Military Review

The future of the 11711 BDK is defined.

In recent months, the supply of French amphibious ships of the Mistral project has been actively discussed. At the same time, the construction of the 11711 project head landing ship is being completed in Russia. The large landing ship (BDK) "Ivan Gren" is being built since 2004, and its delivery is scheduled for next year. According to domestic media reports, construction of the second BDK project 11711 will begin in the foreseeable future.

A few days ago, the TASS news agency published excerpts from an interview with the General Director of the Nevsky Design Bureau (PKB) Sergey Vlasov. S. Vlasov spoke about the construction of the head BDK project 11711, as well as future plans for ships of this type.

Last summer, it was claimed that the Ivan Gren ship would be completed, tested and handed over to the naval the fleet by the end of 2014. According to S. Vlasov, to date, the final cost of the new BDK has been determined, and the deadlines for completing all the required work have been set. The ship is planned to be delivered to the customer next year.

Simultaneously with the completion of work on the lead ship of the project, the Navy and the Neva PKB are preparing to build a second BDK of a new type. The decision to build the second ship of the 11711 project has already been made. According to the general director of Nevsky PKB, the second ship will be built according to the original 11711 project with some modifications made during the construction of the BDK Ivan Gren. In addition, some other changes will be made to the project regarding the components and equipment used.

The main issue to be resolved by designers of the Nevsky PKB concerns imported components. In the light of current events in the international arena, it is required to minimize the number of components supplied by foreign partners. For this reason, engineers are currently finalizing the original 11711 project to meet the new requirements for the origin of components. According to S. Vlasov, there were very few foreign components on the lead landing craft of the draft of the foreign components, and besides, they were all delivered earlier. As a result, issues of import substitution are solved only for the second ship.

At the moment, the problem of replacement of imported components is one of the most difficult. BDK project 11711 need a number of special equipment, previously ordered abroad. Replacing some systems is associated with certain difficulties. So, problems arise with the choice of suppliers of refrigerating machines and bilge and wastewater treatment plants. Nevertheless, as the general director of Nevsky PKB said, domestic manufacturers have already been found who can supply bilge water purification systems and furnaces for waste disposal.

It should be noted that the construction of the second BDK project 11711 will in fact be continued, and will not start from scratch. Several years ago, some work was carried out, in particular, several sections of the hull of this ship were laid. However, due to problems with the head BDK "Ivan Gren", it was decided to suspend all work. As follows from the words of the general director of the Nevsky PKB, the Ministry of Defense decided to resume construction and provide the fleet with new BDK project 11711.

The main large landing ship of the 11711 project, "Ivan Gren", was laid in 2004 year. In the future, the construction of the ship faced a number of specific problems, both economic and technical in nature. Because of these problems, the construction of the ship was delayed, and the launching took place only in the spring of 2012. Preparations for the construction of the second BDK began in 2010, but soon ceased due to the need to finalize the project.

Large landing ships of the 11711 project were to be a further development of the 1171 BDK project and were created on their basis. It was originally planned to build six ships of this type, but their actual number may be different. The decision on a series of new BDKs should be made based on the results of the test of the lead ship.

BDK project 11711 should have a displacement of 5 thousand tons, the total length of 120 m, maximum width of 16,5 m and draft of 3,6 m. Ships are proposed to equip the diesel power unit with a power 4000 hp Diesel engines must provide travel speeds up to 18 knots and cruising ranges to 3500 nautical miles. The claimed autonomy for fuel and food stocks is 30 days.

The armament complex of the 11711 BDK project consists exclusively of artillery systems. The main weapons ships should be an AK-176 artillery mount with a 76 caliber mm gun. It is proposed to carry out air defense using two AK-630М installations of 30 mm caliber. For fire support of the landing force, ships are equipped with two launchers of the Grad-M A-215 multiple rocket launcher system. The ships can carry one Ka-29 helicopter and ensure its operation.

Landing units and equipment should be located on tank deck inside the ship’s hull. Depending on the task, the BDK project 11711 can carry up to 300 people, up to 13 main tanks, up to 36 armored personnel carriers or 20 20-foot containers. Loading equipment can be carried out through the nose ramp or through the four-wing hatch in the deck. In the latter case, the ship must use a cargo crane. For work with boats and boats there are two boat cranes. During the landing, the hatch in the deck is used to ventilate the internal volumes of the ship to prevent them from filling with exhaust gases.

Currently, Nevskoye PKB is working on the issues of changing the 11711 project due to the required import substitution, and is also working on new projects. Specialists in their own initiative are engaged in the creation of a project for a prospective BDK. Materials on this project are supposed to be submitted to the command of the Navy, which will determine its further fate.

On the materials of the sites:
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 16 October 2014 10: 23
    Nevskoye design bureau is currently working on issues related to changes to project 11711
    Similar information already, I get the image of Frankenstein.
    1. Giant thought
      Giant thought 16 October 2014 12: 27
      Yes, they dragged on the construction of this BDK decently, let's hope that the specified deadline will not be pushed back again.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. Serbor
    Serbor 16 October 2014 10: 29
    Already tired of reading the news of the fleet in the future tense. "In 2016 it will be built ... in 2014 it will be commissioned ... by 2020 the fleet will be replenished." In reality, we only build boats and patrol ships of the 3rd class. With grief, one frigate may be "digging out" in half. In my opinion, there is not a single class 1 ship even in projects. It's just some scam. In Soviet times, these ships were baked like hot cakes. Apparently the consequences of the "triumph of democracy and free market" will have to be raked by our children and grandchildren.
    1. Juborg
      Juborg 16 October 2014 12: 34
      This project is already being procrastinated, it’s scary to think a decade and there will be no end to the campaign. Initially, the project was based only on domestic components, but with the collapse of the union, it turned out that most of the enterprises for the production of these components remained abroad, in Ukraine in particular. And this partner turned out to be very unreliable.
    2. urzul
      urzul 16 October 2014 13: 22
      I will tell you in great secret that they are not and never will be, and in the USSR there weren’t and weren’t made, since ships cannot be made first class can only be of the first rank.
      And then in Soviet times, it could be any ship that meets certain requirements, among them
      "The displacement of rank 1 ships is more than 5 tons. They are intended for operations in the distant sea and ocean zones, both as part of formations (KUG, KAUG) and independently."
    3. denchick23
      denchick23 16 October 2014 15: 00
      So you look at the end of the century, 5 pieces will be built laughing
    4. Monkey monkey
      Monkey monkey 17 October 2014 10: 52
      ____ "There are two types of ships: submarines, and targets ...". No need to la-la, construction is underway in Russia and a considerable number of ships are being commissioned, reflecting its current military doctrine and needs. Crying about "ships of the first class" is now the same as regretting that you do not have your own land in Antarctica - it would be good, but so far it is useless. Well, they baked "like cakes," but why, if the nuclear threat and strong borders were enough for security then? "Has grown with land", expanded the circle of allies, earned an attractive image by raising the economic well-being of the people ??? No, the money that should have been spent on this went to tank and naval armada, as if it was going to wage wars of conquest; and on useless donation, as if they were raising local governors for future colonies. So everything that is happening now in the military-industrial complex is just an approach reflecting the realities, and not imperial wishes ...
  3. Wiruz
    Wiruz 16 October 2014 10: 44
    The fact that the second picture is not Gren. This is a draft of the new KFOR. Whose project I do not remember, but it hangs on the site of one of the design bureaus
  4. captain
    captain 16 October 2014 10: 47
    We do not know how to build amphibious ships, and we never really knew how. The French Mistrals can help us well. We have been building an aircraft carrier for India for 10 years, and now we shout that we can build any ship, if we build as long as this landing ship, it may be easier on rafts to deliver the marines to the landing site ? And all our cries that we should build a house can be seen on the example of cars. We shout, we boast and then we knit together. We pro ... whether civil aviation thanks to our shitcrats, now we cannot even release a kind of AN-2. Our Superjet is 80% foreign components, is this our plane? Thanks to Shaimiev, the helicopter industry was not ruined, he literally did not let our shit-craters destroy the helicopter plant in Kazan. By a miracle, military planes were kept just by a miracle, I don’t know thanks to whom.
    1. zoknyay82
      zoknyay82 16 October 2014 11: 33
      "... you can only believe in Russia ..."
    2. tkhonov66
      tkhonov66 16 October 2014 17: 03
      Military aircraft miraculously kept just a miracle, I do not know thanks to whom.
      - How is it "you don't know" ?! - Disorder!
      In an extreme case - APPOINT a responsible person.
      - and remember - YOU ARE OBLIGED TO KNOW EVERYTHING !!!
      People are listening to YOU ​​...
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. itr
    itr 16 October 2014 10: 59
    The captain. It’s just that the Mistrals are built for three years and set on time, and we have 10 years and no end is visible
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 16 October 2014 11: 54
      Quote: itr
      It’s just that the Mistrals are built for three years and set on time, and we have 10 years and no end is visible

      The course of time in earthly worlds is not the same. It is arbitrary for each system in which intelligent creatures live ...
  7. Realist1989
    Realist1989 16 October 2014 11: 11
    In general, the decision to build this type of large landing ship is not clear, it is just a step back in comparison with the project 1174 "Rhino".
  8. Alexander
    Alexander 16 October 2014 11: 13
    Comparison of these ships of different classes is completely incorrect. There is a great demand for 11711 in the Navy. I'm glad that they finally stirred and remembered about the unfinished building.
    1. Realist1989
      Realist1989 16 October 2014 11: 19
      They have one class - large landing craft, displacement and capabilities are different. The Gren's capabilities for a modern fleet are just about nothing.
      1. Demetry
        Demetry 16 October 2014 12: 22
        Quote: Realist1989
        The Gren's capabilities for a modern fleet are just about nothing.

        Of course, the possibilities are much less. But at the same time, he also had to have a minimum price and he should build a maximum for a year.
        Those. to be an inexpensive and massive ship.
        And we have what we have.
        This Indonesian ship Indonesia built in 16 months and for some penny !!!

        The length of Indonesia is 117 meters, Grena 120 m. The width of Indonesia is 16.4 m, Grena 16.5 m. The functions and methods of landing are almost the same.
        And from Gren do, apparently, expensive long-term construction. Either from a "big mind", or from great greed for money.
        1. 73bor
          73bor 17 October 2014 08: 21
          The meaning of such an architecture on the "Gren" is also incomprehensible - two spaced superstructures, no space saving, great turbulence during movement.
      2. lis-ik
        lis-ik 16 October 2014 16: 05
        I agree that the ship is completely unsuitable for modern realities, and with such long-term construction it is easier to develop something new and of course on completely different scales.
        1. Velikoruss
          Velikoruss 16 October 2014 22: 47
          ... for modern realities ship completely not suitable No.

          If it does not, justify please! What does a ship designed on the basis of existing of a hugeoperating experience adopted military doctrine of Russia, taking into account the allowable cost required by the fleet, the number of climatic and seaworthy requirements of the Russian fleet? Let me remind you that Grena is the development of proven and time-tested projects domestic BDK, who have confirmed the feasibility of their concept. How many Mistral can Russia afford, taking into account the fact that the Mistral without a powerful escort is just a hefty short-haul truck. And how much money can be used to build the Grens, which are full-fledged warships that carry weapons and are capable of performing independent tasks. The lower capacity of the Grens is offset by the large number in the series. The larger the series, the lower the cost per unit. Note the launch of a large series at Russian shipyards will contribute to the development and improvement of technologies by domestic shipbuilders, the money will remain in the country, and will not go to save the shipbuilding industry in France, which is building goat faces for us.
          1. yehat
            yehat 17 October 2014 13: 52
            stop pouring about a full-fledged warship.
            for any patrol or combat boat, Gren is simply prey.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  9. moremansf
    moremansf 16 October 2014 11: 32
    Time will tell ... we need to develop our own shipbuilding, and not to buy in the West ... we built it ourselves before and it worked out well ... can not we ??? Sanctions only spur the development of industry, including shipbuilding !!! WE CAN WHEN WE WANT !!!!
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 16 October 2014 11: 37
      Well, 775 - the most massive BDK built in Poland. 2 / 3 auxiliary fleet of the Navy in Finland, Bulgaria, East Germany.
  10. cerbuk6155
    cerbuk6155 16 October 2014 11: 34
    The director of the plant, along with the chief engineer and deputies, as well as senior officials, must firmly say when each ship will be launched and put into operation. And if this period (in 3-4 years) is exceeded, then they will be dismissed, without the right to occupy their hands. Duties for 10-15 years. soldier
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 16 October 2014 11: 41
      Well, take the head Gren, he has the installation DRRA3700, which is collected in Kolomna. Gren was launched in May 2012, the first DRX3700 was received in December 2013, the second in May 2014. How could the plant influence the fact that DRRA3700 was detained for 2 of the year (it had to be loaded technologically before launching)? And without DRRA3700 - Ivan Gren is a self-propelled barge.

      This DRRA3700 also did not rest against Kolomna, because it is a single order giving birth to a bunch of hemorrhoids, since this unit does not go anywhere except to Gren. As a result, not serial production - manual work.
      1. cerbuk6155
        cerbuk6155 16 October 2014 12: 48
        Before you minus and write about 2012, you must first think 10 times with your head, but if we don’t think ahead, then you don’t need to talk. Read first again what I wrote. soldier
      2. cerbuk6155
        cerbuk6155 16 October 2014 12: 48
        Before you minus and write about 2012, you must first think 10 times with your head, but if we don’t think ahead, then you don’t need to talk. Read first again what I wrote. soldier
        1. Ramadan
          Ramadan 16 October 2014 23: 19
          You offered some garbage, think for yourself why someone minusanul you.
  11. raid14
    raid14 16 October 2014 12: 00
    It will be much easier to order the latest ships in the west and then clone them with changes in use for the needs of the fleets in different climatic conditions. The Russian military-industrial complex in the field of shipbuilding is currently dependent on foreign components, subcontractors, existing offers regarding dual technologies. Given the cut and rollback, the timing and cost of ships of their own design will cost the budget even more.
    1. Realist1989
      Realist1989 16 October 2014 12: 06
      It would be better to buy Type 071 UDCA from China - both cheaper and the implementation time is relatively short. It’s better than building a shelter for 10 years that operates according to the principles of the middle of the last century, from which only 17% of the coast is accessible for landing.
    2. Velikoruss
      Velikoruss 16 October 2014 23: 01
      Solvable. There would be a desire. And "buy-clone" is not always suitable. In the case of Mistral, at least because he is sharpened under a different doctrine. In addition, reworking someone else's project to fit your standards will take time commensurate with the design time from a clean slate, and even with the prospect of getting an unviable Frankenstein. And haul-off saws for one barge, welded hatches and on the water area of ​​the landfill - improve the integrity of the personnel of the Russian fleet
  12. valokordin
    valokordin 16 October 2014 13: 01
    The displacement of the landing ship "Mistral is 32 thousand tons, the large landing craft Ivan Gren is 4000 tons. The Mistral is built in 2 years, the Gren is under construction for 10 years. Here is a comparison of our capabilities with the French. The Koreans would have built a large landing craft of 50 tons. Democrats ruined our shipbuilding. And the aircraft industry Medvedev iPhone, Mandurov and the sawmaker Poghosyan also ditched the beautiful Marquis. Well, where is Comrade Stalin and his faithful Lavrenty. Otherwise, it's not 1 years old, repression, repression.
    1. tkhonov66
      tkhonov66 16 October 2014 17: 11
      Well, where is Comrade Stalin and his faithful Lavrenty. And then it's not 37 years old, repression, repression.
      - Cho, you missed me ?!
      - Well hold on, author! If you can.
      WHO HAS DECLINED our glorious shipbuilding ?!
      WHO IS HERE FALSE before the "West"? This is WHAT - for "groveling" ?!
      WHO HERE has the audacity to slander our glorious government ?!
      - Sort out Comrade Beria.
      Be so kind, tovarisch "author" - do not go anywhere for the next half an hour - and they will come for you in a WONDERFUL LATTICE CAR ...
      8- (
  13. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov 16 October 2014 13: 07
    Not everything is so simple, about 30 major changes have been made to the ship’s design since the bookmark, and the ship’s appearance has changed significantly 3 times! Of course, the construction will drag on with such twists of fate! Add to this the high workload of the plant, general problems in the industry, low priority , chronic underfunding in view of the way Mistrley.
  14. valokordin
    valokordin 16 October 2014 13: 30
    The construction of our BDK resembles the construction of a stadium in St. Petersburg. There is no end and edge. Everything is improved, redone, they ditched money 3 times more than planned. From 10 years, take 2 on the Mistral, and 8 years where. Thieves.
  15. common man
    common man 16 October 2014 13: 42
    Knowledgeable people. Here you explain to me stupid. than the Mistral. Yes, and all the UDCs, with their over-horizon landing, are better than our BDKs? The landing is over-horizon, therefore at least 30 km from the coast. (I will write in km. Although more correct in miles) Mistral has two landing boats, say, of the type of Serna. So the speed is 57 km / h with 2 points, or 16 km. an hour with 5 or more points. (For French STMs, it’s just 18 km / h.) We begin the landing operation. They landed the first batch, two tanks. Gone for the second. half an hour there, half an hour back, and half an hour to load (go into the hold at low speed when rolling, moor. load the tank, exit the hold). It's minimum. Two more were unloaded. left again. What will happen to those two tanks during this time? And if one of the boats is damaged? And God forbid both, but at the very beginning? I think tryndets entire operation. Now BDK. Yes, he needs to come close to the shore. But, if it has already approached, then it will land all the troops in minutes. Even at the cost of his life. I'm waiting for the pros and cons. Only reasonably please.
    1. Demon_blood
      Demon_blood 16 October 2014 14: 11
      BDK Gren does not land ashore, but comes very close, throws floating cars out of the bow ramp, turns around, opens the rear ramp and begins to build a pontoon so that it cannot swim, for example tanks. While he is building these pontoons he is an easy target for all coastal artillery.

      1 wave) Alligator combat helicopters,
      2 wave) assault helicopters. the team
      3) assault. teams on 4 or more semi-rigid boats
      4) 4 boats with 4 tanks or infantry fighting vehicles and / or marines.
    2. Demetry
      Demetry 16 October 2014 14: 15
      Quote: man in the street
      than the Mistral. Yes, and all the UDCs, with their over-horizon landing, are better than our BDKs?

      I think it’s not worth it to compare what’s better. This is how to compare a shovel and a cultivator. As a result, they are doing the same thing. Only a shovel is long, difficult but cheap, and the cultivator is a lot fast but expensive.
      Here you just need to know what the ship is for. If you carry Voentorg to Syria, then Ivan Gren will do. If a distant operation with a serious landing, then Mistral is better.
      At the same time, it is simply considered that over-horizon landings are safer and more efficient. Do not forget that the French have slow boats in the dock. Many people use LCAC type airbags. And he has a speed of about 40 knots.

      And these boats are not only with the Americans. The same are used by Koreans, Japanese and Chinese.
      Plus, don't forget, there can be 16 helicopters on Mistral. And this is also a landing gear.
      Plus, in addition to boats on the VP and dies like the French, the ship can take assault boats.
      This is how the camera of the American landing ship with Swedish assault boats looks like. By the way, exactly the same ones according to the Swedish model are now actively being built on Pella in the Lena Region.

      So the possibilities of Mistral are much more than the possibilities of Gren. Accordingly, the price, too. So this is not one instead of the other, but one in addition to the other.

      It just so happens that the main maritime powers are building landing ships for strategic, very distant actions. So they build giants like Mistrals and Americas. We have 2 fleets out of 4, closed and local. These are Black Sea and Baltic. Where the Mistrals are redundant. It is for them that Gren should be built.

      So there is no particular conflict.

      PS And yes, do not forget. I have already calculated somewhere that for ships like Ivan Gren only 17% of the sea coast is available. For ships like Mistral I do not know for sure, but there are many more places available.
      1. Demetry
        Demetry 16 October 2014 14: 22
        ..... Yes, and more. If there is an opinion that the west is building ships ONLY type Mistral, i.e. with boats and helicopters, and we ONLY type Ivan Gren with ramps, I want to upset. Here's a picture of an American landing ship like General Frank S. Besson LCV-01 (this is an export version in the Philippine Navy).
        The ship is smaller and simpler than Ivan Gren (4200t, 12 knots, lands 26 tanks), but the landing method is the same. They have 8 such ships and the last was built in 2007. They simply have this ship for local theaters and not for strategic landings.

        By the way, in the photo there is a huge paratrooper like Wosp. This is 2 times more powerful than Mistral. so that such ships can complement each other.
      2. Demetry
        Demetry 16 October 2014 14: 32
        And here is our landing assault boat
    3. Maksim...
      Maksim... 16 October 2014 14: 29
      Now BDK. Yes, he needs to come close to the shore. But, if it has already approached, then it will land all the troops in minutes. Even at the cost of his life. I'm waiting for the pros and cons. Only reasonably please.

      The problem is that the chances of "heroically" perishing at the BDK are much higher.
      Mistral has two landing boats

      For example, four or two of these devices (
      lcac_type) with a maximum speed of 35 to 40 knots. If we take from the domestic, that is, a very good "Dugong" ( landing boats
      820) with a cruising range of 500 miles and max. speed of 35 knots. Two such vehicles fit into the Mistral, and this is already 4 tanks. In addition, we also have a helicopter group, which can both provide cover and act as an additional landing vehicle. If we continue to compare it with the Ivan Gren-type large landing craft, the Mistral is still somewhat more versatile, moreover, it wins in terms of protective and strike weapons. BDK, on ​​the other hand, can be quite well suited as landing craft of the second wave, where their large carrying capacity will manifest itself.
    4. sergius60
      sergius60 16 October 2014 16: 06
      What can not be taken away from mattress mats is the experience of amphibious operations. In the Pacific Ocean, landing barges and pontoons were generally used as DISPOSABLE. They made it simple and cheap to the point of indecency. For what was "alive" to get to the coast was very well "pokotsano" (samurai warriors are stubborn). It's cheaper to build a new one than to bother with transportation and repairs.
      Modular systems made of plastics, suppose ... Lighters. And as a long-distance transport - a lighter carrier with a "squadron" withdrawn in a salvo after taking on ballast. When the Soviet Union, I remember, we even had a nuclear-powered lighter carrier. "Kosygin", I think.
    5. Realist1989
      Realist1989 16 October 2014 16: 20
      Firstly, the UDC has its own aviation cover.
      Secondly, with UDC, the possibility of conducting an airborne assault eliminates the problems of choosing a landing site on the coast (or even deeper in the territory) in terms of quality and topography.
      Thirdly, with UDC, the possibility of boarding by hovercraft expands the choice of the landing site on the coast (17% of the coast is available for the BDK, and 40% for over-the-horizon landing with the help of CWP).
      Fourth, the comparative safety of the UDC when working at a distance from the coast. But to apply to ships all sorts of pathos, supposedly "at the cost of life" - is too expensive, because the ship is an expensive thing and not quickly replenished (not to mention the crew).
      Fifth, the aircraft carrier capabilities of the UDC allow them to be used situationally as light cover aircraft carriers or anti-submarine helicopter carriers. And BDK - in all situations, only a barge.
      1. common man
        common man 16 October 2014 19: 10
        Thanks to all. Let's try to continue.
        Quote: Demetry
        I think it’s not worth it to compare what’s better.

        Absolutely agree. These are ships of different classes. Mistral, with its comfort, is ideal for the role of an overseas hospital. able to act for a long time in isolation from the base. and also the flagship in strategic landing operations. Our BDK, an independent unit of tactical operations and a workhorse in a strategic operation.
        Quote: Demetry
        Plus, don't forget, there can be 16 helicopters on Mistral

        Mistral's equivalent in terms of displacement, and in terms of cost, are 4 Grena. And this is 8 helicopters. But the fire support of the landing at 4 Grens is incommensurably higher.
        Quote: Maxim ...

        The problem is that the chances of "heroically" perishing at the BDK are much higher.

        Is LCAC so hard to destroy? Or at least just disable. And jeopardize the whole operation.

        Quote: Realist1989
        Thirdly, with UDC, the possibility of boarding by hovercraft expands the choice of the landing site on the coast (17% of the coast is available for the BDK, and 40% for over-the-horizon landing with the help of CWP).

        I think the most controversial statement. That's where, explain to me the BMP or the APC will not be able to get ashore, and the hovercraft is easy? On the stones?
        Quote: Demon_Blood
        1 wave) Alligator combat helicopters,
        2 wave) assault helicopters. the team
        3) assault. teams on 4 or more semi-rigid boats
        4) 4 boats with 4 tanks or infantry fighting vehicles and / or marines.

        Four Grena:
        1 wave, assault Aligatirs, fire raid by the Grads; (just don’t say that you cannot place the Alligator on the BDK)
        2 wave, landing helicopters with sabotage groups.
        3 wave, 3) assault. teams on 4 or more semi-rigid boats, fire raid Gradami;
        4 wave floating technique;
        5th wave, not a floating technique.
    6. Dart2027
      Dart2027 16 October 2014 19: 22
      Quote: man in the street
      Even at the cost of his life

      Here is the answer.
      UDC and BDK are ships of different types and with different capabilities. Ideally, you need to have both.
    7. Unclean
      Unclean 16 October 2014 20: 28
      ... I'm waiting for the pros and cons. Only reasonably please ...

      It all depends on who you are landing against and by what forces, I mean the cover.
      Let’s say, let’s say, from two grena, under the cover of two frigates and artillery caravans, to the beaches of Odessa, this is one thing. And let's storm the coast of Turkey, then this is completely different. For the teachings, probably Grena was created, as a combat unit he did not particularly excite me. With regards to the mistral, I would rather like some technology to come to us. The Mistral is good at landing operations when the coast has already ironed the aircraft. Yes, even a little loop near the raid stood with accompanying ships such as a pair of nuclear submarines. Interestingly, we have such tasks or prospects. I think these are two different types of ship but performing the same task. And the pros and cons, so I am for both kinds.
    8. gispanec
      gispanec 17 October 2014 09: 46
      Quote: man in the street
      better than our BDK

      Well, in the first place where you saw OUR BDK ?? ... they are all built abroad ...
      Quote: man in the street
      And if one of the boats is damaged

      and if they slap them in full along the BDK when landing on the coast? .. or about 500-900 meters from the coast?
      thirdly, you forget about the turntables that also carry assault and combat support, which is very substantial (12 pieces above the landing site will not seem childish to you) .... well, if they are shot down on the way up, it means the BDK will be drowned 20 miles from the coast
  16. ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 16 October 2014 13: 45
    It is proposed that air defense be implemented using two AK-630M units of 30 mm caliber

    Is it one for the front and rear hemispheres? Although I'm not a sailor, in my opinion it won't be enough. To hell with her, artillery - 2 76-mm guns and with "landing support forces" - 2 "Grad" installations. All the same, the BDK will be guarding other ships and the landing force may not land in the most fortified place on the enemy coast. But each ship must defend itself from enemy aircraft itself. And in my opinion, with only two 30-mm settings, this will not work out well.
  17. NEXUS
    NEXUS 16 October 2014 18: 15
    Quote: Giant thought
    Yes, they dragged on the construction of this BDK decently, let's hope that the specified deadline will not be pushed back again.

    and three or four years after the delivery of this long-term shipbuilding, it will be necessary to put it on the docks again for modernization ... such a merry land life is planned for the ship ...
  18. Unclean
    Unclean 16 October 2014 20: 50
    Actually, it seems to me that Gren has a rather weak air defense and something is missing in the landing cover arsenal. I am not a sailor, but it seems to me that such ships are good for special operations. And if they have the required number, then in a company with the Mistrals it will be a good tandem. One bad thing is that the grenn does not come ashore.
  19. Army strong
    Army strong 16 October 2014 23: 06
    Quote: moremansf
    Time will tell ... we need to develop our own shipbuilding, and not to buy in the West ... we built it ourselves before and it worked out well ... can not we ??? Sanctions only spur the development of industry, including shipbuilding !!! WE CAN WHEN WE WANT !!!!

    Of course we can!!!! Russia and the fleet are invincible !!! Adversaries spite !!!
  20. Crang
    Crang 17 October 2014 07: 06
    Gren is a good ship. Looks cool. Rather, they would finish building.
  21. andy.v.lee
    andy.v.lee 17 October 2014 09: 35
    For the delivery of troops using some other things. So the US Navy does it right, there was already an article here:
    For the "Navy under the St. Andrew's flag" massively needed frigates with anti-aircraft defense and anti-aircraft defense (of one type, not two), diesel submarines. And for the future - ships of the KMK (marine control, so that "in one bottle there is a command ship, and a small aircraft carrier, and a hospital, and a transport ship, but not a UDC), multifunctional with an air wing.
  22. lcf30
    lcf30 17 October 2014 10: 50
    After reading all the komenty, I honestly lied to the experts who claim that the mistral is better. "As it was said here, the BDK will drop everything in minutes, unlike the mistral" - and this is what our concept needs, unlike others. The capabilities of our Navy and Air Force will not provide air cover for the landing operation. As a result, the Mistral Alligators and Ka-29s will not even reach the coast, or they have a one-way flight. I agree that the Mistral can only be used for small special operations, or to support and coordinate the second wave, no more.
    On the landing capabilities of Mistral: a naval landing on two boats, in general it is a drop in the ocean for a landing operation, as well as the capabilities of an airborne landing. I don’t see the point of having such a large barge for an amphibious assault, but as a floating headquarters, a hospital during the second-wave landing operation, yes.
    1. Crang
      Crang 17 October 2014 16: 34
      Quote: lcf30
      After reading all komenty, to be honest, I was corrupted by specialists who say that the mistral is better.

      The Mistral is no better or worse. He's just different. This is a UDC or a landing helicopter carrier in another way. Our fleet really needs such ships, but this does not mean that the large landing ships are not needed. And BDK are needed because in which way they have not a weak advantage.
  23. nnz226
    nnz226 17 October 2014 11: 39
    Judging by the photos and drawings of the ship's air defense - below the plinth. It is clear that the BDK should not be armed, like a missile cruiser, but it’s not a pity for the Marines in the holds if the ship is sunk by the aircraft or anti-ship missiles of the foe ??? And no need for air defense warrants! It has been known for 70 years how to "raze" an air defense system with a "star raid". And what about the ship itself on the last line of self-defense? Two AK-630 ?? It will not be enough!
  24. Crang
    Crang 18 October 2014 08: 25
    Quote: nnz226
    Judging by the photo and drawings of the ship’s air defense - below the baseboard.

    No worse than the previous series of BDK pr.775-M and better than the BDK pr.775 and pr.1171.
  25. Prager
    Prager 18 October 2014 16: 23
    The air defense of the ship is not clear, either very secretive or weak. I can’t judge, I’m not an expert on naval issues.