Mistral News thread

They should cancel the mistrals...
I do not see in what way they will be needed in the pacific with Ka-52 helicopters?
So expensive transport ship cannot is purely for attack purpose and there are no pirates in the pacific .

Perhaps you should do a little research first... there are plenty of pirate attacks in the Pacific and Pacific rim... in the area around Indonesia there are probably more pirates than around Africa, but in any case a helicopter landing vessel would not be the ideal vessel for anti piracy missions anyway.

The Mistrals strengthen Russian forces in the Pacific and guarantee the security of the Kurile Islands.

As a secondary mission they can be used for humanitarian purposes like the earthquake in Myanma... the Pacific Rim is notorious for seismic activity and floods and hurricanes and other natural disasters are quite likely events in the future... especially with warming conditions.

As an added bonus... the non nuclear powered Mistrals can be sent to Pacific countries on missions to meet and greet and its onboard hospital could be utilised by going to the various island nations of the pacific and offering healthcare to people who would otherwise just suffer in silence. Such good will visits earn the US a lot of brownie points despite the damage they have done in the region with their nuclear testing and other short sighted adventures.


The money spent developing the naval Ka-52 could lead to countries like Indonesia adopting small ships with a few (3-5) helos on board to support island hopping operations.

-Fully modernize Peter the great too, with latest kalibr missiles and S-400 and pantsir defenses ,naval version.

The two Kirov class vessels are likely to get major upgrades anyway.

-or fully repair modernize the Aircraft Carrier to in transport more planes and include a few helicopters too.

The Kuznetsov already carries a few dozen helos... to carry transports with any meaningful transport capacity they will need cats... the upgrade is already planned for and budgeted for too.

-or have budget for another 2-3 brand new stealth destroyer. with latest sams and missiles.

They are already making such vessels and it is production that is the problem not money... cancelling the Mistrals would leave them with a huge penalty for the already largely complete vessel and likely another financial penalty for stopping the other vessel and they will not end up with any freed up cash... and even if they did that freed up cash would not put any stealth destroyers into service any quicker.

Emergency relief maybe, but Ka-52s are useless for that.

Naval Ka-52s will have powerful radar and likely very good optical search systems which would be ideal for search and rescue in bad weather. The four weapons pylons could carry rescue equipment that could be dropped to survivors or just extra fuel to extend the operational range of the aircraft.

Black Sea is a more convincing location in this case, or piracy patrols. That is assuming you are going to strike inland bases.

Mistrals in the Black Sea would be like a shark in a gold fish bowl... over such short ranges air dropping would be much faster.

In the Pacific there is Japan, and China that can be belligerent to Russia... there is also a few countries Russia could improve relations with like Vietnam and Indonesia. Had Russia had a few Mistrals when the flooding occurred in Myanma a couple of years back a lot could have been done to save lives and build stronger ties with a country that has no love or trust of the west.

Ka-52 is not a plane, but helicopter.

The Ka-52K is certainly not a plane, but with its AESA radar and 2.5 ton weapon capacity it would be very much a Harrier type asset for the Mistrals as it will have excellent air and surface detection capabilities in all weathers down to the wave tops, which will reduce the effectiveness of enemy anti ship missile attacks or low flying aircraft.

Its ability to carry next generation AAMs will likely make it as potent as many previous generation fighters.

Air cover would ideally be provided by a fixed wing carrier like the K or land based aircraft, but in an emergency a Ka-31 could provide AEW support and the Ka-52K a limited CAP.

There are not many ground forces, so Mistrals will have important role to deploy forces in this region.

Mistrals would be the most efficient way of moving troops with their equipment in the north and the pacific.

The only mission it is not as effective as a naval fighter is air to air.

Quite true, though in air to air engagements it will be in serious trouble against an F-35 or F/A-18, but against a EP-3 Orion or MPA it would actually be rather dangerous armed with R-73s and R-77s.

In addition, the Ka-52K has the flexibility to take off from the Mistral type mother-ship, land and refuel on destroyer sized ship a few hundred miles away, and take off to strike at naval or sea targets. Aircraft can not do that.

Excellent point. It could also do the same via ice breakers... most of the Russian icebreakers having helicopter landing spots and support equipment.

Even in the roles here where the Ka-52 doesn't have a place; it can still stick around to defend the ship from threats.

Nothing says stop being a pirate like this:



The Ka-52 in its land based form is largely an armed recon helo and for many humanitarian missions searching for survivors is critical... monitoring air space to prevent collisions and direct helos... those weapon pylons don't have to carry death and destruction... life rafts, survival equipment, even UAV dispensors used to deliver medical supplies... even to deal with looters or unrest if need be.

I would expect the Ka-52K would be an excellent addition to the K, and I also think that a few Ka-31s from the K would be a useful addition to Mistral class carriers... and I suspect France might even consider such aircraft for their Mistrals too...

Actually having a little think about it... they probably would only be interested in the Ka-64 as the other aircraft have such high main rotor systems they wont fit on French Mistrals anyway.

A foreign country that is on friendly terms with Russia might order an altered Mistral to carry Russian aircraft however... depends on how successful they are.

As I mentioned in my previous post France wont buy them because they wont fit in the hangars of the French Mistral.

The main chance for export would be for a country to want a Mistral class vessel to be equipped from the outset with Kamovs which would mean they could buy the Mistrals modified the way the Russians had them modified, then they would be compatible... and likely be much better armed in terms of self defence too.

The KA-52 will be very vulnerable for naval operations.. Any pirate with a fishing boat could pull a manpad and blow
the aligator in pieces when they facing another direction. They are too slow and easy targets for man pads with lazer guidance.

Helicopters are not super fast but boats are even slower... so the chance of pirates getting on the tail of a Ka-52 means the Ka-52 has done something wrong.

The optics and sensors on the Ka-52 mean it will detect the pirates at much greater ranges than the pirates could ever hope to detect the helo... and more importantly the Ka-52 will be armed with weapons that will allow it to engage the pirates at distances where the pirates quite frankly wont know what hit them.

Incoming missiles can be defeated with the small DIRCM that can be seen on the Ka-52 mounted near the main undercarriage... they contain laser dazzlers to defeat optically guided missile systems.

Too slow to cover long distance fast ,

300km/h+ is faster than any boat.

too small for humanitarian use.. can only carry 2 passenger or perhaps 3.. The mistral is too expensive for an humanitarian ship,

It would not be used as a transport... they already have Ka-29 and Ka-226T and Ka-64 helos as transports.

Mistral is a helicopter carrier that will have a range of uses... humanitarian aid will be one of those uses... showing the flag and providing medical services to outlying regions like Pacific islands or poorer asian countries would be far more valuable to Russian interests in the region than any supercarrier weapon of war.

The Mistrals are paid for so the more uses you get out of them the easier it is to justify their expense.

for mas evacuation you could simply develop a civilian ship that will be far cheaper. you all can say what you want but even
others Top ranked Russian generals/ministers have complained about how useless are this mistral for Russia.

For mass evacuation having 16 heavy transport helos and a 100 bed state of the art equipped hospital would be incredibly useful... a few cruise liners can carry more people more efficiently but the Mistrals helos will get them from where ever they are to the cruise ships rather faster and rather safer than buses and the Ka-52Ks will ensure none of the local armed factions try to interfere with the evacuation.

Many top ranked Russian officials lack imagination, or would prefer the Mistral to be a Russian designed and built ship... I would like that too of course but it would mean the first ship would enter service in 2022 at the earliest and there is no guarantee it would be any good.
Mistral is a proven design adapted to Russian needs and will be ready next year!

What is even more questionable is they buying 2-4..

Makes no sense to just have one... what if it is in repair when it is needed? All that expense and you can't use it.

2 Make sense if you just want them in the Pacific Fleet... if you want to defend the Arctic territory then 4 make sense.

The mistrals with Ka-52s will not become
a deterrent to anyone other than pirates ,because any decent combat plane can detect the Ka-52 and shut it down from very large
distances . helicopters were never intended to 1 vs 1 combat jets ,even if they can do it.In my opinion they buying the
mistrals only to lure France away of Syria.

You seem to be a little confused... these Mistrals are not to replace the Kuznetsov, they are to replace the old Ivan Rogov landing ships. They are not intended to take on enemy carrier groups.

And Helicopters like Ka-52 its place belong
to the army ,for close combat support to infantry. If they ever used in the sea close to insurgents they will be fall like flies
from the air. Contrary to Ground fights in Urban zones ,in close combat support to infrantry ,In the open sea there is nothing blocking the view of anyone with a manpad. and the will be no infantry protecting it ,they will be alone vs terrorist. and they will be will be an easy prey to any combat plane. THey werent designed for air superiority but for close ground support.

They will be used to support Russian Naval Infantry landing operations by providing direct air support the same way Army Aviation Havocs and Hokums will support Army ground units.

The "the enemy ground forces can spot helos from great distances and shoot them down" argument doesn't work because in the big flat ocean the AESA radar of the Ka-52K will detect even small row boats at 20km or more... it is those on the sea surface that will have no where to hide... in fact at sea the Kamov will actually be safer than over land as there is no cover or protection... they can't dig in.

For humanitarian missions again wrong helicopter. for that a transport helicopter like mi-8 will be far more useful.

An unarmed Ka-52K could use its advanced detection sensors and equipment to find people in distress and containers on its weapon pylons could be used to drop inflatable boats in case of flooding or emergency shelters and survival equipment... it could even use its power and a belly mounted grappling hook to pull a capsized yacht upright... who knows?

ith the money they will spend in mistrals they could also modernize but also expand
their ship buildings facilities that they seriously need.

They are spending money on expanding their boat building capacity and they are also increasing orders so that new capacity is used.

Since 1988 all russian Attack Helicopters are designed to have air-to-air engagement capabilities since the Cessna could land on the red square in 1987.

Not really true. When the Mig-23s sent by the PVO to investigate found it was a civilian cessna they handed the "interception" duty to the nearest air unit, which was an Army Aviation unit. They sometimes are sent to intercept balloons too, but without radar they had trouble tracking down Rusts plane and he landed before they could find him and force him to a nearby airfield.

The Ka-52K on the other hand will have AESA radar and the capacity to carry modern AAMs like R-73 and R-77 which would make them rather better equipped than any other helicopter in history to deal with enemy aircraft.

Lack of speed and short range would still be an issue of course.

yes your missing a lot dude is not even fun. Seems you never have heard about the war in Syria ,and how Saudi Arabia supply weapons to terrorist including manpads . And somali pirates make millions kidnapping ships.. but thats up to you to investigate. Is not the lack of food or job why pirates exist but because is a very profitable business.

Even if every pirate had a MANPAD the DIRCMs on the Ka-52K and its standoff weapons would still mean my money would be on the helo.

They could be the safest helicopters in the world ,still is irrelevant , they will not be able to operate in places where many fishing boats are.. every little boat could be a major threat to them ,and they will not know if they are terrorist or not until they have a missile chasing them.

Just follow the smoke trails from the MANPADS back to the boats and destroy them. DIRCMs will defeat the missiles incoming.

Good luck on using your Ka-52 to defeat F-35's ,F-16 ,F-15s ,Eurofigters ,Rafales or Japanesse combat jets..

Of course the Ka-52 can defeat all of those... don't forget to include B-2, F-22, and SR-73... the replacement for the SR-72 which isn't in service yet.

If your objection to the Mistral is that it is not a replacement for the Kuznetsov then your objection is pointless... the US Marines should retire all their useless Tarawa class carriers too because they are inferior to the new US fixed wing carriers.

Again helicopters weather Ka-52 or apache longbow ,will be at serious disadvantage versus any combat jet.. PERIOD.

And that is why they are putting them on Mistral class helicopter landing vessels and not replacing Mig-29Ks on the Kuznetsov with them...  

Combat planes can shut down any helicopter from 100 to 160km distance. In Beyond Visual range and almost any distance
the helicopter will lose very badly to a combat plane.. not even fun.

When.

In the sea there is nothing of support for any helicopter used for attack missions. will be alone.

What do you think the Kuznetsov will be doing?

If the enemy has air power the Russians are hardly likely to send a Mistral class helicopter carrier in without fixed wing air support.

If it is an anti piracy operation there is no reason for a Ka-52K to get within 3km of a fishing vessel that is about to be boarded... and funny business and Vikhr will cover the 3km twice as fast as an RPG-7 grenade except the Vikhr can kill at 10km while the RPG self destructs at 900m.

To defend its territory in the pacific Russia Mistral + Ka52 will have to face Japan destroyers + combat planes.

With the support of land based Su-35s and PAK FA...

So for sure Russia will need to also use Destroyers to help protect the mistrals.. So makes null the point of having a mistral
after all.

If you are landing ground forces having a helicopter carrier means you can land troops and vehicle 100 times faster... and it is the period when the troops are landing that they are at their most vulnerable... helos landing them moves them much faster and safer than zodiacs and Ka-52s offering fire support means enemy troops will be keeping their heads down rather than firing back.

Enemy aircraft will be dealt with via air support... not helos.

Anyway im not convinced why they needed. Everyone is free to have its own opinions. i still think ,saving the money for more destroyers ,that the ones they already had planned or for a new brand new stealth Cruiser will be much more deterrence than a mistral with KA-52s.

The money saved not getting Mistrals would not buy that many new other ships and more importantly the new ships it would buy would not enter service for another 5-10 years anyway.