Project 11711: "Ivan Gren" class

http://itar-tass.com/spb-news/1503433

Second Ivan Gren class landing ship to be built.

Slow progress, but I think after Mistral problems, they will speed up building.

medo wrote:

Slow progress, but I think after Mistral problems, they will speed up building.

As of now the RuNavy didn't want them in their current state, I think they're definitely waiting on the Mistral situation and how to apply modular techniques from the Mistral class to the Ivan Grens to make them more capable. So I think when things are all said and done by 2020's the Ivan Grens will be much more capable landing ships.

i think also this thread's title also must change (Project 11711E "Ivan Gren"). 2012 has passed 2 years now..

Construction on the second project 11711 started

In Kaliningrad to the Russian Navy began to build a large landing ship "Peter Morgunov"

Russia Begins Work On New Landing Ship Amid US Concerns About Improvements To Russian Navy

The Russian Navy large landing ship Yamal sets sail in the Bosphorus, on its way to the Aegean Sea, in Istanbul Sept. 13, 2014. Reuters/Murad Sezer

The Russian navy has begun construction work on its latest landing vessel, the “Pyotr Morgunov,” in the country’s Kaliningrad Yantar shipyard, which is reportedly the only Russian dockyard situated in the southeast, in close proximity to Europe's large industrial centers.

The “Pyotr Morgunov” landing ship is the second vessel commissioned by the Russian navy after “Ivan Gren,” which is the first ship to be built in the Yantar shipyard, Xinhua reported, adding that the “Ivan Gren” is expected to be ready by the end of 2015. The “Pyotr Morgunov” is scheduled to be delivered to the Russian navy by 2018, according to the terms of the contract. The ship will be built to carry up to 300 marines, 36 armored personnel carriers, 13 tanks and a Ka-29 helicopter, Xinhua reported.

The latest development coincides with a statement from a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, saying that improvements to the Russian navy have been viewed with growing concern by the newly-elected U.S. Congress.

“It's pretty clear that Mr. Putin is investing a lot in terms of recapitalizing his shipyards and his naval fleet,” Joe Courtney, a member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Sea Power, told RIA Novosti on Thursday. “Frankly that's going to be a concern of our subcommittee.”

According to Rob Wittman, chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, the U.S. has the world’s strongest navy, but other countries such as Russia and China are also making significant progress in strengthening their capabilities. Wittman added that the U.S. has to spend more resources on maintaining and modernizing its military forces to continue its dominant position in the sphere, RIA Novosti reported.

George1 wrote:“It's pretty clear that Mr. Putin is investing a lot in terms of recapitalizing his shipyards and his naval fleet,” Joe Courtney, a member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Sea Power, told RIA Novosti on Thursday. “Frankly that's going to be a concern of our subcommittee.”

He can take his "concern" and shove it where the sun doesn't shine... Arrogant f#$@er...

Wasn't the Navy unhappy with the way the doors opened on Gren, when it was landing?
(ie leaving troops more exposed to attack).

Could a Gren be modified to get round this issue? Or is that impossible?
Does anyone know how the Gren is regarded now?

Firebird wrote:Wasn't the Navy unhappy with the way the doors opened on Gren, when it was landing?
(ie leaving troops more exposed to attack).

Could a Gren be modified to get round this issue? Or is that impossible?
Does anyone know how the Gren is regarded now?

i have the same questions, i also wonder when the 1st ivan gren will be at last delivered to the Russian Navy

Big_Gazza wrote:

George1 wrote:“It's pretty clear that Mr. Putin is investing a lot in terms of recapitalizing his shipyards and his naval fleet,” Joe Courtney, a member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Sea Power, told RIA Novosti on Thursday. “Frankly that's going to be a concern of our subcommittee.”

He can take his "concern" and shove it where the sun doesn't shine...  Arrogant f#$@er...

The Imperial US Congress thinks it has the right to rule the world. No one other than the Empire is allowed to have a powerful army and navy.
Russia should ignore these yaps outright. They could not bring down the USSR with all their "might" and they will not be able to bring down
Russia. The USSR collapsed because it was an absurdity that stifled the potential of its constituent republics. Russia will not experience any
similar collapse and that is rather obvious. But not to these verminous imperialists in the USA who think they can collapse Russia with some
VOA, NED and military spending BS. Good luck, 'tards.

GarryB wrote:My understanding was that most of the objections to the Gren was that it was not an ocean going vessel with any level of endurance, so it could only carry small forces over relatively short distances and could not support them for long deployments.

The only way this would be correct is if its loading "door" was very crappy so it would flood under high seas. Perhaps this is true but I cannot see how
the rest of the ship is not sea worthy. It's not like they skimped on metal and made it flimsy.

GarryB wrote:No you misunderstand.

What they mean by not an ocean going vessel is that it doesn't have the storage capacity to carry its main payload plus all the extras like fuel and ammo and food to continue to support the payload of men and equipment for days or weeks.

In other words the men and vehicles get on the ship and must be delivered to where ever they intend to attack fairly quickly and then the vessel will withdraw and likely collect another load of troops and equipment to support the attack.

I also got the impression they would have preferred more than one helo to increase the rate at which men and vehicles and equipment can be put ashore.

The Imperial US Congress thinks it has the right to rule the world.

Worse than that... they think the world is better off with "Them in charge" and in fact we all want them to take control of everything because they know better than we do about what we need or want.

We poor ignorant savages need to be led and if we don't want what they are offering it is only because we are too ignorant to know what is best for us. The same attitude led to Russian Orphans being sent to the US because even if the father is a paedophile the child will still have a better life in the US than they could ever have in Russia...  even if the child dies of neglect or abuse it would be better than being brought up in Russia...   (Something I obviously disagree with...)

Thanks for the clarification. If they do not have a single ship with all the capacity they would need several support ships as part of a "task force".
I cannot think of any other landing ships fielded by any navy that are self-sufficient. But I may be sadly mistaken.

Anyway, Russia does not have the desire to field a 3rd world suppression force navy like the USA. That is why Russia is not in a hurry to build
aircraft carriers and even the USSR did not build the enormous ones that the US did. The Mistral deal looks bizarre to me. Why does Russia
need helicopter carriers? I do not see the purpose of sailing the oceans with Mistrals for Russia. Maybe they could have one in the Black Sea.

With the US trying to restart a more intense version of the cold war with Russia there may some reason for a conventional build up. But I think
that nuclear missiles of all types should be the priority. There should be no room for conventional combat yielded. Tactical nukes should be
used from the get go. The planners in Washington cannot be allowed to think they will have a war on their terms.

kvs wrote:

GarryB wrote:No you misunderstand.

What they mean by not an ocean going vessel is that it doesn't have the storage capacity to carry its main payload plus all the extras like fuel and ammo and food to continue to support the payload of men and equipment for days or weeks.

In other words the men and vehicles get on the ship and must be delivered to where ever they intend to attack fairly quickly and then the vessel will withdraw and likely collect another load of troops and equipment to support the attack.

I also got the impression they would have preferred more than one helo to increase the rate at which men and vehicles and equipment can be put ashore.

The Imperial US Congress thinks it has the right to rule the world.

Worse than that... they think the world is better off with "Them in charge" and in fact we all want them to take control of everything because they know better than we do about what we need or want.

We poor ignorant savages need to be led and if we don't want what they are offering it is only because we are too ignorant to know what is best for us. The same attitude led to Russian Orphans being sent to the US because even if the father is a paedophile the child will still have a better life in the US than they could ever have in Russia...  even if the child dies of neglect or abuse it would be better than being brought up in Russia...   (Something I obviously disagree with...)

Thanks for the clarification.  If they do not have a single ship with all the capacity they would need several support ships as part of a "task force".    
I cannot think of any other landing ships fielded by any navy that are self-sufficient.  But I may be sadly mistaken.  

Anyway, Russia does not have the desire to field a 3rd world suppression force navy like the USA.   That is why Russia is not in a hurry to build
aircraft carriers and even the USSR did not build the enormous ones that the US did.   The Mistral deal looks bizarre to me.   Why does Russia
need helicopter carriers?   I do not see the purpose of sailing the oceans with Mistrals for Russia.   Maybe they could have one in the Black Sea.

With the US trying to restart a more intense version of the cold war with Russia there may some reason for a conventional build up.  But I think
that nuclear missiles of all types should be the priority.   There should be no room for conventional combat yielded.   Tactical nukes should be
used from the get go.   The planners in Washington cannot be allowed to think they will have a war on their terms.

I think Ivan Gren ships are good solution for black sea regional conflicts. You dont need mistral to transport troops in crimea or abhazia

Project 11711 'Ivan Gren' landing ship will be transferred to the Russian Navy at the end of 2015

Second of the class

In Kaliningrad, construction began on the second ship like "Ivan Gren"

Work on the ship restarted

Not much changes for a long time.

medo wrote:Not much changes for a long time.

it seems that this ship will be completed in 2020s...

2nd ship of the project 11711 "Peter Morgunov." will be laid on Thursday, June 11

"Peter Morgunov" officially laid.









http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1337926.html

Russian Navy to get large landing ship Pyotr Morgunov in 2018

MOSCOW, June 11. /TASS/. The Russian Navy will get the Pyotr Morgunov large landing ship, laid down on Thursday at the Kaliningrad-based Yantar shipyard, in 2018, head of Navy’s shipbuilding department Vladimir Tryapichnikov told reporters.

"The Pyotr Morgunov large landing ship is planned to be transferred to the Navy in 2018, after the completion of the vessel building and all stages of testing. The project’s lead ship - the Ivan Gren is in the final stage of construction and will be delivered to the Navy after trials at the end 2015," he said.

Vessels of the Ivan Gren class have a displacement of 5,000 tonnes. Such a ship can support over-the-beach landing of up to 300 marines, 40 armored personnel carriers or 13 tanks and carry the Kamov Ka-29 type helicopter on the deck. The landing ships are armed with a 76-mm naval gun, two 30-mm AK-630 antiaircraft mounts and multiple artillery rocket systems.

The Pyotr Morgunov will have modern cranes for loading equipment, which also can be loaded on the ship through the bow ramp. "The vessel has significantly improved living conditions for accommodation and accommodation of the crew, commandos and marines. Its cruising range is up to 4,000 miles, which will allow the ship to fulfil tasks in the off-shore maritime zone. The Pyotr Morgunov large landing ship can also carry a transport-combat helicopter," said Tryapichnikov.

The Russian Navy will receive by 2020 the first new-generation landing ship that will be many times heavier than the Ivan Gren class vessels and will be able to carry several helicopters, Tryapichnikov told reporters earlier on Thursday.

"The construction of new-generation large landing ships will be launched within the next five years, and these ships will many times surpass in displacement the Ivan Gren and Pyotr Morgunov large landing ships, have higher landing force compatibility and will be able to carry not one, but several helicopters," Tryapichnikov said.

According to him, the first ship of this class is to be built by 2020. "It will be a new project for the ‘large landing ship’ class," he said.

Director General of the Nevsky Design Bureau Sergei Vlasov told TASS in an interview that the bureau was working on the project of a next-generation landing ship worth 20 million roubles ($365,240). In addition, a high-ranking defence industry source told TASS previously that the designing and building of national amphibious assault helicopter ships was included in the country’s long-term naval construction programme for the period until 2050.

Russian Navy will reduce the number of planned construction of ships of project 11711 (head "Ivan Gren") from six to two.

So "Peter Morgunov" will be the 2nd and the last one.