Project 11711: "Ivan Gren" class

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Poor Gren it's not a bad design really...has two choppers, has motor boats sure it could carry abit more cause 14 tanks is small 18 would have been reasonable.

Problem is the people in charge of this thing just have shown how vastly incompetent they are

Does anyone know if the Ivan Gren can carry 13 tanks AND 300 marines, or 13 tanks OR 300 marines (I suspect its the latter)?  The public-domain wiki-quality information I've seen doesn't make this clear.

BTW is it simple incompetence or is it the Navy funding this thing with a shoestring and/or changing design requirements mid-build?  Either way its an embarrassment, despite any virtues of the ship in question...

Big_Gazza wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Poor Gren it's not a bad design really...has two choppers, has motor boats sure it could carry abit more cause 14 tanks is small 18 would have been reasonable.

Problem is the people in charge of this thing just have shown how vastly incompetent they are

Does anyone know if the Ivan Gren can carry 13 tanks AND 300 marines, or 13 tanks OR 300 marines (I suspect its the latter)?  The public-domain wiki-quality information I've seen doesn't make this clear.

BTW is it simple incompetence or is it the Navy funding this thing with a shoestring and/or changing design requirements mid-build?  Either way its an embarrassment, despite any virtues of the ship in question...

13 tanks or 34 BTR or some combination and 300 marines.

is it simple incompetence or is it the Navy funding this thing with a shoestring and/or changing design requirements mid-build?

Is a good question.
Partly all 3 I think.
They killed funding for a while. (because the Mistrals were coming?)
They did change design requirements but that should have sped things up, was originally supposed to have an A-190/AK-176, 2* Grad launchers & 2* AK-630s

But that got scaled back to just the Duet & 2* AK-630.

No point carrying armour with no troops to go with it.

The armour is this or that, plus the troops because either the tanks or the IFVs will occupy the same space in the hold , while the soldiers will be not held on vehicle decks and will be fed occasionally...

All those complaining about how long it takes.... yes the usual whiny bitches.. WTF is the rush?

It is a totally new design, why the hell would they not take their time to test it?

They are upgrading all their armour over the next few years.... most of the vehicles they will be carrying probably haven't entered serial production yet anyway.

Just write up a quick 20,000 word essay about where they went wrong... you know... what they really needed to do and why and why what they have done is so clearly wrong and I am sure they will follow up the thank you with a job offer.

This ship is bad because they only have 1 and don't really want to build more. If they had the intention of building more like 10 of them and build like 4 Mistral type vessels, it would be perfect.

The construction took some time because they needed to give work to the people and it wasn't a priority for them so they kept money for other stuff like Borei's. It is just recently that Russia started building in big numbers military ships so they finished it as soon as possible to free some space. It is not hard to build such ships, they just don't want to build it fast.

Is a good question.
Partly all 3 I think.
They killed funding for a while. (because the Mistrals were coming?)
They did change design requirements but that should have sped things up, was originally supposed to have an A-190/AK-176, 2* Grad launchers & 2* AK-630s

Hahahaha... Yeah, changing design requirements mid design ALWAYS MAKES THING FASTER... don't forget to mention cheaper too.

Please outline where you believe they were incompetent.... was it their lack of foreseeing the Ukraine issues, the issues with the French not delivering what was paid for... because even if you could have told them about these things before they happened actually knowing would make no difference.

Redesigns means changes in all sorts of areas, including wiring and other things too... that is delays and changes to orders for subcomponents, not to mention different subcontractors needed.

It is easy to say you don't want this gun now, you want that one, but what if there is none of the gun you decide to get sitting waiting for someone to want it?

You also have to pay for the gun you didn't want and then work out something for that.... these are contracted through subcompanies that rely on sales to earn their living when you order and then cancel, they can't just take it back.

You guys live in a dream world.

And there is nothing wrong with this ship. It took too long to build but there are pretty clear and understandable reasons for this.

A mistral class would be pretty useless in the Baltic or Black Sea... what else would you think of using?

Hahahaha... Yeah, changing design requirements mid design ALWAYS MAKES THING FASTER... don't forget to mention cheaper too.

Cheaper & quicker in that by removing the gun & Grads they removed associated complexities (ammo magazines, loading systems) & firecontrol that would need to be paid for, integrated & tested.
Wouldn't surprise me if it was mainly a price issue, the relevant spaces left void or only minimally changed into storage or similar -> should have been a cheap, quick change.

If weight/volume issues were the reason for deletion of the gun & Grad, the volume/weight re-used to make the basic function of the design work then yes competency of the designers would be at issue.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:If they are going to bring anything back in service may has well be the Ivan rogov's.

Granted those ships require a modernization which would be super super expensive.

Although there here specs good, there's just too few to justify such a move, there should be a lot more Ropuchas in reserve.


As for the apologists, 11 years, 11 goddamn years and counting, at least Isos and hoom brought some interesting points, but still doesn't excuse this madness.

Forget carriers, if this is the state of things.

Cheaper & quicker in that by removing the gun & Grads they removed associated complexities (ammo magazines, loading systems) & firecontrol that would need to be paid for, integrated & tested.

Except all the associated complexities would already have been included in the design so removing them would take a redesign. It would also require all the hardware and installation contracts to be changed and software modified too... all of which would increase the cost of the CONTRACT.

The gun and the grads are not state of the art billion dollar super weapons and would not make this vessel very much more expensive at all.

Maybe if they had a dedicated "landing" vessel gun in 203mm calibre then you might have a point.

If weight/volume issues were the reason for deletion of the gun & Grad, the volume/weight re-used to make the basic function of the design work then yes competency of the designers would be at issue.

If they needed to free up more space than was originally requested then it is either because they made a mistake with the original design or the design requirements changed.

Do you really think the former is actually likely?

Duh... remind me how my pencil works again... where do you put the batteries?

As for the apologists, 11 years, 11 goddamn years and counting, at least Isos and hoom brought some interesting points, but still doesn't excuse this madness.

Grow up.. for five of those years they were getting Mistrals so not have Grens was no an issue and not something they would be putting money in to...

You remind me of the western aholes talking about lend lease from WWII... apparently the Soviet Union can't make their own trucks and had to rely on US trucks.

If you are that fucking dumb then I must say you have been pretending to have a brain all this time very successfully.

They didn't fast track the Gren because they were spending billions on Mistrals.

Just like they didn't make many of their own trucks because America was making lots and sending them to them... it meant they could free up production and resources to make things they did need like tanks and small arms so they could kill Germans while the US sat on their asses doing fuck all.

They are still not fast tracking the gren because it is just a fucking landing ship... even a corvette or a frigate is more use to them at the moment.

Over 11 years requirements will change, the hardware the new boats will be carrying will have changed... the MBTs they will be carrying 11 years ago would be T-90s at best, more likely T-80s. In five years time they might be carrying an all Kurganets based force or all Boomerang based force with a mix of tanks and troop transport vehicles as well as air defence and artillery vehicles all based on the same chassis...

That means different dimensions and weights... but those fuckin incompetent morons designing the ship 15 years ago didn't take into account that the Navy didn't know what the fuck they wanted... obviously those dumb bastards should have seen that the Ukraine would collapse and turn on Russia, and that the French cowards would backstab like they do best because you obviously saw it all coming.

Forget carriers, if this is the state of things.

Such stupidity is called throwing the baby out with the bath water.

They need air defence, they don't need landing vessels at the moment of the near future.

GarryB wrote:

As for the apologists, 11 years, 11 goddamn years and counting, at least Isos and hoom brought some interesting points, but still doesn't excuse this madness.

Grow up.. for five of those years they were getting Mistrals so not have Grens was no an issue and not something they would be putting money in to...

You remind me of the western aholes talking about lend lease from WWII... apparently the Soviet Union can't make their own trucks and had to rely on US trucks.

If you are that fucking dumb then I must say you have been pretending to have a brain all this time very successfully.

They didn't fast track the Gren because they were spending billions on Mistrals.

Just like they didn't make many of their own trucks because America was making lots and sending them to them... it meant they could free up production and resources to make things they did need like tanks and small arms so they could kill Germans while the US sat on their asses doing fuck all.

They are still not fast tracking the gren because it is just a fucking landing ship... even a corvette or a frigate is more use to them at the moment.

Over 11 years requirements will change, the hardware the new boats will be carrying will have changed... the MBTs they will be carrying 11 years ago would be T-90s at best, more likely T-80s. In five years time they might be carrying an all Kurganets based force or all Boomerang based force with a mix of tanks and troop transport vehicles as well as air defence and artillery vehicles all based on the same chassis...

That means different dimensions and weights... but those fuckin incompetent morons designing the ship 15 years ago didn't take into account that the Navy didn't know what the fuck they wanted... obviously those dumb bastards should have seen that the Ukraine would collapse and turn on Russia, and that the French cowards would backstab like they do best because you obviously saw it all coming.

Excuses, excuses, excuses, get over yourself, 11+ years for a flippin transport is a complete joke, end of story

Forget carriers, if this is the state of things.

Such stupidity is called throwing the baby out with the bath water.

They need air defence, they don't need landing vessels at the moment of the near future.

Stating a fact is troublesome, apparently.

Canadians recently converted commercial ship into military fuel tanker

Smart play

Russia should take notes, plenty of Ro-Ros available out there on the cheap

AlfaT8 wrote:Excuses, excuses, excuses, get over yourself, 11+ years for a flippin transport is a complete joke, end of story

They're not excuses, they are REASONS. The Ivan Gren is simply a very low priority and the RuN doesn't want to spend any more funds than absolutely necessary. Progress is glacial because of funding.

Surely you can understand this simple mechanism? If they had a real need and urgent current day role for her, she would have been finished years ago. But they don't, so they haven't.

PapaDragon wrote:Canadians recently converted commercial ship into military fuel tanker

Smart play

Russia should take notes, plenty of Ro-Ros available out there on the cheap

Agreed, WHEN Russia actually has a need for extra fleet oilers. Given they are not currently looking to build a blue-water power-projection force, I'm not sure why they would need them yet as they still have 3x Boris Chikilin-class available?

PapaDragon wrote:Canadians recently converted commercial ship into military fuel tanker

Smart play

Russia should take notes, plenty of Ro-Ros available out there on the cheap

Is this even an issue?

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Canadians recently converted commercial ship into military fuel tanker

Smart play

Russia should take notes, plenty of Ro-Ros available out there on the cheap

Agreed, WHEN Russia actually has a need for extra fleet oilers.  Given they are not currently looking to build a blue-water power-projection force, I'm not sure why they would need them yet as they still have 3x Boris Chikilin-class available?

Would someone please give an example where Russia would use the Gren? All this discussion and the basic need for these
ships has not been justified at all. The Mistrals were some sort of attempt to appease NATO (by Medvedev) that went
nowhere. Politics was their only serious impetus.

kvs wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Canadians recently converted commercial ship into military fuel tanker

Smart play

Russia should take notes, plenty of Ro-Ros available out there on the cheap

Agreed, WHEN Russia actually has a need for extra fleet oilers.  Given they are not currently looking to build a blue-water power-projection force, I'm not sure why they would need them yet as they still have 3x Boris Chikilin-class available?

Would someone please give an example where Russia would use the Gren?   All this discussion and the basic need for these
ships has not been justified at all.   The Mistrals were some sort of attempt to appease NATO (by Medvedev) that went
nowhere.   Politics was their only serious impetus.

as a replacement for old Alligator class

Big_Gazza wrote:They're not excuses, they are REASONS.   The Ivan Gren is simply a very low priority and the RuN doesn't want to spend any more funds than absolutely necessary.  Progress is glacial because of funding.

Surely you can understand this simple mechanism?  If they had a real need and urgent current day role for her, she would have been finished years ago.  But they don't, so they haven't.

Regardless still a shameful example for Russia.

George1 wrote:

kvs wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Canadians recently converted commercial ship into military fuel tanker

Smart play

Russia should take notes, plenty of Ro-Ros available out there on the cheap

Agreed, WHEN Russia actually has a need for extra fleet oilers.  Given they are not currently looking to build a blue-water power-projection force, I'm not sure why they would need them yet as they still have 3x Boris Chikilin-class available?

Would someone please give an example where Russia would use the Gren?   All this discussion and the basic need for these
ships has not been justified at all.   The Mistrals were some sort of attempt to appease NATO (by Medvedev) that went
nowhere.   Politics was their only serious impetus.

as a replacement for old Alligator class

I guess I was not clear enough, I am asking about an actual and not theoretical need. All the chicken little hysterics
over some 11 year delay in a ship that is not going to be use for its purpose (as Russia has not been prepared to engage
in this sort of warfare since 1991 and may only reach such potential some time in the 2020s).

kvs wrote:.................
I guess I was not clear enough, I am asking about an actual and not theoretical need.   All the chicken little hysterics
over some 11 year delay in a ship that is not going to be use for its purpose (as Russia has not been prepared to engage
in this sort of warfare since 1991 and may only reach such potential some time in the 2020s).

This is a good point.

Under what scenario would Russia be storming hostile coast with these ships?

In case of going against something as heavy as them it would not even matter because they wouldn't be taking any beaches nor would whole thing even last long enough before nukes would start flying.

In case of some third world neo-colonial expeditionary ops like Syria they would not even need them at all because, as practice has shown, it can be done without a problem with commercial grade vessels. Not even new or fancy ones at that, bunch of second hand stuff has been getting job done gloriously.  

Russia definitely needs helicopter carriers due to their inherent anti-sub and support functionality and as stepping stone towards aircraft carriers down the road. But for movement of cargo and troops standard civilian vessels work just fine as Syria ops has shown.

This is why I mentioned example of Canadians converting civilian cargo ship into military. Russia should pick a model of civilian Ro-Ro transport and do the same thing several times over. Use time and money saved for more important stuff.

There are some strategical islands in the pacific and in the baltic sea. They could use thos ships to capture them and deploy s-400 there and Bal missile.

Or use them as cargo ships for smller operations like in Syria.

Yemen, Somalia, lots of other places in Africa or Asia where nukes wont be involved...

Georgia.

But really the best reason to have landing ships is to piss off countries in Europe like the Baltic states and Sweden and Norway, and of course Japan...

What is the point of having naval infantry if you have no way of deploying them?

Land a small force in Yemen to help there and then secure a sea port for anti piracy operations and further help the Yemen forces to take control of their land and waterways and coast to eliminate some of the illegal use, and to restore fishing rights to local fishermen by supporting them in their legal fishing areas so they keep fishing and don't turn to piracy.

GarryB wrote:Yemen, Somalia, lots of other places in Africa or Asia where nukes wont be involved...
Georgia....

None of those places would have posed a threat to any troop transport vessel because they would be ripped to shreds by navy and airforce first. Case in point: Syria and Georgia  that you just mentioned.

GarryB wrote:
...But really the best reason to have landing ships is to piss off countries in Europe like the Baltic states and Sweden and Norway, and of course Japan...

You know what would piss off those countries even more? Couple of dozen frigates and several helicopter carriers. Not some token landing vessel based on obsolete design and doctrine whose construction they view as godsend because nothing potentially useful is being built instead.

GarryB wrote:
...What is the point of having naval infantry if you have no way of deploying them?...

Cargo vessels can deploy them just fine as recent events have show.

GarryB wrote:
...Land a small force in Yemen to help there and then secure a sea port for anti piracy operations and further help the Yemen forces to take control of their land and waterways and coast to eliminate some of the illegal use, and to restore fishing rights to local fishermen by supporting them in their legal fishing areas so they keep fishing and don't turn to piracy.

Should Russia also wipe their asses while they're at it?

If some retard wants to play pirate best way to help and support him is to have him torn to shit by fire from 22160 patrol vessel.

Problem solved.

You know what would piss off those countries even more? Couple of dozen frigates and several helicopter carriers. Not some token landing vessel based on obsolete design and doctrine whose construction they view as godsend because nothing potentially useful is being built instead.

Not really obsolete. Most of helicopter carrier in the weet would easier to destroy than those ships by coastal missiles. They are biger targets with 0 defences.

Cargo vessels can deploy them just fine as recent events have show.

When you have a friendly port yes. But if you don't have it and the population iss hostil to you, you can't go in the middle of a town full of opposition.

Isos wrote:...............

Not really obsolete. Most of helicopter carrier in the weet would easier to destroy than those ships by coastal missiles. They are biger targets with 0 defences.

Irrelevant because rest of the navy would have to clean up the place and take out missile installations before landing anyway.

Also, unlike Gren, helicopter carriers have anti-sub functionality. And they would have just as many defenses as Gren.

..............
When you have a friendly port yes. But if you don't have it and the population iss hostil to you, you can't go in the middle of a town full of opposition.

That's what landing crafts are for. That whole ''ram the beach'' approach is beyond superfluous in this day and age. Has been for half a century at least.

And unless they have a friendly port they shouldn't be there to begin with. WW2 is over.



I was willing not to criticize this disaster back when I thought that it would be finished a year ago at least. But not anymore.
At this pace this floating monument to failure will not be in service before next decade.

Just an interesting angle from navy day I found looking through a misc gallery