not adapted to carry 5000 people l / s of any division, etc., then it will not be able to provide this. People stupidly need to eat, sleep, send the corresponding needs. It is cheaper to build the desired vessel than to upgrade / rebuild the existing one.
      In the case of the use of weapons (rocket or torpedo), the vessel has no chance. There simply will be no one to fight for survivability, there are no corresponding ones. means and devices. There is no redundancy and duplication (in the same volume) of power systems as on warships. One hit, and without electricity this vessel will dangle like "g ... o in the hole" until it goes to the bottom. Because without electricity, no systems like "fire extinguishing" and others will work. Everything is on "computers". And when the screen goes out, the ship will die.
      1. Brylevsky
        Brylevsky 19 May 2020 11: 11 New
        +3
        In the case of the use of weapons (missile or torpedo) the ship has no chance.

        And it will not fight. There are warships for this. Its task is to ensure the transportation of weapons and military equipment from point "A" to point "B" as part of the ship's travel order. Protecting this vessel from possible missile or torpedo attacks is a matter for the ships of the warrant. It's just that the corresponding warships need to be built for something; construction will take time; and this ship, - please - take it, charter it ... It is ready to transport weapons and military equipment now and, unlike our BDK, it takes disproportionately more of both.
        1. Podvodnik
          Podvodnik 19 May 2020 13: 22 New
          -1
          And it will not fight. There are warships for this.


          This is completely natural. I just noted that the debate about the number of necessary missiles / torpedoes / toilets is pointless and tried to justify it.
      2. sgrabik
        sgrabik 19 May 2020 12: 41 New
        0
        I completely agree with this, if as a result of a missile or torpedo strike on a ship the basic control and life support systems fail, then such a ship will not last long and even if it does not go to the bottom, then it will be guaranteed to lose the ability to continue to fulfill the tasks assigned to it tasks!!!
      3. Alexy
        Alexy 19 May 2020 17: 56 New
        +1
        The only correct and efficient comment.
    3. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 19 May 2020 10: 49 New
      +2
      Verbally.
      Here is an example of a ready-made unsinkability calculation for "Sunrise Ace":




      I apologize for the quality. If you are interested in the topic, I can throw you the scripts.
      Here, the order of the sheets is reversed, from back to front, unfortunately.
      1. Podvodnik
        Podvodnik 19 May 2020 13: 41 New
        +1
        Verbally.
        Here is an example of a ready-made unsinkability calculation for "Sunrise Ace":


        It is absolutely clear that any vessel has appropriate structural and other slugs that ensure stability, unsinkability, survivability, fire extinguishing systems, and so on. This is fine in theory. Where is the Titanic? At the bottom. And he is not alone there. And they all had unsinkable calculations. And already the "Komsomolets" had combat damage. So what? The bottom line is the same.
        This box is a purely commercial project. No one will lose profits and equip this ship with equipment counting on combat operations. Charter? Yes please. But if there is combat damage, the ship will go nuts. For survivability "stupidly" no one will fight. Everything on "computers" and remotely. And our fleet, I agree with many comments, is ashamed to carry cargo to Syria on the BDK. They were not built for this. We must have our own appropriate fleet for the assigned tasks, built by our hands at our enterprises.
        Once again, someone great appears with the phrase "cadres decide everything." What personnel, such is the fleet. There are no miracles.
  • Theodore
    Theodore 18 May 2020 18: 13 New
    +1
    Well, a grenade launcher, too, can drown him!
    1. wehr
      18 May 2020 23: 21 New
      +4
      Grenade launcher will only create work for the welder at the shipyard laughing
  • Fat
    Fat 18 May 2020 18: 19 New
    +1
    Father! Well, Yashiroku Yamamoto himself there. Was .... No ??
  • K298rtm
    K298rtm 18 May 2020 18: 19 New
    -1
    He is not alone in the ocean - a whole convoy is needed there. So the "little Chernobyl" will help the escort ships get rid of unnecessary RESs.
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 18 May 2020 18: 23 New
    0
    If we ever get ripe to challenge the United States, tread the Capitol Hill with the pickaxes and write something indecent on the ruins of the White House,
    Well, we don’t need it, we are not Chinese. We get the adversary of nuclear weapons. repeat
  • Palmyra
    Palmyra 18 May 2020 18: 32 New
    -1
    A great target for this hulking cow ...
    1. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 18 May 2020 19: 04 New
      21
      A great target for this hulking cow ...

      Hulking? Darling, I worked on these ships. Both went at 20 knots, on the “Carnation Ace” I drove the wheeled and tracked vehicles to China, where I had to disagree with the Chinese fishermen 20-25 meters, these are very maneuverable vessels, despite their “suitcase” profile! In a conventional vessel, the rudder feather is shifted to an angle of 35 degrees, not more; in a car carrier - up to 60 degrees. Due to this feature and the presence of a steering device, a car carrier can climb into the "points" that are inaccessible to an ordinary vessel. But they have one flaw ... In the ballast, in fresh weather, they are strongly demolished by the wind and drags at anchor. For this reason, there was an instruction in the Company: with a wind of more than 15 m / s it was necessary to anchor and leave to storm in the sea ... and he could not care for the waves. By the way, if it is empty, then the cost of the rockets that you plant in it to drown will exceed the cost of this ship itself.
      1. Ruslan67
        Ruslan67 18 May 2020 20: 31 New
        0
        Quote: Brylevsky
        I worked on these ships.

        hi I have long wanted to ask knowledgeable people. And how does this suitcase behave in a storm, and what does the crew feel when the roll is non-standard to say the least?
        1. Brylevsky
          Brylevsky 18 May 2020 21: 11 New
          +7
          Compared to a 300-meter container ship with a displacement of 90000 tons, such car carriers, of course, are pumping into the storm ... they are too light. A large container ship in full load, at 22 knots, goes through a four-meter wave, like an iron on an ironing board, almost without swaying and not feeling the blows of waves, but these ships do not ... In the ocean, it happens that a big wave, meter 3-4, so the whole ship then shakes like a car on bumps ... but all these are trifles that inevitably get used to. But these ships are good sailors, and to drown it, one must try very hard.
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 18 May 2020 21: 27 New
            +5
            A container ship in a storm has a power pack on the verge of a foul.
            1. Brylevsky
              Brylevsky 18 May 2020 21: 42 New
              +4
              Several years ago, one MOL container ship fell apart in a storm in the Indian Ocean, I posted a photo on VO ... The captain of this container ship doesn’t do such an “honor” dance in the video: well, he shouldn’t wave to meddle ... because there are more than 5 meters!
              1. seregatara1969
                seregatara1969 18 May 2020 22: 43 New
                0
                Class A ++ container ship is a huge colossus. Many ferries run across the Baltic. Tanks can also be transported to them.
                1. Valter1364
                  Valter1364 18 May 2020 23: 26 New
                  +2
                  Finished his work on tankers in the Vela Shipping group at VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier), including m / t "Pherkad Star"
                  Vessel type: Bulk Carrier
                  Gross tonnage: 160,666 tons
                  Summer DWT: 301,389 tons
                  Length: 332 m
                  Beam: 58 m
                  Draught: 22.7
                  These irons with their sediment are all purple. winked
            2. Angelo Provolone
              Angelo Provolone 19 May 2020 03: 21 New
              -2
              As Tupolev, do you determine the "degree of foul" from the picture? Good luck.
      2. Ka-52
        Ka-52 19 May 2020 06: 49 New
        +2
        By the way, if it is empty, then the cost of the rockets that you plant in it to drown will exceed the cost of this ship itself.

        to recalculate the value of the vessel and the cost of the means of its destruction is a very stupid occupation. Because the damage that an affected target can bring, and not the cost of its production, is always evaluated. For example: one KR BGM-109 costs ~ 1 million. $. But in the event of a successful hit, Ax can disable a $ 30 billion nuclear power plant. And this is direct damage. Add to it the concomitant in the form of deprivation of electricity of a large territory, including power and strategic facilities + costs of restoration work. The same thing with this transporter - in itself it costs not so much, but the enemy’s deprivation of means of supply and his advanced group are doomed. As happened with the Japanese contingent in the Solomon Islands in 2 MB.
      3. sgrabik
        sgrabik 19 May 2020 12: 52 New
        -1
        My dear, and you probably do not quite imagine the shock capabilities of modern RCCs of the last generation, the hit of a hypersonic missile weighing more than a ton at a speed of more than 10M and the subsequent detonation of a 500 kilogram charge of increased power will tear this galosh in half.
        1. Brylevsky
          Brylevsky 19 May 2020 14: 58 New
          +4
          I can fully imagine, because I have a specialized VUS. I’m already tired of repeating to you: this ship will not fight; for war there are marching order ships with the corresponding air defense / anti-aircraft defense / missile defense, through which our anti-ship missiles have yet to break through. I repeat to you this simple truth (about order ships) for the third time in a row - are you adequate, in general? Take the blinders off your eyes and try to understand a different point of view.
      4. Podvodnik
        Podvodnik 19 May 2020 13: 45 New
        0
        For this reason, the Company had an instruction: when the wind was more than 15 m / s, it was necessary to anchor and leave to storm in the sea


        Naturally, as much as 15 meters per second! I remember going to the pier with such a wind turbine, so the door to the exit from the PRK (radiation control point) could not be opened independently. And then the ship has such a sail!
      5. Interlocutor
        Interlocutor 19 May 2020 18: 38 New
        0
        By the way, if it is empty, then the cost of the rockets that you plant in it to drown will exceed the cost of this ship itself.

        There is no need to drown it .... There is a need to burn it ...
  • tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 18 May 2020 18: 44 New
    +8
    Alas, so far we have no such wonderful vessels, and it is not known when they will be. The probable adversary has such vessels and there is no particular doubt that they will be used in the event of war for transport operations. Hence the task: how to sink?

    On December 13, 2002, the TRICOLOR car carrier (above) left Zeebrugge, Belgium for Southampton, UK with 2871 vehicles on board. Cars are so-so, for the working class - BMW, Volvo and Saabs.

    Auto transporter "Tricolor" Length - 190 m, Width - 32 m, Draft - 9 m.

    After calling at Southampton, Tricolor was to leave for the ports of the US east coast.
    On the night of December 14, Tricolor, already following in the English Channel, being at a distance of 20 miles from the French coast, began to overtake the cargo ship "KARIBA", leaving it on the port side.
    The night was foggy, and there was no way to visually identify the ship. So they would have gone quietly, but unfortunately, the ship "CLARY" crossed the Caribe course.
    In order to escape the clash, in the Caribbean they turned sharply to the right ... and in all scope and course, they torn the board of Tricolor. After 30 minutes, Tricolor lay down on the port side and sank. Torpedoes are not needed.
    1. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 18 May 2020 19: 11 New
      +2
      Partial loading led to the death of the ship. This is a feature of car carriers ... 2871 cars for such a vessel, this is a partial load. If you want, I can drop you the Damage Control Plane along with the manual for it, you can see for yourself the veracity of my words. The only thing is that everything is in English, but are you a sailor? So, you can figure out the scheme and description for it ... Damage Control Plane will be for the “Sunrise Ace”, but all car carriers share common principles of unsinkability.
      1. Andrei Nikolaevich
        Andrei Nikolaevich 18 May 2020 19: 24 New
        +4
        but all car carriers share the general principles of unsinkability
        Sorry, I'm not a sailor or an engineer, but I was interested in the last phrase in your comments ... What are the principles of unsinkability of this category of vessels? There, too, compartments? .. It would be interesting to know if you can.
        1. Brylevsky
          Brylevsky 18 May 2020 19: 50 New
          +4
          Sure. But your question already contains half the answer: yes, there is the principle of dividing into compartments. The rules on how to do this are established by the Classification Society under whose supervision the ship is being built. Suppose the USSR Maritime Register could require that a transport vessel maintain its unsinkability when the engine room and any compartment adjacent to it, usually a hold, were flooded; some Norwegian register could be satisfied only with unsinkability with the flooding of only machine distance; specifically these vessels: “Carnation Ace” and “Sunrise Ace” were built under the supervision of the Japanese NKK registry, and how it normalizes unsinkability I, unfortunately, can’t say anything because I don’t know, but I have at hand Damage Control Plane with one of these steamships and from it follows that the vessel (provided it is fully loaded) will retain its unsinkability when any one compartment is flooded. That is, it can be flooded or MO, or one of the three holds. And since the size of the vessel that died from a collision is approximately equal to the size of the vessels described in the article, and also based on the fact that the principles of calculating unsinkability are the same for everyone (mathematician), I made the assumption that the death was caused, in addition to the human factor, by the incomplete loading of the dead vessel, as in this loading option unsinkability during flooding of the hold is not provided. Or are you interested in the calculation of the division of the vessel into compartments?
          1. Ryaruav
            Ryaruav 18 May 2020 20: 32 New
            0
            why don’t the ballast tanks on ships tell me how they affect stability, do you think that a ship going in ballast is more sinking than the full load of arguments?
            1. Brylevsky
              Brylevsky 18 May 2020 20: 43 New
              +1
              The adopted ballast lowers the applicability of the vessel's CT and makes it stable, for this purpose tanks are needed (on the vessel they are called tanks). In addition, ballast tanks on ships usually level the roll and / or trim or achieve the desired suitable draft.
              In your opinion, a ship going in ballast is more sinking than in full load arguments?

              To be honest, I did not understand your question. Please specify more precisely and more clearly.
          2. Andrei Nikolaevich
            Andrei Nikolaevich 18 May 2020 23: 17 New
            +1
            Listen, to teach you in a technical university. Even I, with my graduate diploma, understood something. The main idea, learned. Thank you so much. I just thought at first that there were no bays inside this ship, in general. So you can place more cars. Well, of course, the opinion of an outsider.) As for the division of ships into compartments, I understand (a little), but not the pros, of course. Once again, thanks for the clarification.
            1. Brylevsky
              Brylevsky 19 May 2020 04: 26 New
              +3
              Perhaps you might have the wrong opinion about vessels of this type: the fact is that they are divided by waterproof bulkheads only to the main deck, in their case, this is deck number 7, and the side and stern ramps lead to this deck. All decks that are above deck number 7 do not have waterproof bulkheads - this can complicate the pace of loading and unloading vehicles and, you are right, “eats up” the useful cargo space inside. So, if this ship “lays on board” from combat damage and the water enters above the main deck, then most likely it is “not a tenant” ...
              As for my teaching, you "hit the mark": I’m just thinking about the "career" of a teacher in one of the maritime universities, in the subjects "Theory of the device of the ship", "Technology of shipping" or "Marine astronomy" .... hi
              1. Andrei Nikolaevich
                Andrei Nikolaevich 19 May 2020 06: 55 New
                0
                I am sure that you will be an excellent teacher.
      2. Ryaruav
        Ryaruav 18 May 2020 20: 36 New
        0
        if you have a load on the upper decks yes
      3. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 18 May 2020 20: 42 New
        +2
        Quote: Brylevsky
        If you want, I can drop you the Damage Control Plane along with the manual for it, you can see for yourself the veracity of my words.

        Well, yes, with a partial load on them, the load is more on the upper decks, with a breakdown, the MV and overkill decrease. Until it was cut, a constant hassle was upon passage of the canal.
  • svp67
    svp67 18 May 2020 18: 55 New
    +2
    An interesting boat, and in the light of the operations conducted by our army and navy, ships of this class would obviously not be superfluous for us. In one voyage, one such boat could carry a weekly load of the "Syrian Express" and at a lower cost. Only it would be necessary to provide for the possibility of placing amphibious transport platforms on them, for the delivery of goods from the ship to an unprepared shore
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 18 May 2020 20: 45 New
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      An interesting boat, and in the light of the operations carried out by our army and navy, we would obviously not have ships of this class.

      Each ship must do its job, a fisherman to fish, a passenger to carry rotozeyev, a cattle truck for pigs and cows, and a car truck. For the Navy must have its own ships. Everywhere there are a lot of nuances.
      1. svp67
        svp67 18 May 2020 21: 01 New
        +1
        Quote: tihonmarine
        For the Navy must have its own ships.

        The fleets always included auxiliary vessels, including supply vessels. And on the basis of this ship it was possible to create a completely normal and more or less cheap supply ship for our Navy
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 19 May 2020 08: 38 New
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          And on the basis of this ship it was possible to create a completely normal and more or less cheap supply ship for our Navy

          Everything is possible, but you have to want it.
      2. Podvodnik
        Podvodnik 18 May 2020 23: 17 New
        +1
        For the Navy must have its own ships. Everywhere there are a lot of nuances.


        All is correct. The shoemaker should stitch the boots, and bake the cakes with the pies. And not vice versa.
        1. svp67
          svp67 19 May 2020 04: 52 New
          +2
          Quote: Podvodnik
          All is correct. The shoemaker should stitch the boots, and bake the cakes with the pies. And not vice versa.

          Yes, yes ... and therefore for the "Syrian Express" our fleet bought old, rusty dry cargo ships in Turkey, which break down and carry cargo to them ...
          1. tihonmarine
            tihonmarine 19 May 2020 08: 40 New
            +1
            Quote: svp67
            Yes, yes ... and therefore for the "Syrian Express" our fleet bought old, rusty dry cargo ships in Turkey,

            Which once the Turks bought in the countries of the former USSR.
          2. Podvodnik
            Podvodnik 19 May 2020 13: 17 New
            0
            that break down and carry loads on them ...


            Well what to do. A spoon is essential for dinner. Unfortunately, in peacetime, comfortable personalities move upstairs, who know how to report loudly and clearly on time, and most importantly they are devoted (not at all to the cause). They are incapable of competent action and do not have the slightest desire to take responsibility. In a sudden "war," the voice becomes pitiful, the eyes are shifting, all the gloss and become disappears.
            One of the greats was right: "Cadres decide everything."
            No frames, no related cases.
    2. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 19 May 2020 04: 30 New
      0
      It would only be necessary to provide for the possibility of placing airborne transport platforms on them, for the delivery of goods from the ship to an unprepared shore

      Unreal. Too much rework for installing a dock camera. But they can unload onto an unprepared shore - they can load, it is only necessary to deepen up to 10 m, - such is its total draft “in cargo”, + “navigation reserve” of 0,5 m ...
      1. svp67
        svp67 19 May 2020 04: 54 New
        +1
        Quote: Brylevsky
        Unreal. Too much rework for docking camera

        You can do without it, just provide for their placement on the deck and descent, as well as loading from the side
        1. Brylevsky
          Brylevsky 19 May 2020 12: 07 New
          0
          I tell you: not real. All the decks are inside, and the one on the top, top garage deck, is made of too thin steel and is suitable only for landing on its helicopter, and not the heaviest one. And he doesn’t need all this ... You understand the main thing. There are such ships. Good, bad, but they already haverather than someday later; they are capable of transporting tanks. All they need is to provide them with protection from torpedo and missile attacks from a potential enemy, because they are not "fighters". Even tomorrow, these ships are capable of becoming an integral part of the landing force deployed against us.
  • Andrei Nikolaevich
    Andrei Nikolaevich 18 May 2020 18: 56 New
    +5
    Interesting article. Thanks to the author. I didn’t know that there is such a class of ships .. Live, learn, ..
    1. wehr
      18 May 2020 19: 19 New
      +4
      Thank you!
      And also a special thanks to Brylevsky, who supplied me with the drawings.
  • Operator
    Operator 18 May 2020 19: 34 New
    +3
    The author confused a car transporter with a Ro-Ro-ro - only the latter can take on board heavy armored vehicles, unlike the first, whose "cardboard" decks are sharpened for passage and placement in the full sense of cars.

    In addition, compared to any dry cargo ship, a skater is good in that it can deliver goods to port posts that are not equipped with lifting equipment - for example, mooring directly to pontoon raids deployed on an unequipped shore (for landing a second landing wave and supplying the captured bridgehead, of course).

    Naturally, only in the event of a war with an enemy who does not have nuclear weapons bully
    1. wehr
      18 May 2020 19: 38 New
      +2
      In my opinion, you did not read the article or read superficially
      1. Operator
        Operator 18 May 2020 20: 29 New
        -5
        In my opinion, it is advisable for you to understand the technical difference between car transporters and rollers.
    2. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 18 May 2020 20: 29 New
      +6
      You have no idea what you are writing about. I am telling you in Russian: these vessels also carry wheeled and tracked vehicles weighing up to 100 tons. I personally carried 50 tons of bulldozers on both of them, this is not counting 10-20-ton trucks with cars. All he can! Including loading and unloading of wheeled and tracked vehicles on unequipped berths, if only the depths allowed to do so. They have a draft in full load under 10 meters ...
      1. Operator
        Operator 18 May 2020 20: 36 New
        -3
        In car carriers, sharpened for the carriage of cars, only a few decks are adapted to accommodate heavy wheeled and tracked vehicles. In this case, the remaining decks and, accordingly, the mass of the hull are a parasitic load (which also increases the sailing ability and reduces the stability of the vessel) during transportation of armored vehicles.
        1. Brylevsky
          Brylevsky 18 May 2020 20: 54 New
          +6
          You just do not need to put armored vehicles on decks that are not intended for this. And to hammer these decks with suitable military equipment, that’s all. Yes, miracles do not happen, and this ship simply won’t take 5000 Abrams, but it can take dozens of Type 16 + dozens of Abrams, and this, in addition to other military equipment, including soldiers. The mobilization potential of this type of vessel is very large, and this is the article.
          1. Operator
            Operator 18 May 2020 21: 31 New
            -6
            As part of modern military units there are no cars (a few UAZs do not count) - the lightest military transport equipment weighs 10 tons ("Tiger") and more. And the piles of ammunition and dry rations have a higher specific load on the deck than a passenger car.

            And so any ship up to the cruise ship can be adapted for military transport - with a low degree of efficiency, of course.
            1. Brylevsky
              Brylevsky 18 May 2020 21: 52 New
              0
              Yes, they can be driven by military trucks, they have no problems with these! It’s just that you’re not carrying 5000 cars, but, say, 300 trucks. Few? Well, I don’t know ... it’s, besides the rest of the military property. If you're interested, I can give you a Loading Manual, see for yourself.
              1. Operator
                Operator 18 May 2020 22: 29 New
                0
                Trucks - motor vehicles of the rear, and not the combat units of the second wave of the landing, completely armed with armored vehicles, including transport.
                1. wehr
                  18 May 2020 23: 25 New
                  +4
                  These trucks are very important. Without a rear, any unit, any unit in battle loses combat effectiveness in a matter of hours. The rear is mainly brought, unloaded, delivered. These are the trucks.
                  Moreover, in a successful operation, with the expansion of the bridgehead, the need for trucks increases sharply.
            2. Nehist
              Nehist 19 May 2020 01: 49 New
              +3
              More and more convinced that you often write your speculation. The weight of the Tiger for your information is 3500 kg where you found 10000 kg there I do not know
        2. wehr
          18 May 2020 21: 04 New
          +4
          If you believe that a tank brigade or division consists of only one tank, then you are very mistaken. laughing
          One must see the task in all its complexity.
        3. Brylevsky
          Brylevsky 19 May 2020 11: 31 New
          0
          These are the calculations of the "Sunrise Ace" cargo capacity, heavy equipment weighing from 27 to 100 tons:


          A good amount, especially if you take into account the dimensions and weights indicated in the table?
          176 pcs. wheeled tanks Type 16, or 45 pcs. tanks weighing up to 50 tons, or 33-34 pcs. tanks weighing 100 tons, while the carrying capacity will not be selected and about 10000 tons of military cargo, including trucks and armored personnel carriers, can still be crammed onto the vessel.
          1. Operator
            Operator 19 May 2020 14: 17 New
            -2
            Quote: Brylevsky
            about 10000 tons of military cargo, including trucks and armored personnel carriers, can still be crammed onto the ship

            The first wave of amphibious assault captures the coastal bridgehead, the second wave expands it. The need for motor vehicles such as trucks arises only after unloading the combined arms units on the bridgehead with the aim of developing an offensive inland with an increase in the shoulder of cargo delivery.

            In figs, the second wave of amphibious assault cargo, which can not be unloaded from the truck other than placing each batch of cargo on a personal truck, the weight of which will eat its part of the cargo capacity of the vessel, and the truck will become useless for the landing immediately after unloading the truck?

            "Roller - no, did not hear" (C) laughing
            1. Brylevsky
              Brylevsky 19 May 2020 15: 33 New
              +2
              In figs, the second wave of amphibious assault cargo, which can not be unloaded from the truck other than placing each batch of cargo on a personal truck, the weight of which will eat its part of the cargo capacity of the vessel, and the truck will become useless for the landing immediately after unloading the truck?

              Oh my god, what nonsense you write ... you came up with a chimera for yourself and are trying to defend your own, obviously flawed, point of view. Need not for each shipment of its own separate truck. Let them be 10, 20, but how much is needed ... these trucks will be loaded directly on board the vessel, with the help of forklifts (for standard cargo places) or manually, by soldiers. Ammunition was taken for those who are developing the offensive, they took the wounded and killed, they returned to the ship, then the cycle repeated. Military cargo will be stored on decks - there are places in bulk and there is something to gain a foothold in.
              Japan has a lot of such ships; they are already they can be used without waiting for the “right” rollers; I have given you statistics on the amount of military cargo transported at once, in particular, armored vehicles; with the proper organization of the defense of these ships from our means of attack, they can become our headache, and your skaters are not at all here, do you understand this? You grabbed a speck in the eye, while blinking a log!
      2. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 19 May 2020 08: 45 New
        +3
        Quote: Brylevsky
        Including loading and unloading of wheeled and tracked vehicles on unequipped berths, if only the depths allowed to do so. They have a draft in full load under 10 meters ...

        This is hard for some to understand. Not even every port can accept with such sediment.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 18 May 2020 19: 44 New
    +5
    Ships of this type are called "Ro-Ro" or "Ro-Ro", from the English "Roll-On / Roll-Robo". Today, the largest are the ro-ro companies of the Norwegian carrier Leif Höegh & Co with a capacity of 8500 conventional vehicles.
    As for the use of civilian courts for military purposes, there is nothing new.
    The same Kunard "sisters" Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were converted into military transports and took on board a division of 15000 men. From June 1943 to April 1945, Queen Mary alone covered 28 nautical miles and transported 180 American and Canadian troops in 340 round-trip flights.
    1. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 18 May 2020 20: 32 New
      +3
      Vessels of this type in the world shipping practice are called RCC, - pure care and truck carrier. In all other respects, you are absolutely right.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 18 May 2020 20: 39 New
        +3
        pure care and truck carrier - this type of skater is called PCTC.
        And RCC - Pure Car Carrier.
  • vomag
    vomag 18 May 2020 19: 51 New
    0
    Sharing is a bad decision.
    Not a bad decision to invent any nonsense! In particular about
    Hence the conclusion: if you fight overseas, you will have to reform the tank and motorized rifle brigades so that they correspond to the capabilities of the transport vessel.
    Why do we need it? If you need to take a foothold, put forward an order, load a tank division into 3 of these ships and in advance ...
    1. wehr
      18 May 2020 19: 58 New
      0
      On the way, two out of three sank. And you still have a third of the tanks, half of the armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicles with motorized infantry, something about a third of the cars. Headquarters, reconnaissance, half of the motorized infantry and all stocks went to the bottom.
      Satisfied with this option?
      1. Inboost wett
        Inboost wett 18 May 2020 20: 16 New
        +1
        Well, anything is possible. However, ships such as Lend-Lease would not even be sailing. You understand that in this case we are talking about a complete expeditionary force. This is a whole fleet. Aircraft carrier with escort and already in its squadron 1 or 2 of such transport. And this means that submarines also cover this whole group.
        1. wehr
          18 May 2020 21: 06 New
          +1
          It is necessary to take into account the possibility of bad cases in advance so as not to tear your hair out later. laughing
      2. ABM
        ABM 18 May 2020 21: 00 New
        0
        We have always landed in this way - so what? Is it a clever idea of ​​someone from the staff that it is more convenient to fight with "full-fledged, pre-assembled units" does not give rest?
      3. vomag
        vomag 18 May 2020 21: 50 New
        0
        Bugagaga rzhuu not maguuu ... on the way you have sunk 1 ship with the whole brigade!
        Satisfied with this option?
  • Inboost wett
    Inboost wett 18 May 2020 20: 09 New
    0
    The author, of course, is a BIG specialist. The truck crane was about to embed. For such purposes, for more than a hundred years, normal deck-based cranes have been used and even tracked cranes have long been an element of deck superstructures and there are specially planned installation sites for them. Including on car carriers of this type.
    1. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 18 May 2020 21: 22 New
      +6
      Including on car carriers of this type.

      Colleague, you have opened new horizons for me. Do you want me to throw off the construction drawings of these two vessels to you? You mark there where the Japanese have planned a place for a deck crane ... Or do I not know something that you know? Drop me materials if you have any. Simply, from 2011 to 2017 I worked on Japanese car carriers, but I hear about the existence of their options with deck cranes for unloading equipment for the first time ...
  • Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 18 May 2020 20: 23 New
    +1
    if the vessel is not fully loaded, then water ballast is taken to restore the metacentre, and if the clinket doors (and they must be closed) are closed, then there is no difference when a torpedo hits, that in full load, that when partially loaded there is not even the other way around, the torpedo explosion will lead to a break fastenings of transported equipment with subsequent dangerous displacement of cargo on one side
  • skazochnik
    skazochnik 18 May 2020 20: 38 New
    0
    It seems such a goal is the dream of a submariner.
  • Fishery
    Fishery 18 May 2020 21: 11 New
    +2
    in conditions of total war, I think the military can use this ship as the author suggests
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 18 May 2020 21: 37 New
    0
    Something I do not recall such sayings from Isoroku Yamamoto. And the army, categorically did not want to participate in naval adventures in Southeast Asia, China was quite enough for them.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 18 May 2020 21: 51 New
    0
    I had to meet such "little boats", I had to ...
    https://vk.com/club189957947?w=wall-189957947_710%2Fall
  • Interdum_silentium_volo
    Interdum_silentium_volo 18 May 2020 21: 59 New
    0
    Dream torpedoes or RCC)))
    It is better to have dozens of ships here, and some of them will get than to have a couple of such monsters by sinking one of which, you will receive irreparable losses.
    The landing ship capable of transferring any company (tank, moto-rifle, landing) in full force and in full force is considered optimal.
    And when all the necessary and available civilian vessels begin to be chartered by the army, as has always been and will be. According to the laws of wartime .... etc.
    1. max702
      max702 19 May 2020 00: 32 New
      +2
      This ship is good for peacetime operations such as the Syrian .. The "when it starts" database will generally reset everything and everyone and 95% of military equipment will not be in demand .. But I repeat in operations of another type of which now 99% of this concept is very good ..
      1. Interdum_silentium_volo
        Interdum_silentium_volo 19 May 2020 20: 20 New
        +2
        It’s easier to charter a ship, which they do. The same Yankees hired civilian tankers, container ships, etc. during their wars. Chartered vessels are also being driven to Syria.
        This is during a Persian mess:
        For the transport of troops and cargo, 269 ships of the US Navy maritime transport command and chartered vessels of merchant fleets were involved (18 countries provided 50 merchant ships).

        France and the United Kingdom transported both on their own ships and on chartered. Thus, France used 11 vessels, mainly under the national flag, and the United Kingdom, in addition to its transports, attracted another 15 vessels chartered from shipping companies in Denmark, the Netherlands, Cyprus, Italy, Canada, Sweden and other countries. Transportation was carried out on ships - warehouses of weapons, military equipment and supplies of the Marine Corps, US Army and Rapid Deployment Forces, ships with horizontal ro-ro loading method, tankers, container ships, freight transport, ferries, hospital, crane and other ships.
        1. max702
          max702 20 May 2020 15: 43 New
          0
          All those whom you listed are in one country and there is absolutely no one to fear the sea .. Nobody will arrest them and always provide ports and bases for unloading loading bunkering repairs .. We don’t have such opportunities ... Therefore, the Navy needs such large transport ships flying a military flag .. A recent lesson with SP-2 seems to have shown everything again ..
          1. Interdum_silentium_volo
            Interdum_silentium_volo 21 May 2020 19: 13 New
            0
            Absolutely not needed, and superfluous! Just like the very idea of ​​an amphibious assault on the other side of the ocean. And even the Yankee comrades respect the law of the sea, and we drive civilian charter vessels to Syria.
            No need to make up and compose, but rather focus on the facts and real possibilities.
            1. max702
              max702 21 May 2020 20: 39 New
              0
              Quote: Interdum_silentium_volo
              And even Yankee comrades respect the law of the sea

              Neighing !! I have no questions the diagnosis is clear!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Disorder
    Disorder 18 May 2020 23: 57 New
    -1
    Can these floating suitcases move as part of the AUG, or will the AUG have to adapt to their course?
    And which is better: take 11 BDKs that quickly enough will unload anything and anywhere, or long and hard to unload a suitcase in the port, waiting for help from the enemy in the form of anti-ship missiles laughing .

    PS And what about the composition of someone's Navy there are floating chests similar to those of civilian suitcases?
    1. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 19 May 2020 11: 41 New
      +1
      Can these floating suitcases move as part of the AUG, or will the AUG have to adapt to their course?

      Yes they can. I went on these ships at a speed of 20 knots. This is their usual speed at ocean crossings.
      And what’s better: to take 11 BDKs, which, quickly enough, will unload anything and anywhere, or long and hard to unload a suitcase in a port,

      Such a "suitcase" loads - unloads 5300 vehicles in the port in about 8 hours. Judge for yourself the pace of cargo operations ... Of course, 11 BDK, MDK, UDC and others, this is very good, but if none of this is simply not available? May be too far away; may not be combat-ready, for various reasons; can be damaged or destroyed; and the Japanese have plenty of these ships. This is one of the reasons why they are in no hurry to develop their landing fleet: with such ships they simply do not need it ...
      1. Disorder
        Disorder 19 May 2020 13: 43 New
        0
        Quote: Brylevsky
        Such a "suitcase" loads - unloads 5300 vehicles in the port in about 8 hours. Judge for yourself the pace of cargo operations ... Of course, 11 BDK, MDK, UDC and others, this is very good, but if none of this is simply not available? May be too far away; may not be combat-ready, for various reasons; can be damaged or destroyed; and the Japanese have plenty of these ships. This is one of the reasons why they are in no hurry to develop their landing fleet: with such ships they simply do not need it ...

        The article discusses the use of a suitcase in combat, and all your "ifs" are even more applicable to it.
        At the end of the article, methods for destroying suitcases are considered, which negate all the advantages of their use.
  • adena
    adena 19 May 2020 00: 00 New
    -2
    As the author did not reflect the main misfortune of Ro-Ro. They are inclined (and to put it mildly) to the third turn. That is, the main danger is precisely the cargo. Namely, at not very large angles of heel (for each ship it’s naturally his own), the load is prone to displacement (I’ll introduce my own specifics), which in turn leads to disaster. Therefore, there is enough water flow (not coming to fatal flooding), plus, if the pitching soothing system is not cut down, the vessel will tip over in a matter of minutes. Here is a design feature of this type of vessel.
    1. IC
      IC 19 May 2020 02: 16 New
      +2
      This is not Ro-Ro, but a car carrier. And this is a different type of vessel.
    2. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 19 May 2020 11: 46 New
      +4
      the load is prone to displacement (I will introduce my own specifics)

      You are wrong. A normally secured load will remain in place even if the ship's heel exceeds 45 degrees, examples have been. This, in particular, is the Japanese car carrier "Cougar Ace", the photo of which I cited as an example to the article by the same author, when he wrote about the sinking of the South Korean ferry. There, a car transporter generally lay on board in the Pacific Ocean, and the cars were hung on claspers. Not one fell ...
      1. adena
        adena 19 May 2020 13: 12 New
        -2
        The statistics of the reasons for Ro Ro ships help you. Sparks of these statistics are already HERE in the comments flash.
  • Angelo Provolone
    Angelo Provolone 19 May 2020 00: 36 New
    -2
    Firstly, through it, cars enter the ship from the pier and from there are placed on all other decks. Secondly, it is on this deck that heavy equipment can be placed up to 100 tons in weight. Thirdly, the strength of this deck is determined by the fact that it provides a waterproof volume of the vessel, which ensures its unsinkability.

    First of all, there is no concept of "main deck", there is the concept of "upper deck".
    All three of the above reasons have nothing to do with the fact that it is "top".

    Probably everything else in the article is just as absurd.
    1. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 19 May 2020 04: 41 New
      +5
      Colleague, you are wrong, unfortunately. The concept of "main deck" exists with us, and they: This is the deck to which the level of waterproof bulkheads reaches. They have this is called main deck, and means the same as ours ... hi
      This article is not ridiculous at all, but completely true. The merit of the author is that he showed what the Japanese Self-Defense Forces can be capable of when they charter such vessels with Japanese shipping companies. Car carriers at the enemy can become an extremely unpleasant enemy for the Russian Far East, when from Japan to Vladivostok it takes about 2-3 days to travel ... By the way, these ships also have an upper deck and are located at an altitude of 50 m above sea level and its main function is - provide waterproof volume ...
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 19 May 2020 08: 53 New
        +4
        Quote: Brylevsky
        The merit of the author is that he showed what the Japanese Self-Defense Forces can be capable of when they charter such vessels with Japanese shipping companies.

        A country that has a powerful merchant fleet is more likely to win at sea. During the war, everything will come in handy. In Soviet times, all ships built at domestic shipyards were adapted for wartime.
      2. Angelo Provolone
        Angelo Provolone 20 May 2020 00: 23 New
        -2
        Why are we colleagues?
        Why did you decide that there is a concept of the main deck, because "main" is "main"?
        So this is not a fact. It can also be translated as "main".
        If you are engaged in translation, then you need to switch to the correct technical language, and not to formal.
        I say again: there is no concept of "main deck".
        If you are just a bad journalist, you can think of anything you want. Everything that Google will give you in the translation of the word "main".
        1. Brylevsky
          Brylevsky 20 May 2020 02: 39 New
          +3
          Why are we colleagues?

          "Colleague", "buddy", for me this is a correct, respectful address to the interlocutor. But if it bothers you, good, - from now on I will contact you in any way.
          I say again: there is no concept of "main deck".

          You persist in your delusions. The concept of the main deck is, it is taken from the theory of unsinkability and is used in its calculations. It means exactly what I told you before: it is a continuous, continuous deck, to which waterproof bulkheads reach. I understand that I am not an authority for you, but look at least here: http://izobata.ru/konstruktivnye-mery-obespecheniya-nepotoplyaemosti-sudna/, if you are too lazy to study more serious literature.
          If you are engaged in translation, then you need to switch to the correct technical language, and not to formal.
          I say again: there is no concept of "main deck".
          If you are just a bad journalist, you can think of anything you want. Everything that Google will give you in the translation of the word "main".

          I do not do translations (only when necessary, when I find myself on a new vessel) and I am not a journalist. The nature of my work appears quite clearly in my comments; From this, I conclude that you did not particularly read the comments on the article, so now you are in a stupid situation.
          If the concept of "main deck" is not yet in "Wiki", or elsewhere in the same area, this does not mean that it does not exist in nature. I have already given you the link; it appeared not "out of the blue", but as a consequence of the SOLAS-74 convention (as amended). I do not want to sink to the level of "Learn the materiel!" Now, I just urge you to prove your case with arguments. So far, you have grasped at the "difficulties of translation", but this argument is so-so, because in addition to translating words, there is also the theory of the ship, which is a very accurate and mature science.
          1. Angelo Provolone
            Angelo Provolone 20 May 2020 03: 44 New
            -3
            Why are you linking to document SOLAS-74, which does not define "main deck" ??? There is a mention in the text of the "main cargo deck", but only for "combined ships".
            "Combined vessel" is a tanker designed for the carriage of oil in bulk or dry cargo in bulk.
            Here somewhere about the tanker it was?
            And where does the site Izobata.ru? Would you quote a wiki ...
            By the way, the wiki has a "main deck". But there the same eccentric wrote as the author of this article.
            once again I say the concept of "main deck" - no. What the author of this article is writing about is not the main deck.
            Dear author, if you are trying to write about something more than "the number of tractors transported" and "how clear it is", and "what a nishtyak" and stuff like that, you would study the materiel or just do not touch anything that you do not concerns.
            1. Brylevsky
              Brylevsky 20 May 2020 11: 18 New
              +4
              Oh woe to me ... Young man! I do not set myself the goal of somehow denigrating or defaming you, or somehow humiliating your human dignity. I'm just trying to convey to you the idea that in the case of the main deck you are seriously mistaken - there is such a term, it is actively used when it comes to calculating the unsinkability of a damaged or not damaged ship. To prove this picture, if my word is not enough for you:

              and here is a link to the source http://seaships.ru/deck.htm, can you master at least one page of text? I ask you to understand me correctly, but by your stubbornness you put yourself in a stupid position. Search for "main deck of the ship, what is it". Yours faithfully, hi
              1. Angelo Provolone
                Angelo Provolone 21 May 2020 00: 10 New
                -1
                Well, okay. Pictures and the Internet are our everything.
                Proof of:
                1. "main deck" - translated. as the "chief".
                2. On the website http: // seaships - the main deck.
                3. On the website http: //izobata.ru- the main deck.
                4. Finally, the wiki is also a "main deck".
                5. And in the pictures "main deck".
                Well it all fits together. Eureka!
                And for greater persuasiveness, "go to the Internet."
                Here is the level, damn it!
  • IC
    IC 19 May 2020 02: 11 New
    0
    There is no such parameter at sea as tonnage. And for this vessel there are GRT 58865 and DW 18864 T.
    Why did they get what is possible on ships where armored vehicles can be transported on decks designed for passenger cars. And the loading capacity of the ramps? All pure incompetent fiction. For such purposes, dual-purpose skaters were built in the USSR. For example, Ro 120 type captain Smirnov. There, all designs were designed for tanks.
    1. ccpmo
      ccpmo 19 May 2020 08: 01 New
      +4
      Why is science fiction? Of course, first of all, these vessels are designed to carry cargo for maximum benefit, and they are designed for civilian vehicles, but still ... Sunrise Ace has a maximum permissible load on the aft ramp of 100T, with a maximum axle load of no more than 50T, ramp width 7M. Allowable load on the main deck, it is D7, 3000kg / M2, and on the deck for trucks, D5, 1500kg / M2. With the fastening of any equipment, there is also no problem, everything is calculated to the smallest detail. The total volume of cargo decks is 53000 m2. Based on this, the author gives a very correct assessment of the possibility of transporting military goods, including armored vehicles and personnel.
      1. Brylevsky
        Brylevsky 19 May 2020 09: 53 New
        +4
        Congratulations, one of the few sensible comments on the topic. You are practically ready to take up the position of starpom in a car truck. hi drinks . Are you not a sailor?
        1. ccpmo
          ccpmo 19 May 2020 09: 59 New
          +3
          Your colleague drinks
    2. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 19 May 2020 11: 52 New
      +3
      Why did they get what is possible on ships where armored vehicles can be transported on decks designed for passenger cars.

      Sorry, but the construction documentation from the shipyard that built it directly speaks about this. They can carry wheeled-tracked vehicles weighing up to 100 tons.
      And the loading capacity of the ramps?

      Onboard - up to 20 tons, aft - up to 100 tons.
      All pure incompetent fiction

      How to say. It’s not just that there is a load capacity of 100 tons, what do you think?
      For such purposes, dual-purpose skaters were built in the USSR. For example, Ro 120 type captain Smirnov. There, all designs were designed for tanks.

      Yes. But when is there no ro-ro-ro cruiser at hand? But there are many such RSS ... which are quite capable, if necessary, to transport everything, including tanks.
  • Archon
    Archon 19 May 2020 03: 45 New
    -1
    these vessels are too large for military transport and there is a great risk of losing immediately great strength, a whole brigade.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 19 May 2020 18: 05 New
      0
      Quote: Archon
      these vessels are too large for military transport and there is a great risk of losing immediately great strength, a whole brigade.

      And for the transportation of troops in peacetime?
      1. Archon
        Archon 20 May 2020 06: 28 New
        -1
        for transportation to peace - excellent, only we have a continental country and there are no allies, which means there is nowhere to transport. Even in the Syrian operation, what was available was enough.
        Now, if such car transporters carried thousands of "lad" in the US for sale - it would be cool.
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 19 May 2020 06: 25 New
    +4
    Well, as I wrote a long time ago, what could drive a BDK to Syria, killing their resource, it was quite possible to buy a couple of Ro-ro ships and they would solve all the problems. Just include them in the Navy, so that the adversaries did not dare to stop.
  • prior
    prior 19 May 2020 08: 08 New
    +3
    Maybe enough about the war. Let him carry cars.
  • Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 19 May 2020 10: 03 New
    +3
    In the Desert Storm, the Americans chartered several dozen ro-ros, including those with a displacement of 100 thousand tons, which took two hundred tanks at once. 8 "heavy" mechanized divisions were transferred. Now the strategic maritime command has about twenty ro-ros in reserve, enough to transport half of the US ground forces.

    Everything is already thought up and is in full use. It is strange that the article says the future tense.
    1. ccpmo
      ccpmo 19 May 2020 11: 23 New
      +1
      It is very difficult to imagine a ship under the flag of popuasia and a crew from palmland belay which transports US military, combat, and military equipment. The US has an LMSR and this is a purely military ship. An article about the possibility of using civil vessels of the PCC type to transfer rolling equipment to a theater.
    2. wehr
      19 May 2020 12: 40 New
      +2
      Because the concept can be slightly modified with a file.
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 19 May 2020 12: 10 New
    0
    Well, why did USN buy the "freshest" ro-ro ships from the fleet of the former USSR, in due time, and remake them into supply ships?
  • kig
    kig 19 May 2020 15: 42 New
    +3
    Not ideal, but just normal transport for military transport does not look at all like in the header, but something like this:



    By the way, this is the former ro-ro of the Black Sea Shipping Company.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 20 May 2020 09: 39 New
      +3
      Quote: kig
      Not ideal, but just normal transport for military transport does not look at all like in the header, but something like this:

      Or like this:

      High-speed vehicles of the "Algol" type. 55 kt displacement, dimensions as AB, speed - 33 knots. Nee - a container ship.
      1. Angelo Provolone
        Angelo Provolone 20 May 2020 11: 10 New
        +2
        Or like that. He came up, ducked and planted a transport.


      2. kig
        kig 20 May 2020 12: 32 New
        +2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Or like this

        I deliberately placed a photo of this particular steamboat (although this is now a ship, as part of a fleet, albeit an auxiliary one) to show that we too could once. And they managed not to sell to anyone, but to potential friends. In the photo, he, of course, was rebuilt, but according to the press, the power plant (two gas turbine engines) remained the same.
      3. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri 21 May 2020 14: 15 New
        0
        Just from the Soviet "ro-rokers" rebuilt, as I wrote above.
  • sagitch
    sagitch 19 May 2020 17: 58 New
    0
    On such a vessel it is advisable to transport a whole part, with all units, equipment and supplies.

    And you can immediately destroy the whole part, with l / s equipment, ammunition and ...
  • Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 19 May 2020 18: 04 New
    +4
    Just an interesting story about opportunities and prospects. To the author - “+”.
    Competent and interesting comments (about fire extinguishing systems) - “+”.
    The evening was a success.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Dobron
    Dobron 19 May 2020 19: 04 New
    -4
    It’s just that the author does not know the difference between ro-ro ships and clean car carriers, which are designed for the carriage of cars, twin-deck decks are designed for the height of a passenger car, and you won’t put any truck or other cargo there, so divide the number of decks by two, and about the upper deck just forget. Another matter of a court such as a ro-po or a roll trailer there can be a lot to upload. And about the unsinkability, then two torpedoes, which did not even explode, hawatit. We know "swam" !!!!!!!
    1. ccpmo
      ccpmo 20 May 2020 14: 16 New
      +3
      If you "swam", then you will understand the information below. All the details about the height of the decks.
      Vessel Crystal Ace.
    2. realist
      realist 23 May 2020 07: 48 New
      0
      for sure, cars can be driven to the upper deck, but equipment weighing 20-50 tons should be on the lower decks, there should be a decent height in the light in the hold, the ramps should have the required carrying capacity.
  • mitrich
    mitrich 20 May 2020 09: 48 New
    0
    Eka cha pushed. Already the plan and tactics of destruction are ready. Then write how to bomb the cruise ships, they will also be involved in the war. And indeed, for the entire type of civil courts. Here is the work of scribble, not an open edge.
    1. wehr
      20 May 2020 11: 11 New
      +1
      There should be a directory of all enemy ships, and those that can be chartered for military transportation, with recommendations for their destruction.
      This is one of the elementary measures for preparing the fleet for war.
      1. ccpmo
        ccpmo 20 May 2020 12: 58 New
        +1
        The reference book is a good thing and you just need to put the aiming point on board right away, you can have a few to be sure. But the presence of the ship does not mean its ability to perform a combat mission, since the crew will be the main problem. Sailing as part of a convoy, signaling and other related tasks need to be able to do. Before mid-zero, we had compulsory naval training, both basic and advanced, for crew members of naval vessels. And now there is nothing, and even in a bursa, not all cadets attend a military department. In the USA, many sailors get into the civilian fleet after serving in the Navy, moreover, they work under their own flag and almost all of them, vessels, charter on the US government to supply their numerous bases.
        1. wehr
          20 May 2020 14: 07 New
          +2
          In the reference book on the silhouette of the ship should be such a markup. Scheme of the vessel, silhouettes at different heading angles - all this should be.

          Yes, we only talk about defense, what they really do.
  • ccpmo
    ccpmo 20 May 2020 14: 45 New
    +4
    In Japan, several large shipping companies that have such ships ...
    When the problem with places for patients with COVID-19 worsened in Tokyo, the city authorities agreed with hotels to accommodate patients. One of the accommodation options was the opportunity to use a car carrier in the port of Tokyo as a floating hospital, shipping companies themselves came up with such an offer.
    Everyone knows about the sad events after the tsunami on March 11, 2011. So, the Japanese authorities used the ferry fleet of their country to eliminate the consequences of the emergency. And I’m sure that if there weren’t enough ferries, we would use PCC as well.
    PCC has enormous potential ... at least put a red cross on board.

    Parma used these
  • Victor Dubrovsky
    Victor Dubrovsky 20 May 2020 19: 53 New
    0
    Not only the generals are preparing for the last war, there are many enthusiasts ... It has been reported a thousand times that the existing 130 Hiroshima fusion weapons will destroy ALL mankind. And, in spite of reality, - a constantly obsessive desire to fight, in the complete absence of the real goals of such a war ... We must be treated, gentlemen.
    1. Sasha_rulevoy
      Sasha_rulevoy 21 May 2020 06: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: Victor Dubrovsky
      130 Hiroshima


      Hiroshima was in the war before last. And in the 50s, it was precisely for such a war - both sides, the USA and the USSR, were preparing with thousands of Hiroshima. But then suddenly there was a war in Korea, a war in Vietnam, the Gulf War, the Second Gulf War. For the USSR, there were three Arab-Israeli wars. And the Syrian war is already for Russia. And all without nuclear weapons. Can wars like the ones listed above not be repeated in the future? Do you need to prepare for them then?
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 20 May 2020 21: 09 New
    +1
    Great review.
    Particularly interested in the section, they will begin to drown. And how to deal with this trouble?
    Since everyone who is not lazy and the crew will become drowned, these events may not be very pleasant.
    From here, the conclusion is immediately, you need to build a bunch of destroyers type Burke
    To accompany. You can and BOD ... But that's not for sure.
  • lazy
    lazy 22 May 2020 07: 39 New
    0
    the author forgot to mention boarding wink
  • Plastmaster
    Plastmaster 22 May 2020 19: 10 New
    0
    It is a workhorse in case of war. Of course, one way, but this is all disposable landing. And of course, looking with whom to fight.
  • realist
    realist 23 May 2020 07: 44 New
    0
    Without going into technical details (especially hulls, decks, loading and unloading mechanisms), I think that the ship is certainly not bad but geared for a specific task and infrastructure, transportation of military equipment on such a ship is possible only on condition of a high-quality berth. landing on a non-equipped shore should be implemented with something more adapted. seaworthiness will be mediocre, I don’t know how full the hull is and how it perceives the wave, but he definitely doesn’t like the wind, the surface area of ​​the freeboard is not mum, the sail is huge. and the center of gravity is quite high, stability during draft 10 meters and 20 meters above water is worse than a tanker with a draft of 20 meters and a side height of 5 meters. and the displacement is not great.
  • Yellow bubble
    Yellow bubble 29 May 2020 20: 01 New
    -1
    Don’t say that we need this shit.