Bangladesh Navy

[Nike]

Next is the Ivan Gren, or Project 11711, which is a larger class of landing ship, meant for open sea and coastal use.

The Ivan Gren class succeeds the Ropucha class, which was roughly the same size.

The vessel has a displacement of 5,000-6,000 tons and is able to carry up to 13 main battle tanks or 36 armored personnel carriers or 300 marines.

I doubt that there is any immediate need for such a vessel in the army but as a large force multiplier for UN use, this could be very useful.

why not bought from us, we had list of LPD, LST, LMU (Landing Medium Utility) and their fast attack boats for Naval and security operation

Bintuni Class LST

they can embark and debark Leopard 2 MBT easily

For LPD class, we had Makassar class. And can give u ToT for inhouse building

 

[Arthur]

Taking a breather fom the OPV discussion - i wanted to bring back the topic of amphibious landing craft and specifically, new Russian variants.

First there is the DYUGON class (Project 21820) which has a displacement of 280 tons and is capable of carrying up to 3 main battle tank (MBT) or 5 amphibious armoured personnel carriers (APC) like the BTR80's, these would be great for the Army requirement mooted sometime back for riverine use and for UN applications (replacement for the 'Shakti Shanchar' class). We could easily build them locally with ToT.

This one looks good. But BD by now should be able to design a LCU. I understand they only designed and built for riverine roles till now. They should really be able to build something like these for the coastal operation.

 

[Arthur]

Next is the Ivan Gren, or Project 11711, which is a larger class of landing ship, meant for open sea and coastal use.

The Ivan Gren class succeeds the Ropucha class, which was roughly the same size.

The vessel has a displacement of 5,000-6,000 tons and is able to carry up to 13 main battle tanks or 36 armored personnel carriers or 300 marines.

I doubt that there is any immediate need for such a vessel in the army but as a large force multiplier for UN use, this could be very useful.

I like the Chinese and Indonesian platforms more. They would be come with a little lower price tag too. Even TOT for design and building might be available.

So what would be the eventual advantage of Ivan Green class over Chinese or Indonesian platforms?

 

[Bilal9]

This one looks good. But BD by now should be able to design a LCU. I understand they only designed and built for riverine roles till now. They should really be able to build something like these for the coastal operation.

The DYUGON Class is built for both coastal and riverine operation. It is a newer and much more sleeker design than anything we have built. We need to step up our game a bit.

Plus it is powered by M502/503 42 cylinder diesel radial engine which we already have experience with (with our OSA class boats and the Chinese copies of the OSA class).

The things about Russian designs are that they are sophisticated and efficient in design yet rugged and survivable in extreme war-field scenarios.

I like the Chinese and Indonesian platforms more. They would be come with a little lower price tag too. Even TOT for design and building might be available.

So what would be the eventual advantage of Ivan Green class over Chinese or Indonesian platforms?

Price tag is not the only consideration. The design is more sophisticated and more compatible with sea-launching BTR-80's (we have probably the worlds largest fleet by now). In any case we should evaluate all platforms seriously.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Taking a breather fom the OPV discussion - i wanted to bring back the topic of amphibious landing craft and specifically, new Russian variants.

First there is the DYUGON class (Project 21820) which has a displacement of 280 tons and is capable of carrying up to 3 main battle tank (MBT) or 5 amphibious armoured personnel carriers (APC) like the BTR80's, these would be great for the Army requirement mooted sometime back for riverine use and for UN applications (replacement for the 'Shakti Shanchar' class). We could easily build them locally with ToT.

Didn't Bangladesh already started making landing crafts?

 

[Bilal9]

why not bought from us, we had list of LPD, LST, LMU (Landing Medium Utility) and their fast attack boats for Naval and security operation

Bintuni Class LST

they can embark and debark Leopard 2 MBT easily

For LPD class, we had Makassar class. And can give u ToT for inhouse building

Makassar LPD class maybe a bit large for army application at this time. And while the size of the Bintuni Class is appropriate and similar to Ivan Gren (117 meters), the features and design is a bit dated compared to it (no offence). LST design has come a long way - especially in Russia. I won't go into details right now - maybe a bit later.

 

[Arthur]

The DYUGON Class is built for both coastal and riverine operation. It is a newer and much more sleeker design than anything we have built. We need to step up our game a bit.

Plus it is powered by M502/503 42 cylinder diesel radial engine which we already have experience with (with our OSA class boats and the Chinese copies of the OSA class).

The things about Russian designs are that they are sophisticated and efficient in design yet rugged and survivable in extreme war-field scenarios.



Price tag is not the only consideration. The design is more sophisticated and more compatible with sea-launching BTR-80's (we have probably the worlds largest fleet by now). In any case we should evaluate all platforms seriously.

They will just slit our throat with the price tag. Russian naval designs are good, I mean really good. But what I meant to say was,shouldn't we be able to design in that LCT role ( both coastal and riverine) by now. Even with outside help if needed? In case of propulsion, it won't be tough to manage that keeping a commonalty with rest of the fleet.

Like the IPV 's DEW building? A new sophisticated design, but they are doing it, right?

Makassar LPD class maybe a bit large for army application at this time. And while the size of the Bintuni Class is appropriate and similar to Ivan Gren (117 meters), the features and design is a bit dated compared to it (no offence). LST design has come a long way - especially in Russia. I won't go into details right now - maybe a bit later.

Maybe the Indonesian LST design concept is a bit dated. But what about Chinese type 72A series. It has rear ramp,so it can launch BTR's away from shore. But Ivan Green is a good ship I would wholeheartedly agree on that.

 

[Bilal9]

They will just slit our throat with the price tag. Russian naval designs are good, I mean really good. But what I meant to say was,shouldn't we be able to design in that LCT role ( both coastal and riverine) by now. Even with outside help if needed? In case of propulsion, it won't be tough to manage that keeping a commonalty with rest of the fleet.

Like the IPV 's DEW building? A new sophisticated design, but they are doing it, right?

Maybe the Indonesian LST design concept is a bit dated. But what about Chinese type 72A series. It has rear ramp,so it can launch BTR's away from shore. But Ivan Green is a good ship I would wholeheartedly agree on that.

LCT's we can definitely build (the largest we have built is Shakti Shanchar I believe). The only thing needed is a better design.

Yes the larger Chinese Type 072A LST is very modern and should be a strong contender compared to the Ivan Gren Class - and in the same 5000 ton category. Further - one advantage of the Type 072A LST is it has a flat hull and can beach itself in addition to launching BTR's away from shore (with ramps at both ends like you said). Some 25+ of various variants exist in the People's Liberation Army Navy.

China has the world's largest fleet of LST's or various types of which the 072A is the largest. They also have a new stealth feature catamaran LST (type 074A) which is a smaller LST. Here are images of the later issue examples of Type 072A's ('Dabieshan' and her sister ship 'Tianmushan').

The H/PJ-17 CIWS uses a 30mm autocannon to defend the Tianmushan against aerial threats, it can be fired remotely as well as manually. Also called Type 730 - this is a Chinese seven-barrelled 30 mm Gatling gun CIWS. It's mounted in an enclosed automatic turret and directed by radar, and electro-optical tracking systems. The maximum rate of fire is 5800 rd/m, and the effective range is up to 3 km. Type 730 CIWS is fully compatible with Chinese and European combat data systems such as ZKJ-1, ZKJ-4, ZKJ-4A-3, ZKJ-5, ZKJ-6, ZKJ-7, H/ZBJ-1, and Thomson-CSF TAVITAC, and can be directly integrated with these combat data systems without any modification. A later development, the eleven-barreled Type 1130 CeeWiz can also be fitted but maybe is an overkill for this type of LST for now. The Type 1130 has a reported rate of fire of 9,000 to 11000 rounds per minute. However newer LST's in PLA Navy are making do without a CeeWiz, leaving only a type 76F dual-mounted 37 mm automatic gun in the bow. Since beach landnings are never done by a single LST and without assistance by larger combat vessels, the need for a Ceewiz may be overrated.

 

[Penguin]

Thai landing ship Angthong (LPD 791), a downgraded Republic of Singapore Navy Endurance class landing platform dock ship (LPD)

RSS Persistence

 

[Michael Corleone]

Do we even need these capabilities?

 

[Nilgiri]

Do we even need these capabilities?

Orissa aint gonna invade itself.

 

[Arthur]

Endurance-class landing platform dock

General characteristics
Type: Landing platform dock
Displacement:

• Standard: 6,500 t (6,400 long tons; 7,200 short tons)
• Full load: 8,500 t (8,400 long tons; 9,400 short tons)

Length: 141.0 m (462 ft 7 in)
Beam: 21.0 m (68 ft 11 in)
Draught: 5.0 m (16 ft 5 in)
Ramps: 2 × (bow and stern)
Installed power:

• 4 × Ruston 6RK215 diesel generators, each producing 875 kW (1,173 hp)
• Total output: 3,500 kW (4,690 shp)

Propulsion:

• Combined diesel and diesel(CODAD) arrangement
• 2 × Ruston 16RK 270 diesels, each producing 5,500 kW (7,400 hp), coupled to twoKamewa controllable-pitch propellers
• Total output: 11,000 kW (14,800 shp)

Speed: In excess of 15 kn (28 km/h; 17 mph)
Range: 5,000 nmi (9,300 km; 5,800 mi) at 15 kn (28 km/h; 17 mph)
Boats & landing
craft carried:

• 4 × 13 m (43 ft) Fast Craft Equipment & Utility (FCEU) on davits
• 2 × 25 m (82 ft) Fast Craft Utility (FCU) inside well deck

Capacity: 18 tanks, 20 vehicles and bulk cargo
Troops: > 350–500
Crew: 65 (8 officers and 57 men)
Sensors and
processing systems:

• Search radar: IAI/ELTA EL/M-2238
• Navigation radar: Kelvin Hughes Type 1007 (I band)
• Weapon control: CS Defense NAJIR 2000 electro-optronic director

Electronic warfare
& decoys:

• ESM/ECM: RAFAEL RAN 1101
• Decoys: 2 × GEC MarconiMarine Shield III 102 mm sextuple fixed chaff/decoylauncher

Armament:

• Anti-air: Mistral missileslaunched from 2 × Simbad twin launcher mounts
• Main gun: 1 × Oto Melara 76 mm super rapid gun
• Autocannons: 2 × 25mm M242 Bushmaster Mk 38 Mod 2 (with stabilisedTyphoon weapon sighting system, mounted amidships on port and starboard side)[1]
• Machine guns: 4 × CIS 50MG12.7 mm (0.50 in) HMGs

Aircraft carried: AS 332M Super Puma orAS532UL/AL Cougar or CH-47SD Chinook helicopters
Aviation facilities: Flight deck and enclosedhangar for up to 2 medium-lift helicopters.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance-class_landing_platform_dock

This ship is gooood.

Thai landing ship Angthong (LPD 791), a downgraded Republic of Singapore Navy Endurance class landing platform dock ship (LPD)

RSS Persistence

 

[Bilal9]

Strategically - I don't know if we need an LPD.

LPD's (anything exceeding 5000t) are for large troop and combat asset movements exceeding one's national shores, and I don't know if that scenario exists within the army's combat strategy. However I'm no military strategist (not even an armchair one) so I'd invite opinions.

Especially from @Penguin bhai - Thanks and Eid Mubarak Sir!

Up to 120 meter (5000 ton) LST class may be sufficient for asset insertions in various points within Bangladesh - for defensive purposes. And only a few (one or two) may be needed for that rare scenario.

I'd veer more towards getting numerous (five or more) landing crafts in the DYUGON class which can strategically insert say up to three MBT's, five BTR's and/or a company of troops for a small skirmish scenario, which is more likely in my opinion (considering the riverine nature of our landscape).

 

[Penguin]

LPDs start at around 7,500 to 8,000 tons. Italy's San Giorgio class and the Singapore Endurance / Thai Angthong class ships. The 9,000 ton Algerian Kalaat Béni Abbès LPD is a heavier, better armed version of the San Giorgio. Key characteristic is a floodable well-deck

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_transport_dock (you can sort on displacement)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dock_landing_ship

See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_warfare_ship

The 5,000-6,000 tons Ivan Gren is borderline case: it doesn't have a docking well but does have a stern access ramp, like other larger LSTs (so, if you use air-cushion landing craft ...). On the other hand, although it comes with LST bow doors, I wouldn't really fancy beaching a ship like that... Not only are there relatively few places where you can do that safely, but also you turn yourself into a sitting duck (i.e. do not use in the face of opposition).

 

[bluesky]

The DYUGON Class is built for both coastal and riverine operation. It is a newer and much more sleeker design than anything we have built. We need to step up our game a bit.

Price tag is not the only consideration. The design is more sophisticated and more compatible with sea-launching BTR-80's (we have probably the worlds largest fleet by now). In any case we should evaluate all platforms seriously.

Transportation of BTR-80s requires thta BD either build a few landing ships of its own or at least buys from others. The link from another forum below states the new procurement of about 50 APCs by the BA.

http://www.bdmilitary.com/bdmilitar...ge-consignment-of-btr-80s-to-bangladesh-army/