Universal landing ships for Russian Navy

PapaDragon wrote:
Wait, Giuseppe Garibaldi is just 10.000-14.000 tons and it can carry 18 VTOLs?

Hell, if Russia ever develops it's own VTOL or STOVL they can do with these what Japan is doing with Izumo and get carrier on the fly

It's like playing on easy

Ten in hangar and the other on decks, in reality the Stovl were not usually carried in big numbers, same as on Kiev.

And like On Kievs the Garibaldi had an heavy armaments.
It was like on the previous cruisers, only with Area air defence made with Harriers instead of Standard missiles.
Main mission was to carry Sea Kings and later EH 101.

ASW was never considered a secondary mission along all Cold War, above all for Nato.

And no, no one really tough to go against conventional carriers with those but same for STOVL carriers.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:


I am not sure what point you are trying to make here? I never said ships centered around helios don't exist, Jeanne D'Arc was an Helio carrier yes.

In the case of ships like Keiv Class, they where built for a much different naval doctrine. The ship's aviation was to be used to defend against aircraft or hunt NATO submarines. If it had Yaks they would area of denial ops against aircraft.

If they had choppers they would be used to search and possibly destroy a hostile sub near it's a battle group.

All carriers carry some helios, this isn't abnormal at all BUT they do not use them like fighter aircraft because it is a stupid idea and not feasible at all.

Not trying to made any.

Just remembering how helo carriers were quite a successfull category of ships during Cold War, it was the Falkland war that shifted the focus toward the Stovl planes as main if not even exclusive element of ships like Garibaldi and the same Invincible class.

Choppers aren't like aircraft they do not have the speed or ability to perform naval strikes that well, they will be detected and shot down by AA long before they can pose any threat.

Rotter blades aren't stealthy at all, please go and join the navy, and then you will realize very quickly how silly that idea is.

Chopper has the advantage. Its radar can detect big ship at 250+km so out of reach of any ship mounted AD and can launch abti ship missile (russian kh35U has 260km range).

AD radar have less range against slow moving crafts. A 100km/h chopper won't be spotted at max range.

Helicopters can also stay bellow radar horizon.

Isos wrote:

Choppers aren't like aircraft they do not have the speed or ability to perform naval strikes that well, they will be detected and shot down by AA long before they can pose any threat.

Rotter blades aren't stealthy at all, please go and join the navy, and then you will realize very quickly how silly that idea is.

Chopper has the advantage. Its radar can detect big ship at 250+km so out of reach of any ship mounted AD and can launch abti ship missile (russian kh35U has 260km range).

AD radar have less range against slow moving crafts. A 100km/h chopper won't be spotted at max range.

Helicopters can also stay bellow radar horizon.

Um so wrong yes they do AD radars will detect choppers that far out easily.

Not to mention firing some KU35's that far out will give more than enough time to react with SM-6's.

Choppers lack the speed to get in close enough to pose a threat to a ship.

What you are saying is only feasible in navy fantasy land.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:

Choppers aren't like aircraft they do not have the speed or ability to perform naval strikes that well, they will be detected and shot down by AA long before they can pose any threat.

Rotter blades aren't stealthy at all, please go and join the navy, and then you will realize very quickly how silly that idea is.

Chopper has the advantage. Its radar can detect big ship at 250+km so out of reach of any ship mounted AD and can launch abti ship missile (russian kh35U has 260km range).

AD radar have less range against slow moving crafts. A 100km/h chopper won't be spotted at max range.

Helicopters can also stay bellow radar horizon.

Um so wrong yes they do AD radars will detect choppers that far out easily.

Not to mention firing some KU35's that far out will give more than enough time to react with SM-6's.

Choppers lack the speed to get in close enough to pose a threat to a ship.

What you are saying is only feasible in navy fantasy land.

No sense to made an ASuW ship out of it.
It's a question of strategic posture: Russia didn't face brown water navies so no need of developing an helo to be used specifically against fast patrol boats like the one of Pasdarans.
Carrying some heavy ASW ones however could be useful into making it able to actively contribute to its own self-protection.

Um so wrong yes they do AD radars will detect choppers that far out easily.

Not to mention firing some KU35's that far out will give more than enough time to react with SM-6's.

Choppers lack the speed to get in close enough to pose a threat to a ship.

What you are saying is only feasible in navy fantasy land.

And what ship is armed with SM-6 ?

SM 6 reaches long range when it's supported by AWACS. With nothing else than ship's radar it is also affected by radar horizon and your ship will have hard time spoting a ka-27 hovering 300km away which pups up to use its radar for few seconds. At such distance radar horizon is at around 4.5km in altitude bellow that the chopper is safe. Experienced crew will do it easily.

European AD can reach max 120km. Japanese no more. Chinese no more. Russians no more. US with no carrier no more too. South Korea and India no more. The rest of the world has pathetic navies with no air defence.

If you know who you are facing and what weapons the enemy, then choppers can be deadly.

PapaDragon wrote:
Wait, Giuseppe Garibaldi is just 10.000-14.000 tons and it can carry 18 VTOLs?

Hell, if Russia ever develops it's own VTOL or STOVL they can do with these what Japan is doing with Izumo and get carrier on the fly

It's like playing on easy

ifwhen (V)STOL is going to happen then yes this make sense to have "area denial" air-wing with 8-12 fighters then nothing at all.  In then US LHDs carry F-35B/AV-8 as landing support too.
The questions is, is the Russian LHD large enough?

marcellogo wrote:
It's a question of strategic posture: Russia didn't face brown water navies so no need of developing an helo to be used specifically against fast patrol boats like the one of Pasdarans.
Carrying some heavy ASW ones however could be useful into making it able to actively contribute to its own self-protection.

Kh-35 makes no sense - for large attacking ships there will be escort ships with Zircon for small boats - helo with 100km Hermes is just fine

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Wait, Giuseppe Garibaldi is just 10.000-14.000 tons and it can carry 18 VTOLs?

Hell, if Russia ever develops it's own VTOL or STOVL they can do with these what Japan is doing with Izumo and get carrier on the fly

It's like playing on easy

ifwhen (V)STOL is going to happen then yes this make sense to have "area denial" air-wing with 8-12 fighters then nothing at all.  In then US LHDs carry F-35B/AV-8 as landing support too.
The questions is, is the Russian LHD large enough?

marcellogo wrote:
It's a question of strategic posture: Russia didn't face brown water navies so no need of developing an helo to be used specifically against fast patrol boats like the one of Pasdarans.
Carrying some heavy ASW ones however could be useful into making it able to actively contribute to its own self-protection.

Kh-35 makes no sense - for large attacking ships there will be escort ships with Zircon for small boats - helo with 100km Hermes is just fine

Actually we (MMI) acted as such:
Helicopters on our frigates/destroyer carried no missiles but they got a radar system allowing them to provide mid course update to the OTOMAT.
We had/have however a very capable light anti-ship missile, the Marte, vastly superior to Sea Skua and others ones used by our allies in anti FAC rolebut we reserved it to the larger helos that we had on Vittorio Veneto and Garibaldi.
Our last frigates /destroyers are however designed to allow use of the same larger helos but they are still more dedicated mainly to ASW role so the doctrine still encompasses such a role to the ones on bigger ships.

Choppers aren't like aircraft they do not have the speed or ability to perform naval strikes that well, they will be detected and shot down by AA long before they can pose any threat.

Actually Apaches and Cobras are commonly seen on US carriers of all different types... especially marine carriers which is what these Russian carriers are going to be more similar to.

Rotter blades aren't stealthy at all, please go and join the navy, and then you will realize very quickly how silly that idea is.

Old blades were metal and stood out well on radar, but current blades are fully composite honey comb material wrapped in carbonfibre and glass fibre and could be very stealthy in the sense of being radar transparent...

All carriers carry some helios, this isn't abnormal at all BUT they do not use them like fighter aircraft because it is a stupid idea and not feasible at all.

They wont be using them as fighters, but hovering around a group of ships being airborne with AESA radars the new Ka-52Ks can carry a wide variety of air to air missiles and would see sea skimming missiles from significant distances... meaning they would be rather effective at shooting down incoming missile threats...

AD radar have less range against slow moving crafts. A 100km/h chopper won't be spotted at max range.

Helicopters can also stay bellow radar horizon.

And even if the helicopter is spotted it can rapidly descend to evade long range missile launches...

Um so wrong yes they do AD radars will detect choppers that far out easily.

Not to mention firing some KU35's that far out will give more than enough time to react with SM-6's.

Choppers lack the speed to get in close enough to pose a threat to a ship.

What you are saying is only feasible in navy fantasy land.

For that ship to detect that helicopter from 250km range distance it would need to be operating its search radar at high power settings... which means the Helicopter would most likely be able to determine where the target was so it would not need to climb to direct line of sight and could simply launch a missile on passive homing mode... and transmit the location of the enemy ship back to its own ships which from 200km further back could launch an Onyx missile that will fly at mach 2 and could reach the target ship about the same time the Kh-31 comes over the horizon at it too. Onyx with new fuel of course could come from much further back and at mach 5 would get there even faster...

By the time the Ka-52K is fully in Russian service on a helicopter carrier they will also have Mach 9 Zircon missiles in service... I doubt enemy ships will be sailing around blasting out radar energy in that situation...

If you know who you are facing and what weapons the enemy, then choppers can be deadly.

And likely underestimated too... making them even more useful.

Kh-35 makes no sense - for large attacking ships there will be escort ships with Zircon for small boats - helo with 100km Hermes is just fine

Kh-35 makes a lot of sense... it is actually rather stealthy and uses a low energy MMW radar seeker that is hard to jam or deceive...

It is also relatively cheap and can be carried in numbers by small and medium sized fighters...

There are going to be plenty of naval targets out there and not every target requires a Zircon or Onyx to hit and sink... in fact for many ships such weapons would be overkill. Kh-35 is also useful in coastal waters as well... and of course there is a land attack version too.

Its warhead is five times bigger than Hermes (about 145kg vs 30kgs).

The russian navy won´t use the Ka-52 with Kh-35U against western aircraft carriers but to keep unfriendly ships in the size of destroyer/frigate away from a landing operation or a surface group of ships somewhere in the middle of an ocean.

This combination would be very useful to guard ships like the iranian tankers on their way to Venezuela. In this instance the enemy couldn´t send just a coast guard cutter to seize the ships but had to send a powerful group of ships which could quickly escalate into a nice little war. He would think twice.

Or not, if you consider what sort of people is in the helm in most western countries.

GarryB wrote:
And likely underestimated too... making them even more useful.

Kh-35 makes no sense - for large attacking ships there will be escort ships with Zircon for small boats - helo with 100km Hermes is just fine

Kh-35 makes a lot of sense... it is actually rather stealthy and uses a low energy MMW radar seeker that is hard to jam or deceive...

It is also relatively cheap and can be carried in numbers by small and medium sized fighters...

There are going to be plenty of naval targets out there and not every target requires a Zircon or Onyx to hit and sink... in fact for many ships such weapons would be overkill.  Kh-35 is also useful in coastal waters as well... and of course there is a land attack version too.

Its warhead is five times bigger than Hermes (about 145kg vs 30kgs).

All is true but we are talking about LHD which shall use Kh-35 on helo as main anti-ship defense? not about Kh-35 as such? or I m wrong?

There are escort ships anyway (with onixes/zircons) if any light motorboat is approaching or to be stop;ed eventually hermes can be used.

There is a limited number of UKSK cells on the escort ships and Zirkon will be kept to deal with carrier battle groups or top frigates/destroyers, certainly not against some underarmed ships.

Depending on the missions, you can carry tens of kh35 on a helicopter carrier and use them to deal with secondary targets and underarmed ships with the choppers.

Also kh35U is a missile designed to attack top NATO ships including AEGIS ships. If exocet and harpoon managed to hit frigates and destroyers, kh35 should do just as good. For russians it's a low level missile because they have quperqonic/hyperqonic missiles but it still does the job.

Subsonic missiles are not crap : hezbollah vs Israel, Argentina vs UK, Iraq exocet vs US ship ...

Isos wrote:There is a limited number of UKSK cells on the escort ships and Zirkon will be kept to deal with carrier battle groups or top frigates/destroyers, certainly not against some underarmed ships.

Depending on the missions, you can carry tens of kh35 on a helicopter carrier and use them to deal with secondary targets and underarmed ships with the choppers.

Also kh35U is a missile designed to attack top NATO ships including AEGIS ships. If exocet and harpoon managed to hit frigates and destroyers, kh35 should do just as good. For russians it's a low level missile because they have quperqonic/hyperqonic missiles but it still does the job.

Subsonic missiles are not crap : hezbollah vs Israel, Argentina vs UK, Iraq exocet vs US ship ...

In real war there is not so much planning/ resource allocation and prioritisation.


You are happy to throw anything in your hand onto the enemy, and every sunk ship is a victory, regardles of size.

The russian navy won´t use the Ka-52 with Kh-35U against western aircraft carriers but to keep unfriendly ships in the size of destroyer/frigate away from a landing operation or a surface group of ships somewhere in the middle of an ocean.

Who was talking about western aircraft carriers?

Ka-52K helicopters will be operating from their new landing craft they are laying down... they tested some off the Kuznetsov in Syria and they seemed to be fine.

Anywhere they are landing troops and using Ka-52Ks they will also have the Kuznetsov and MiG-29KRs and upgraded Su-33s which would be much more suitable platforms to carry an Kh-35s they might want to use.

This combination would be very useful to guard ships like the iranian tankers on their way to Venezuela. In this instance the enemy couldn´t send just a coast guard cutter to seize the ships but had to send a powerful group of ships which could quickly escalate into a nice little war. He would think twice.

Any ship with a helicopter landing pad could carry a Ka-52K with its AESA radar and variety of air to surface and air to air munitions...

Or not, if you consider what sort of people is in the helm in most western countries.

The danger is not them boarding a tanker... it is colliding with it in the night or bad weather...

All is true but we are talking about LHD which shall use Kh-35 on helo as main anti-ship defense? not about Kh-35 as such? or I m wrong?

No, of course not... the Ka-52K will be focused on suppressing enemy fire from the land... an LHD is not going to land troops on its own and a couple of Ka-31s using radar to scan the land and sea could pass target information to the landing ship itself and any supporting ships operating with it.

Supporting ships operating with the LHD will include UKSK launchers so any approaching threats that don't respond and don't leave immediately will find themselves dealing with incoming missiles including but not limited to Onyx and Zircon and the anti ship model of Kalibr.

There are escort ships anyway (with onixes/zircons) if any light motorboat is approaching or to be stop;ed eventually hermes can be used.

Depending on the escort ships involved... even their corvettes have 100mm automatic guns and their frigates have 130mm guns... I would expect their destroyers will have 152mm gun mounts so light motorboats would be a poor choice of suicide to be honest.... I couldn't see them performing a landing without a Kirov or Slava there and the Kuznetsov if it was available too.

There is a limited number of UKSK cells on the escort ships and Zirkon will be kept to deal with carrier battle groups or top frigates/destroyers, certainly not against some underarmed ships.

That is a very good point too... the big missiles are expensive, while small motor boats can be dealt with using heavy guns enemy corvette or bigger vessels would need something bigger... the Kh-35 would be ideal from a ship or a helicopter or fighter plane... but equally the anti ship model of the Kh-59M could be used from a MiG-29KR or a Kh-31 from a MiG or Sukhoi or Ka-52K for that matter as well.

Depending on the missions, you can carry tens of kh35 on a helicopter carrier and use them to deal with secondary targets and underarmed ships with the choppers.

Also kh35U is a missile designed to attack top NATO ships including AEGIS ships. If exocet and harpoon managed to hit frigates and destroyers, kh35 should do just as good. For russians it's a low level missile because they have quperqonic/hyperqonic missiles but it still does the job.

And they can also hit land targets too...

In real war there is not so much planning/ resource allocation and prioritisation.


You are happy to throw anything in your hand onto the enemy, and every sunk ship is a victory, regardles of size.

Very true... a soldier in Afghanistan sees a Taleban in a light vehicle and launches a Javelin... half million dollar missile and smokes him and thinks that made sense...

However giving them a range of weapons so they can make a selection at the time means they still get the job done... if that soldier had an SPG-9 recoilless rocket launcher to hit the target at 1.2km away he could have used that 5,000 times before he wasted as much ammo as he did with that one shot of a Javelin... conversely if a T-90 rolled in to view then the Javelin would be money well spent...

In real war there is not so much planning/ resource allocation and prioritisation.


You are happy to throw anything in your hand onto the enemy, and every sunk ship is a victory, regardles of size.

Not for naval warefare. A ka-27 will scan the sea and you will have time to chose the weapons for attack and the profil of the attack. You don't launch all of your missiles at the first thing that you see on radar...

That's true for a soldier on foot or a tank engagement. Something pops up in front if you you want it to be destroyed as fast as you can so you fire first before he fires.

Isos wrote:That's true for a soldier on foot or a tank engagement. Something pops up in front if you you want it to be destroyed as fast as you can so you fire first before he fires.

Normally you wait until the enemy comes in perfect range, for infantry it's something between 200-300 m (european scenario...open field with a bit cover) ... mostly 200 m.

Looks like someone forgot to do their homework

Russia agreed to get compensated by French for not delivering the ships but Russia got to keep the blueprints and all relevant tech transfer

If they wanted to they could have built their own Mistral fully identical with French ones and everything would have been legally kosher but they opted to use it as basis for their own class instead

Another hatchet job by David Axe.


Russia didn't steal the design of the Mistral, they paid for it and were then fully refunded when the frogs broke the deal because they are Washington bitches.

The Russians would probably be paying the French for the royalties on the next two Mistrals and likely be discussing with the French to built them totally themselves, but I am sure the French would demand at least one be built in France so French worker have something to do.

Instead Russia gets an inside out view of the ship they wanted for the job and I expect superficially they will look a lot like the ships they bought and paid for initially.

They are stealing the design of the Mistral like the US stole the design of the MiG-25 when they copied it to make the F-15, or they stole the design of the Harrier to make the AV-8.

Only an idiot would ignore a good design solution... modifying it for your own wants and needs and then making it yourself saves billions of dollars in testing and trials and research and years of hard work and trial and error...

GarryB wrote:Another hatchet job by David Axe.


Russia didn't steal the design of the Mistral, they paid for it and were then fully refunded when the frogs broke the deal because they are Washington bitches.

The Russians would probably be paying the French for the royalties on the next two Mistrals and likely be discussing with the French to built them totally themselves, but I am sure the French would demand at least one be built in France so French worker have something to do.

Instead Russia gets an inside out view of the ship they wanted for the job and I expect superficially they will look a lot like the ships they bought and paid for initially.

They are stealing the design of the Mistral like the US stole the design of the MiG-25 when they copied it to make the F-15, or they stole the design of the Harrier to make the AV-8.

Only an idiot would ignore a good design solution... modifying it for your own wants and needs and then making it yourself saves billions of dollars in testing and trials and research and years of hard work and trial and error...

The problem with all this garbage has been an article from a Russian blog ( BMPD ) declaring that the new пр. 23900 was an enlarged "clone" of the French "Mistral"; David Axe obviously predated instantly on this non-sense.


Some days ago an article responded to those piles of non-sense.

https://vpk.name/news/407593_pochemu_rossiya_ne_kopiruet_francuzskii_mistral.html

The closeup view of the image shows a large vertical launch bin in front of the island which would contain a decent air defence missile battery and I would expect at least four Pantsir CIWSs too... at the very least.

The propulsion system he talks about for the mistral... the podded propeller systems, have been installed on Russian Ice breakers before, so I would expect they are developing the technology at the very least... would be useful for bigger ships...

As mentioned in that article... the Mistral is a largely unarmed helicopter barge of the sort a civilian might operate, with little in the design for damage resistance or for operating in water with ice...

This will be good for Kamov and also for the makers of either Boomerang or Kurganets.... note the Boomerang had its design modified to increase bouyancy... perhaps expectations for naval use?

I would expect the large area of blue vertical launch tubes in front of the island will be Redut S-350 missiles in significant numbers... I wonder if the 9M100 missiles will be ready yet...

The closeup view of the image shows a large vertical launch bin in front of the island which would contain a decent air defence missile battery

Its blue & above deck, thats a deck container storage area.
Which means it could hold containerised weapons but we still haven't actually seen any of those in service -> its only a theoretical possibility.

PapaDragon wrote:
Looks like someone forgot to do their homework

Russia agreed to get compensated by French for not delivering the ships but Russia got to keep the blueprints and all relevant tech transfer

If they wanted to they could have built their own Mistral fully identical with French ones and everything would have been legally kosher but they opted to use it as basis for their own class instead

There was also a hard disk stolen on the ship. I think there was the software of the battle management system on it but not sure. Weired story.

Its blue & above deck, thats a deck container storage area.
Which means it could hold containerised weapons but we still haven't actually seen any of those in service -> its only a theoretical possibility.

You might want to take a closer look... it is not flush with the deck... it sits up maybe half a metre or 75cm or so.

A place on the deck for storing containers would be painted... it would not be a raised area like that... it makes it harder for forklift vehicles to cross it or pick things up from it...