BDK worse than a truck


Large landing ship of project 1174. In this case, “Saratov”. Launched in 1964, that is, the ship is 56 years old. Surprisingly, he is still afloat. Photo: Artem Balabin


A discussion of the advantages and benefits of a Sunrise Ace-type car carrier ship for military operations in the previous article very clearly showed a curious and quite common phenomenon of a priori judgment. Although I focused on the advantages of the car carrier and did not go too far into comparing it with other types of ships commonly used in military transport, some commentators began to impose this comparison, and in a noticeably negative spirit. Like, why bother talking about this ship when there are rollers and large landing ships (BDKs).


Car carrier Сarnation Ace

No one bothered them to make a comparison, albeit thesis, in order to reinforce their judgment, but this was not done. It seemed that both the skater and the BDK, in the view of some of my opponents, were such unattainable ideals that no ship could compare with. It’s just, one might say, a radiant ideal that offends any comparison.

In my opinion, this is exactly what the a priori judgment, generated by the fact that his supporters once and somewhere read laudatory articles about skaters or BDKs, formed their views on this, without particularly going into details.

Therefore, we will compare the BDK and the car carrier as military transport ships. I have something to say to the skaters too, especially since there are some unobvious nuances, but this is somehow later, another time. Now the focus of attention is precisely the BDK. I put my opinion in the heading partly in order to set fire to the discussion: the BDK is worse than a car carrier, and it is noticeable.

BDK is much smaller


To begin with, the BDK of project 1174 is noticeably smaller than a car carrier. The total displacement of the BDK is 4,3 thousand tons, of a car carrier - 60,9 thousand tons, that is, 14 times less.

Accordingly, the BDK has less load capacity. He can take aboard 22 tank and 25 armored personnel carriers, which will amount to 1373 tons. The lifting capacity of the Sunrise Ace (if you count on the capacity of cars in 5196 units and the average weight of the car is 1,5 tons) is 7794 tons, that is, 5,6 times more than that of the BDK.

Opponents must have been embarrassed by the fact that the truck has 45 pieces of cargo for vehicles weighing 50 tons. This is true. But this is a half full glass situation. The weight of 45 tanks taken aboard will amount to 2095,5 tons, or 26,8% of the carrying capacity. There are still 5702 tons of carrying capacity, which can be filled with other cargo: light armored vehicles, trucks, ammunition, food, and personnel. The free carrying capacity of a car carrier after loading the tanks is more than four times more than the BDK can accept.

This could be the end. A vessel with a lower carrying capacity cannot be better than a vessel with a higher carrying capacity, and the somewhat greater convenience in unloading the BDK due to the retractable bow ramp does not compensate for this.

How many tanks can I load?


Although exact data on the loading plan of the BDK has not been published, nevertheless, it is possible to estimate the capabilities of this ship approximately, based on the dimensions of the tank hold, dock chamber and upper deck.

So, a tank hold is 54 meters long and 12 meters wide (648 square meters), a dock camera is 75 meters long and 12 meters wide (900 square meters) and the upper deck is about 40 meters long and 12 meters wide (480 sq. meters). A total of 2028 square meters. meters. According to other published data: hold 790 square meters. meters, docking chamber - 1195 sq. meters, the upper deck - 405 square meters. meters, only 2390 square meters. meters.


Scheme of the BDK project 1174: 12 - bow cargo holds, 29 - dock camera, 24 - interdeck gangway

In general, the data on the loading of the BDK vary. Here is the data from the reference book “Ships of the Navy of the USSR” (vol. 4) that the cargo in three variants can be accommodated in the BDK of project 1174. The first - 22 tanks and 25 armored personnel carriers; the second - 50 armored personnel carriers; the third - 52 trucks. The carrying capacity in the first embodiment will be 1373 tons, in the second - 700 tons, in the third - 426,4 tons. This reference also indicates that the load on the interdeck gangway does not exceed 12 tons, that is, tanks cannot be driven onto the deck. In general, what did the designers of this miracle of technology think about? Well, they would have made a gangway of 50 tons and a strong deck for tanks, with the ability to shoot from tanks directly from the deck.

When we begin to consider the issue in detail, it turns out that even in tank capacity, the BDK has no advantages over a car carrier. Sunrise Ace can take twice as many tanks as the BDK. Which, in general, is not surprising given the sharp difference in size.

The phenomenal capacity of only one deck of a car carrier


Unlike many of my opponents, who see themselves as fearless fighters in battle, I imagine myself to be a rear rat, which, sniffing and moving its antennae, is engaged in all kinds of boring bookkeeping. So I just started calculating how much can fit on one deck of a car carrier. 3rd deck - 5883 sq. square meters, height 2,1 meters.

BDK worse than a truck
Car Truck Diagram

Tank shells. A box about 80 cm long, 40 cm wide and 20 cm high, in which two shots, gross weight 100 kg. The ammunition of the tank is 39 rounds, that is, the tank needs 20 boxes. A stack of two boxes per square meter. meter and 6 tiers in height (12 boxes - 1,2 tons). Given the six-meter driveway for loaders, we have 4900 square meters. meters of deck area under the load. Total: 39200 boxes, or 78400 rounds, which is enough for 2010 tanks.

Howitzer 122-mm shells (2C1 "Carnation"). Box 1,6 meters long, 40 cm wide, 20 cm high, two shots, gross weight 70 kg. A stack of two boxes of 2 square meters. meters and 8 tiers in height (16 boxes - 1,1 tons). 19600 boxes or 39200 rounds, which is enough for 980 self-propelled guns.

Ammo 5,45 mm. Box length 48 cm, width 35 cm, height 10 cm, 2160 rounds, gross weight 29 kg. A stack of 4 drawers per square meter. meter and 8 tiers in height (32 boxes - 928 kg). A total of 156800 boxes, or 338,6 million pieces of cartridges. This is enough for a millionth army.

Fuel in 200 liter barrels. Width and length 60 cm, height 80 cm, gross weight 180 kg. A stack of 9 barrels per 4 square meters. meters and two tiers in height (18 barrels - 3,2 tons). Only 22050 barrels, or 4410000 liters, which is enough for 2756 tanks.

Food, rations IRP-B. The box is 70 cm long, 20 cm wide and 25 cm high, inside 7 individual rations, gross weight 14,7 kg. A stack of 4 drawers per square meter. meter and 8 tiers in height (32 boxes - 470,4 kg). 156800 boxes or 1097000 individual rations.

This is only one deck. So at least two decks can be packed tightly or the cargo can be distributed more freely on 5-6 decks for better stability of the vessel. The cartridges were the heaviest load, and it is better to place it on the lower decks, from the 8th to the 11th.

How? Will get so much ammunition, fuel and food in the BDK? If you load cargo in the BDK at any of the above positions, the ship will simply sink under its weight. A car truck will withstand any of the above cargo positions.

About the crew loading plan


We’ll finish with rough calculations and move on to a more or less realistic loading plan. We have an air assault brigade, in which 2700 personnel, 13 T-72 tanks, 33 BMD, 46 BMPs, 10 BTR-82A, 18 BTR-D, 6 self-propelled guns 2S9 "Nona", 8 ZSU-23 "Shilka" . This is a full part, ready for battle.

The weight:
- personnel: 270 tons (based on 100 kg per person);
- equipment: 2018,3 tons.
Total: 2288,3 tons, or 29,3% of full load capacity.

This means that you can also bring along various supplies for life and battle. In the calculations, I proceed from 5 fueling stations, 3 ammunition shells and 5 ammunition ammunition, 10 food supplies. Climbing or not? Counting.

The total refueling is 75900 liters for all equipment, or 380 round barrels. Five gas stations will be 1900 barrels, or 342 tons of cargo.

Ammunition is more difficult to calculate. But with all the available data, 507 tank shells, 150 shells for the 2S9 howitzer, 32,9 thousand 30 mm shells, 16 thousand 23 mm shells, 5000 rounds of 14,5 mm, 82 thousand rounds of 7,62 mm were obtained. All together will weigh 78,9 tons in boxes, or, in a round number, 80 tons. Three BC for equipment - 240 tons. Ammunition for machine guns and machine guns can be estimated at 665 thousand rounds, or 9,2 tons of weight. 5 BC - 46 tons.

Food. 27 thousand individual rations for 10 days or 3857 boxes. Only 56,7 tons of weight.

The total reserves of the brigade for a decent offensive operation will be, in a row, 685 tons. In reality, a bit more, taking into account mortars, grenade launchers, cars, all kinds of equipment and so on - about 1000 tons.

In the end, we got 3288 tons of cargo, which is the air assault brigade with all its provisions. Or 42% of the ship's carrying capacity. That is, everything breaks in, and with a substantial margin. You can take more shells, ammunition, fuel, food. All this cargo is freely placed on the decks, it is possible to work with forklifts and load cars with them directly on the ship.

Tanks, armored vehicles and trucks - on the 7th and 5th decks, shells and ammunition - down, on the 8th - 11th decks, fuel - on the 6th and 4th decks, food and personnel on very top, from 1st to 3rd decks.

This is the main military transport advantage of the car carrier over the BDK. A car truck can land a whole brigade with all the equipment and supplies, equipped for the offensive and intense multi-day battles. As the initial coefficients for fuel and ammunition, I took real data on the consumption of one or the other during major offensive operations during the Great Patriotic War.

BDK can only land a battalion. Moreover, he will not have a large margin with him and can only rely on one refueling, one ammunition and what can be put into equipment or in pockets with backpacks. No, of course, you can distribute about 250 tons of additional ammunition, fuel and food in crates and barrels on decks, in holds, in corners, in the cockpit of the BDK. But only unloading all this good will be nobody and nothing. Paratroopers need to fight, and you have to turn them temporarily into movers. If you do without an additional margin, as this, apparently, was supposed when designing the BDK, then with one refueling and one BK the enemy will quite easily break you up. There will be another bridgehead dotted with bones.

How can it be considered that 400 is more than 2700? How can it be considered that a ship that disembarks a battalion is better than a ship that disembarks an entire brigade? There’s nothing to even compare. BDK is a ship with a narrow specialization, and it is good only in this framework. As a transport, it cannot be compared to a car carrier.

In operational-tactical terms, as part of the amphibious operations, the BDK and car carriers, together with other ships, must act together. Say, we have landing forces in the amount of three brigades - 8,1 thousand people. 1 thousand of them were planted on four BDKs, and its tasks include seizing the port and ensuring the landing of two other brigades, which are located on two car carriers. They also have additional supplies for the brigade operating with the BDK. Their task is to catch on shore, capture a port or a place where car carriers can unload. Two brigades departing from them advance, expand the bridgehead and create the necessary conditions for the transfer of large formations.

If there are no large transports with troops behind the landing on the BDK that will support it and develop success, then this landing is doomed to defeat and inglorious death.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

216 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. antivirus 25 May 2020 18: 13 New
    • 8
    • 14
    -6
    BDK - a small and clumsy spoon.
    Chezh Ustinov and Grechko did not build 100 tons of VI each?
    THAT THE COUNTRY NEEDED TO BE ---- BUILT!
    And now the same. had to be transported to Bulgaria and the GDR - built for a specific task, or to Honshu against amers (excluding self-defense forces in the 70's)
    other time - you can get Daggers
    1. Alexey RA 25 May 2020 19: 25 New
      • 12
      • 6
      +6
      Quote: antivirus
      BDK - a small and clumsy spoon.
      Chezh Ustinov and Grechko did not build 100 tons of VI each?
      THAT THE COUNTRY NEEDED TO BE ---- BUILT!

      Oh, just don’t need about Ustinov and what the country needs. At that time, they built what survived in the battles of sailors and land explorers. Ustinov and Amelko just wanted to build large UDC. But only in order to occupy the “slipway 0” and to break line 1143 just at the moment when normal aircraft appeared on its decks (UDC should have been built instead of 1143.5). smile
      1. Momotomba 25 May 2020 20: 25 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Kuznetsov was supposed to be UDC?
        1. Alexey RA 26 May 2020 09: 16 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: Momotomba
          Kuznetsov was supposed to be UDC?

          Instead of Kuznetsov, at one time they wanted to build UDC. But the Navy was able to repel the TAVKR.
      2. tatarin1972 25 May 2020 22: 37 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Project 1174 "Rhinoceros" was similar to UDC, and it was built on "Yantar" in Kaliningrad, in my opinion only MDKVP and MDK were built on the Black Sea, and then not in Nikolaev.
      3. bayard 26 May 2020 03: 15 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        Quote: Alexey RA

        Oh, just don’t need about Ustinov and what the country needs. At that time, they built what survived in the battles of sailors and land explorers. Ustinov and Amelko just wanted to build large UDC. But only in order to occupy the “slipway 0” and to break line 1143 just at the moment when normal planes appeared on its decks (UDC should have been built instead of 1143.5)

        But could not UDC be built on the Gulf? In my opinion, it is quite clear that the signed contract proves the other day. The fact that the "Gulf" at that time was busy with orders for supertankers, rollers and similar civilian projects, speaks of the priorities of the state. And the fact that two dual-purpose rollers (military transports in the second incarnation) were built clearly indicates that attention was paid to this topic. It’s just that they began to build the ocean fleet only from the beginning of the 70s and just before the turn of 1991 did not reach the landing helicopter carriers and heavy military transports. But there were projects. And on landing helicopter carriers too. Just aircraft carriers and other warships were a priority. The USSR sought to balance the forces at sea in surface ships, primarily military ones.
        Nevertheless, the two former Soviet rollers are now the subject of pride of the American Navy, as the best military transports available.
        The arms race is precisely a race when the construction of surface fleet ships was much ahead of the development of naval naval and coastal infrastructure, the repair base lagged (the ships waited for repair for years), the social sphere lagged behind (officers had no place to live, families suffered). All these imbalances, miscalculations and errors in planning should be a lesson in planning the construction of the future fleet of the Russian Federation.
        ... If the modern Russian Federation really needs a Fleet.
        And I like the idea of ​​using the above car carriers as military transports. But this should not be to the detriment of the development of other ships for landing forces. Both BDK and UDC are needed - each of them has its own task and application niche. And such ships / vessels (car carriers) will be needed only to ensure really large landing operations, with unloading in a previously captured port - by landing forces from the very UDC and BDK.
        And the author thanks for the continuation of the topic.
        Actually. hi
        1. Alexey RA 26 May 2020 09: 18 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: bayard
          But could not UDC be built on the Gulf?

          The center of aircraft carrier shipbuilding was Nikolaev. So the carrier SKVVP had to be built there. And UDC or TAVKR - this is how the card will fall. smile
          1. bayard 26 May 2020 09: 45 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Yes, I remember that story with "Ivan Gren" - there was no place for him on the Nikolaev slipway. But in the "Gulf" with the proper approach, they could. But apparently orders were more important then.
            But in the current conditions, such rollerters / car carriers can well be ordered abroad, moreover, as a civilian order for, say, Dobroflot. And use it for military needs as needed. And use the rest of your free time for civilian purposes. Like Ruslana, it’s quite a commercial Volga-Dnepr. hi
        2. IC
          IC 26 May 2020 21: 49 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          One wrote complete nonsense, and you are discussing it. Complete ignorance of the marine sphere. You can also offer to immediately transport the whole division to a cruiser, and preferably on a passenger ferry.
          1. bayard 26 May 2020 23: 32 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: IMS
            One wrote complete nonsense, and you are discussing it.

            The title of this article is stupid ... although rather provocative. And of course we don’t need to take such ships into service. But to have such in the mobile reserve is a completely different matter. To order a couple of such ice-strengthened ones for Dobroflot, say, in Korea, and drive Korean and Japanese cars via the NSR to the European market on a shorter route. And if necessary - to attract for military transport operations. And not necessarily in a war. We’ll decide to open a naval base in Venezuela by 2027 (such plans were announced), so on such a trip, you’ll drag everything you need yes ... and the UDC newly built for him in a pair fellow so it’s not boring.
            Power ! smile bully
            With this, not the Pechenegs are not afraid, not the Polovtsy yes
            And the personnel of course on a cruiser smile so that the soldiers were not bored in the campaign wink ... pools ... restaurants ... BEAUTY! good drinks
            Tear them all.
            1. ccsr 27 May 2020 11: 03 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Quote: bayard
              . We’ll think about opening a naval base in Venezuela in Venezuela (such plans were announced),

              It is not known who will be in power there by then, so we will not guess.
              Quote: bayard
              With this, not the Pechenegs are not afraid, not the Polovtsy

              It’s just that the coronavirus spoiled a little the picture of our future victories - it’s not up to the Pechenegs, as it turned out, that’s the beginning of the Ministry of Defense, in the first place, building a hospital instead of ships.
              Quote: bayard
              pools ... restaurants ... BEAUTY!
              Tear them all.

              “And they threw bonnets into the air” - the last stroke of this fairy tale.
              1. bayard 27 May 2020 13: 49 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: ccsr
                Quote: bayard
                . We’ll think about opening a naval base in Venezuela in Venezuela (such plans were announced),

                It is not known who will be in power there by then, so we will not guess.

                This is true - times are distant, anything can happen ... But there is interest. Shoigu did not go there for nothing with one of the naval ones, he looked at the island for the Navy - picturesque ...
                And it’s not serious that we are talking about such a mandolin - it’s definitely not going to be adopted. Well, for "Dobroflot" you can wish for this, but it must certainly be commercially justified - the removal of the Asian automobile industry through the NSR is a chance. smile
                Quote: ccsr
                Quote: bayard
                With this, not the Pechenegs are not afraid, not the Polovtsy

                It’s just that the coronavirus spoiled a little the picture of our future victories - it’s not up to the Pechenegs, as it turned out, that’s the beginning of the Ministry of Defense, in the first place, building a hospital instead of ships.

                Hospital for a nonexistent epidemic from a nonexistent disease ... sounds alarming ...
                But Gates is not so scary, even if he is Bill, so that because of his viruses, ships should not be built. no
                Trump, like even the Sharashkin office, withdrew from financing, and WHO is still there. It stirs up passion for the “crown” of the viral ... He drove everyone under arrest ...
                What are the intelligence signs talking about?
                But without looking at the evil machinations, the WHO’s impoverishment didn’t spoil us with the ships ... for now ... So we signed a contract for the UDC with the Gulf ... But the frigates and so on haven’t yet ... probably for the New Victory Parade Bookmarks will make it look beautiful and bewitching. yes
                Quote: ccsr
                Quote: bayard
                pools ... restaurants ... BEAUTY!
                Tear them all.

                "And caps threw into the air" - the last stroke to this fairy tale

                If you put marines on a cruise liner, but across the Atlantic ... not only bonnets will fly into the air ... there are these ... stewardesses ... or whatever ... repeat
                In short - they won’t resist! fellow love yes bully
                1. ccsr 27 May 2020 18: 28 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: bayard
                  But there is interest. Shoigu did not go there for nothing with one of the naval ones, he looked at the island for the Navy - picturesque ...

                  I recalled how during Allende the issue of building a station for satellite systems in Chile was very seriously considered in order to extract information from reconnaissance satellites. But then Pinochet came to power, and this idea was buried forever. The same can be in Venezuela - let’s not deceive ourselves.
                  Quote: bayard
                  What are the intelligence signs talking about?

                  To hammer in and not to panic - everything will settle down by itself, and this, in my opinion, can be seen without intelligence signs.
                  Quote: bayard
                  In short - they won’t resist!

                  They can’t stand it, and they’ll have a flight attendant if the flight is long ....
                  1. bayard 28 May 2020 01: 56 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: ccsr

                    I recalled how during Allende the issue of building a station for satellite systems in Chile was very seriously considered in order to extract information from reconnaissance satellites. But then Pinochet came to power, and this idea was buried forever. The same can be in Venezuela - let’s not deceive ourselves.

                    Yes, Allende is sorry, as well as lost opportunities. But in Venezuela, not only ours, but also China's interests. And Iran wondered how briskly it took to help. But who needs a naval base overseas, but without a fleet?
                    Nada to build.
                    Nada. yes
                    Quote: ccsr

                    To hammer in and not to panic - everything will settle down by itself, and this, in my opinion, can be seen without intelligence signs.

                    And it all shakes and shakes.
                    And does not settle down. lol
                    When the Union was shaking, they also scored.
                    Now the whole world is shaking.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    They can’t stand it, and they’ll have a flight attendant if the flight is long ....

                    stop These are not our methods.
                    Ours are more likely to board several onboard cruise ships with graduates of ballet, hareographic and simply women's gymnasiums, as well as rhythmic gymnastics schools ... Of course, without interruption from the main task.
                    Our marines are true aesthetes, and appreciate only FEMALE beauty.
                    And they love their homeland. soldier yes
                    bully
      4. antivirus 27 May 2020 07: 36 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        what survived the battles of sailors and land explorers
        maybe vice versa - what do Zhukov-Ogarkov and their opponents from the Moreman need?
        and right now there are contradictions - what to capture, "liberate": Prague-Vienna - Rome-Paris or only Budapest-Warsaw
    2. svp67 25 May 2020 19: 50 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      Quote: antivirus
      BDK - a small and clumsy spoon.
      Chezh Ustinov and Grechko did not build 100 tons of VI each?

      Sorry, but with all the correctness of what the author said, namely
      If there are no large transports with troops behind the landing on the BDK that will support it and develop success, then this landing is doomed to defeat and inglorious death.
      , he already asked with his heading a misunderstanding of the question.
      BDK and high-speed transport ship, these are two different tools, sharpened to solve their problems.
      In Soviet times, the civilian shipping ships of shipping companies used to transfer the main forces of naval landing. Now there are simply NO such. Almost all of our ships have foreign registration and in case of war, they are of course requisition, but there are situations when there is no big war and you can’t requisition ships, but they are very necessary. That's why our fleet needs a certain number of high-speed transport ships and their construction on the basis of car carriers or Ro-Ro class ships, one of the simplest and best options now
      1. antivirus 25 May 2020 20: 00 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        In Soviet times, the civilian shipping ships of shipping companies used to transfer the main forces of naval landing.

        - About this and the speech should not build Shoigu, but private traders. Patriotly said? Total tonnage. after the collapse of Bulgaria, how many citizens do we have left for inland and what is on the seas?
        and it turns out that 1 \ 10 Shoigu should have, and give mobilization - ???
        What is the proportion of VI in the US?
        1. Bad_gr 26 May 2020 10: 35 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: antivirus
          - About this and the speech should not build Shoigu, but private traders.

          In Soviet times, civilian ships were built taking into account how they will be used in wartime. I remember that between the military and civilian specialists, when approving the project, there was a dispute about what the cruising speed of the ship should be like: for civilians, taking into account the greatest economy, the speed of delivery was important for the military. The difference was quite substantial. Our civilian vessels, of those faster, were quickly sold out in troubled times. Now they are in the service, including among our enemies.
      2. raw174 25 May 2020 20: 24 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: svp67
        , he already asked with his heading a misunderstanding of the question.

        I am not a connoisseur of the topic, but I think that the BDK will take on less cargo, but it is more convenient to land from it, I mean draft and the need for an equipped coast, pier, pier ... Does a truck take a landing on an un-equipped coast?
        1. svp67 25 May 2020 20: 48 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: raw174
          Car carrier will land on an un-equipped coast?

          Floating pontoon piers were built for civilians, but a specialized high-speed transport ship must be equipped with a sufficient number of cargo cranes so that they could load cargo on landing and landing equipment in the shortest possible time.
          1. Alexey RA 26 May 2020 11: 24 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: svp67
            Floating pontoon piers were built for civilians, but a specialized high-speed transport ship must be equipped with a sufficient number of cargo cranes so that they could load cargo on landing and landing equipment in the shortest possible time.

            There is one subtle point here: the landing and landing equipment must be based somewhere, and it is best to carry out the reload not on the DKA itself, but on a relatively stable accumulation platform. And we are smoothly approaching the need to build an ESD. smile
        2. tatarin1972 25 May 2020 22: 43 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          The whole point is just that, the BDKs are intended for landing heavy equipment on the non-equiped coast, but I don’t know how to unload the equipment from a car carrier, if you think about it, then cranes, flotillas of die-boats.?!
          1. bayard 26 May 2020 03: 32 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: tatarin1972
            The whole point is just that, the BDKs are intended for landing heavy equipment on the un-equipped coast

            That's right. The bridgehead and port on the enemy shore should be captured by landing forces from the same UDC and BDK. UDC provides landing of helicopter assault forces and air cover, as well as landing of military equipment by swimming, BDK provides landing of marines and heavy armored vehicles on an unequipped shore, the forces of which capture the enemy port and ensure a safe perimeter. And only then the aforementioned car carrier and other military transports enters the port and unloads heavy equipment, cargo and all necessary supplies.
            Each ship has its own niche.
            1. Alexey RA 26 May 2020 11: 26 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: bayard
              And only then the aforementioned car carrier and other military transports enters the port and unloads heavy equipment, cargo and all necessary supplies.

              It is possible even without a port - especially since they are usually either well protected or disabled. But then you need an "intermediate" ship - a floating pier and a base for vehicles and equipment to deliver cargo to an unequipped shore.
            2. raw174 26 May 2020 15: 02 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: bayard
              Each ship has its own niche.

              Then why compare ships from different niches? An incorrect comparison comes out ... As a result, a car carrier is a vehicle for delivering cargo to a coast friendly to our forces (to the port), of course it is not suitable for an amphibious operation ... However, I doubt the effectiveness of the combat landing both from the air and from the sea .
              1. bayard 26 May 2020 15: 09 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well, this author compares, but I just said that such a car carrier is quite suitable as military transport. Yes, there was something similar in the Union - two gorgeous gas turbine lighter carriers.
        3. Brylevsky 26 May 2020 02: 52 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Car carrier will land on an un-equipped coast?

          No. He needs a pier with access roads and depths of up to 11 meters. Or a gentle sandy beach with similar depths. But over 20 years of work in the sea, I have never met such a guard ... Another question: why should a car carrier land on an unequipped coast? To eliminate this scenario, you need to capture one of the enemy ports. For the Japanese, this is Vladivostok, Nakhodka, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.
        4. sleeve 26 May 2020 05: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          A car carrier cannot. Lighter carrier please.
      3. wehr 25 May 2020 22: 26 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Header solely to set fire to the discussion laughing
        Incidentally, I am writing about this.

        It is clear that there are people who are not convinced of anything; but there are readers who do not write comments, who will read all this and can themselves compare.
        1. vVvAD 26 May 2020 02: 20 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Dmitry, welcome!
          Header solely to set fire to the discussion

          There is one comment - find by nickname wink
        2. Simargl 26 May 2020 20: 10 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: wehr
          Header solely to set fire to the discussion
          The larger the carcass, the higher the efficiency of the torpedo tongue
      4. Boa kaa 25 May 2020 22: 37 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Quote: svp67
        but with all the correctness of what the author said,

        he was a little mistaken. yes
        1. In the photo BDK pr 1171, and не 1174 (rhinoceros) "Ivan Rogov", which has a VI of about 14000 tons and helicopters (air assault) Ka-29 - 4 units.
        2. The author writes:
        In the operational-tactical relation as part of the landing operations ...
        no sensible military man will ever put all his eggs (landing force) into one basket (roller). In war, ships sank ...
        3. Landing at the port is a good thing. BUT!
        I will put on the approach to the port a dense combined MLM, and it will be like in the Korean War with the same amami ...
        4. If the opposing side has nuclear weapons and anti-ship missiles / PKBR (DF-21D, for example), an amphibious assault on the scale of the "Invasion" can hardly be imagined ... Overlord - in the past. It’s extremely difficult to use rollers as ships of the moving rear in the VMDO, but under certain conditions it is possible ...
        Therefore, for us, BDK-UDC remains relevant.
        1. bayard 26 May 2020 03: 55 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: BoA KAA
          Therefore, for us, BDK-UDC remains relevant.

          I completely agree with you. But at the same time, nothing prevents you from having a couple of such ships (rollers / car carriers) as part of, say, Dobroflot, using them for civilian purposes (to facilitate the export logistics of our auto industry, for example) and involving them as military cargo transports, if necessary.
          If such a need in the future is allowed and foreseen.
          And if you provide them with some ice class, then you can use them on the NSR, driving the products of the Japanese, Korean and Chinese automobile industries to European markets on a shorter path.
          Why not .
      5. IC
        IC 26 May 2020 21: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You are absolutely right. So it was. And without this, the Navy is a one-legged disabled person.
    3. Alekseev 25 May 2020 21: 14 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: antivirus
      BDK - what a little

      What to equal horseradish and a finger? fool
      After all, the landing ship and the transporter are ships for completely different tasks. One in order to land on an unprepared coast in the face of enemy resistance, and the other for transporting goods, in this case automotive equipment.
      1. Cyril G ... 25 May 2020 21: 57 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        How many over the past 70 years have been landings on an unprepared coast in the face of enemy resistance? And how many times such operations were carried out by the landing ships of the Navy of the USSR / Russia?
        You know?
        1. IC
          IC 26 May 2020 21: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Not a single one. after the war, there was no military operation of the Soviet Navy. The only major landing operation was in the Incheon Korean War.
    4. letinant 26 May 2020 04: 21 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      What are you discussing !?
      Quote: antivirus
      BDK - a small and clumsy spoon.
      Chezh Ustinov and Grechko did not build 100 tons of VI each?
      THAT THE COUNTRY NEEDED TO BE ---- BUILT!
      And now the same. had to be transported to Bulgaria and the GDR - built for a specific task, or to Honshu against amers (excluding self-defense forces in the 70's)
      other time - you can get Daggers

      Author mixed up ship designs !!! He describes the BDK pr.1171 "Tapir" (the first oceanic BDK, the Soviet Union). And everywhere puts pr.1174 "Rhinoceros", this is another ship !!! Pancake experts !!!
      To be honest, not taking into account that the author wrote the wrong ship, respectively, the wrong performance characteristics. The author is trying to pull an OWL TO A GLOBE! Comparing transport ship and warship. I would really like to see how the author of this epic will land on the coast occupied by the enemy. After all, the BDK is not just a supplier of equipment to the coast occupied by the enemy, but also an armed platform that supports airborne assault forces (processing the MLRS coast + artillery mounts, they also work to clear the landing zone with BDK).
      This is pr. 1171 "Tapir"
      But this is 1174 "Rhinoceros", in the photo, pay attention to the extended ramp (its emission is 32 meters), which made it possible to directly land 80% of the coast of the planet.
      This is BDK 1171.1 Ivan Gren.
      In general, the BDK is an assault ship!
      1. svp67 26 May 2020 04: 50 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: letinant
        In general, the BDK is an assault ship!

        Well, to them I would have attributed more landing KVP
        1. letinant 26 May 2020 05: 42 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          DKVP, this is the ship of the first throw + DKVP, not everywhere can go ashore. If I’m not mistaken, the availability of the world coast is about 15%, the usual BDK pr.1171, pr. 775 and KFOR, about 30-40%, but pr.1174, the availability of the world coast 80%, because of its ramp, this is a unique ship. The armament is 2x2 Grad-M MLRS, a 76mm twin artillery mount, 4 KA-29 airborne combat helicopters + the ability to fire directly from the deck with any vehicles that are transported in a tank hold (fall on the upper deck using the lift ramp system on their own, crane not applicable).
          1. svp67 26 May 2020 05: 59 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: letinant
            DKVP, this is the ship of the first throw + DKVP, not everywhere can go ashore.

            Do all of our DKVP need this? Some of them also have ramps. But this is not the main thing. Somehow our marines were never afraid to "soak" their legs, and the DKVP give a great advantage in speed.
            1. letinant 26 May 2020 07: 26 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: svp67
              Quote: letinant
              DKVP, this is the ship of the first throw + DKVP, not everywhere can go ashore.

              Do all of our DKVP need this? Some of them also have ramps. But this is not the main thing. Somehow our marines were never afraid to "soak" their legs, and the DKVP give a great advantage in speed.

              DKVP, never plant equipment afloat. And they are used on the coast where minefields are possible (bottom mines, etc.) And they have ramps for loading and landing of equipment, because they need to get on board first and then go down. The height of the tank hold is high above the ground, for the structural reasons of the ship.
              1. Momotomba 26 May 2020 09: 57 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                I am sorry, but comparing the BDK and the car carrier is like comparing the GAZelle with the KamAZ. Both carry cargo, but for different purposes. In the event of something global, it will have to be transported on what will happen; in the event of a local conflict, huge steamboats will not be required.
                1. letinant 26 May 2020 10: 18 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Momotomba
                  I am sorry, but comparing the BDK and the car carrier is like comparing the GAZelle with the KamAZ. Both carry cargo, but for different purposes. In the event of something global, it will have to be transported on what will happen; in the event of a local conflict, huge steamboats will not be required.

                  Yes, the point is not that he compares, not comparable. And in the fact that he is comparing the wrong ship, the author indicated to the BDK of the wrong project and, accordingly, other technical specifications. If he described Project 1174 "Rhino", there is a quantity of equipment in a machine truck. And he describes pr.1171 (old ship).
                  1. Momotomba 26 May 2020 21: 36 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Project 1174 was cut into needles, project 1171 is, but small ... The author either compares the incomparable, or the car carrier with the nonexistent ... Do I understand correctly?
                    1. letinant 26 May 2020 21: 46 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Momotomba
                      Project 1174 was cut into needles, project 1171 is, but small ... The author either compares the incomparable, or the car carrier with the nonexistent ... Do I understand correctly?

                      The author describes pr.1171 calling him pr.1174. These are different ships, they have the same tasks, but the possibilities are different. 1171 is the first oceanic BDK, they have less tonnage, respectively, less transportable equipment. 1174, this is already a dock ship, except for direct landing through the ramp, in the aft part of the ship there is a dock for landing and landing equipment, DKVP, self-propelled barges, in addition to this 4th helicopter, which can operate from two take-off and landing sites. Well, and accordingly, a large load of equipment.
                      1. Momotomba 26 May 2020 22: 15 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        1174 left with us?
                  2. wehr 26 May 2020 22: 39 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    And what, between these projects there is a significant, cardinal difference? And what, does this somehow affect the huge difference between the BDK and the car carrier in transport capabilities?
                    1. letinant 27 May 2020 00: 12 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: wehr
                      And what, between these projects there is a significant, cardinal difference? And what, does this somehow affect the huge difference between the BDK and the car carrier in transport capabilities?

                      Are you kidding me?! The difference between these BDK projects is very large. I hope you read my comments, I do not want to repeat myself. But the BDK and the car carrier are generally incorrect to compare. To begin with, the BDK is a ship and a car carrier, a ship. If you know the difference between a ship and a ship, then the conversation will go, if not, then the conversation does not make sense.
                      1. wehr 27 May 2020 01: 15 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I do not compare the BDK of different projects. Compared to a car carrier, these are ships of comparable characteristics. And not intended for the transport of goods supply. This is a fact of great importance to me.
                      2. letinant 27 May 2020 01: 22 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: wehr
                        I do not compare the BDK of different projects. Compared to a car carrier, these are ships of comparable characteristics. And not intended for the transport of goods supply. This is a fact of great importance to me.

                        This is not a comparison of the BDK, you post information about one project and put the code of the other (information mismatch). Can a trucker deliver goods to an unprepared coast?
                      3. wehr 27 May 2020 01: 47 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        So what to do? The drawing was found only on an early draft.
                        I am pondering this question. I think yes. A car carrier can carry a floating pier with which pontoons can withstand 80 tons. A 100-meter pier weighs only 132 tons. The ramp of the vessel has negative lowering angles. So all this seems technically feasible, maybe with some alterations.
                      4. letinant 27 May 2020 02: 43 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: wehr
                        So what to do? The drawing was found only on an early draft.
                        I am pondering this question. I think yes. A car carrier can carry a floating pier with which pontoons can withstand 80 tons. A 100-meter pier weighs only 132 tons. The ramp of the vessel has negative lowering angles. So all this seems technically feasible, maybe with some alterations.

                        How do BDK have sump pumps? After all, the BDK can plunge into the water on the main deck and then pump out this water. Do you have weapons systems like a BDK? Being in the warrant, the BDK is a cog in the overall defense system of the compound and its firepower cannot be underestimated. Is there an opportunity to provide fire support to the landing? Is it possible to fire from the deck with equipment carried in the hold? The design of the machine carrier will not allow this (a set of frames cannot stand it). And I’ll answer you, the machine carrier doesn’t have all this, when it is transferred to the landing zone, it becomes a burden, and also a mass grave. Machine carriers are used at the end of the operation to seize the bridgehead, when the port is captured, air superiority is captured, it throws reinforcements to further develop the offensive or block the landing zone. But not earlier than him.
                      5. wehr 27 May 2020 13: 08 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        If you are forced to fight for a landing on the coast, the landing is already virtually failed and the landing will only turn into a beating of the landing. It is obvious! The battle shows the place, signifies intentions; the enemy has an advantage in strength and maneuver. Enhances strength, surrounds, squeezes to the water and will be brothers full and unconditional schwarzer Tod. And BDK will leave, but you won’t leave him to be shot. In this sense, I believe that the BDK is rather harmful because it inclines the command to irrational tactics.

                        Let us prove your thesis about the possibility of firing from the deck with specific figures: the carrying capacity of the deck (kg per square meter) and the permissible load on the interdeck gangway (tons). Do you have such numbers - there will be a conversation, no - sorry.
                      6. letinant 27 May 2020 13: 36 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: wehr
                        If you are forced to fight for a landing on the coast, the landing is already virtually failed and the landing will only turn into a beating of the landing. It is obvious! The battle shows the place, signifies intentions; the enemy has an advantage in strength and maneuver. Enhances strength, surrounds, squeezes to the water and will be brothers full and unconditional schwarzer Tod. And BDK will leave, but you won’t leave him to be shot. In this sense, I believe that the BDK is rather harmful because it inclines the command to irrational tactics.

                        Let us prove your thesis about the possibility of firing from the deck with specific figures: the carrying capacity of the deck (kg per square meter) and the permissible load on the interdeck gangway (tons). Do you have such numbers - there will be a conversation, no - sorry.

                        And what right do you have to call us little brothers? I didn’t land with you. And according to your knowledge of the Marine Corps and landing operations, I doubt that at least something has to do with the landing ships and the Marine Corps. Of course, I didn’t tell you everything that was taught, either there was a witness, or a participant (only tops), but I’m not going to prove anything to you. I leave you with your opinion. I don’t know how old you are, but I will give you one piece of advice (you can listen, you can not). Never tell your idea in the circle of marines, they will laugh.
                      7. wehr 27 May 2020 14: 35 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        It is visible: you do not have numbers, there is no evidence, but there is only IMHO.
                        All your pathos turned out to be just an empty concussion. laughing

                        But I will give one piece of advice (you can listen, you can not). Never get into a heated argument with worthless arguments, they will laugh.
                      8. letinant 27 May 2020 14: 42 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: wehr
                        It is visible: you do not have numbers, there is no evidence, but there is only IMHO.
                        All your pathos turned out to be just an empty concussion. laughing

                        But I will give one piece of advice (you can listen, you can not). Never get into a heated argument with worthless arguments, they will laugh.

                        What nafig numbers, they are still grooved. But to talk about how to get to the shore by car, and even with a barge, and how I’ll start to land. And everyone will look and be surprised. See how smart I am and all fools. They invented landing ships. And upon landing, she always pays off under enemy fire. To reduce losses, a place is chosen (for this reconnaissance) and time as well as weather conditions.
                      9. wehr 27 May 2020 22: 14 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        "Secret" data on an early project published in an open directory. You got into your topic, you don’t know these numbers, so you decided to hide behind the vultures.
                        The Americans came up with a specific work - the assault on islets and atolls in the Pacific Ocean, where they really had to be blasted ahead. Your bosses, however, were torn apart, without bothering to think and figure it out. Your head was filled with tripe in the style of "landing on an unequipped shore."
                        Your miracle of technology needs a cove with sand; you will not go to the stones; so that there’s no surf and waves. All such bays are listed in the lots and are on the maps, and therefore it is not so difficult to predict where you were going to land. And prepare the hottest welcome.

                        A floating pier is from cash. And I have a better idea.
                      10. letinant 28 May 2020 00: 27 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: wehr
                        "Secret" data on an early project published in an open directory. You got into your topic, you don’t know these numbers, so you decided to hide behind the vultures.
                        The Americans came up with a specific work - the assault on islets and atolls in the Pacific Ocean, where they really had to be blasted ahead. Your bosses, however, were torn apart, without bothering to think and figure it out. Your head was filled with tripe in the style of "landing on an unequipped shore."
                        Your miracle of technology needs a cove with sand; you will not go to the stones; so that there’s no surf and waves. All such bays are listed in the lots and are on the maps, and therefore it is not so difficult to predict where you were going to land. And prepare the hottest welcome.

                        A floating pier is from cash. And I have a better idea.

                        I saw the rationalizers, I had to save.
                      11. letinant 28 May 2020 00: 59 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        By the way, you are to my commanders as to the moon on foot. You grow and grow before them. Griffin can be for various reasons, you want to know all the numbers. Unlearn on the ship, settle in the company and get admission. And there will be numbers for you. If you want to command the landing forces, again, unlearn, land on the coast, several dozen times, get the rank, showing yourself as a knowledgeable officer. And offer your ideas. If they don’t laugh. It’s ridiculous, instead of taking an armed ship to take a hefty fool, attach a barge to it and all this as a big mess to send to the enemy’s coast. You infantry, they’ll just say thanks for putting them in this coffin. Oh yes, you still need to find a stretch of coast where there is no enemy, he will leave such stretches, and if not, seeing you, he will shyly hide his eyes and say "I see nothing" and leave. Well, if the enemy is dishonest and will shoot all the time, you will go where they don’t shoot and land there and after landing you will find out that this is your coast.
                      12. wehr 28 May 2020 14: 39 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        No, I'm not going to grow (or rather, fall) to the level of your commanders. My common sense is dearer.
                      13. letinant 28 May 2020 15: 20 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: wehr
                        No, I'm not going to grow (or rather, fall) to the level of your commanders. My common sense is dearer.

                        I doubt it very much.
                      14. wehr 28 May 2020 15: 45 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        How to arrange little brothers schwarzer Tod full?
                        To do this, find coastal areas suitable for the BDK approach. Usually they are not very many and they are located in areas. Next, you need several MLRS batteries, which are located 4-5 km from the coast so that they can fire at any site or focus fire on one of them. At each site, a monitoring post with a spotter and a small guard. Motorized forces are also needed near the battalion.
                        They need to wait for the appearance of the BDK; his guards fire at him and soon retreat (so that an illusion arises: they say, they crushed the resistance). Then the BDK approaches the shore and begins to land. The most advantageous moment for an attack is when the first one or two vehicles have just left, when the entire landing is on the heap. At this point, the spotter gives the command to shoot at a specific, previously shot benchmark, near which there is a BDK. All batteries shoot at one point in one gulp, the target is a ship, the BDK must be gouged and ignited before the landing party leaves it. If the spotter sees equipment and people ashore, then he gives the command to succumb more.
                        The remaining is looking and finishing off the motorized infantry.

                        How many combat landings do you have under enemy fire? You can not answer, the answer is known - 0.
                        Therefore, all your skills are “ballet” skills with a predetermined result that are harmful in real combat.
                        All your jumps and screams are useless against shore defense in the way described above (far from the only one). You are targets because your actions are relatively easily predictable, and this predictability stems from the use of the BDK.
                      15. letinant 28 May 2020 16: 12 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Stop raving. You generally do not know how the preparations for the landing and how the landing occurs. From your text, you completely crossed out reconnaissance, preparing the coast for landing. Sabotage groups, etc. Fire support from escort ships and from the BDK itself. What is your suggestion in general? Take a civilian ship the size of an aircraft carrier. Due to the large capacity, respectively, to load more equipment and personnel there. And this beautiful target to put before the enemy. That the losses would be irreparable. Oh yes, I forgot, also a landing barge. And also to prohibit the landing, preliminary preparation of the coast and wait until the enemy drives the motorized infantry battalion and the MLRS. And then, without shooting at the enemy, there is simply nothing in their eyes to start loading onto a barge and try to land. I agree that it will be difficult for the enemy to shoot, he will laugh so hard that he cannot aim at the sight. And at the same time say which sent the fighters for slaughter? I understand that you want to prove that your article is worth something, but it is not. And I don’t need to cling, you do not know me. But you personally, I’m sure, you only saw the ship from the shore.
                      16. letinant 28 May 2020 16: 14 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        By the way, showed our correspondence to colleagues. Guess what the reaction is?
                      17. wehr 28 May 2020 16: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Not interested. As the opinion of the "ballet dancers" and potential two hundredths.
                    2. wehr 28 May 2020 16: 44 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Yes Yes. It is better to attribute nonsense to the opponent. :))) To make it easier to argue. By the way, in my article it was directly said that the car carrier is unloaded after the coast is captured and the landing site is safe. The car carrier unloads large forces that consolidate the success of the landing.
                      Read it again and see for yourself.
                      You did not read it, which is now completely clear. So, the headline was hooked and rushed to argue.

                      Sure, not a problem! Fight and land anywhere with one clip in your pocket, since roomy vehicles do not like that. They clap, there is a road.
                  3. ccsr 28 May 2020 18: 04 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: wehr
                    All your jumps and screams are useless against shore defense in the way described above (far from the only one). You are targets because your actions are relatively easily predictable, and this predictability stems from the use of the BDK.

                    Your scenario is from the realm of fiction, if only because the movement of the BDK will be monitored and it will most likely be destroyed before the landing. The appearance of the MLRS of the enemy at the landing site is also from the area of ​​fiction, if only because they must be in that area, and moreover, they themselves can be destroyed by landing support ships at the moment of promotion to the position.
          2. ccsr 28 May 2020 12: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: wehr
            Your bosses, however, were torn apart, without bothering to think and figure it out. Your head was filled with tripe in the style of "landing on an unequipped shore."

            No one was tearing anything - there is military science, and it is itself built on the capabilities of the state, which is why when we had the needs of geopolitical influence, then they began to create the ships necessary for this in the USSR.
            But now Russia is far from the USSR, that’s why the circle of tasks has narrowed, and the classic landing ships are no longer so relevant, and that’s why they proceeded to the creation of the UDC. This is the usual development of military equipment based on changing priorities in the political doctrine of our state.
            Quote: wehr
            A floating pier is from cash. And I have a better idea.

            Leave your ideas to yourself - in the ordering structures of the Navy they know better than you how our commander-in-chief sees our participation in future military operations, and on this basis they will develop an armament program that will take into account the tasks set when developing new ships.
            PS You accidentally do not have ideas for treating coronavirus - post them on some medical site to find out what professional doctors think of you.
          3. wehr 28 May 2020 14: 41 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            No question, I will keep it to myself. laughing
            Who cares in the end? The best way to correct any mistakes is defeat in war.
          4. ccsr 28 May 2020 17: 58 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: wehr
            The best way to correct any mistakes is defeat in war.

            Are you not afraid that we will be defeated in a future war, will nothing remain of us as an ethnic group? So the mistake will never be corrected - we now have no right to make a mistake in choosing weapons, and this is important for us.
          5. wehr 7 June 2020 20: 02 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            No, not scary. And it doesn’t bother.
            If an ethnic group does not want to think ahead, calculate and predict, look for the best option, instead stubbornly holds on to one already outdated idea (at least some of the ethnic group are very loud), then it will certainly disappear.
            Don't you understand that by arranging a hysteria with attacks in a discussion with me, do you contribute to the preparation of the disappearance of your ethnic group? No? Well then, there’s nothing to add.
          6. ccsr 7 June 2020 20: 32 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: wehr
            No, not scary. And it doesn’t bother.

            Hatskrayniki also do not bother much with this, so some will understand you.
            Quote: wehr
            If an ethnic group does not want to think ahead, calculate and predict, look for the best option,

            For this, there are leaders who are chosen by the ethnic group, and who are responsible to their people. So you don’t have to blame everything on the ethnos - not everyone has the same mind and knowledge within any ethnos.
            Quote: wehr
            Don’t you understand that by arranging a tantrum with attacks in a discussion with me,

            Come on, who are you interested in, to still fall into hysteria from you. It's just that you are a warlike amateur in this matter, which is why you have to explain the basics of military science so that people can distinguish reality from your fantasies.
          7. wehr 7 June 2020 20: 52 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            This is very funny to hear from people who have only the experience of pleasure boat trips on the BDK. Well, what else can I call it? There were no combat landings, they didn’t shoot at you, only “ballet”, and the standards.
            And ambition ... like the warriors.

            In short, start with modesty.
          8. ccsr 7 June 2020 21: 02 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: wehr
            This is very funny to hear from people who have only the experience of pleasure boat trips on the BDK.

            You are mistaken - I am not a naval officer, but I have better knowledge of military affairs than yours, which is why I can see your errors ..
            Quote: wehr
            There were no combat landings, they didn’t shoot at you, only “ballet”, and the standards.

            Our Strategic Rocket Forces also never took part in hostilities - will you blame them for the lack of knowledge and experience on military issues?
            Quote: wehr
            In short, start with modesty.

            Be sure to follow your advice. You can help me with this - do not post amateur fantasies on the forum and deprive me of the opportunity to write anything on this topic at all.
          9. wehr 7 June 2020 21: 43 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            You have not proved your "knowledge better" and they are not visible from anywhere.
            So sorry, I do not believe you.
  • Bersaglieri 26 May 2020 11: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Ahead :) By the way, I always wondered: why "before the deadline" wrote off "Rhinos" (1174)? Worthy UDC. It was fashionable to upgrade at least Moskalenko, but no: they sold it for scrap.
    1. letinant 26 May 2020 12: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Bersaglieri
      Ahead :) By the way, I always wondered: why "before the deadline" wrote off "Rhinos" (1174)? Worthy UDC. It was fashionable to upgrade at least Moskalenko, but no: they sold it for scrap.

      The first reason is diesel. The second reason and the most important, they fell during when they said that we did not need the army and navy. Therefore, they did not allocate money. And now we still have no landing tasks in the oceans, because this is the OCEAN SHIP! Now we have a fleet of 1937-1945, coastal defense.
      1. Cyril G ... 26 May 2020 13: 21 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        At pr.1174 gas turbines.
        1. letinant 26 May 2020 13: 41 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          At pr.1174 gas turbines.

          Diesel, I shot them myself from Rogov.
          1. Cyril G ... 26 May 2020 13: 47 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            These auxiliary diesel engines stood there at 500 kW, and the power plant there are 2 gas turbine units of 18 thousand each. h.p.
            1. Bersaglieri 26 May 2020 14: 49 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Combined GEM: GT + D, as usual.
              1. Cyril G ... 26 May 2020 15: 03 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                In the Navy, combined power plants were not liked. At 1174 ave. 2 gas turbine engines - marching engines, and 500-ton kilowatt diesel engines provide the needs of ship energy. As on 11351 by the way. There are 2 marching gas turbine engines and 2 afterburning gas turbine engines, and electricity supply from 6 t kilowatt diesel engines is also
  • max702 26 May 2020 22: 31 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    BDK of all stripes is absolutely meaningless ship exactly TODAY .. Have you heard a joke about a camel? This is where the question arises, but to hell with us all these desert pribludy in the zoo? So it is here, if it is clear to everyone that no landing landings on the coast are expected in the coming decades, then what the hell are all these bells and whistles with both coastal and horizontal landing? If a large UDC can still be somehow understood, for it is an expeditionary anti-terrorist ship capable of becoming the base and headquarters of the operation plus an aviation wing, and the size will greatly contribute to universalization because in 95% of cases it will be used as military transport. That "classic" BDK today is a waste of money (as well as parachute landing equipment and training at the airborne forces) we will get an expensive, inconvenient ship with a small cruising range and infernal conditions for the crew are not fit .. Previously, it was clear that the BDKs were, in principle, disposable and big to build they were not there, but now? BDK They drive in the tail and mane as a troop transport, although they are not intended for this, but the Navy does not have anything else! Therefore, the UDC, in principle, will not hurt, especially if you get rid of the unnecessary docking chamber (all the turntables will do) four of them will be enough for all the fleets, and there will be six pieces of such auto transporters or “Captain Smirnov” carriers that can work in peacetime and on a commercial basis. One northern delivery is worth ..
  • mmaxx 27 May 2020 14: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    After reading this and that, it seems to me that Ustinov is one of those who are most to blame for the collapse of the Owls. Union. Under him, the military-industrial complex itself appeared in the worst definitions, as was said about the United States. Loaded the military industry just to load. Why all this was necessary for the army is incomprehensible. Yes, and the fleet got a lot of strange ships.
    Steep, before that, Brezhnev began to hurt, and the defense industry began to cut the budget.
    And the country overstrained.
  • AKTEON 7 June 2020 14: 47 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: antivirus
    BDK - a small and clumsy spoon.
    Chezh Ustinov and Grechko did not build 100 tons of VI each?

    Well, you never know what was needed 40 years ago. We’ve been fighting in Syria for 5 years, and there two such auto-diesel locomotives will be more useful than the whole Black Sea Fleet combined ..
    1. antivirus 7 June 2020 18: 18 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      I agree -when transports can be covered with daggers
  • Theodore 25 May 2020 18: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Fuel in 200 liter barrels. Width and length 60 cm, height 80 cm,

    I got a little lost! Diameter yes! 60 cm with ribs! Height 88 cm. This is 200l.
  • Lannan Shi 25 May 2020 18: 21 New
    • 13
    • 4
    +9
    BDK, KFOR and MDK - a product of preparation for a total war. With a high probability of nuclear. It was planned to throw hundreds of these boats into battle. About 50 BDK, 150 KDK and 100 MDK. The supply of landed troops remained outside the brackets. After an attack through atomic fungi, and a slightly radioactive terrain, the landing party’s needs would sharply decrease, due to a decrease in the landing itself. The consequence of such ambitious plans is the ramp. For unloading hundreds of ships in ports, but with the threat of using nuclear war ... Not quite smart.
    In modern conditions, such specific boats are not entirely relevant. A global war, with the landing of tens and hundreds of thousands of marines, seems not to be planned. And the "range", autonomy and carrying capacity come to the fore. And in this regard, that BDK, that KFOR is not a cake at all, But the UDC and transports just come to the fore.
    1. svp67 25 May 2020 20: 07 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Quote: Lannan Shi
      The supply of landed troops remained outside the brackets.
      No, these issues were resolved and worked out using ships of civil shipping companies.
      Quote: Lannan Shi
      In modern conditions, such specific boats are not entirely relevant.

      Yes, it’s just proven to be very relevant. Since the country is deprived of a fleet of transport ships, due to the fact that they became private and changed their jurisdiction, the presence of such ships in our fleet is a very urgent issue. The history of the same "Syrian express" is proof of this. There is a dilemma either to “drive” the remaining BDKs into the land or to find funds to buy old Soviet cargo ships from Turkey ...
    2. ccsr 26 May 2020 10: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Lannan Shi
      BDK, KFOR and MDK - a product of preparation for a total war. With a high probability of nuclear.

      Nothing like that - in a nuclear war, a surface fleet would have been almost completely destroyed in the first hours. That is why such ships were developed according to our military doctrine of “Two Wars” only for a non-nuclear version, which was possible only with non-nuclear countries, but not with the United States or China.
      Quote: Lannan Shi
      For unloading hundreds of ships in ports, but with the threat of using nuclear war ... Not quite smart.

      The fact that it was stupidly known even under Gorshkov, but the navy themselves eagerly supported the idea that we could have a non-nuclear war, and some wanted to have more admiral posts.
      Quote: Lannan Shi
      In modern conditions, such specific boats are not entirely relevant.

      None of the writers here knows how they see the future of the fleet and its operations outside the borders of Russia in the Ministry of Defense, and therefore you should not talk about what you have no idea about. I think that the creation of helicopter carriers has a perspective in terms of building such ships for export, because there are a number of countries that have a large number of islands and problems with neighboring states. So we can create a competitive ship, on which there is a customer in addition to our Navy. I think that a pilot project of two ships will show what we did, and whether it is worth continuing to work in this direction. In any case, the construction costs of this ship are not so crazy that they put a heavy burden on our budget, taking into account the construction time.
      1. IC
        IC 26 May 2020 22: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        What kind of export. Do not fantasize. Look at the long-suffering stories of the construction of the BDK Ivan Gren.
        1. ccsr 27 May 2020 10: 47 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: IMS
          What kind of export. Do not fantasize. Look at the long-suffering stories of the construction of the BDK Ivan Gren.

          You do not take into account the time of construction of this ship, when the naval ones rushed about due to Serdyukov's cuts, and therefore the fate of this series is not an indicator, if only because someone really wanted to have the Mistral. I think now there has been some sobering at our naval commanders, which is why such a modest order for two ships.
          As for export, even our Soviet-designed amphibious tanks are still used in some countries - this is the criterion that our equipment is in demand. So it is possible that some country would like to have such a ship with our helicopters on board, especially if they bought something from us before.
  • tatarin1972 25 May 2020 18: 22 New
    • 14
    • 0
    +14
    The author, many mistakes, BDK "Saratov", this is the project 1171 "Tapir", and not 1174 "Rhinoceros". Loading 1174 tanks, 50 PT-76 tanks, he could take, its combat weight is 14, 5 tons. That is practically comparable to the weight of the BMP. Marine units have air assault battalions, not brigades. In service with the Marine Corps are BTR-80 and BTR-82A, BMD and BMP no.
    1. MP
      MP 25 May 2020 19: 10 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      In the first part of the article we have an introduction. We land in Washington County with the help of airborne assault brigade with full-time equipment and are developing an offensive deep into the American continent. How to get there is another question. I think the author of the article also share his opinion on how best to do this.
  • Sancho_SP 25 May 2020 18: 23 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    So you probably need to compare 14 BDK and one car carrier)
    1. ccsr 25 May 2020 18: 34 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      So you probably need to compare 14 BDK and one car carrier)

      I think that a comparison is generally inappropriate, if only because we don’t need to transfer such a mass of troops (for which a car carrier is needed) if military assistance is provided outside our country. Even if such a situation arises, it will be possible to charter ferries or bulk carriers, as was done, for example, when troops were withdrawn from Germany in the early nineties.
      It’s too ruinous to maintain such ships in peacetime, which is why they stopped at the UDC, which will now be built at the Zaliv plant.
      1. Cyril G ... 25 May 2020 18: 51 New
        • 7
        • 2
        +5
        Oh yes, everything is in the mind. Maybe it was worth building at least a small series of pr.11711, and not collapse everything after the second ship. As a result, we do not know what, for which it is not a fact that there is a power plant.

        Further, I am deeply convinced that laying the UDC in Kerch is absurd now. Do not pull. From a word in general ... What in my opinion should have been done was to lay down a series of military transports with horizontal unloading in the conditions of the port (only it had to be done the day before yesterday). Armaments limit 3-4 12.7 mm machine guns, SAM bending, and preferably anti-tank systems in the sea ...
        It would be really needed
        1. Vladimir1155 25 May 2020 20: 36 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          The Russian Federation does not even have such a free brigade to throw it somewhere there, and even more so in the USA, and there is no sense in this. Accordingly, there is no need for any special automobile carriers, and the UDC and A BDK are quite enough for their narrow tasks, minesweepers are required for coastal aviation, submarines
          1. Cyril G ... 25 May 2020 21: 59 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            That's right, but in terms of importance it should look like this:
            - coastal aviation
            - OVR ships
            - multipurpose atomic and non-nuclear submarines ..
            But then everything else ....
        2. Nemchinov Vl 25 May 2020 23: 41 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Maybe it was worth building at least a small series of pr.11711,
          probably yes, but not the first (like "Gren" or "Morgunov", painfully they seem to kosyachnye), and the second sample (like "Andreev" or "Trushin", if those according to the test results, show a smaller number of sides ....). Then yes, to finish a series of up to ten BDKs of one project will make real sense.
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Further, I am deeply convinced that laying the UDC in Kerch is absurd now.
          well, at least one and not two (!) immediately beyond the large ship of the new project ... I agree in the part that lay immediately TWO, - obvious stupidity (!). It would be better, instead of the second UDC, for the Black Sea Fleet they would have laid down there 22350.1, so that the Kerch Gulf, and not just the Sev Shipyard, could build the main units for the formation of the KPUG.
        3. ccsr 26 May 2020 10: 25 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Oh yes, everything is in the mind. Maybe it was worth building at least a small series of pr.11711, and not collapse everything after the second ship. As a result, we do not know what, for which it is not a fact that there is a power plant.

          First of all, you don’t know the plans of the Ministry of Defense regarding the further development of the Navy - this may be enough. Secondly, plans can change in five to seven years, and the construction of such ships can be included in the new armament program, especially if a customer appears besides our defense ministry ready to pay for the construction. Thirdly, since the Navy justified the purchase of the Mistral, it is even easier for them to justify the construction with us - how to soak it with two fingers ....
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Further, I am deeply convinced that laying the UDC in Kerch is absurd now. Do not pull.

          It was one of the largest plants in the USSR - look at the panorama of the plant and then you will find out why there were built supertankers for three hundred meters.
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          What in my opinion should have been done was to lay a series of military transports with horizontal unloading in the port.

          There are military councils of the Ministry of Defense, where they discuss similar issues, and if the naval ones justified the construction of the UDC, then apparently they had more reason to come up with such a proposal.
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          It would be really needed

          This is in your view, but in my opinion it is very doubtful, if only from the point of view of the content of such equipment on the balance of the Ministry of Defense.
          1. Cyril G ... 26 May 2020 11: 02 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            and if the naval ones justified the construction of the UDC, then apparently they had more reason to come up with such a proposal.


            If the current naval managers give a pretty penny a little, then they will justify you anything. They work not for the idea but for self-interest ..

            find out why there supertankers built under three hundred meters.


            Maybe you will finally take an interest in the fact that in the Gulf of about 30 no supertankers were built, and if I don’t confuse the last warship built there, (I don’t remember the Bison, it’s also Kerch, but the refinement of the Chinese Bison was rumored to be enchanting) it’s Getman Sagaidachny. This is fse. There, at the time of the reunion, the machine park was sold out, and all the specialists ran away or died, alas .... That is, the Gulf is given an order at the moment when Russia has, for example, a well-functioning January! Admiralty factory where they built the halves of the Mistral.
            I consider this a policy and incorrect. At least at first they regained competence with the construction of auxiliary vessels, and other things ..

            maybe that’s enough. Secondly, plans may change in five to seven years, and the construction of such ships may be included in the new weapons program,

            If plans for fleet development change every five years, maybe something is wrong with the planners? The fleet is not built like that.

            but in mine it’s very doubtful


            Well, who would doubt it. Now I’m personally asking you a question - how many landings on the unequipped coast were landings of the Navy of the USSR and Russia since 1945. How can you answer, talk for "doubtful"
            1. ccsr 26 May 2020 11: 21 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              If the current naval managers give a pretty penny a little, then they will justify you anything. They work not for the idea but for self-interest ..

              You should not think that only grabbers serve in the Ministry of Defense - the vast majority are decent and rooting people for the country. And do not forget that decisions on such ships, taking into account helicopters, are decided not by the naval, but at the level of the minister and all his deputies at least.
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              Maybe you will finally take an interest in the fact that in the Gulf of 30 years no supertankers built, and the last warship built there if I don’t confuse

              Supertankers were not built, but even under Ukraine they built buildings for the Dutch, and the number of employees was about a thousand people. So there, not everything is so bad, and in recent years the plant has received several contracts and has come to life a long time ago - I go on vacation to it on the city beach and I can notice how everything has changed there, right up to the security towers.
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              I consider this a policy and incorrect.

              And I believe that after the loss of Nikolaev shipbuilding in Kerch, it is necessary to revive our shipbuilding in the Black Sea - even Peter the Great understood this.
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              If plans for fleet development change every five years, maybe something is wrong with the planners? The fleet is not built like that.

              There are scientifically-based ten-year weapons programs - this has been common since Soviet times, when smart people calculated everything. And five years later, it was possible to clarify or change something in the weapons program - this was also envisaged, and this was reasonable.
              Why should we abandon the experience of the past?
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              Now I’m personally asking you a question - how many landings on the unequipped coast were landings of the Navy of the USSR and Russia since 1945.

              Not at all, but the operation "Anadyr" was carried out successfully, and this suggests that we must be prepared for the development of any situation. And do not forget that we had nuclear weapons from the late forties - that’s why there was no need for landings.
              1. Cyril G ... 26 May 2020 11: 32 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: ccsr
                they only serve as grabbers in the Ministry of Defense - the vast majority are decent and rooting people.

                In the last 5 years, decisions on the fleet have been leading me into a state of deep amazement. That's why my more than balanced opinion.
                Why should we abandon the experience of the past?


                Programs should be designed for 20 years at a minimum and follow the concept within which the required outfit of CiS should be determined for each fleet. And with the intelligible concept, it’s very bad for us. They are trying to close a public discussion of this issue with us, and they secret what cannot be secured and vice versa. For the more classified questions, the higher the probability of leakage of real closed information

                that’s why there was no need for landings.

                Not smart .... To say the least. The whole history of the wars after 1945 didn’t work for you for the future? There were many landings ....
                1. ccsr 26 May 2020 12: 00 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  Programs should be designed for 20 years at a minimum

                  It’s pointless - for such periods it’s impossible to calculate what’s new even in materials or technologies.
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  And with the intelligible concept, it’s very bad for us.

                  This is already for politicians - it is not known how they will decide who and how much to help in this troubled world, and the military only does their will, which is why they need at least some kind of tool to implement government decisions.
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  Not smart .... To say the least. The whole history of the wars after 1945 didn’t work for you for the future? There were many landings ....

                  Name them then - why should I ask?
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  For the more classified questions, the higher the probability of leakage of real closed information

                  Where does such a profound conclusion come from - at what level of performers have you been to affirm this?
                  1. Cyril G ... 26 May 2020 13: 20 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Why such a thoughtful conclusion -
                    On knowledge of the matter from the inside - HRT at the district level if at all something tells you

                    Name them then - why should I ask?


                    Oops And then what were your slogans? With organized resistance of the enemy, the Soviet and Russian fleets of landings did not land from the word in general since 1945, but military transports were needed constantly, and then and now. A constant use of the BDK as a VTR is not a healthy solution.

                    It’s pointless - for such periods it’s impossible to calculate what’s new even in materials or technologies.


                    You can see for sure that it makes no sense to explain. This, on the contrary, would be true and wise. Study the issues of shipbuilding in the last 50 years in the USA and then we'll talk.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. Cyril G ... 26 May 2020 19: 16 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Stop lying - I immediately realized that you did not work a day in the ordering structures, and this is where all your show off comes from.

                        Finger in the fact that I even hinted that he served in the ordering structures eh? Then we will speak for the stupidity uttered by you ..
                        - again storm the windmills?

                        No, I explain the elementary, so that even you understand.
                        And if after 50 years the United States will not exist in the form in which it now looks?

                        What are your fantasies now? Don't you understand again?
                        Then I'll give you a hint of Springs-Kidd-Ticonderoga-Burke. For 25 years they have been building ships in one building. Then, taking into account the operating experience, they developed a new project which, in essence, is the development of the existing one. And in fact, this is the best type of multipurpose combat ocean ship. Would you like to compare with our zoo?
                        - the concept of "district level" is too blurry.

                        Enough. So you don’t understand, again. I’m not obliged to tell you a biography.
                        But to hell with you - what for do we need to create military vehicles for one-time transportation, if the freight is much more convenient in cases when it is necessary to deliver military cargo to some point.

                        Fuck you all over the face. In Russia, it is basically unsuitable. Chartered transport can be delayed by "partners", for the presence of, say, marijuana on board. I exaggerate a little of course. By the way, this already happened in 2012. The freight for the owner company may be recalled, etc. etc.
                        Wise people understand that military transportation is a vital necessity ....

                        Do you know what it is?
                      2. ccsr 26 May 2020 20: 16 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        Finger in the fact that I even hinted that he served in the ordering structures eh?

                        So you recommended the figure of 20 years, as if you were working as a customer and you know the timing for predicting the development of weapons systems.

                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        And in fact, this is the best type of multipurpose combat ocean ship. Would you like to compare with our zoo?

                        No, I don’t want to, because all of them will be at the bottom of 40-50 minutes after the start of our war with the USA.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        Enough. So you don’t understand, again.

                        What can I understand, after five years of service at the headquarters of the most powerful group of the Ground Forces of the USSR.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        Chartered transport can be delayed by "partners", for the presence of, say, marijuana on board. I exaggerate a little of course.

                        Bullshit - even during the Cuban crisis, not a single ship of ours was inspected or detained by the Americans.

                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        The owner company may also withdraw the freight, etc. etc.

                        It can generally be created with state participation, so you don’t have to rub something that you have no idea about. By the way, our ferries threw a huge group of troops from Mukran to Kaliningrad and Leningrad, and somehow managed without specialized warships.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        Do you know what it is?

                        I know - this is what will end up on the seabed almost immediately after the start of our war with the Americans. So do not scare our people with the power of this scrap metal - our defenses against the presence of such ships will not increase a drop.
                      3. Cyril G ... 26 May 2020 20: 38 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Bullshit - even during the Cuban crisis, not a single ship of ours was inspected or detained by the Americans.


                        So the Soviet Union .... And the fact that you write nonsense suggests that you do not know why military supplies to Syria began to be transported to the BDK ...

                        Military cargo has been delivered to Syria by the landing ships of the Russian Navy since the summer of 2012, after a Russian cargo ship was stopped in the Atlantic Alaed, which at the request of the British government withdrew insurance previously issued by Standard Club. The ship delivered to Syria Mi-25 helicopters and air defense systems repaired in Russia. Prior to this, other attempts were made in different regions to detain or arrest commercial vessels delivering military cargo for official Damascus.

                        Then, when the BDK on the line Novorossiysk-Tartus began to "Exhale", they bought trucks in Turkey and raised the naval flag of the auxiliary fleet on them ..
                        At least some kind of peacetime guarantee


                        The flag is visible. There are several such vessels.

                        I know - this is what will end up on the seabed almost immediately after the start of our war with the Americans.


                        Not serious ... You either don’t know or you’re joking ...

                        How can I understand


                        I think so too...

                        No, I don’t want to, because all of them will be at the bottom of 40-50 minutes after the start of our war with the USA.


                        You forgot to say that if these ships are located in the Navy, which will become goals, priority goals, but if at sea, then everything is much worse. The minimum outfit of forces to defeat a ship like the Burke Squadron Su-30cm with anti-ship ASP on the suspension .... With AUG, everything is much worse.

                        So you recommended the figure of 20 years, as if you were working as a customer and you know the timing for predicting the development of weapons systems.


                        Well, it’s like I’ve been engaged in the history of the Navy in the 20th century for a long time, I somehow figured it out without work as a customer .... And yet, the fleet has really long cycles, especially now when universal PUs are introduced on ships, when REV can be modified in overhaul .... Warships can actually serve in the region of 25-30 years without major structural changes. There is no need.
                      4. ccsr 26 May 2020 20: 58 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        Then, when the BDK on the line Novorossiysk-Tartus began to "Exhale", they bought trucks in Turkey and raised the naval flag of the auxiliary fleet on them ..

                        So you yourself have proved how we can get along in the simplest and most inexpensive way.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...

                        Not serious ... You either don’t know or you’re joking ...

                        Not a bit joking - it has long been known, back in Soviet times.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        The minimum outfit of forces to defeat a ship like the Burke Squadron Su-30cm with anti-ship ASP on the suspension .... With AUG, everything is much worse.

                        For them there is a strategic nuclear forces - we have enough charges to almost immediately destroy all AUGs that will really threaten us.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        Well, it’s like I’ve been engaged in the history of the Navy in the 20th century for a long time, I somehow figured it out without work as a customer.

                        This is a fallacy - historians have a poor understanding of certain truths that are obvious to military professionals.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        Warships can actually serve in the region of 25-30 years without major design changes.

                        Tell this to someone else - in five to seven years, the modernization of the armament systems of such a ship will be required, and in 10-15 it will generally be replaced with new systems. Yes, and the filling of the chassis will have to be changed - it will develop a resource in 15 years.
                      5. Cyril G ... 26 May 2020 21: 20 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        This is a fallacy - historians have a poor understanding of certain truths that are obvious to military professionals.

                        Did I say somewhere that I am a professional historian?

                        in five to seven years, the modernization of the weapon systems of such a ship will be required, and in 10-15 it will be completely replaced with new systems.


                        Find Burke with the replaced AN / SPY-1, will you say okay? I will tell you the innermost, it all boils down as a rule to intra-complex modernization, replacing partial blocks, and periodically upgrading software ....

                        Yes, and the filling of the chassis will have to be changed - it will develop a resource in 15 years.

                        Fu how unprofessional. I’ll hint, I began serving as a lieutenant on a boat built in 78th, which still runs without replacing diesel engines. On the other hand, the replacement of some types of diesel engines and gas turbine engines is carried out after exhaustion of resources and is a regular event. Here the British held such an event on an aircraft carrier to replace the GTE of f. Rawls-Royce in general at sea near Falkland. We wouldn’t be able to, for example, at 1135 it is necessary to open the case and remove the turbine through the technological wells.

                        we have enough charges to almost immediately destroy all AUGs that will really threaten us.

                        Not a bit joking - it has long been known, back in Soviet times.

                        This is you out of ignorance of the question. Only in the bases.

                        how can we get along in the simplest and most inexpensive way.

                        Well, yes, for this you need to have the same type of transport vessel in order to reduce the cost of logistics and maintaining readiness as much as possible, and not arrange dancing around a unique broken diesel engine.
                        So, it is advisable to have an analogue of the US transport command, moreover, equipped with ships with the same equipment.
                      6. ccsr 27 May 2020 10: 39 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        I will tell you the innermost, it all boils down as a rule to intra-complex modernization, replacing partial blocks, and periodically upgrading software.

                        I don’t need to tell me what you have no idea, if only because in Soviet times there were scientifically substantiated terms for the repair and modernization of various types of weapons, which now may even have decreased, due to the fact that many repair plants were abolished, and overhauls carry out at trained enterprises. How this is done, I know better than you because it was related to military equipment and to the orders of the Ministry of Defense regarding the maintenance of B and VT.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        Fu how unprofessional. I’ll hint, I began serving as a lieutenant on a boat built in 78th, which still runs without replacing diesel engines.

                        You don’t have to measure everything with your boat, where there were hardly any missile defense systems or cruise missiles that have a limited service life and require either decommissioning or certification and extension of the resource after a certain time.

                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        This is you out of ignorance of the question. Only in the bases.

                        I think that this is not your topic of how you were going to fight the AUGs in general, if their weapons allowed us to launch nuclear strikes on our territory, especially in the European part of the country.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        So, it is advisable to have an analogue of the US transport command, moreover, equipped with ships with the same equipment.

                        When our military budget will be like that of the United States, then we will think about it, but for now all this is Manilovism.
                      7. Cyril G ... 27 May 2020 13: 42 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Oh, you are not aware of how you were going to fight the AUGs in general, if their weapons allowed us to launch nuclear strikes on our territory, especially in the European part of the country.

                        I’m just in the subject, and you don’t even understand what AUG is. In principle, in principle, does not fit yes? You as TsU on it were going to give out dear? And how long will it take?
                        in the meantime, all this is Manilovism.

                        MANILOVSHINA - THIS IS TO BREED HORDS OF LANDING SHIPS, AND THEN CARRY ON THESE GOODS INSTEAD OF HAVING TRANSPORTATION OF SUPPLY .... YOU CORRECTLY SAID THAT WE HAVE A BUDGET IS NOT EQUAL.
                        I think that this is not your topic of how you were going to fight the AUGs in general, if their weapons allowed us to launch nuclear strikes on our territory, especially in the European part of the country.

                        You have already shown that you do not understand how things are in reality. You didn’t work as political worker for an hour?
                        You don’t have to measure everything with your boat, where there were hardly any missile defense systems or cruise missiles that have a limited service life and require either decommissioning or certification and extension of the resource after a certain time.

                        And where does the URO system for the diesel engines under discussion be asked here :? What are you bothering like in a hot pan. Yes, and cruise missiles tightly screwed to the ship, if you did not know this.
                        you have no idea, if only because in Soviet times, there were scientifically substantiated terms for the repair and modernization of various types of weapons, which now may have even decreased,

                        What does it have to do with theoretical bends, if the Navy was not so.
                      8. ccsr 27 May 2020 18: 13 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        You as TsU on it were going to give out dear? And how long will it take?

                        Already in the eighties, we were already able to determine the coordinates of such AOGs in real time thanks to satellite reconnaissance and parts of the mainframe.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        MANILOVSCHINA - IT IS A BREED OF HORDS OF LANDING SHIPS,

                        I am not from this horde, so this is not to me. I believe that the Navy’s landing operations themselves are a thing of the past, but since they justified the construction of helicopter carriers, they probably plan to use them somewhere.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        You have already shown that you do not understand how things are in reality.

                        Do not judge from the level of your ship - you have a lower pipe, and smoke is thinner.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        And where does the URO system for the diesel engines under discussion be asked here :?

                        Spit on your diesel engines for those who serve in the GOU GSH - the main thing for them is what weapon systems this or that ship and its combat readiness can carry. The general staff are not interested in your small-town problems - however, you are unlikely to understand this, your level is not the same.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        Yes, and cruise missiles tightly screwed to the ship, if you did not know this.

                        They have a different service life, like other types of weapons. A change in the generation of this equipment will force any warship to undergo major repairs, at least for dismantling old equipment and installing new ones.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        What does it have to do with theoretical bends, if the Navy was not so.

                        Tell this tale to others - all the armed forces were guided by the same orders of the Ministry of Defense on the content of military equipment.
                      9. Cyril G ... 27 May 2020 18: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Tell this tale to others - all the armed forces were guided by the same orders of the Ministry of Defense on the content of military equipment.


                        The reality is different.

                        A change in the generation of this equipment will force any warship to undergo major repairs, at least for dismantling old equipment and installing new ones.


                        And give a lot of examples? I’ll tell you right away that serious upgrades in the Navy since the 60s are counted on the fingers.

                        Spit on your diesel engine for those who serve in GOU GSH


                        And why did they jump, and the question in which did not dig a ear.

                        but since they justified the construction of helicopter carriers, they apparently plan to use them somewhere.


                        You can justify anything ....

                        we could already determine the coordinates of such AUGs in real time thanks to satellite reconnaissance and parts of the AOS.


                        You know, fantasy is on the second floor. At the very least, this is absolutely not enough for issuing a command center for launching ICBMs on AOG

                        Do not judge from the level of your ship - you have a lower pipe, and smoke is thinner.


                        Is it ok with your memory? Check out ....
                      10. ccsr 27 May 2020 19: 19 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        The reality is different.

                        It seems so to you.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        And give a lot of examples? I’ll tell you right away that serious upgrades in the Navy since the 60s are counted on the fingers.

                        This is a lie, because even ballistic, cruise and other missiles have replaced more than one generation, as well as radar stations and other ship systems. And if the carrier, i.e. the ship did not change its hull, this does not mean that it remained as possible as the head one in the first series.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        You can justify anything ....

                        Of course you are “smarter” than those who reported to the government on the advisability of building such ships. They made us laugh with their ambition.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        You know, fantasy is on the second floor. At the very least, this is absolutely not enough for issuing a command center for launching ICBMs on AOG

                        You are definitely an amateur in this matter, because back in the seventies the task was to develop systems that can track enemy groupings in real time even in the Western Hemisphere. That is why the satellites of the transponders were then created so that a low-orbit grouping could work through them, which accurately determined the location of various troops, including sea ships.
                      11. Cyril G ... 27 May 2020 19: 34 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        This is a lie, because even ballistic, cruise and other missiles have replaced more than one generation, as well as radar stations and other ship systems.

                        Your lies, for you are not the ear or the snout in naval matters ...
                        That is why the satellites of the transponders were then created so that a low-orbit grouping could work through them, which accurately determined the location of various troops, including sea ships.

                        Blah blah blah
                        you are “smarter” than those who reported to the government on the advisability of building such ships. They made us laugh with their ambition.

                        And you are your ignorance. I am more honest and not financially interested in the difference from the founders .... And as for the expediency, I will once again explain the elementary. We will soon die off the OVR and there will be nothing to supply the PLW and the PMO MSNS in which many tens of billions have swelled. But the construction of "patrol ships", RTO hordes, which any submarine it encounters will slam so long until its torpedoes are over, someone justified. And this is exactly the price to the founders.
                      12. ccsr 27 May 2020 19: 53 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        I am more honest and not financially interested in the difference from the founders ...

                        Honesty does not mean that a person is smart, and this is evident from the fact that you undertook to discuss the decisions of those who are much more informed than you.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        We will soon die off the OVR and there will be nothing to supply the PLW and the PMO MSNS in which many tens of billions have swelled.

                        The main thing is that our Strategic Rocket Forces do not die, and only those who are entrusted with this will deal with the rest. And believe me, there are not everyone there as you imagine them.
                        Quote: Cyril G ...
                        And this is exactly the price to the founders.

                        You are simply a self-righteous amateur - if the command was given by the supreme, then the naval had no choice but to take the visor and fit the reporting documents for the purchase of the Mistral. This is the homespun truth that you have no idea about.
                      13. The comment was deleted.
  • IC
    IC 26 May 2020 22: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Operation Anadyr was fully provided by the MMF civilian vessels. For which there was an unprecedented mass rewarding of sailors with the wording - for fulfilling the seven-year plans.
    1. ccsr 27 May 2020 10: 54 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: IMS
      Operation Anadyr was fully provided by the MMF civilian vessels. For which there was an unprecedented mass rewarding of sailors with the wording - for fulfilling the seven-year plans.

      It was a brilliant operation that the Americans missed, that’s why its details were hidden for many years, and so that people don’t have unnecessary questions, sailors were awarded with such awards with civilian awards. Although I think that someone from the leadership of the MMF could receive military awards for success in mobilizing the civilian fleet.
  • Kote Pan Kokhanka 25 May 2020 20: 32 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    So you probably need to compare 14 BDK and one car carrier)

    We need not compare, but think how to sink the second wave of landing on such motor vehicles in the event of an escalation of the conflict with Japan!
    1. Sancho_SP 25 May 2020 21: 48 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      It’s easier to sink Japan ...
  • Alien From 25 May 2020 18: 26 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Thanks to the author) did a very good job. Interesting.
  • Eug
    Eug 25 May 2020 18: 28 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    At the end of the article, a very correct idea is expressed - not to oppose, but to complement and share.
  • lelik613 25 May 2020 18: 30 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I can’t judge what is most suitable. I think both are needed. I just want to quote from Zhvanetsky: "And one man in the market sold a toad! For a ruble. Well, sooooo green! ... But I don’t have a ruble either. ..."
  • Rurikovich 25 May 2020 18: 37 New
    • 23
    • 0
    +23
    laughing .
    It is of course interesting to read the author’s fabrications .... Large volume, capacity - capital advantages over the BDK ...
    Well, in the city "accordion" you can shove a company of soldiers, but for some reason soldiers on the front lines prefer 7-seater armored personnel carriers wink
    The author, the military, when designing its specialized vessels, takes into account much more factors than size and capacity. They also take into account external influences and take into account landing conditions. No commander would want to lose an entire brigade at once in one sitting. A huge car carrier immediately becomes a priority. Plus, this cow needs more suitable conditions for unloading than a sandy beach.
    And planning at the level of the penultimate paragraph is beautiful only on paper, because with a normally functioning intelligence, it will not be difficult to calculate suitable tidy goals in the second landing wave, and if there are also brains with reserves, the temptation to deprive the enemy of a lot of things in one fell swoop becomes obvious. Well, if the author assumes that he will be able to neutralize the enemy so much that he will not have the means to destroy priority goals, then please, dream on the forum about the ingenious find on the use of car carriers lol request
    Author, do not forget about the ravines and consider your fantasies in conjunction with all the unknowns hi
    1. Take it higher - an unofficial record - 400 people in the "accordion".
      But still affected:
      It seemed that both the skater and the BDK, in the view of some of my opponents, were such unattainable ideals that no ship could compare with.
      The same can be said about how the author presents his idea with a car carrier. By the way, did he provide data on the loading capacity of a truck carrier ramp? Maybe on decks except for the Oise and Sadko and nothing will come in?
      1. tatarin1972 25 May 2020 22: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        120 people in 4 armored personnel carriers-80, under armor!
      2. Brylevsky 26 May 2020 03: 38 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        By the way, did he provide data on the loading capacity of a truck carrier ramp?

        Aft ramp - 100 t., Onboard - 20 t.
        In the comments to the first part of the article, closer to their end, I inserted loading tables. Please look and all questions will disappear. There are dozens of pieces of equipment weighing 100 tons.
    2. Alexey RA 25 May 2020 19: 34 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Plus, this cow needs more suitable conditions for unloading than a sandy beach.

      Heh heh heh .. or you have to build for each landing car carrier a couple of 60000-ton ESDs - to transport the landing means and ensure that equipment is loaded on them and supplies when landing on an unequipped shore. For it is necessary to bring the brigade ashore quickly, and one ESD will unload this car carrier slowly and sadly (its task is to unload KMP-shny TRs, which usually come in the third tier). smile
    3. Momotomba 25 May 2020 20: 54 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I completely agree! If you designed the BDK in this way, then this may not be the best solution, but the most optimal.
  • Phoenix 25 May 2020 18: 37 New
    • 19
    • 3
    +16
    What ports did you smoke? The BDKs are designed to capture the NOT EQUIPPED coast, so where your groves will run aground a mile from the coast. The author is clearly a sailor on rusts, but not a military man ever. In the second article in a row, threshing such nonsense ... It is good that the Homeland does not rely on such "expert" opinions.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 25 May 2020 20: 41 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Come on, the author blame! He already fed us with a swan. Now a revolution in landing operations.
      In essence, we need our own civilian fleet under the tricolor, and not the flag of Panama, Liberia or Paraguay !!! More precisely, his mobilization opportunities in case of a big war, since we have enclaves in the form of the Kaliningrad region and islands, in particular the Kuril and Sakhalin!
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Moore 25 May 2020 18: 50 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I did not read the previous disputes.
    Therefore, I propose to look at the problem from a different point of view: what causes the loss of one BDK for the operation and that, accordingly, the loss of one of this magical car carrier.
    The reason for the use of these super-huts by amers is perfectly understandable: their strategy is the creation of groups on the European theater in the pre-war (threatened) period, based on the belief that the enemy cannot attack their convoys in the so-called "Peaceful time.
    The BDK has a completely different main purpose - the landing of forces to capture coastal areas of enemy territory. Because they were looking for a "golden section" ...
    1. IC
      IC 26 May 2020 22: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There are no motor vehicles in the United States, but there is a specialized naval fleet. There have been almost no civilian vessels flying the US flag for a long time.
      1. Cyril G ... 26 May 2020 22: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM)

  • knn54 25 May 2020 18: 56 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    On January 3, 2015, in the English port of Southampton, NORMAL loading of brand new cars and heavy construction equipment onto a ship for the transportation of all types of machines and special equipment PCTC Hoegh Osaka began.
    The loading was proceeding as usual, the beaters worked in standard mode loading the upper decks with lighter cars.
    A total of 1400 vehicles were loaded, mainly from Jaguar, Land Rover and the BMW Mini, there were also other brands, including one Rolls-Royce. It ended up loading heavy equipment in the amount of 70 units.
    During the maneuver, the load shifted, and the ship received a roll to starboard.
    To avoid the worst fate for the ship he was stranded.
    The operation to remove the ship from the shallows took three weeks.
    ALL cars with a total value of 52,7 million bucks were sent for scrapping.
    The reason is errors made during the placement of the cargo. The loading procedure was changed, but the layout of the cargo was not revised. THERE were not made any additional stability calculations.
    Some car mounts did not meet the standard, requiring twice their strength.
    Essentially TYPICAL errors.
    So it is possible to "destroy" the ballistic control, given the combat situation.
  • mark021105 25 May 2020 19: 04 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Gave a mountain, a mouse ...
  • Wasilii 25 May 2020 19: 17 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    This is a diagnosis. Car anosophilia. Just not to get infected.
  • Operator 25 May 2020 19: 19 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    There are at least 200 armored vehicles in the brigade, and there are only 45 places under it in the car carrier laughing

    The height of the interdeck space in the car carrier is 210 cm, and the height of any brigade armored vehicles is greater than this value laughing

    And the last - the car carrier loses its stability after unloading 50% of the cargo, the wind above 15 m / s overturns it on its side due to the huge windage, so the landing will be critically dependent on weather conditions.

    PS As it was already correctly noted in the comments, the BDK and the car carrier are fundamentally incomparable: the first is intended for landing equipment on an unequipped coast (the first landing wave), the second - only for equipped with a floating bridge (the second and subsequent landing waves).
    1. tatarin1972 25 May 2020 22: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      BDK is not the first wave of landing, although it depends on what to capture and where to capture.
    2. vVvAD 26 May 2020 00: 15 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Andrew, I answer you, because I think your comment is the most sensible (you +) and could not answer the author of the article. But actually my answer is addressed to Dmitry:
      No one bothered them to make a comparison, albeit thesis, in order to reinforce their judgment, but this was not done.


      Well, let's go, from the heights of sofa analytics.

      To begin with, the BDK of project 1174 is noticeably smaller than a car carrier. The total displacement of the BDK is 4,3 thousand tons, of a car carrier - 60,9 thousand tons, that is, 14 times less.


      So what we have:

      Car carrier Sunrise Ace:
      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.
      And this box can develop a stroke of up to 20 knots.

      Other commentators correctly noted that BDK pr.1174:
      Quote: tatarin1972
      Loading 1174 tanks, 50 PT-76 tanks he could take, its combat weight is 14 tons.


      BDK type "Rhinoceros" pr.1174:
      Full displacement: 13880 (according to other sources 14060t),
      Payload: 1730 t cargo
      Length 157.5m,
      Width 23.8m,
      Draft 6m (according to other sources 5m)
      Cruising range (full fuel load): 7000 miles (18 knots), 12500 miles (14 knots)

      What immediately catches your eye? Comparable dimensions and speed with a difference in displacement and draft.
      Draft comparable to TARKR type "Orlan" ("Kirov") pr.1144. Other commentators drew attention to the fact that he could land in few places.
      I will say more: he will have few places to base. The Baltic Sea and the Black Sea will most likely have to be excluded despite the fact that he will have a lot of tasks on the theater data.

      This could be the end. A vessel with a lower carrying capacity cannot be better than a vessel with a higher carrying capacity, and the somewhat greater convenience in unloading the BDK due to the retractable bow ramp does not compensate for this.

      This has already been answered:
      Quote: Benzorez
      Although capacity ... it is of course ... Drown together with capacity ...

      It’s worth paying attention to the new naval concept of the USA: replacing destroyers with frigates, building BECs and AUVs of the middle and large class (but still much smaller in comparison with the classical boats and submarines. Do you think this is accidental in the age of asymmetric, local and partisan wars ?

      Opponents must have been embarrassed by the fact that the truck has 45 pieces of cargo for vehicles weighing 50 tons. This is true. But this is a half full glass situation. The weight of 45 tanks taken aboard will amount to 2095,5 tons, or 26,8% of the carrying capacity. There are still 5702 tons of carrying capacity, which can be filled with other cargo: light armored vehicles, trucks, ammunition, food, and personnel. The free carrying capacity of a car carrier after loading the tanks is more than four times more than the BDK can accept.

      This is true, but commentators suggest:
      Quote: tatarin1972
      Loading 1174 tanks, 50 PT-76 tanks, he could take, its combat weight is 14, 5 tons. Which is practically comparable to the weight of the BMP

      Airborne capacity:
      4 transport and combat helicopters Ka-29 (Ivan Rogov until 1985 - Ka25PS),
      Dock camera - 6 DKA pr.1176 or pr.1785 or 3 pr.1206;
      46 medium tanks (without DKA) or 23 medium tanks (with DKA) or 79 BTT units and 440 people or 120 ZIL-130 trucks and 500 people or 1730 tons of cargo

      Thus, a ship with 4 times less displacement is able to take on board as many tanks. Yes, without accompanying cargoes, but this is a warship, which means that it can provide support to the landing party and fight off every little thing, down to a single RCC.

      Armament: 2x1 launcher ZIF-122 SAM "Osa-MA" (20 SAM 9M33) - SU 4R-33A (Ivan Rogov - SAM "Osa-M" (20 SAM 9M33) - SU 4R-33)
      4x4 launcher SAM "Strela" (16 SAM) - Alexander Nikolaev, Ivan Rogov (since 1985), Mitrofan Moskalenko
      1x2 76 mm AK-726 (1200 rounds) - SU MP-105 "Turret"
      4x6 30 mm AK-630 (16000 rounds) - 2 SU MP-123 Vympel-A
      2x1 45 mm 21K
      1x40 122 mm launcher NURS MS-73 Grad-M (320 rounds) - launcher Thunderstorm-1171
      1x7 55 mm grenade launcher MRG-1 "Spark" (grenades RG-55M)
      BDK is a ship with a narrow specialization, and it is good only in this framework. As a transport, it cannot be compared to a car carrier.

      It’s fundamentally wrong. They just have different specializations. Within its niche, the BDK can even stand up for itself, and land on an unequipped coast occupied by the enemy (of course, after working off the coast with other means, but it can), and support the troops with fire.
      Or maybe something else that has been overlooked by other commentators.

      This is the main military transport advantage of the car carrier over the BDK. A car truck can land a whole brigade with all the equipment and supplies, equipped for the offensive and intense multi-day battles.

      From the previous article:
      Equipment leaves the car carrier on its own, which greatly speeds up unloading.

      Can not. Where is it proposed to accommodate personnel? They need a minimum: a heated, ventilated, electrified airborne squad with sleeping places and the ability to send out natural needs. Not from the pot or into the bucket. Does the truck have something similar?

      From the previous article:
      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 vessel can be removed by helicopters.

      Where is the turntable based? Is it not in the enemy’s just captured port? And who and how will supply and protect them there?
      Helicopters need hangars. Hangars are not just garages for weather protection. They have equipment for refueling, weapons and pre-flight training.

      Add the airborne squad and helicopter hangar, and get almost BDK. All that is missing is a bow ramp, a docking camera, and weapons.

      If there are no large transports with troops behind the landing on the BDK that will support it and develop success, then this landing is doomed to defeat and inglorious death.

      For this, there are specialized vessels: overseas - floating depots, we have transport support vessels.
      And still
      Quote: Undecim

      From 2010 to 2015, a special research program was being implemented in China to study the possibility of using its merchant fleet for military purposes. According to its results, in March 2015, a list of standards for civilian courts was adopted in order to implement the requirements of national defense ... The construction of new ships should take into account the requirements of these standards already in the design.

      I dare to suggest that in the USSR there were similar requirements when designing civilian ships, since even some civilian cars were made with their account.

      Something like that.
      1. Cheerock 26 May 2020 03: 18 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I will say more, on our Black Sea this huge crap can be unloaded and loaded only in Novorossiysk and Tuapse, in the Baltic Sea - only in Ust-Luga and in Vysotsk, on the Barents Sea - only in Murmansk. What is sediment, deep-sea ports, handysees and panamaxes, current experts do not know. But the thing is big, beautiful, which means the Bentley is better than the Land Rover Defender for transporting infantry))
      2. wehr 26 May 2020 13: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I will answer you with the only question, like a brick in a shop window: what's the point of landing on an unequipped coast, and even under enemy fire?

        You, like many other commentators, have never thought about this, it seems. If you have not yet reached the shore, but have already opened fire on you, then the landing party has fallen. This means that the enemy is already waiting for you and has arranged for you the hottest and largest-caliber reception. The enemy on his shore has an advantage in number and maneuver, which implies that in a few hours he will draw strength to the landing area, and then he will come to the little brothers schwarzer Tod.
        To build tactics, and even a series of ships under it, on the fact that there will be a landing somewhere out there under fire, means tactics of useless ditching of the landing. I call her "landing in the grave" or "landing in captivity." Well, yes, well, yes, for couch strategists and naval commanders, if you just spit, send 400 people to the sure and useless death.

        Landing on an unequipped coast makes sense only for surprise and capture the initiative. The ultimate goal of landing is all the same, whatever one may say, capturing a port or a convenient place for unloading transports, like a car carrier.
        Hence, it is not so important what exactly to land on an unequipped shore - on the BDK or on a boat, or even swim. Everything is decided by surprise. If you are waiting, then you schwarzer Tod without options.
        A landing with one BK can fully battle only a few hours. If during this time he did not capture the port, and during this time large forces with offensive reserves did not unload, then your landing schwarzer Tod has no options. The enemy will destroy him to the last man.

        I believe that from the operational-tactical point of view, the BDK is even harmful, since it directs the command to a battle for a landing, which (in a real battle, not in a "ballet") can end in nothing but defeat. The first landing should be sudden and without a fight, and in such conditions all the guns listed by you are not needed.
        1. vVvAD 28 May 2020 19: 46 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: wehr
          I will answer you with the only question, like a brick in a shop window: what's the point of landing on an unequipped coast, and even under enemy fire?


          Dmitry, do you read in parentheses? I repeat, it’s not difficult for me:
          Quote: vVvAD
          Within its niche, the BDK can even stand up for itself, and land on an unequipped coast occupied by the enemy (of course, after working off the coast with other means, but it can), and support the troops with fire.


          We can agree that in general, civilian vessels can be involved, but only if certain requirements are met. It is extremely desirable - the requirements during construction, and they wrote about this before me, because to adapt to unusual functions that which is - a drowning straw.
          And, of course, this fully applies to the Sunrise Ace, to which the article is devoted, because:
          1.
          Quote: Operator
          The height of the interdeck space in the car carrier is 210 cm, and the height of any brigade armored vehicles is greater than this value

          2. Inconvenient in basing (ports of registry can be counted on the fingers of one hand).
          3. It should be accepted that he can only land in the deep-sea ports, and this is tactical rigidity.
          4. It will be unloaded for a very long time (therefore, it will be extremely vulnerable at the time of loading-unloading), because it does not even have adapted rooms for equipment crews, which means that these crews need to be delivered there in an organized manner just before unloading, because for a long stay there a large mass of people there are absolutely no conditions - in the northern latitudes they will freeze to death before they can get hungry. Even if from helicopters - this is an additional organizational and technical complication of the loading and unloading process and a potentially bottleneck and weak link. If unloading is assumed by helicopters, this limits the ability to land heavy equipment and also stretches for a long time, because helicopters will fly from base to loading and unloading and return to base, and not from UDC to shore and back. And you will not equip a large helicopter deck - they will scurry for 1-3. It is even economically inexpedient: a resource is wasted, additional man-hours for maintenance, and, of course, there will be an overspending of jet fuel.
        2. vVvAD 28 May 2020 21: 55 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          In general, you correctly noted:
          Quote: wehr
          Everything is decided by surprise

          and indeed:
          Quote: wehr
          Landing on an unequipped coast makes sense only for surprise and capture the initiative. The ultimate goal of landing is all the same, whatever one may say, capturing a port or a convenient place for unloading transports, like a car carrier.

          But this is already wrong:
          Quote: wehr
          Hence, it is not so important what exactly to land on an unequipped shore - on the BDK or on a boat, or even swim.

          Firstly, because speed is important for surprise. Secondly, because there are mobile forces - the same aviation, air defense systems, anti-ship missiles, artillery, which can disrupt the landing "by swimming" and "on a boat", after all, motorized infantry with heavy machine guns, if you are serious. That is why the landing party needs support at the time of landing, and not on request after an hour or two, when even insignificant forces on the coast will wash it off at sea.
          A landing with one BK can fully battle only a few hours. If during this time he did not capture the port, and during this time large forces with offensive reserves did not unload, then your landing schwarzer Tod has no options. The enemy will destroy him to the last man.

          Also wrong.
          Following the Soviet doctrine, namely under it, tactics for the use of the BDK were developed, the landing should land on an unequipped coast, because such key infrastructure points as international ports (and deep-sea large-tonnage terminals are precisely such), and even more so naval vessels, are very well guarded . And just there they will wait. And in hundreds of examples, starting from 2MB, a well-fortified port can easily break off teeth, especially at such a vulnerable moment as landing, when the troops have no operational space. So, following the Soviet doctrine, the landing should seize the part of the Tmutarakan coast, which is weakly protected by the enemy, as a springboard for a further attack, for example, on a port, which, of course, is much easier to unload. And a more massive disembarkation will continue on this bridgehead - still not from auto transporters - until the seizure of the port (and this is, as I have already noted, much more difficult).
          It would be simple - do you think someone would bother like this: to develop a whole doctrine and several classes of ships for it? In other words, without a BDK, you may not even reach the stage when the transporters prove useful.

          But, everything - it's time to turn off the topic:
          Probably, here, on the site, few people know (and who knows - keeps quiet, grinning in a mustache) that even unequipped coasts, on which BDKs can unload assault forces from the nose ramp (which is the main way of landing from them), take about 1,5 , 3-50% of the coastline, i.e. these are isolated bottlenecks that have long been known to all: both us and our opponents. And everyone is well aware that such points are quite easy to occupy with mobile defense means, incredibly complicating the landing. Attackers from any side will wash themselves with blood. That is why NATO, as the most aggressive bloc, was the first to develop the concept of over-the-horizon landing, in which landing ships, being 150-35 km from the coast, are invulnerable to most coastal defenses, including artillery (except for the most modern, of course, UDCs appeared much earlier actively - rockets with a range of 100 km and above), except perhaps for anti-ship missiles and aircraft, which, along with the fleet, were supposed to be suppressed in advance by other means adapted just for this. In addition, UDCs can land troops already where the BDK doesn’t land, and having a sufficiently wide lane in both directions to surprise (somewhere around 150 km - more knowledgeable people will correct it).

          So, the UDC “Sevastopol and Vladivostok” of KGNTS on “Priboy” Ave., or rather “Avalanche” - that was his original name - was not based on a good life.
          It’s just that even with the help of the BDK, these same ports can no longer be taken.
    3. Brylevsky 26 May 2020 12: 21 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The height of the interdeck space in the car carrier is 210 cm, and the height of any brigade armored vehicles is greater than this value

      Listen, how do you find the strength to write such nonsense? For your information, the car carrier has an adjustable deck height: decks can be either raised or lowered. On deck No. 7 on the Sunrise Ace car carrier, you can put equipment 3 meters high and weighing 100 tons. Well, which armored vehicles are higher than 3 meters?
      And the last - the car carrier loses its stability after unloading 50% of the cargo, the wind above 15 m / s overturns it on its side due to the huge windage,

      Well, this is generally “beyond fantasy” ... From the category: “One drop of nicotine kills a horse, and a hamster tears to shreds.” Why are you writing your conjectures? After all, someone will believe you! Its wind does not overturn over 15 m / s! Moreover, after unloading 50% of the cargo, when all the remaining cargo it focuses on the lower decks! With all possible loading options (both in the process and at the end), he always has a transverse metacentric height of at least 1 m.! Do you want to knock over a steamer with such a metacentric height? Good luck
  • Undecim 25 May 2020 19: 19 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The author, in fact, did not discover America.
    From 2010 to 2015, a special research program was being implemented in China to study the possibility of using its merchant fleet for military purposes. According to its results, in March 2015, a list of standards for civilian courts was adopted in order to implement the requirements of national defense.
    Five types of civilian vessels are considered: container ships, ro-ro, multipurpose, bulk carriers and bulk carriers.
    The construction of new ships should take into account the requirements of these standards during the design process.
    Let me remind you - the Chinese merchant fleet is the second in the world.
  • Xopek 25 May 2020 19: 28 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    One BDK another transport. It seems to me obvious their different purpose. The task of the BDK is to ensure the delivery and unloading of troops to capture the bridgehead on the unprepared coast, including under enemy fire. The task of transport is the delivery of cargo from port A to port B. According to the previous article, the port still needs to be captured, moreover, with moorings suitable for unloading. And preferably with vessels not flooded at the berths and in the fairways, and without mines. And the conditional enemy should be thrown back to a distance that does not allow disrupting the unloading in such a wonderful port by shelling. Those. in fact, transport cannot be used in any way as a BDK, only precisely as transport in the rear. It’s the same as proving Ruslan is better for landing, more tanks are involved.
  • Revolver 25 May 2020 19: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    So who is arguing? Essno new Gelik is better than the old Niva, for those who have enough dough.
  • bk0010 25 May 2020 19: 40 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    To begin with, the BDK of project 1174 is noticeably smaller than a car carrier. The total displacement of the BDK is 4,3 thousand tons, of a car carrier - 60,9 thousand tons, that is, 14 times less.

    1) A car carrier makes money, and the BDK spends.
    2) BDK is practically a one-time ship: there are not so many chances that they will let him leave after the landing.
    3) BDK is not UDC: he must come very close to the shore in order to land an assault. With a large displacement, this will be difficult.
    BDK must fulfill its tasks and be cheap at the same time. Therefore, to blame him for a small displacement is rather strange.
  • lucul 25 May 2020 20: 13 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    To begin with, the BDK of project 1174 is noticeably smaller than a car carrier. The total displacement of the BDK is 4,3 thousand tons, of a car carrier - 60,9 thousand tons, that is, 14 times less.

    Accordingly, the BDK has less load capacity. It can take on board 22 tanks and 25 armored personnel carriers, which will amount to 1373 tons. The lifting capacity of the Sunrise Ace (if we take into account the capacity of cars in 5196 units and the average weight of the car is 1,5 tons) is 7794 tons, that is, 5,6 times more than that of the BDK.

    Laugh ))))
    BDK - weight 4.3 thousand tons - carrying capacity 1373 tons !!!
    Car truck - weight 60! tons - load capacity TOTAL 000 tons !!! .
    That is, instead of one car carrier, you can build 12 BDK, with total load capacity of 15 tons.
    In addition, the BDK was designed to be small in terms of displacement - so that it would be possible to get as close to an unequipped shore as possible for landing.
    A car carrier does not drop equipment onto an unequipped shore in any way.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Vlad is short 25 May 2020 20: 19 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Why compare horseradish with a finger?
  • greshnik80 25 May 2020 20: 51 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And this huge tub will be able to land all the troops brought on an unequipped coast? What is its draft? 8 meters? Which coast can it approach and unload the landing? How fast will it drop him off? Will you need cranes? In addition, judging by the author’s calculations, the BDK is clearly a more effective means in the load / displacement ratio.
    1. Brylevsky 26 May 2020 03: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      An automobile carrier will not land on an unequipped coast; it has a draft of 10,5 meters in full load. He needs a port with suitable depths and roads. He does not need cranes at all, only his ramps. Loading 5500 cars takes about 8 hours, but this is in Japan, where all processes are worked out to the smallest detail.
  • kamui91 25 May 2020 21: 15 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The fundamental difference is that we have a BDK, but there are no automobile carriers, and never will be.
    And the Japanese are unlikely to sell them to us, now then.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. LeonidL 26 May 2020 05: 53 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      You are right, Yuri! The list of advisers to admirals, generals and marshals of the past and the present consists mainly of people who have never served in the army or Navy and who have no military education, but who love to look at ships on their clothes.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  • Vlad Malkin 25 May 2020 21: 25 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    For different tasks, there must be different ships!
  • swzero 25 May 2020 21: 26 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    criticizing the impossibility of placing tanks on the upper deck, he forgets about the upper weight and its effect on the stability.
    1. Fizik M 25 May 2020 22: 18 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: swzero
      criticizing the impossibility of placing tanks on the upper deck, he forgets about the upper weight and its effect on the stability.

      yes there is even about the requirements for STRENGTH OF THE DECK forgot ...
  • Petrol cutter 25 May 2020 22: 05 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The question is certainly interesting.
    I am not a military man, but I’ll immediately say a shipbuilder (at this stage of life).
    But, by the nature of work, nevertheless I continue to communicate very densely with the military.
    And about this, what's the matter ?!
    Unconditionally, an interesting thought! .. And not only to the author did it come to mind.
    Not only to many, but only to some (as they say in Ukraine). but during the polemic battles ...
    The following feeling has developed. The military wants to have a large landing ship (at least two to four, preferably six)
    Plus DKVP system "Bison" (again, five pieces / at least).
    "Moray eels" can be involved in production (they are also involved, since in the construction / engines there are significantly less involved.
    Why exactly BDK?
    Apparently because this is some kind of warship.
    He, without options, will be able to defend himself. Some time. In our country today, consider any vessel (similar to a military one) - they put the "Carapace M" Plus, whatever one may say, they will guard it on their own. But it is not exactly.
    PLO ... Yes. Sadness. (To a degree). I think the resolved sadness.
    Sent to the jungle sorry. What do the military really want ?!
    The versatility of the dishes.
    A car transporter will never give such a thing. Although capacity ... it's of course ...
    Drown together with capacity ...
  • Fizik M 25 May 2020 22: 18 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    a car carrier will only be able to carry tanks once (at best), after which, even without any enemy influence, it will go into lengthy and costly repairs
    1. wehr 25 May 2020 22: 27 New
      • 0
      • 5
      -5
      You are now sitting down in a puddle laughing
      1. Fizik M 26 May 2020 00: 30 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        Quote: wehr
        You are now sitting down in a puddle

        Monsieur, it looks like YOUR education was limited to a parish school lol
        1. wehr 26 May 2020 02: 39 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Here is a truck loading plan for you



          Dump track is a dump truck.
          27 tons! That is, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles with a reserve.
          50 tons! That is, the T-72 with a margin.
          What else? 100 tons !! A car truck can carry bulldozers and dump trucks up to 100 tons in weight! The feed ramp is designed for this weight. You can “Abrams” communize, if it comes across.
          Now tell me, is it possible to load something of 100 tons in weight on your amusing BDK so that it does not break?
          1. Fizik M 26 May 2020 08: 28 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: wehr
            Now tell me, is it possible to load something of 100 tons in weight on your amusing BDK so that it does not break?

            YES
            Quote: wehr
            What else? 100 tons !! A car truck can carry bulldozers and dump trucks up to 100 tons in weight! The feed ramp is designed for this weight. You can “Abrams” communize, if it comes across.

            after the transportation of the Abarms, the ships of the ILC got up for repairs
            and it is a fact

            and there are very big doubts that the car carrier is able to normally carry tanks
            By the way, another immodest question - what about the excitement? = DYNAMIC LOADS?
            1. Brylevsky 26 May 2020 12: 39 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              By the way, another immodest question - what about the excitement? = DYNAMIC LOADS?

              Static and dynamic loads on the hull are calculated by the start-up when drawing up the cargo plan of the vessel. It can be considered manually (when it is boring, but it is rare), it is possible on a freight computer. The program considers, among other things, cutting forces and moments and in case of exceeding the permissible limit of these will give an alarm warning. There is no need to send a steamer into the five-meter ocean wave, and everything will be fine ... although they also got into the five-meter wave - there was nothing more than the exhausting pitching, which did not allow normal sleep (it was thrown from the beds). On board were, including bulldozers under 50 tons in weight. Just started additional chains ...
    2. Brylevsky 26 May 2020 03: 54 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      You're not right. For him, the transportation of bulldozers of 50 tons in weight is a routine fact. I drove and heavier ... and all this for 4-6 months. And his repair was according to plan ... like a regular ship.
      1. Fizik M 26 May 2020 08: 28 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Brylevsky
        You're not right. For him, the transportation of bulldozers of 50 tons in weight is a routine fact. I drove and heavier ... and all this for 4-6 months. And his repair was according to plan ... like a regular ship.

        Your opinion is definitely authoritative
  • Ham
    Ham 25 May 2020 22: 23 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    the main problem of sofa analysts is that they operate exclusively with the terms "awl-soap" ...
    compare ships built for completely different purposes and for solving completely different highly specialized tasks in completely different conditions ...
    walk ischo
  • 75 Sergey 25 May 2020 22: 32 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    In which case, all the forces and reserves will be concentrated on the attack of one car carrier, after which he will make one big bulk.
    Dale, the draft of him is hooded, before landing, you need to deepen the bottom together with the landing and build an unloading berth.
    Well, we somehow landed on the shore, the entire landing force will be concentrated at one point, there will not even need to be aimed.
    In general, the article is complete crap.
    The design of the BDK itself can be reviewed, the carrying capacity is more or less normal, well, it can be slightly increased, but using an auto transporter for landing is a bullshit.
  • Pamir 25 May 2020 23: 33 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I agree, the version is that BDK, UDC and carts are different vessels for completely different tasks. If we take Syria, for example, when the coast with the port is loyal and subordinate to the interests of the RF Armed Forces, then the carts are of course more convenient and safe, nothing will be threatened by the locals. organization and assistance in unloading the cart, simply for the reason that it is in their interests. The motive is to unload faster and send on their own the equipment and marines into the interior of the country, ammunition with provisions in warehouses. At the same time, it will still take a lot to unload the cart. even such a situation is an exception.
    In the calculation of delivery and landing, the coast is always hostile with the fishermen. We must proceed from the fact that there can be no talk of seizing the port with cranes, in the pre-war period the port will be prepared for defense and, at the extreme, to undermine, the water area near the port in minefields. Near the port water area one should always assume that the enemy has civilian vessels playing the role of reconnaissance, i.e. the ears and eyes of the enemy. The port is the strategic object of the enemy. This is probably the reason for the headquarters of the fleet. And in this case, the order to approach the port no problem? Why warrant? Yes, even in the battalion assault with UDC, the presence of security and fire support ships is necessary, not to mention a larger operation. In this case, the BDK and UDC with landing and equipment are prepared on an uncomfortable coast for landing with a low population density, moreover, in bad weather, precipitation (except for a storm of 8-9 points), at night. This is the norm for war, especially since in such weather enemy aircraft are inactive or restricted But even such a coast is extremely rarely prepared for an airborne landing. Wagons are useless here, they don’t have technical options for unloading. They need BDK, UDC, SDK, MDK. Plus landing with BDK-UDC is strictly regulated by time, there are no coffee breaks with smoke breaks, for everything about half an hour, if there is at least some kind of fire resistance is even faster. It is considered that during the war, landing operations are divided into distracting-tactical, auxiliary-operational and strike-strategic for the deployment of entire army groups. Here during the strategic strike operations along the coast, in the second wave of carts and should be appropriate if there is technical equipment on shore for unloading. For distracting-tactical, auxiliary-operational landings only MDK, SDK, BDK, UDC. Well, different ships are needed, different ships are important.
    1. wehr 26 May 2020 00: 14 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      That you describe the "landing in the grave" well, or the "landing in captivity," if you want.
  • Disorder 25 May 2020 23: 46 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Here is the restless. wassat

    The main vulnerability of this "suitcase" is - the requirement for a port with intact moorings. There are no berths - the "suitcase" turns into a "suitcase without a handle", which must be carefully guarded so that it does not repeat the fate of the British container ship Atlantic Conveyor.
  • Kestrel 26 May 2020 00: 29 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Only a civilian amateur can reason like this. 1) For any civilian ship, including your car carrier, you need a suitable berth and there is no doubt that the enemy will not leave you such a berth. He will kindly blow it up before the arrival of your car transporter, and most likely, the enemy will blow up the berth at the moment of mooring to the berth of the car transporter, which is guaranteed to destroy both the berth and your car transporter, along with the equipment and personnel of the landing. there are several firing points there. Civilian ships, including your car carrier, do not carry weapons and they have nothing to support the landing. 2) BDKs can land troops directly on the enemy’s shore, they don’t need a berth like your car carrier ...
  • serg2108 26 May 2020 00: 58 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    Respect to the author, he painted everything correctly! You need to compare the numbers in terms of quantity and ability of this delivery vehicle.
    Well, the fact that some commentators write about the BDK, WHAT THEY ARE BETTER - well, gentlemen and lies, our comrades couldn’t create such a transport and universal platform for our armed forces in the Soviet Union, now such a platform was so necessary for our Navy. groupings in Syria are written a lot, especially on this resource. All references to the fact that it was not necessary, do not be Ukrainians, you must be able to admit mistakes, and if you consider yourself a great Power all the more maritime, then your interests should be ensured at an appropriate level (transport platform is one of the tools for projecting the strength and capabilities of any state! (IMHO)
    1. IC
      IC 26 May 2020 04: 17 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      You are very mistaken. Almost all sea vessels in the USSR had a dual purpose. They provided huge volumes of military traffic to Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, the Middle East, etc.
      1. LeonidL 26 May 2020 05: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        It’s worth adding to your absolutely fair assertion that the ships were built specifically for mobilization orders, the foundations were laid for art installations, places for cellars, etc. But most importantly, all the ships were state-owned !!! And bourgeois it is a great patriot - outweigh the flag on the Liberian or Greek ...
      2. 2 Level Advisor 26 May 2020 06: 53 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        You are right, but Sergey is talking about the Russian Navy today, and not about the USSR Navy .. In general, the Soviet idea with transport is much better than car transporters .. It’s better to take it as a basis ..
    2. Fizik M 26 May 2020 08: 30 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: serg2108
      Well, the fact that some commentators write about the BDK, WHAT THEY ARE BETTER - well, gentlemen and lies, well, comrades, well, they could not create such a transport and universal platform for our armed forces in the Soviet Union

      could
      our (soviet) skaters were highly rated at the Navy
      specifically for the transportation of tanks
      1. Cyril G ... 26 May 2020 09: 12 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        A different fate awaited the container ship "Vladimir Vaslyaev". The new, in essence, container ship spotted the command of the US Navy and acquired it for their needs. The ship was repaired and modernized. An additional 36-meter section was cut into it - the displacement increased to 50 thousand tons. An additional 60-ton cranes are installed on the deck. The ship's electrical network has been replaced by an American one with a frequency of 60 Hz. As a result of the alterations, the speed decreased to 20 knots. Under the new name, Lance Corporal Roy Vit, the former Soviet container ship, and now the military transport of the Rapid Reaction Forces, joined the US Navy.
      2. serg2108 29 May 2020 09: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The conversation now and today is the question of where they ask in Russian --- gentlemen, everything that has been gained through overwork is here and the answer to all the comments! Our fleet needs it now and today and yesterday .... and they (the ships of this Classes must stand in pairs to start loading at any time and transfer a certain amount of troops and resources to orders anywhere in the world!
  • Angelo Provolone 26 May 2020 01: 35 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    In general, sometimes, out of respect for readers, the author writes a brief reference about himself. How old, education, etc.
    1. IC
      IC 26 May 2020 04: 12 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      And what to write. And so it is clear that in the maritime industry does not understand anything.
  • IC
    IC 26 May 2020 04: 11 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Complete nonsense. The author demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge in maritime affairs. The ramps and decks of the car carrier are not designed to carry heavy armored vehicles. No landing can land from it. In reality, countries that are able to carry out large landing operations have specialized ships and dual-use vessels. So it was in the USSR. Rollovers had designs designed to transport even tanks. One of which, after modernization, is part of the US Navy. There were even atomic passenger ferries with nasal sashes open, like the BDK.
    1. Fizik M 26 May 2020 08: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: IMS
      So it was in the USSR. Rollovers had designs designed to transport even tanks. One of which, after modernization, is part of the US Navy


      and very highly praised by the U.S. Navy's ILC
      up to visits to its developers for experience and project design
  • LeonidL 26 May 2020 05: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Stormy discussion! Yes, it’s possible to drive more to a rollercoat or car transporter ... only here are the problems, 1. Decks are designed for cars and trucks, not tanks, armored personnel carriers, stacks of shells and other things ... 2. Where and how to place personnel under everything this wealth is on the upper decks (?) And ventilation, toilets, bunks? 3. Problems with the landing - here you can’t approach the shore, it’s going to destroy everything under the fire of the “adversary”. How can I unload without moorings? Look at the experience of landing in Normandy and landing in Kerch and Feodosia, especially in the latter ... Consider sailing, the need for tugboats ... 4. I’m not sure that such ships remained in state ownership - the bourgeois simply will not give an end to all plans. 5. Well, and most importantly, when was the last time such wealth was needed so that the BDK would not have cost? What kind of tasks (obviously strategic) gentlemen did the naval commanders come up with in order to charge the armada of car carriers? How many skorot ships have been allocated, supply ships, air defense / missile defense, anti-aircraft defense? In pictures and in theory, it is all interesting and beautiful - like, let's draw a house and live. I think that for now you need to go down from the heights of the beyond, and wait until two new UDCs are put into operation. So far, more or less military work such as the Syrian Express, even for them, can only be found in a limited area of ​​the Mediterranean Sea near bases in Syria. Well, if you have to land in Odessa in response to the provocation of Ukraine ... then there. Yes, and there like old BDK should be enough. On long hikes, send transporters with a division ... and supply this mass of fighters? Those calculations that the author brought this to the battle or to the transition? At the transition to the oceans of the far sea zone, do they eat dry solders? And to supply and escort? Again the squadron named after Admiral Rozhdestvensky? While there is no naval base, you can only go with purely military-political goals and catching pirates (protecting shipping).
  • Yury Trofimov 26 May 2020 10: 09 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Better 14 BDK than one car carrier, because 14 pcs. it’s harder to sink, something yes will reach the destination
  • AAK
    AAK 26 May 2020 11: 46 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Colleagues! The author’s reasoning and calculations are understandable, the arguments are acceptable, but this is rather the technical side of the issue. But in the framework of current realities, the question, in my opinion, must be posed differently, not WHAT to build, but FOR WHAT to build.
    Even in Soviet times, the forces of our marine corps in each of the fleets did not exceed DIVISION, in the current realities it is, at best, a brigade and is far from always full-fledged. At the same time, the forces of the U.S. ILC are at least FOUR FORWARD DIVISIONS, which, in addition to the main bases in the United States, can rely on dozens of bases in key areas of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, and in the areas of these advanced bases for the MP there is significant infrastructure for basing as the general forces of the fleet, and the Air Force and Strategic Nuclear Forces, plus the forces of their allies in various blocks. Taking into account the size, infrastructure, security of means of transportation and landing, as well as the cover forces of the airborne groups, the United States Naval Forces can also carry out the corresponding tasks, including operational, as well as, in certain operations, of the operational-strategic level.
    The landing of the Russian brigade of the MP even in full force is just a tactical assault landing of an auxiliary character in the coastal direction in the interests of ensuring the operation of the ground forces. In each case, loading all the personnel and equipment of the brigade onto one single car carrier does not make sense, it is a very real and relatively easily hit target, i.e. this vehicle can easily turn into a mass grave.
    Now - on theaters of maritime activities.
    1. The Black Sea: potential landing sites - Ukraine, Georgia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania. Support for the actions of the ground forces (as well as their sustainable supply) can be adequately carried out by such a small number of marines only in relation to the first two. Turkey and the western coast of the World Cup are only in the third CF ...
    2. Baltic: potential landing sites - Baltic Limitrophs, Poland, Sweden, East Germany, Denmark. Again, the real goals are the Balto Tigers and Poland ... the rest is again the third MV.
    3. The Pacific Ocean: Japan (only Hokkaido) and, to a lesser extent, South Korea ... again, the landing (very unlikely to be possible) in these places is the third MV ...
    4. The Arctic Ocean: only the eastern part of the coast of Norway, or Svalbard ..., again, only in the third world ...
    Conclusion: from the author’s point of view, we are building 4 auto transporters of brigade capacity for each of TMD, in my opinion it’s at least 3, at most 4 "mass graves", without options ... To supply our military groups in Syria (potentially Libya) - it is enough to use dual-use civilian vessels ... For the current Russian realities - there are no marines and there are no tasks for which it would be advisable to build the ships proposed by the author ..
  • Victor Pavlovich 26 May 2020 11: 48 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Dear, what are you talking about? The BDK has the task of landing on the UNEQUIPPED coast !!! What is the sediment of a car carrier? Where will he unload the tanks? Or for him, first on the enemy shore, build a pier and deepen the bottom?
    And I support the writer that the projects of BDK 1171 and 1174 are mixed up.
    First serve in the fleet, then write about it.
  • Bersaglieri 26 May 2020 11: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    1171 Tapir in the picture. 1174 is "Ivan Rogov." Correct, author :)
  • Phoenix 26 May 2020 11: 56 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    It’s funny to observe how already for a hundred commentators they have expressed to the author (in some places very reasonably and quite politely) how wrong he is, and the author is all on his own and snarls)))
    1. wehr 26 May 2020 13: 46 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And it’s fun for me to observe how commentators defend the "landing in the grave" and still think that they are experts in military affairs.
      The landing party, not supported by the landing of its large forces with large reserves, will inevitably be surrounded, pressed to the sea and exterminated.
      1. ccsr 26 May 2020 17: 55 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: wehr
        The landing party, not supported by the landing of its large forces with large reserves, will inevitably be surrounded, pressed to the sea and exterminated.

        You needlessly think that in the future we are planning an airborne assault against some NATO countries, the United States or China - this is generally beyond the reasonable, so do not pedal this topic, nobody raises the question.
        The possible use of our helicopter carriers in the future may be carried out not as a covert naval operation (the Americans will track this and merge the information), but as ordinary support of some government of another country, if it is beneficial for us to do this. Then, in a raid, perhaps for evacuation, it will be convenient to keep such a helicopter carrier as part of several warships, which themselves are able to defeat and destroy any non-nuclear grouping of troops, especially if a civil war or unrest among the population occurs on the territory.
        I do not see other scenarios where helicopter carriers will be used - they simply are not expected.
  • Operator 26 May 2020 12: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Brylevsky
    On deck No. 7 on the Sunrise Ace car carrier, vehicles with a height of 3 m and a weight of 100 tons can be put.

    Calculate at your leisure what loading height will be on decks No. 1-6 after increasing the loading height on deck No. 7 laughing

    PS ZIL-131 height without an awning - 248 cm.
    1. Brylevsky 26 May 2020 16: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Calculate at your leisure what loading height will be on decks No. 1-6 after increasing the loading height on deck No. 7 laughing

      Only the deck number 6 will decrease in height. The height of the remaining decks will remain unchanged. You didn’t move them? Well, why on earth would they have to reduce their height? The sixth was moved, the sixth will decrease, the rest will not.
      1. Operator 26 May 2020 17: 17 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        ZIL-131 on any on any one of the remaining six decks laughing

        And in order not to get up twice - when landing, first of all, it will be necessary to unload the armored vehicles from the 7th deck (and not the motor vehicles from the other decks) onto the bridgehead, after which the car carrier is expected to make an overclock.
        1. Brylevsky 26 May 2020 17: 55 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          after which the car carrier is expected to make an overkill.

          No. Firstly, you forgot about the cargo on decks 8-11, and it significantly lowers the DH of a loaded vessel; secondly, water in ballast tanks - they further lower the applicability of CT. I tell you again: with all possible loading and unloading options, the Sunrise Ace will have a transverse metacentric height of at least 1 m. And besides that, a competent start-up will simply not allow it to significantly decrease, choosing the most optimal modes of cargo and ballast operations.
          For the "heavy" this car carrier has two decks: the seventh and fifth. On the seventh, we constantly carried tracked vehicles weighing 20-60 tons; on the fifth, heavy trucks were driven up to 20 tons, where the height allowed them to put trucks; the Japanese transported their Type 16 wheeled tanks on the same auto transporters from Japan to Vladivostok on such an auto transporter for a couple of days ...
  • Nikolaich 26 May 2020 16: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But BDK is better than Kazanka ... I think so © ️
  • strelokmira 26 May 2020 17: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Well, I see that all the armies of the world use car carriers instead of the BDK ... Well, right the military of the whole world are stupid people, one author is D'Artagnan
  • The comment was deleted.
  • wehr 26 May 2020 22: 29 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: ccsr

    This is a fallacy - historians have a poor understanding of certain truths that are obvious to military professionals.


    Sorry for interfering in the conversation. But I have a question: why do military professionals get cargo to Syria on rusty troughs built under Leonid Ilyich?
    1. ccsr 27 May 2020 11: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: wehr
      But I have a question: why do military professionals get cargo to Syria on rusty troughs built under Leonid Ilyich?

      Because it is many times cheaper than creating specialized transport for the Navy, then it is mainly operated at the berth, and in the end it may be needed only a limited number of times. Pure economy - there is no military specificity here, because any naval one will tell you that it is better to have a warship overlooking the sea than a transport carrier standing at the pier for years.
      1. Cyril G ... 27 May 2020 13: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Transport workers just walked constantly, even at the peak of the collapse, because cargo still had to be transported in the interests of Moscow Region. And cable carriers and hydrographs, and above all paratroopers, were used as cargo trucks. All this is not sensible. And warships just do not go to sea often.
        1. ccsr 27 May 2020 18: 20 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          Transport workers just walked constantly, even at the peak of the collapse, because cargo still had to be transported in the interests of Moscow Region.

          And where did they go, even if the “Ural” stood on a joke? And it is much cheaper to transport cargo by civilian vessels, and the resource would not be wasted.
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          And cable carriers and hydrographs, and above all paratroopers, were used as cargo trucks. All this is not sensible.

          It was all out of need, not common sense, so this is not an indicator.
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          And warships just do not go to sea often.

          This is bad - how to teach sailors, if not on hikes. However, the role of the surface fleet is decreasing, and the future will be for the submarine fleet, so maybe this is not so scary.
          1. Cyril G ... 27 May 2020 19: 05 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And where did they go, even if the “Ural” stood on a joke? And it is much cheaper to transport cargo by civilian vessels, and the resource would not be wasted.

            The Arctic, the Far East, Kamchatka, Chukortka, KOR apparently do not say anything?
            civil courts


            Present-day Russia has a problem with civilian courts, and even with regard to the delivery of military cargo in the context of confronting the hegemon. They must be carried on ships carrying a naval flag. Then, without war, no one can detain them ...


  • Pamir 26 May 2020 23: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I suppose in the form of a point of view. They will try to create a problem in the event of a war on a truck and not only it before equipped moorings in the first setting of minefields, then when landing forces appear over the horizon they can drown at the port entrance, and they are usually protected from the open sea in the bays, so at the entrance to the bay to drown a barge, or a decommissioned ship, is it not enough? They will find a second, scrap metal in the ports for five railway trains of minmum. All the entrance to the berths is closed, well, I repeat, no one canceled the mining berths and all equipment. A direct assault on a port with a car carrier breathing in the back is possible only if the enemy has no means of port protection in addition to small arms and small-caliber cannons. Exploration from the landing in the form of fishing chambers will be launched into the sea, and this is all without taking into account aircraft counteraction. the discovery of a car carrier with its dimensions (wow an aircraft carrier without airplanes and without defensive weapons, or it’s a city on a powder and oil barrel), for any the omandir of an air regiment, or an enemy submarine, the target gains exceptionalism, they will try to work even at the cost of an air regiment or boat. The end justifies the means. All commanders with crews of ships in the order of the car carrier will forget about the initial purpose of their visit, the whole group will begin organizing a cart defense of the cart accompanying the order and forget about the BDK, if any. It will no longer be up to the landing.
    Therefore, most landing operations are planned and carried out on an unsuitable coast, not equipped for landing, in bad weather at night, after reconnaissance for the proper absence or weak presence of airborne defense. Such an landing can only be provided by the MDK, KFK, BDK, sometimes UDC. Further mainly two options:
    1) the acceptance of the battle at the landing site, in order to delay the main enemy forces from other coastal areas or objects that are more necessary and important for the Fleet for a certain time. By the way, the battle is without alternatives, to the very last sailor paratrooper. The organizers also know this in advance landing and often performers. This is not said before the operation and during it, neither one nor the other. Not accepted.
    2) landing, followed by a march and assault of important objects from land. If the target is a port, if it is successfully taken under control, the troops from the additional MDK BDK-UDC landing berths at the port’s berths will be deployed over the horizon, the control bridge will expand, well after exclusion of shelling of the port and the organization of air defense, a call is made to the car. If there is a failure, then we look at the first option. Extra landing at the port is canceled. This is known in advance by the organizers of the landing and often by the performers. Remember and be silent.
    I am not against car carriers, these are useful and necessary ships, you need to make good forecasts of how and when they can be used without losing them. And where it is more useful and better to use MDK, KFOR, BDK.
    And according to the author, for the author of the article ... "landing in the grave" is NOT a priori.
    A landing can only happen in immortality, these are not loud pompous words, these are the realities of military operations. Do not even think of releasing such an excursion to military units of the Russian Navy.
    No wonder there are many small monuments on the Kola, Black, Baltic, and Pacific coasts. Colleagues without pathos, do not forget to stand at such places and put flowers if possible if you already have them.
  • Polar Bear 27 May 2020 20: 35 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    BDK 1174 creation is clumsy, both externally and internally. Especially terrible are the 58D engines, which are voracious and which are impossible or very difficult to repair by ship crew. The speed is small. Weakly armed, no helipad and hangar for helicopters. In the sea he rolls around, like a roly-up. The conditions for the paratroopers and crew are disgusting. In general, what its creators thought about and what place I do not know, but certainly not with my head.