Universal landing ships for Russian Navy

In fact the story with the Priboy was quite confusing: first presented in 2015 as a BDK of 14 kT and then in 2017 as a new denomination for the 24 kT Lavina that had been presented as an UDK also at the Army 2015.





In the end, the first Priboy somehow morphed into the modified 11711, while the second reflected a UDK of roughly the same dimensions and function of Mistral. We still need to learn whether the 23900 will be similar to the second Proboy/Lavina, but normally Krilov's recommendations are not ignored. It is not the same to use civilian technologies to create a LHD for the West than to create a UDK for the Russian navy.

They only presented what it could be, hopping MOD will give money for a real project.

The only real project is the two ship being build and that looks like Mistral class. And the new Ivan Gren.

The rest is going to trash and I agree the thread about Priboy should be deleted.

Isos wrote:They only presented what it could be, hopping MOD will give money for a real project.

Isos, Krylov's main role is not to sell anything, they are a state research institution. And they have been involved in the conception of all the latest vessels of the Russian navy. So, when they develop hulls, layouts or technologies and they advice MoD and the actual design bureaus based on that, their role is fulfilled.

1. Leadership in the Russian shipbuilding science, integration of R & D competences and development of advanced knowledge and technology assets.

2. Consolidation and optimization of the research and engineering potential in shipbuilding and elaboration of mechanisms for high-tech product commercialization.

3. Charting the course for attractive product line development and shaping the shipbuilding industry profile.

http://krylov-centre.ru/en/about/mission/


Let me clarify: technical and operational design is the domain of design bureaus. The purpose of science, the leader of which is the Krylovsky center, is to create concept projects and ideas. We say: this is how today's science sees the ship of the future.

The right to develop conceptual projects belonged to the Krylovsky center in the 1950s and 1960s of the last century, when the head of the Institute was rear Admiral Viktor Pershin. Then he won this right. Today we have returned to this idea and insist that science should offer several options for the design of the ship, and industry and the Bureau should choose based on technological capabilities. For example, we can say that from the point of view of hydrodynamics, one or another form of the hull of a submarine is needed. However, the construction technology may not allow you to implement these solutions.

https://flotprom.ru/2019/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%D0%A6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%801/

The only real project is the two ship being build and that looks like Mistral class. And the new Ivan Gren.

I concede the drawing by AK Bars looks worryingly similar to the Mistrals, but the engineering project has not been completed so it is too early to talk about final characteristics. Hope to get something better and nicer than Mistral dies last

The VMF was not happy with the Mistral's design and their buy had to do more with the policies implemented during Serdyukov's tenure than with their preferences. Accordingly, Krylov got engaged in the UDK issue when the Mistrals were finally cancelled, in order to guide the development of a domestic solution. They came up with a fairly different design with different solutions that may still be implemented in one way or another.

The new Ivan Gren still follows the lines of the Priboy. Engineering project is, unless I am wrong, also work in progress.

The rest is going to trash

They never exactly build their proposals, because they are just concept models, but that doesn't mean the actual design bureaus do not use their solutions. It would not make much sense to me that the Russian state pays Krylov only to systematically ditch the results of their work

GarryB wrote:Perhaps the Priboy thread could become a generic thread about projects that didn't make it and a suggestion thread about what you might want on such a vessel and why...

I would suggest bringing the relevant posts here, since the discussion about the UDK got split in two threads.

This thread can remain about universal landing ships for the RuNavy so when information and pictures are released they can go here...

They are not going to have several different types we need to differentiate anytime soon  

Modern ships are just a group of solutions for different problems all mixed together on in ship design... sometimes some parts of the solution are rejected for some jobs or problems, but other portions can be used in other programmes.

Of course, and in the case of Krylov they are not even intending their proposals to be implemented as they are, the same way concept cars are not intended for manufacturing.

Recently they have signed an agreement with USC to define their respective fields of responsibility in naval construction, it seems the relation was uneasy at times. It has been also established that Krylov needs to oversee all the designs that go to the navy, the need for this has been clear after circumstances like the controllability issues with the 11711, where Krylov had not been involved in the beginning but needed to intervene at a later time to solve the issue. So like they explain in their mission statement, they are in a way responsible for the menu from which the navy, bureaus and shipyards need to chose.

That multi hull design for carriers is interesting in that it makes the hull wider which is ideal for volume and putting lots of stuff inside like aircraft hangars and of course deck wells for landing ships and armoured vehicles for landing.... but a wide bodied ship has high drag and an enormous amount of power to move it through the water.

A multi hull design is ideal for width but also low drag and high speed... and while they might not use it with this helicopter carrier, they might refine and improve the design and use it on the CVN and get a 50K ton carrier with the performance and capacity of what would be an 80K or 90K carrier with a conventional hull design...

Exactly, this is one of the main reasons I see for sticking to Lavina, which was a semi-trimaran hull. If I am not wrong, 22 knots max speed with the propulsive solution of a Gorshkov. This means less money, space and fuel used in propulsion, with serious cascading effects in the combat capabilities of the ship. And in the end it is this kind of disruptive ideas (25% lower propulsive demand is simply phenomenal) that will allow their fleet to have the competitive edge they need against way wealthier adversaries, like when they came up with corvettes with the offensive power many Western destroyers couldn't match. For a necessarily cost-conscious navy like the VMF this is a must IMO, but we will see if the solution is taken or not. I would definitely wait a couple of years more to mature the idea and get a real deal than rush a solution that is going to let me down for the next 4 decades (Mistral comes to mind   ), but in the end only they can properly assess the risks and difficulties of the new design.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/08/russias-project-23900-lhd-to-be-able-to-operate-in-the-arctic/

It's not surprising; NP armed icebreakers could also escort & tow them in the clear water as improvised CGNs, saving them fuel: 
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/i7bkpo/this_is_how_the_tail_of_an_icebreaker_ship_looks/