Mistral News thread

You'd need more than just one type of helo of course.

The Ka-52 could be used for armed recon, and light naval attack and of course a combat air support role of landed armour, but you would also need transport helos like Mi-17s and perhaps troop carrying helos like the Ka-29 or Ka-60. In fact a modified Ka-27 class helo that can be modified for the sky crane role would probably be the most compact option for transport helo as its 5 ton external payload limit is already similar to the Mi-17s external payload limit.

Russia in final stage of talks to buy 4 Mistral class warships

RIA Novosti

11:4524/05/2010 MOSCOW, May 24 (RIA Novosti) - Russia has reached the final stage of talks on the purchase of four French Mistral class helicopter carriers, the Russian defense minister said on Monday.

"At the moment we are in pre-contract talks on the warships with three states: Spain, the Netherlands and France. We plan to sign a contract for four of these ships," Anatoly Serdyukov said.

Serdyukov said one vessel would be built abroad and the other three with the help of Russian shipbuilders. He said the full construction of the fourth vessel would take place in Russia.

If they are purchased, the ships will be deployed by the Northern and Pacific Fleets.

Many Russian military and industry experts have questioned the financial and military sense of the purchase, and some believe that Russia simply wants to gain access to advanced naval technology that could be used in the future in potential conflicts with NATO and its allies.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100524-rianovosti04.htm

Putin says Russia will buy Mistral only with technology transfer

RIA Novosti

18:23 09/06/2010 MOSCOW, June 9 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is interested in purchasing Mistral class amphibious assault ships from France only together with the accompanying technology, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on the eve of a visit to France.

Russia is negotiating the purchase of at least one French-built Mistral-class amphibious assault ship and plans to build three more vessels of the same class in partnership with the French naval shipbuilder DCNS.

"For us, this deal is interesting only if it is accomplished with a parallel transfer of technology, so that our shipbuilders - both civilian and military - receive a new technological boost for development," Putin said in an interview with Agence France Presse and France 2 TV.

The prime minister, who will visit France on Thursday and Friday, also said that "cooperation in a field as sensitive as military-industrial manufacturing, of course, leads to higher trust between countries."

Putin reiterated that Georgia and other Russian neighbors should not fear the Mistral purchase because Moscow has no plans to attack other countries and hopes there will never again be a conflict similar to five-day war between Russia and Georgia in 2008.

"You know, it is not the case when it is necessary to deploy weaponry as the Mistral ship. I hope that, God willing, we will never see a military conflict between Russia and Georgia. Never," he said, before pointing out that Russia was able "to carry out military strikes from the Russian territory at any target in Georgia."

"We do not need a Mistral ship for that," he said.

A Mistral-class ship is capable of transporting and deploying 16 helicopters, four landing barges, up to 70 armored vehicles including 13 battle tanks, and 450 personnel.

The Russian military plans to use the Mistral ships in its Northern and Pacific Fleets.

Chief of Russian Armed Forces General Staff Gen. Nikolai Makarov said on Tuesday that Russia needs Mistral class amphibious assault ships primarily to boost the combat capabilities of its Navy in the Far East and ensure protection of the disputed Kuril Islands.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2010/06/mil-100609-rianovosti13.htm

It is official -- Rosoboronexport has launched a contract for the "Mistral"

Rosoboronexport has launched a contract for the purchase of a French helicopter "Mistral," said company CEO Anatoly Isaikin Wednesday.

Rosoboronexport was appointed executor of the contract for the purchase of the French Defence Ministry Helicopter "Mistral", - said Isaikin, reports RIA Novosti.

"We all carry out strictly within the framework of Russian legislation. It requires the passage of a number of stages, which includes the definition of technical parameters and negotiation process involving the Defense Ministry", - said Isaikin.

Surface ships are entering RuAN at snail pace. Mistrals will be refreshing.

The design might be foreign, but the work for more than half will be in Russia so it is somewhere to start from.

These vessels would be ideal to send to Tsunami ravaged coastlines, or for disaster relief after an earthquake etc etc.

The command capability, the hospital beds, and of course the large number of helicopters will make these very good for disaster relief missions as well of course as for the military missions already stated.

There are plenty of countries friendly to Russia that would not welcome US aide in the event of a disaster, one example quite recently was Myanmar, where a Russian Mistral would have been very useful for the local population. It would have been a gesture that the country involved appreciates which translates into better trust and increases the value of buying Russian things.

The real point is that the Russian government is buying things... the more money it actually spends the more likely the Russian MIC will realise it is worth while investing and producing all those little things they currently have to import.

Regarding the threat that Russia might use a Mistral vessel against Georgia... well lets face it, if Russia wanted to attack Georgia they could do it more efficently with Mistrals, but they could still do it without them.
If they had bought them in 2007 then South Ossetia and Abkhazia would still be part of Georgia and Saakashvili would never have "had a go", so in a way it would have been better all round if they had bought them some time ago.
But then who could have said with certainty he was going to be that stupid?

i think this ship is totaly useless for us, i just don't get it how this big flotting target .....hugggm sorry i mean "Helicopter carrier" is usefull for russia, if we would fight a war thousends of km away of our country i get it, or have a enclave thousends of km away i would get it too... but this big sea target... huhm sorry i mean helicopter carrier just screams to rot in the damn harbour

i see this purchase as a political one, like breaing the wall of western cuntrys selling armament to russia, but its useless.. if the wannt to realy break this wall in the heads of cold war politicans the should have gone for a rafale deal... or to lay down the cards one the table completly a pure technology deal... and not this USELESS sea box/grave

Its purpose is to deliver ground forces to the target area.

Any form of transport that can carry helicopters and tanks and APCs and Naval infantry will be a target, so it is no different from any other vessel of its type operational around the world.

The weapon isn't the vessel, the weapon is the forces it carries, much like an aircraft carrier.

Its defence relies on the vessels it operates with because loading it up with too many weapons will detract from its original goal.

A good way of looking at it is the Mi-24 Hind.

A combination of firepower of a gunship and the transport capability of a light transport... a sort of compromise between a Huey and a Cobra.

In practise it was found that it was more efficient using a transport for the transport role unless it was being used for a very small drop of personel, so the replacement is the Mi-28 which does have a small rear cabin to carry 2 maybe 3 people in an emergency but most of the time it is an attack helo while the Hip series delivers the troops.

It is not about travelling thousands of kms and invading africa, it is about delivering a force large enough to be effective and independant and to support their operations for days if not weeks.

The Mistral class vessels will NEVER operate on their own. They will likely have support from what equates to a carrier group and will most likely include an aircraft carrier in support.

Why not just use the aircraft carriers instead?

The main defence of a Russian Aircraft carrier is its fighter aircraft.
That means fighter aircraft, plus the fuel they will use, plus all the weapons and ammo they are likely to use.

There simply isn't enough room to fit tanks and APCs and soldiers let alone the helos needed to support an amphibious operation... that is what the Mistral is for.
The Mistral is designed to carry the armour, the aircraft, the troops, and all the stores and fuel and food needed for the operation, plus it has something like a 100 bed hospital with state of the art medical facilities so as wounded are brought back to the Mistral they can get high quality care as soon as possible a helo flight away.

For disaster relief you can swap the soldiers for aide workers and the armour for 4WDs and trucks to distribute food and supplies and of course the helos will be invaluable for such an operation and the hospital beds will no doubt be used too.

I think they will likely fit KASHTAN-M to it... front and back too I suspect, which should have minimal effect on its operational performance but improve its self defence capability without completely changing the vessel.

overall big ships tme have come to a end, becouse one simpel thing,i readed a long time ago a good analiys on the navy, in the warnerd war blog, every time electronics got smaller, cheaper and more efficient... the warships became more of a trap, every time stealth tech got further, the ship was more of a bad idea, smaller engines = another bad sign for the ships, every single change in technology in the past half a century has had STOP BUILDING WARSHIPS written all over it

thats why i think this purchase is totaly useless, bisides that we just don't have use for it, we don't have anything for this ship too do, it will rot in the harbour

warships, specialy the big ones a floating targets, not more, modern anti-ship missles that don't cost even a half of precent of the ship can take down this fat floting whale and take wth it hundreds of lifes! a other point that speaks against big ships = a lo of peopel working on it, i remmber here israely warship ins Eilat in the war, well first question is what was id doing in the war? ... nothing, what al ships do flotin/lookin cool/being totaly useless and what is teh story of it? 2 egypten little missle boats fired some 4 SS-N-2 anti-ship missiles and bammmmm it goes with its millions and its people, and hey the SS-N-2 i a old big pice of shit of a anti-ship missiles not t be compared to good new stuff

the israelis learned their lesson no big money and live eating ships, just littel missile crafts and modaret and even still the are traps, like in 2006 hezbollah fired on them a little the most little anti-ship missle that exist and they losed again a ship but this time just some 3 death no big money losses becouse its a small ship, a ship you can afford to go to hell

ther was a USA neval fight wargame called "millennium challenge" were they simulateted a lowtech attack on ther modern super hightech flet by iran so the pickedup a retired USMC "paul van ripen" and he with nothing more then lowtech small speedboats with lowtech surface to surface missiles managed to sink 2/3 of the US navy force in the simulation

they supermodern missles and radars don't halped against super little civilian speedboats, were a middle anti-ship missle already waights the same waight as the little speedboat with mounted rockets on it,but the navy don't learned from that defeat and send a battle group latter i the persian gulf, and what do you think? how the iranians reacted? they send fucking speedboats to harass the frigates and destroyers in close range zooming in the US navy weak point and drinving around them, a deathtrap far away from home sweet home, would be funny if this little boot with somme grad rockets and littel anti-ship missles would take out a large number of billions worth warships

or look at the latst iranian navy exerciece, the all learned that and set on this defensef tactics

o the argentine britsh war/falkland war, and here the argentines even fuckd up big time, the set all on the wrong tactic were positioned on the wrong places, not used a lot of chances, the british just went to them with the fleet without the argiees try to stop them, andstil by the oint that the totaly fuckd up they gived the british fleet and losses a littel hell with this far far from good anti-ship missiles exocet and some bombs

well that was just me, on the use of this big ships agree don't agree what ever, anyway, we don't need this ship, not even a littel... a sqaudron of rafales would be much more of a use then this pice of shit

You are totally entitled to your opinion, but I suggest to you that countries that have been truely global powers have been global powers because of their navies.

I agree the time of the battleship is over, the airplane has replaced that long ago.

The thing is that an airplane adds range to your sight and your fist that no ship can match, so if you want a Navy you need to have airplanes on your ships.

Rather than have one airplane on each ship it makes sense to have big ships carrying lots of planes... which means you need other big ships that can sail with those aircraft carriers and support them with SAMs and AShMs and anti sub systems too as well as a few subs as well.

Pretty soon you have all these big ships.

The bit about the Falklands war is interesting, the British would have no option but to accept whatever the Argentines wanted if it didn't have a fleet.

A British carrier with 20 Sea Harriers taking on the Argentine land air fleet of 200+ aircraft and not losing an aircraft in air to air combat sounds impressive, but the British fleet was severely constrained because its government had cut their last fixed wing carrier a few years before. With a fixed wing carrier with AEW aircraft that could manage the air war over the islands I rather doubt the Argentines would have gotten a single British ship.

The British were very arrogant and were poorly prepared against a low flying target.
At a time when Soviet vessels were covered in gatling guns and SAMs designed to hit low flying targets the air defence systems on the British vessels were largely weak and untried together. The Sea Dart was compromised because the Argentine Navy had it in service so they knew its range and flight envelope.

Needless to say if the British had AWACS and a fixed wing carrier and decent CIWS things would have gone much more smoothly for them. Cost cutting and narrow mindedness (they claimed that their vulnerability to the sea skimming Exocet was OK because the Soviets didn't have any sea skimming missiles....!!!) made things much harder for them.
On the side of the Argentines air battle management so far off shore was also a problem so the replacement of their Skyhawks with Mig-23s with full BVR capability plus some form of AEW could have made the recapture of the Falklands too expensive for the British.

The problem with the claim that big ships are targets, is that smaller vessels are generally less capable and easier to attack than bigger and better equipped vessels.
The small boats that destroyed that Israeli frigate would be vulnerable to an attack from any medium sized multirole fighter aircraft, or even some helicopters.
A Ka-52 with a Kh-25ML could kill most small boats out to 10kms while most small boats don't have guns or missiles big enough to reach 10kms so the attacking platform is safe.
Most big ships would be safe from attack by helos or medium sized fighters.
A carriergroup can command an enormous area of sea and are good for defence and attack.

yes its true al the gobal powers were it becouse of ther strong navies,but that was a wayyy time ago, technology brough us the time of this fat big ships, technology will end it and actaully alraedy nearly did, just to littel have realised it

nice that you agree, everyone hsould who understand military strategy and keeps up with the devolopment, even naive groupswith airplane carriers will be always, absolutly always in disadvantage against a enemy who is stationed on soil, you can't end this enemy with one rocket attack, you can't destroy his airplanes with one rocket attack, you can't destroy his runways with one rocket attack, you can't easy kill hundrets if not thousend of his soldierswth one rocket attack or lightly spot him... but he can! he can do this all with just oen damn rocket, a big modern anti-ship issile or cruis-missile do all this things to you...

one simpel fact, the future is not this fat floting pigs, the future is small powerfull fast,real fast supersonic stealth missiles of all kinds of types, this is the future, from year to year this big ships look all more and more like bad ideas, outdatet!

a othe erro that you wrote was that small vessels are easier to attack and have only a short attack range, sorry but this is absolutly nonsense, this small boats can still all fit at last a pair of middel range anti-ship missiles, range up to 200km

such missiles are the future
Naval Strike Missile - waight 410kg range 185km (stealth)

or doubel supersonic missiles like the bramos

small fast attack vessels in stealth design equiped with supersonic stealth missiles, in big nummbers ready to eat every battel group of fat floting pigs alive, and even if some are sunk, who cares they are ships that are not painfull too loose, with some crew of 8 in big quantities and every one of them still capable to attack this battel groups of floting graves from hundrets of km

to falklands, one big thing why the british were dominating, are the argetinian jets themselfs, do you reaise that argentina diden't maneged to station ther jets on the falklends and had to fly to the battel ground every time straight from argentina, and to manage back could fight only about for 15 minutes + ther IAI Daggers were not even equipid for air refueling and the had only 2 airplanes that could air refeul the whole FAA

argentna was just not ready for this war and actaully could still fuck up the british big time if they only had chosen the right tactics, i recomend here the docomentation "how close to defeat" which covers all points

Regarding the Falklands war the Argentinians had a carrier but didn't use it because of fear about British nuclear powered attack subs.
Personally I think if they had better aircraft with any BVR capability, especially if it could operate from the islands themselves they would have presented a much more difficult problem for Britain.
A few dozen Mig-23s with R-23 and R-24 as well as R-60 AAMs might have made all the difference.

Of course what ifs are difficult because what was done was based on what was an option and what wasn't and also what they knew and what they didn't.

The problem is that a small vessel means you are vulnerable at sea.

A small vessel can't have lots of large SAMs to defend itself, or large radars to see a long way. Or a flight of aircraft that can see and reach even further.

Carrier based aircraft certainly can take on land based aircraft, but you need to pick and choose your fights. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. The US use of carrier aircraft in Vietnam and the Middle East.

A single big ship like a carrier would be easy to overwhelm simply because its air defences are limited because of its need to carry lots of aircraft and fuel and ordinance for those aircraft and of course the thousands of people needed to keep it operational and the food they need etc etc.
Add a couple of ships like the Kirov class vessels and upgrade its missile defences and replace them with newer models and add an airborne early warning aircraft or two and a sneak attack suddenly becomes quite hard, and a mass attack becomes even harder because the more missiles you want to fire at this carrier group the more assets you need to organise and get into position.
With warning any antiship missile can be defeated... it is just a straight flying aircraft afterall.
Without warning a sneak attack will always have the best chance of success, but having large ships with long range radars and long range SAMs and airborne AWACS aircraft such a sneak attack becomes very very hard to impliment.

Unless you are taking on a large country like China it is only a matter of time and Elint satellites for you to find all his communication nodes and his HQs and his military barracks, and his major industry centres and his power generation plants, his airbases and his major SAM sites. Very few countries today have full national radar coverage and even fewer have a military able to repel an attack from a near superpower with a carrier group. Especially by 2025 when the standard carrier fighter for Russia will be based on a navalised T-50 instead of a Mig-29K, but even today the Mig-29K is not an aircraft to be sneezed at. Especially when next gen AAMs developed for the T-50 are added to its weapon suite.
Most of the fixed targets in a conflict against a land based enemy can be hit by conventionally armed cruise missiles. There is lots of talk about new navy vessels being armed with 5,000km range cruise missiles, which suggests to me it is a ship and sub launched version of the Kh-101.

actaully argentina did tried to use its carrier Veinticinco de Mayo but coulden't becoue of poo wather conditions, then after its battel ship General Belgrano was sunk by a submarine it retreted to the port bck in argentina and the argentinian fighters like i said had to fly all the way from argentina like río grande which the cerrier came to the port resulting in more then 3 times of the time to deploy to the battelfield then the british and of course the much shorter time of battle

SAM's and other protection systems will not save you, specialy when the missiles are stealth or lunched in big nummbers at once, even new systems when you study them like the Phalanx Mk-15 or our AK-630 the have a lot time of engagement to stop one missiles and not even far a succes rate of 100% and that against subsonic missiles, its effectifnes against supersonic and even duoble supersonic missiles is not even proven, i wil say in this case the will fail to 90% against such missiles and 99% fail against stealth supersonic missiles

a stealth designed small missile boot will be much moore harder to detect and to engage befor it self can do it

special dark it looks for batle ships and not carriers, carriers have indeed good use and a big punch becouse of the aircrafts against any target, so when its carefull used it is surly deadly and can doom a lot of things bttle ships doesen't have that they are in a war to 90% useles trash flotng around like the eilat

and your examples are totaly mising my point WW2, vietnam, iraq all irrelevant points, WW2 first this was the time o battle sips and carriers, were modern technology and missiles were in its babies slippers, just srating to rise, vietnam still only the bottom of modern technology and all other enemys like iraq too time when such missiles and technology only started to get REALY impressiv and a enemy which doesen't have the capabilities to use this technology from the air and ground to cunter its opponent

like i said technology brough us the time of big ships, technology will end it

I disagree that the real problem for the Argentines was lack of time on station.
Their main problem was lack of an edge.
It takes skill and discipline to fly low and fast at an armed target like a group of frigates to drop an iron bomb.
The Royal Navy pilots also clearly showed they were well trained and disciplined as well, but they had the edge of better air to air missiles and better tactics.
If the Argentines had BVR missiles they could have used their speed advantage and simply used long range attacks to fire BVR missiles at the Sea Harriers from a standoff distance and then turn and head home.
Not exciting or brave, but it maximises their chances for kills and reduces their chances of losses to near zero.
Obviously if they had taken the time it took the British to get a task force together and sail down to the south atlantic and just extended the runway so they could operate mirages and skyhawks on the islands then they would have had a much easier time, but they still would be dogfighting against a much better model AAM than they had and likely would still have lost many planes.
If they had BVR missiles it is possible they could have eventually wiped out the carrier based aircraft and then run amok amongst the remaining land and sea forces without aerial threat.
Of course mounting air strikes against British shipping could have rendered the task force impotent with more supply vessels hit.
Much of the British air activity was looking for the Argentine subs... without the Sea Harriers as top cover their helicopter screen would need to move closer to the protection of the SAM defences of the ships and attacks by sub might become more of an option... if they weren't hunted down with Sea Skuas.

Very simply National Rus, big boats are needed if you want to be a global power.
Small boats can become quite capable but will be severely restricted in range and the amount of equipment and weapons it can carry.
It would be much easier to deal with 1,000 OSA class vessels than 10 AEGIS class vessels.
Small attack vessels certainly have a role, but there are jobs a large vessel can do that small vessels simply cannot.
With all small vessels then you can't have air cover. With big vessels you get the vision and reach of the aircraft with the persistence and firepower of a ship.
Small vessels with UAVs are just not the same.

I agree stealth cruise missiles are a real threat.
They are also very expensive and very few countries can afford dozens of them let alone hundreds.
The main problem with launching hundreds of stealth cruise missiles is that you need hundreds of stealth launch platforms to launch these missiles from.
What country has that right now?
Russia and the US... and those stealthy launch platforms are called submarines.
The thing is that the best way to defend against air attack in any form including in a mass attack is with layers of defences.
The earlier you see the attack coming and the earlier you can start engaging components of that attack the better.
This makes aircraft vital to the defence of the surface group, so aircraft carriers are not just an option.
Long range SAMs are not much use on a small stealthy boat because to use a long range SAM you need long range eyes and small boats don't have that without aircraft.
I am talking about a complete layered defence that can sail anywhere in international waters. Small boats simply lack the range to do that.
Big boats become targets, but on paper everything is a target. It is by having a full set of pieces that compliment each other and can be used together to defend each other in a conflict that you give your force the best chance of success.
Are they invincible?
No. Nothing is.
The point is that the argument that the big boat is dead and all future boats should be small and stealthy is short sighted.
Russia doesn't need 30,000 MBTs right now, but equally she can't get by without any. Despite all the missiles and weapons and platforms designed to defeat a MBT it seems they are still around and still doing the job they were designed for... a mobile gun platform designed to break through enemy positions with heavy cannon fire and to support infantry.

Technology is always measure and countermeasure... and to be honest you can fit more countermeasures on a big ship than on a small one.

It is like the game of golf. You could probably play with only one club but if you want to do well you need to carry preferably a wood, a couple of irons, a pitching wedge is useful, as is a sand wedge, and a putter to get a decent score.
Each club is designed for a specific situation and to do a specific job.
Small boats would have to be VERY specialised simply because they lack the space to be anything else. This is the opposite of what the Russian Navy is talking about with their new Destroyers.

Regarding performance of CIWS the Kashtan-M seems to be pretty efficient against all sorts of target types.
The US has replaced its Phalanx with Sea RAM and they seem quite happy with that.

i disagree, the major poin of ther fail was they fail to even realy try to stop the british battle group the only needed to take out one ofthe 4 british ships that they just coulden't lose to do this operation 1.HMS HERMES 2.HMS INVINCIBLE 3.HMS INTREPID 4.HMS FERARLESS,second was ther
strategy on how to figh this war, the poitioneted themselfs on few positions, false positions and with large troop nummbers
second they fail too use profesional soldiers and spcial force in the conflict rather then conscripts.
And they actally tried to build/extend the runway at port stanly, and they failed bcoue thy don't planed it and fail to move they needed equipment for that to the island, and failed to plan it logisticaly.
a other thing is they don't realy laked skills but again the tactics of the highcommand that impeded the FAA to be more lethal, whyß
its know tht the FAA used iron bombs to target british ships and becoue the highcomman wanted maximal damege the bombs were all
equipet with time detonatos which should detonate te bmb inside th ship when its got hit and here we come to the funny thing
the most of the time detonators failed = no dame against the brtish ships, a well documented fatin the british documentation how close to defeat.
plus the time of engagement the hade to do too deploy to the battlefield from argentina and time of engagement plus the total lack of logistics for the FAA too refeuil is flet, the FAA to deploy to the battlefiel had 4 options 1.rio grande 700km away 2.rio gallegos 800km 3.san julian 780km and 4. trelew 1070km

my point is a "defencive" one and not offensive,i only see the unstopable growing of advantage for anti-ship counter measures of all sorts against the ships, and you again totaly missed my point, i never talked about NOW or the unbeliveble advantage NOW against ships by anti-ship measurs like missiles of all sorts but sayd the speed of devolopment and the unstopabl growing disadvanteg against ships is getting more and more outstanding with ships in that part are gettng more and more of a bad idea and death trap.
and the new revolutionery devolopment of anti-ship measures are goin one, bisides the naval strike missile is not a big missile or unbeliveble expenisve one, and is nto lunched from submrines its lunched from platforms like small speedboat of skjold class and from the AIR, and surly could be with some changes lunched from land, and revolutionery missiles liek this is just the start, or duble supersonic missiles like the bramos

again my point s a defencive one i never said or pland to invade aother country thousends of km away with small stealthy missile boats, and what i this " seems to be" pretty efficient, "seems quite happy" that onl tels that this all systems actaully fails,look yourself how this systems engage ther targets, which time thy need and under which circumstances!! and agaisnt wich targets, are this reported test were hold with new missils systems? no! were ther any supersonic missiles? no! were ther any duoble supersonic missiles? no! were ther any stealthy missils? no! were ther lunched in masses? no! how long they need to engage just one misile to its distruciton`about 10 seconds...

sorry nothign speaks abut the unbeliveble "efficients" of this systems and are just speculations, and if youlook closly at it them, they rather seems to be failing against any good coordinated attack with new systems

I agree an Argentine victory in sinking the Hermes might have forced a British retreat, even just a temporary one.
The problem is that the Argentines had no way of finding the Hermes let alone getting enough ordinance into it to sink it.
Most of the UK ships lost to bomb damage were near land and were either having problems detecting incoming aircraft because of the land or because of problems with interference from other ships radars.
The Sheffield was sunk because she turned off her sea wolf missile system to send a satellite message to Britain.
Only a few British vessels actually had Seawolf missiles on board, and these were really the only effective CIWS to be deployed and actually used in combat.
Soviet and Russian designed large vessels are rather better protected because they probably have a better appreciation of the effectiveness of anti ship missiles than anyone else, which means they often also have the best defended ships to such a threat.

I am sorry but suggesting that anti ship missiles makes big ships obsolete is like saying SAM systems make aircraft obsolete and anti tank missiles and RPGs make armour obsolete. The reality is that a force well equipped with anti armour weapons mounted on Jeeps and lots of MANPADs can certainly restrict the options of the attacker, but such a force can only be effective as a guerilla force, or in the case of ships a very limited coastal force.

If the British only had small vessels and no air power there would be no such thing as the Falkland Islands right now. For the British that would be a bad thing, so for the users of big ships they still have relevance today. If you want to move forces, or support operations world wide you need big ships.

BTW you can make big ships stealthy too, stealth has never been an issue of size.

It seems however you will not accept what I am saying, perhaps we can agree to disagree on this.
Can I just say that the threat of US carrier groups actually created the need for such giants as the OSCAR II class vessels and the Kirovs and Slava class vessels all of which needed to be bigger than similar western vessels because of the size and number of missiles they were designed to carry.
A radar stealthy anti ship missile sounds nice on paper, but most ships don't sail around with their radars on all the time because it gives away their position.
IR and IIR systems and ESM systems looking for launch platforms can just as easily spot a stealthy incoming missile, but the best way to spot on is with an AWACS aircraft.
Such an aircraft can spot a threat at long range so radars can be turned on and SAMs and guns can be prepared and the aircraft already in the air can be vectored to ID and take the first shots at the threats and perhaps even the launch platforms that fired all these incoming missiles.
Not perfect, but for a small vessel the first hint it is under attack is most likely to be an explosion.

Russia set to buy Mistral with transfer of French technologies


RIA Novosti

18:13 05/07/2010

MOSCOW, July 5 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will buy French Mistral class helicopter carriers with the complete set of navigational equipment and technical documentation, but equip the ships with its own weaponry and helicopters, a defense industry source said Monday.

Russia is negotiating the purchase of at least one French-built Mistral class amphibious assault ship and plans to build two or three more vessels of the same class in partnership with the French naval shipbuilder DCNS.

"I would like to stress the point that we are buying the Mistral with all proper navigational and technological equipment, including the fire control systems," a source close to the negotiations said.

"We will use our own helicopters on the Mistral, but we will have to raise the deck for that purpose," he said.

According to other defense industry sources, the Russian Air Force plans to buy up to 100 Ka-class helicopters, including some 70 Ka-27Ms, to equip the Mistral ships.

The Mistral class ship is capable of transporting and deploying 16 helicopters, four landing barges, up to 70 armored vehicles including 13 battle tanks, and 450 personnel.

"We are also planning to use this helicopter carrier in northern latitudes, in ice floe. For that we will need to reinforce the hull of the ship, but it will not seriously change its structure or technical equipment," the source said.

The Russian military has said it plans to use Mistral ships in its Northern and Pacific fleets.

Many Russian military and industry experts have questioned the financial and military sense of the purchase, and some believe that Russia simply wants to gain access to advanced naval technology that could be used in the future in potential conflicts with NATO and its allies.

In April, the head of the Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation, Mikhail Dmitriev, said the Mistral deal would be concluded by the end of the year.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100705-rianovosti01.htm

Russian Air Force to get dozens of helicopters if Mistral deal agreed

RIA Novosti

13:11 05/07/2010

ALIKANTE (Spain), July 5 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Air Force will receive dozens of Ka-class helicopters if Russia buys a Mistral-class helicopter carrier from France, a deputy head of a Russian aviation production firm said on Monday.

Russia is negotiating the purchase of at least one French-built Mistral-class amphibious assault ship and plans to build three more vessels of the same class in partnership with the French naval shipbuilder DCNS.

"During a visit by Mistral to St. Petersburg [in November], we tested the landing of our Ka-27 Helix and Ka-52 Alligator helicopters on the vessel. Currently, the state armament program stipulates the purchase of several dozens helicopters for this deal," Vyacheslav Kovalyov, the first deputy director of the Kumertau Aviation Production Enterprise, said.

He added that the Russian Air Force was planning to buy the Ka-52 Alligator, Ka-226 Hoodlum helicopters and a new modification of the Ka-27 helix helicopter, the Ka-27M, the development of which is now in its final stage.

A high-ranking source in Russia's United Industrial Corporation (OPK) confirmed that the country's Air Force was going to buy up to 100 Ka-class helicopters, including some 70 Ka-27M choppers, to equip Mistral ships.

A Mistral-class ship is capable of transporting and deploying 16 helicopters, four landing barges, up to 70 armored vehicles including 13 battle tanks, and 450 personnel.

The Russian military has said it plans to use Mistral ships in its Northern and Pacific fleets.

Many Russian military and industry experts have questioned the financial and military sense of the purchase, and some believe that Russia simply wants to gain access to advanced naval technology that could be used in the future in potential conflicts with NATO and its allies.

In April, the head of the Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation, Mikhail Dmitriev, said the Mistral deal would be concluded by the end of the year.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100705-rianovosti04.htm

I have read that instead of landing barges it can carry two hovercraft, I wonder if they will deploy or develop hovercraft with these vessels... it is the best way to deploy armour because it can fly over any beach defences or minefields and deploy armour right up on land and of course it is rather faster than most landing craft.

The upgraded Ka-32s sound interesting too, my guess at least new engines and new rotor blades.
I wonder how many troop transport Kamovs they will have (Ka-29s) as opposed to the other modifications.

GarryB wrote:I have read that instead of landing barges it can carry two hovercraft, I wonder if they will deploy or develop hovercraft with these vessels... it is the best way to deploy armour because it can fly over any beach defences or minefields and deploy armour right up on land and of course it is rather faster than most landing craft.

It can, but the French are building L-CATs.

New landing craft for Mistral BPC = L-CAT

Derived from the Landing Catamaran ( L - CAT) CNIM , the first Fast Amphibious Landing Craft ( EDA - R) ordered for the Navy will be built at the yards Socarenam Saint Malo. The site Breton is responsible to assemble the hull, the arming of the device being subsequently made in Boulogne on the Sea, in the main yard of the industry. Designed to replace the landing craft of the French fleet, the EDA - R will be embedded with two units per ship on the buildings projection and command ( BPC ) Mistral type . 8 units will be made.








L-CAT facts...

http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/patrol/cnim/

French-based company CNIM is involved in a wide range of activities within the defence industry. For the naval sector, CNIM has designed a new concept of landing craft for LCU, LCT and LST.
L-Cat catamaran landing craft

Combining a catamaran and a mobile platform, the L-Cat associates a deep-sea vessel and a landing craft. She is able to operate in two modes: in cruise mode the L-Cat operates as a catamaran and the mobile platform is lowered. In landing mode the L-Cat operates as a landing craft with the mobile platform and the hulls carrying the ship. She is designed for landing operations from any modern LHD, LPD or LSD.

The L-Cat catamaran landing craft's main characteristics include:

* Speed (empty) of 30kn
* Speed (fully loaded)of 20kn
* Range at 15 kts of 1,000Nm
* Landing: beach gradient ≤2%, wharf ≤1 m
* Fore draft fully loaded 0.60m
* Deadweight overload 130t
* Compatible with any NATO standard well deck up to sea state 4
* Mobile platform dimensions: length 23 m, width 6.9 m
* RoRo

The L-Cat can operate on any sea with or without a harbour. Her versatility makes her suitable for all kinds of disaster relief operations.

Interesting.
The question is, are they going to buy the French landing cats or develop their own landing craft.
The dimensions given for the Cat above was 30m by 12m and there seem from the animation to be height issues regarding getting in and out of the Mistral mothership.

From memory the Russian Navy used the Murena hovercraft which was about 35 metres long and something like 15 metres across and it could only carry one tank so its payload is rather less than this French landing craft.
Its huge advantage over this French CAT is that it is a hovercraft and it can fly over coral reefs and sand banks and is less effected by beach gradient above and below the waterline.
It also floats over the beach area and can deploy vehicles and troops behind the sand which could be mined.

The other issue is that the French CATs are not armed, most landing vehicles the Russian navy uses at least have 30mm gun turrets to hose down the area, and often have 140mm rocket launchers to suppress enemy fire too.

I would think if the Russian Navy will use its own helos and its own weapons in the Mistral and they will also use their own armour, that they might also use their own landing craft as well. There is a new landing vessel called SERNA they have had developed and I would imagine a new hovercraft might be going to be developed to if there is not one already they can adapt for use.
Hovercraft are expensive to buy and to operate but they allow access to a much wider range of coastal places... I read somewhere that normal boats can land on something like 20% of the worlds coastlines and hovercraft on 70%.
There would have to be a good reason to have them in the past because as I said they are expensive.

GarryB wrote:Interesting.
The question is, are they going to buy the French landing cats or develop their own landing craft.
The dimensions given for the Cat above was 30m by 12m and there seem from the animation to be height issues regarding getting in and out of the Mistral mothership.

Animation looks like a generic concept, the actual L-CAT fits just fine into the Mistral or any NATO standard well-dock.

From memory the Russian Navy used the Murena hovercraft which was about 35 metres long and something like 15 metres across and it could only carry one tank so its payload is rather less than this French landing craft.
Its huge advantage over this French CAT is that it is a hovercraft and it can fly over coral reefs and sand banks and is less effected by beach gradient above and below the waterline.
It also floats over the beach area and can deploy vehicles and troops behind the sand which could be mined.

Murena payload was only 24t, hard to fit an MBT on it. It can carry one Sprut, or two empty BTRs, or three light vehicles. It is so big it wouldn't come close to fitting in a Mistral and with that pathetic payload, I wouldn't waste my time with it. France already has a production run going for the LCAT and it is exactly what you want to unload a large amount of equipment in a short time frame or conduct OTH landings.

The other issue is that the French CATs are not armed, most landing vehicles the Russian navy uses at least have 30mm gun turrets to hose down the area, and often have 140mm rocket launchers to suppress enemy fire too.

The LCATs are backed by Tigre gunships and also designed with stealth in mind. With its great range LCATs can stand-off and unload an entire battalion in one night.

I would think if the Russian Navy will use its own helos and its own weapons in the Mistral and they will also use their own armour, that they might also use their own landing craft as well. There is a new landing vessel called SERNA they have had developed and I would imagine a new hovercraft might be going to be developed to if there is not one already they can adapt for use.

We would use the Ondatra as it is already developed and made for Ivan Rogov class.



The Serna was cancelled almost 20 years ago.

Hovercraft are expensive to buy and to operate but they allow access to a much wider range of coastal places... I read somewhere that normal boats can land on something like 20% of the worlds coastlines and hovercraft on 70%. There would have to be a good reason to have them in the past because as I said they are expensive.

I don't see much future in hovercraft with LCATs coming around. The CAT hull form is now the popular innovation for marine transport and we should get on board. It is the perfect low-cost solution for moving large amounts of troops in short-time. You only need a hovercraft if you want to role over contested beaches but then if they lay obstacles in your way, you will still unload on the beach. With the range of LCAT you can land anywhere you want and the enemy won't be prepared.

Animation looks like a generic concept, the actual L-CAT fits just fine into the Mistral or any NATO standard well-dock.

On the animation everything on the top of the L-CAT seemed to fold down to fit into the bay. In the video animation at 1 minute 40 seconds it shows all the top projections folding down as the central platform is lowered.
Again at 2.20 when it comes out of the Mistral everything is lowered as it comes out...

Of course if it does fold down like that then that would be the most sensible reason for it to do so.

To be brutally honest it is just a catamaran hull with a central platform that can be raised and lowered and not much else, I would think such a vessel could easily and quickly be designed in Russia.

Murena payload was only 24t, hard to fit an MBT on it.

Are you sure? I thought the Murena or Tsaplya was an enlarged Lebed, and the Lebed could carry 40 tons.

I have an entry in a book (from 2004) that states that the Project 1206.1 Murena can carry one T-72M or T-80 tank or two BTR-70 APCs or two PT-76s or 130 Assault troops at 55 knots. A Hovercraft is noisy, but at such speeds surprise should still be possible.

Of course from what I can tell the only in service hovercraft seems to be the Czilim class hovercraft which is just a light patrol vessel with a full displacement weight of less than 10 tons.

The LCATs are backed by Tigre gunships and also designed with stealth in mind. With its great range LCATs can stand-off and unload an entire battalion in one night.

I guess that makes them simpler and lighter vessels when there is no requirement for armament. The crew is only 4 (according to their video) so I guess it can't be expected to defend itself.

The Serna was cancelled almost 20 years ago.

I have seen an advertisement for a Serna landing craft that includes a colour photo of the vessel in question, which is unusual as most of the other vessels described had drawings, or at best models.
If it is ready then it would make sense to use the tank landing vessels to land tanks and some hovercraft to land other items further up the beach.
Specifications given for the Project 11770 SERNA fast landing boat are displacement 105 tons, speed 30 knots, range up to 600 miles, carrying capacity 45 tons, compliment 4.
The description says: Designed to transport and land wheeled and tracked vehicles, personnel with weapons, and other cargoes to unorganized coasts.

Certainly a simpler cheaper new design of hovercraft would be better, there are far more places a hovercraft can land forces and equipment than a rigid hulled vessel... even if it is a cat. There were plenty of occasions during WWII in the Pacific war where the Americans lost men and their tanks simply sank because they had to be dropped off at a sand bar too far from shore and sank in the deep water between the sand bar and the beach.

Of course the other problem is how many Russian companies make Hovercraft that don't use components made in other Former Soviet states.
From memory the Zubr had Ukrainian parts.
The Almaz Central Marine Design Bureau in St Petersberg makes the Murena, while the Alekseev Central hydrofoil design bureau JSC in Nizhni Novgorod makes the Serna.

GarryB wrote:

To be brutally honest it is just a catamaran hull with a central platform that can be raised and lowered and not much else, I would think such a vessel could easily and quickly be designed in Russia.

To be brutally honest, we can't even design a new sniper rifle Spetsnaz wants to use. We would only need 6-8 LCATs for 4 Mistrals so there is no reason to spend half a billion trying to develop one.

Are you sure? I thought the Murena or Tsaplya was an enlarged Lebed, and the Lebed could carry 40 tons.

24t

http://www.deagel.com/Carrier-and-Landing-Ships/Murena_a001895001.aspx

I guess that makes them simpler and lighter vessels when there is no requirement for armament. The crew is only 4 (according to their video) so I guess it can't be expected to defend itself.

The video was a concept. It will be outfitted with Mistral SAM launchers which is all the protection it really needs.

I have seen an advertisement for a Serna landing craft that includes a colour photo of the vessel in question, which is unusual as most of the other vessels described had drawings, or at best models.
If it is ready then it would make sense to use the tank landing vessels to land tanks and some hovercraft to land other items further up the beach.

There were three prototypes made, which do still exist, but they have been rusting since 1993. There was some political talk about reviving the programme but nothing concrete about its restart. Serna top speed is 30knts, the same as an LCAT. If the pilothouse is lowered you could fit 4 Serna in a Mistral. That would be a capable landing craft replacement, but not as effective as two L-CATs with elevating decks, less beach draft, more payload and ten times the range.

Certainly a simpler cheaper new design of hovercraft would be better, there are far more places a hovercraft can land forces and equipment than a rigid hulled vessel... even if it is a cat. There were plenty of occasions during WWII in the Pacific war where the Americans lost men and their tanks simply sank because they had to be dropped off at a sand bar too far from shore and sank in the deep water between the sand bar and the beach.

L-CATs have reduced draft compared to any other rigid hull vessel. At .6m draft at 130t load it can cross any sandbar that isn't exposed. Serna as an air cavitation vessel could cross most, but it won't be able to beach shallow once it slows down or it will get stuck. Its rear also carries more draft so it could get stuck. Hovercraft don't have that problem, but their air skirts can be easily torn if they try running over obstacles. As far as the cost, payload, and size that hovercrafts take, it is not a good option for RusNav.

Of course the other problem is how many Russian companies make Hovercraft that don't use components made in other Former Soviet states.
From memory the Zubr had Ukrainian parts. The Almaz Central Marine Design Bureau in St Petersberg makes the Murena, while the Alekseev Central hydrofoil design bureau JSC in Nizhni Novgorod makes the Serna.

The issue isn't if it is made in Russia, the issue is can it be made in time for Mistral. None of our hovercrafts with any payload would fit. We also have the tendency not to make things if there is no prospect for export. That is what killed the Serna programme and most others as well. Since individual companies are not allowed to market their products except through Rosboronexport, it won't get built.

Russia buys helicopter carrier Mistral with all the equipment

MOSCOW, July 5 . (ITAR-TASS ) . Russia buys helicopter carrier " Mistral "with all the navigation and technological equipment , including military navigation , but weapons and helicopters on board will be Russian, was reported at the military- industrial complex of Russia.

" We are buying not just a ship. We buy for him all the technical documentation. It is assumed that the third ship of this class will be built at Russian shipyards. It is our sine qua non for negotiations on the "Mistral "- said the source, taking part in the negotiations.

"Helicopters on the " Mistral " will be ours , but their deployment will be a bit to raise the deck. In addition, we plan to use the helicopter carrier in the northern latitudes in the ice . To do this we need to strengthen the ship. But I emphasize that it will not lead to serious changes in the construction and equipping "Mistral "- said the source.

He denied allegations that Russia buys French only hull. "I want to emphasize that the " Mistral " purchased with all the navigation and technological equipment , which is on it , including the military component of the navigation "- the source said.

Ship of " Mistral " can significantly improve the combat effectiveness and mobility of the fleet . Mistral has a displacement of more than 21 ktons, maximum length - 199 m , the rate of full speed - 21 knots , cruising range - 11000 nm, command team numbers 160. He is able to take on board troops up to 450 people ( up to 900 short-term) . Wing vehicle includes 16 heavy helicopters, six of which can be simultaneously posted on the takeoff deck. At its cargo deck can accommodate more than 40 tanks or 70 trucks .