IMDS St Petersburg 2021

Arsenal ship need to be large. That's the whole point of it. Small doesn't cut it. Even if you replace Kalibr with Zircon.

But hang on, if aircraft carriers are so damn vulnerable then a big huge container ship used as an arsenal ship would be rather more vulnerable without aircraft to protect it...

The purpose of an arsenal ship is to carry weapons needed and used in large numbers... it does not need to be huge and it does not need to be all on a single ship for obvious vulnerability reasons.

Smaller ones allow targets to be hit but armed ships like destroyers and cruisers and heavy frigates will still have their full compliment of weapons if they need them.

In many ways an arsenal ship is like a rocket artillery battery... it drives up... launches an attack from max range and then moves away and then quietly reloads and does it again from somewhere else.

It no more needs to be one ship as rocket artillery needs to be on one vehicle.

Having multiple ships would allow a mix of weapon types and more flexibility... having one really big ship means you have to use what is on top and work your way down through them.

You would also have little choice but to dump used containers to allow the ones below to be used... which is probably more expensive than having a single layer on a smaller ship that can be taken back and swapped for full containers.

It this case the containers could be Smerch rockets and Grad rockets for pounding the hell out of the beach and surrounds... it could then sail back to its support ship and swap those containers for IFVs with troops on board to land and once it has released those over the side close to shore it can head back and get a couple of Coalition vehicles and maybe a TOR system to sit on the deck and provide local air defence and long range artillery using guided shells...

But you have to "impress" your enemies with their "my button is bigger" attitude - so size does matter

Size matters with armed ships like Cruisers and Destroyers and Frigates and even Corvettes, but for support vessels like this not so much... it is sort of like using Hinds and Hips to land small groups of troops instead of Halos with hundreds at a time getting on or off.

With the Hind or Hip you land and people get on board and you fly away... the Hip carries more but has a huge rear door as well as side doors so getting in and getting out happens faster which makes it better... it can carry more troops which means you don't need as many which also makes it better... but while the Halo is bigger and has multiple entry/exit options like the Hip it is too big and takes too long to load and unload to be used under fire and it is a huge target of course.

It seems that west can´t do anything wrong.

Yeah, I know... the 9mm Makarov pistol cartridge is 9x18mm while the western Parabellum round is 9x19mm and you would think the Makarov round is a cap gun and the western round is a magnum, but in other rounds like the 7.62 x 54mm rifle round vs 7.62 x 51mm the 3mm and larger case size is meaningless it seems, and the same for heavy machine guns where the 12.7 x 99mm browning HMG round is equal to the Soviet 12.7 x 108mm round despite almost a centimetre difference in case length... of course there is no ambiguity with the 14.5 x 114mm HMG rounds...

The third time, it was a Costal Guard admiral

It is nice to hear rational voices occasionally on that side.... General Michael Jackson springs to mind in Kosovo, telling his American boss that he had no intention of starting WWIII...

Well, the guy who was referring to the coastal defence, insisted that the US should pay close attention to it, and involve the same solutions for themselves.
The audience in the congress chamber was not impressed
As I said, professionals are always much more cool-headed, as those are they who will potentially die.

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:Model of the patrol ship variant of the Project 22160

Beautiful. Hope it combines the elements of 22150 and 22500 and include the 8-cell VLS as well.

PapaDragon wrote:
I know some of you guys like small landing ships so here is something for you, Project 21810

Looks interesting, small enough so that some small shipyard could whip out a lot of them without too much hassle

This ship is anything but small.

If the 02800 featured is to scale, my estimation is
length - around 100m
beam - around 17m or more
displacement similar to that of 11711

And good to see two well deck for two 02800, possibly doubling up as the entry into internal cargo hold.

If anyone got the spec sheet for this model, please do post.

The 11711 is huge! I think the 21810 maybe closer to the 775's. Something between the old Polochny and the 775's perhaps?

I was meaning small for a container ship...

Most importantly it is a simple design with no high tech stuff so easy to produce.

Some more detailed info on the Project 21810:

https://mashnews.ru/severnoe-pkb-pokazalo-novyij-oblik-srednego-desantnogo-korablya.html

The Northern Design Bureau has updated the medium landing ship of the project 21810, MASHNEWS journalists found out. At the IMMS-2021, the SPKB presented an updated model of the KFOR, first shown at the Army-2017 forum. The premiere of this year's salon differs from the already presented ship in dimensions, armament and amphibious capacity.


In fact, we are talking about a serious update of the project, " an informed industry source told the publication. - An export modification of the KFOR is presented at the salon, the characteristics of the modification for the Russian Navy may still change if work on the project continues.

The ship is designed for transporting and landing troops and military equipment on an unequipped shore, as well as for logistical support of operations in the coastal zone and on the islands.

KFOR can accommodate up to 170 paratroopers and up to 400 tons of cargo, including: 5 main battle tanks or 16 armored personnel carriers, 2 17-meter transport and amphibious boats, as well as a pontoon fleet and other cargo. In addition, 20-and 40-foot sea containers can be placed on the ship.

The total displacement of the KFOR is about 1740 tons, the length is 97 m, the width is 15 m, the draft is 2.6 m. The ship will be equipped with a diesel main power plant with a full capacity of 8500 kW. The GEU will allow the KFOR to develop a full-speed speed of 18 knots. The atonomicity of the ship is 18 days, the cruising range is up to 2500 miles.

Armament - 57-mm artillery mount, 2 30-mm AK, 8 Igla MANPADS and 2 12.7-mm autonomous ship combat modules. The aft hangar of the KFOR will house 2 amphibious assault boats of the 22080 project. The ship also has a runway with optical means to ensure the take-off and landing of a helicopter weighing up to 12 tons or a UAV.

The International Naval Salon-2021 was held in St. Petersburg from June 23 to 27. The exhibition was first placed in the Expoforum Exhibition Center. MASHNEWS journalists and the MASHNEWS TV crew covered the events of the salon both at the main exhibition and on the Navy ships. The news of the event is published in the thematic section "MVMS".

Mir wrote:Some more detailed info on the Project 21810:

https://mashnews.ru/severnoe-pkb-pokazalo-novyij-oblik-srednego-desantnogo-korablya.html

The Northern Design Bureau has updated the medium landing ship of the project 21810, MASHNEWS journalists found out. At the IMMS-2021, the SPKB presented an updated model of the KFOR, first shown at the Army-2017 forum. The premiere of this year's salon differs from the already presented ship in dimensions, armament and amphibious capacity.

Thanks. If there was a spec sheet from the expo it would have been better.

But I doubt these below figure which looks like taken from the old project, except for the 15m beam which tells us that it's an enlarged variant of the earlier 21810 which had a beam of 11m.

The total displacement of the KFOR is about 1740 tons, the length is 97 m, the width is 15 m, the draft is 2.6 m. The ship will be equipped with a diesel main power plant with a full capacity of 8500 kW. The GEU will allow the KFOR to develop a full-speed speed of 18 knots. The atonomicity of the ship is 18 days, the cruising range is up to 2500 miles.

Also, consider the below stern shot of the model


Pr.02800 is 3.5m wide. (if thats the actual size)
In that case the well deck opening on 22160 could be around 4.5-5m.
That give us a 4 x 4-4.5m (= 16-18m) or higher in beam.

I feel this is a new 21810, just like the old and new 11711

It was first presented at ARMY-2020 aimed at the export market, but deemed suitable for the Russian Navy requirements.

This is the original version:

Mir wrote:It was first presented at ARMY-2020 aimed at the export market, but deemed suitable for the Russian Navy requirements.

Thanks. But still many mismatches. Are these vehicles shown one and the same and in proper scale?



The one below from the ARMY 2020 you posted.

You should ask the guys who build the model

But seriously the overall specs of the ship remains basically the same but it seems they added more stealthy features, added a 57mm gun and the 2x assault boats.

These are the original specs from Rosoboronexport:

Thats the original one with max beam of 11 meters. But I doubt those tonnage figures even for that Army-2020 display with a beam of 15 meter.

Length & beam was easy to estimate with those 10m long 02800 displayed to showcase new capability.

You could be right but the tonnage would not increase dramatically - probably still way below 2000 tons at most.

The length is almost the same as the Polochny class and tonnage is somewhat less than the Ropucha.

Isos wrote:

RTN wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Also, if loaded with Kalibr containers it could become pocket arsenal ship

Arsenal ship need to be large. That's the whole point of it. Small doesn't cut it. Even if you replace Kalibr with Zircon.

Putting all your eggs in one basket is stupid. I rather have 10 small ships like this with 10 kalibr each than one big with 100.

I rather have a big ship with multilayered air defense (3-4 layers), than 20 small ships with one layer of air defense or simply no air defense!

I rather have a big ship with multilayered air defense (3-4 layers), than 20 small ships with one layer of air defense or simply no air defense!

I would normally fully agree, but if these ships can be made modular and flexible then having more rather than less might be a good thing.

What was not obvious in the original model pictures is that this ship has a bow ramp.

The mention it can carry tanks made that obvious because using a crane to lift a MBT over the side into the water doesn't make sense in very deep water obviously, whereas a ship that has run up onto a beach can open its bow doors and release vehicles straight onto the beach, but also it could release BMPs and BTRs into the water 200m out from shore and they could swim to shore firing on targets of opportunity as they go.

Equally just carrying cargo containers can be useful to provide stores support as a delivery ship for a small naval outpost... it could drop off vehicles and containers and people and pick up anything that needs repair or replacement.

For situations of increased threat you could sit a few TOR systems on teh deck along with a few Pantsir vehicles too... or grad vehicles etc etc...

It would also be excellent for the anti piracy mission with onboard space for carrying pirates, with speed boats and helicopters to carry them and room for landing troops could be used for boarding teams.

Instead of a landing ship you could use it as a transport to carry armour and ammo and material to a war zone where containers or armoured vehicles are kept on the various levels but the bow doors are not used for deployment.

Regarding scale, those BTRs are about 25 feet long so they look about right compared with the shipping containers which will be the smaller 20 ft ones.

But as they are models and drawings I am sure there will be flexibility to scale... though if they scale it up too much it might get a bigger gun... but transport/landing vessels often had 57mm calibre weapons traditionally.

GarryB wrote:

I rather have a big ship with multilayered air defense (3-4 layers), than 20 small ships with one layer of air defense or simply no air defense!

I would normally fully agree, but if these ships can be made modular and flexible then having more rather than less might be a good thing.

My statement was more common I was answering to Isos.

I'm full with you. The design is pretty nice.

Mir wrote:You could be right but the tonnage would not increase dramatically - probably still way below 2000 tons at most.

The length is almost the same as the Polochny class and tonnage is somewhat less than the Ropucha.  

Yes tonnage could be lower, but certainly above 2,000t. Even the "latest" of the latest spec on this ship now have now reached 2,000t as displayed in the second image below. Not sure if the last pic is from IMDS 2021 or from prior expo last year.

All the spec sheets are different, so for now I'd keep my own estimates based on the physical changes that I noticed in this beautiful ship.

Dima wrote:

Mir wrote:You could be right but the tonnage would not increase dramatically - probably still way below 2000 tons at most.

The length is almost the same as the Polochny class and tonnage is somewhat less than the Ropucha.  

Yes tonnage could be lower, but certainly above 2,000t. Even the "latest" of the latest spec on this ship now have now reached 2,000t as displayed in the second image below. Not sure if the last pic is from IMDS 2021 or from prior expo last year.

All the spec sheets are different, so for now I'd keep my own estimates based on the physical changes that I noticed in this beautiful ship.

It says about 2000t - so it may not be "certainly above 2000t

Just kidding though - but yes it's certainly not anywhere near the initial 11711's 6600t.

Few things to consider regarding the specs that has been mentioned at different times & events.

The new spec mentions a beam of 15m, which could be the waterline beam.
From the model displayed at IMDS 2021, my estimate based on the Pr.02800 and the well deck opening, waterline beam is around 15m and the max beam is >17m.

All the variants/brochures mentions the ship with a cargo capacity of 400t.
And it mentions upto 5 MBTs or upto 16 APCs.
But we for sure know that the new design is wider, atleast by 5m, than the original one. Which means, the ship has likely internal volume to accomodate an additional row/column of MBTs doubling the figure upto 10 MBTs (near to old 11711 capacity of 13 MBTs).
The increased beam will definitely have internal space to accomodate MBTs whose width wont exceed 2.5-3m.
Have they catered to this additional capacity? Don't know, but it will little difficult to understand why they wont, if they havn't.

Now if thats the case, the cargo capacity will definitely increase from the often mentioned 400t. If we consider 5 x MBTs @ 45t each, we are looking at 450t alone for the 10 x MBTs/internal cargo hold in new design. The deck based cargo space has also increased as seen from the additional row/column for the shipping containers.

So if the new model is as what I believe it to be, I'm looking at no less than 625t cargo capacity, regardless of the brochures which come up with different specs.

And lastly, I see a lot of traits of the 1174.
Docking facility for assault groups, internal cargo hold with forward ramp, well deck/stern entry, upper deck cargo space, NGFS/MG at the bow & helipad. But not sure, if the upper/open deck have ramp to the deck below like that of 1174.
In short, a smaller/lighter version of the 1174, but with obvious scaled down capability.
No wonder I fell in love.

Mir wrote:It says about 2000t - so it may not be "certainly above 2000t

Just kidding though - but yes it's certainly not anywhere near the initial 11711's 6600t.  

Yes agree. But 6,600t is the full load displacement of 11711 and it varies as per brochures. What I had in mind was a tonnage which was close to or around the lowest figure of 11711 which was around 5,000t.

Dima wrote:

Mir wrote:It says about 2000t - so it may not be "certainly above 2000t

Just kidding though - but yes it's certainly not anywhere near the initial 11711's 6600t.  

Yes agree. But 6,600t is the full load displacement of 11711 and it varies as per brochures. What I had in mind was a tonnage which was close to or around the lowest figure of 11711 which was around 5,000t.

Even the lower end figure you mention of 5000t is way more than the 21810's 2000t. The Russian Navy doesn't need another Ivan Gren type, they are already building even larger 11711 boats at 9000t.

What they may need in the near future is a replacement or a supplement for the Ropuchas (775's) - and the 21810 fits that niche perfectly.

No matter how hard you look at it the 21810 is not going to grow into a monster size ship any time soon!

Mir wrote:

Dima wrote:

Mir wrote:It says about 2000t - so it may not be "certainly above 2000t

Just kidding though - but yes it's certainly not anywhere near the initial 11711's 6600t.  

Yes agree. But 6,600t is the full load displacement of 11711 and it varies as per brochures. What I had in mind was a tonnage which was close to or around the lowest figure of 11711 which was around 5,000t.

Even the lower end figure you mention of 5000t is way more than the 21810's 2000t. The Russian Navy doesn't need another Ivan Gren type, they are already building even larger 11711 boats at 9000t.

What they may need in the near future is a replacement or a supplement for the Ropuchas (775's) - and the 21810 fits that niche perfectly.

No matter how hard you look at it the 21810 is not going to grow into a monster size ship any time soon!

Exactly, now with the around 2000 tons ships to substitute the old soviet landing ships, the 8000-9000 tons 11711M, and the helicopter carriers the amphibious operations will be covered.
Hopefully they will also soon start to build again the large (500 tons displacement) hovercrafts of the zubr class.

Actually many smaller shipyards could be capable of building the 21810 class, like Pella shipyard, Zelenodonks shipyard in Tatarstan, Amur Shipyard, and Vostochnaya verf (in Vladivostok), just to name a few.