Vladivostok Amphibious Assault Ship

[Triton]

Artist's impression of the Russian Navy amphibious assault ship Vladivostok based on the DCNS Mistral-class of the French Navy.

Compare with the Mistral-class Dixmude (L9015) of the French Navy.

Source:
http://www.naval.com.br/blog/2012/08/03/dixmude-versus-vladivostok-descubra-as-diferencas/#axzz2O3J1FGSc

 

[Triton]

The second ship will be named Sevastopol. Both ships will likely carry 8 Ka-52K and 8 Ka-29 helicopters:

STX France shipyard in Saint Nazaire is currently assembling the bow and central sections of Vladivostok, the first Mistral class LHD amphibious vessel ordered by Russia. First cut of steel for this head unit took place at the Russia’s Baltic Shipyard United Shipbuilding Corporation (OCK) in St. Petersburg in August 2012. Construction of the warship began last year at the STX shipyard in St. Nazaire, after Russia signed a 1.2-billion euro deal with DCNS for two French-built Mistral vessels, which was signed in June 2011. The official keel laying ceremony took place at STX Shipyard in France in February 2013.


Ka-52K Alligator "NATO reporting name: Hokum B"

The Ka-52K is a navalized version of the land-based Ka-52 Alligator combat helicopter operated by the Russian Air Force. The special "navalized" version of the helicopter will be specially equipped to conduct attack missions against targets at sea and on the ground which requires different sensors and armaments than those used on the basic Ka-52 helicopter.

The major difference will be the radar: A modified version of the Mig-35 fighter's Zhuk-A phased array radar is currently being developed to fit into the Ka-52K nose cone. This will be a major step forward compared to the base Ka-52 helicopter as the AESA radar Zhuk-A is among the most advanced radars to date in Russia. The radar is stated to provide a detection range of 130 km for a head on target with up to 30 targets tracked and 6 of those engaged at any one time.

Ka-52K will also feature folding rotor blades, folding wings and anti-corrosion treatment to fuselage and systems which are a necessity for any helicopter set to operate from a ship.

Another significant improvement for the Ka-52K over the Ka-52 is the reported possibility to launch Kh-31 (AS-17 'Krypton') and Kh-35 (AS-20 'Kayak') anti-ship missiles.

Source:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/936-vladivostok-russian-navy-future-mistral-class-lhd-specificities-and-characteristics.html
http://e-policy.kari.re.kr/sub0201/articles/view/tableid/default_aviation/page/2/id/1922

 

[Grey Havoc]

Via the Russian Navy Discussions and Updates thread over on DefenceTalk: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130524/181322270/Navy-Shipbuilding-Program-at-Risk---Deputy-PM.html

...Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized the USC on Tuesday over delays in delivery of warships to the Navy. Putin announced at the meeting that Vladimir Shmakov, first deputy CEO of tank manufacturer Uralvagonzavod, has been appointed as new USC head, with a brief to sort out the delivery program.

Putin ordered USC's management to submit a report by October 15 on measures to improve the situation in the industry.

USC, established in 2007, is Russia’s largest shipbuilding and ship repair company. It comprises nine design bureaus and 39 shipyards. USC currently accounts for 70 percent of the domestic shipbuilding industry, according to its website. The corporation is wholly owned by the state.

Doubts about the ability of the industry to deliver warships on time and budget prompted the previous defense minister, Anatoly Serdyukov, to order Mistral-class amphibious assault ships from France in 2011. That deal has subsequently been criticised by Rogozin and other senior defense industry officials....

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5PLWRUDH_w&feature=player_embedded
(h/t tipex12 over at MilitaryPhotos.net)

 

[Triton]

Published on Jul 3, 2013

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index....
Started in late 2011, the "Russian Mistrals" program is advancing according to schedule. DCNS is supplying two BPC-type projection and command vessels to Russia under a contract that came into effect at the end of 2011.


http://youtu.be/UrRpdsB8GyM

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.ie/2013/10/russia-gets-its-force-projection-ships.html

 

[Deino]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWygPCpX6zU&feature=player_embedded#t=0

Deino

 

[Grey Havoc]

A Kamov company testbed fitted with Ka-52K systems had a bit of a mishap yesterday:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?231791-Ka-52-Aligator-crashed-in-Moscow-neighbourhood

 

[Jemiba]

Someone in the forum linked wrote, that the pilots were said to have ejected, but the
video shows the rotor blades still attached ... :-\

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Someone in the forum linked wrote, that the pilots were said to have ejected, but the
video shows the rotor blades still attached ...

Apparently the crash was because of a failure in the ejection system. That is the explosive rotor release system activated and blew off the bottom rotors. Creating the first counter rotating helicopter with a torque problem. The Kamov lost control and ‘soft’ crashed with the crew escaping the traditional way by scrambling out of the hatches before she caught fire.

 

[Deino]

Reportedly it was this aircraft

http://russianplanes.net/id122606

 

[gTg]

I suppose the blown off rotors hit nothing in the vicinity? Else there would have been probably some reports by now.
How far could the rotor blades actually go?

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://news.yahoo.com/france-says-warship-deal-russia-still-alive-223936404.html

 

[GTX]

Which just goes to show that business out trumps so called political posturing... :

 

[Pioneer]

Which just goes to show that business out trumps so called political posturing... :

I sadly have to agree mate :-[

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Grey Havoc]

Will the Russians have to eventually undertake their own version of Operation Noa, I wonder?

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373471/appeasement-paris-john-fund

 

[_Del_]

Which just goes to show that business out trumps so called political posturing... :

The optics of handing the Russians a naval vessel named Sevastopol seems really poor at the moment. I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more murmering about other options, but perhaps I shouldn't be.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Thanks to Hogan over at MilitaryPhotos for this tidbit:

France might cancel a controversial deal to sell two state-of-the-art warships to Russia but only if Britain also acted against Russian oligarchs in London, according to the French foreign minister.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/18/ukraine-france-warns-russia-warship-deal

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236054-2nd-attempt-at-the-Ukraine-discussion-thread&p=7095883&viewfull=1#post7095883

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?236054-2nd-attempt-at-the-Ukraine-discussion-thread&p=7096188&viewfull=1#post7096188

PARIS — France views its two advanced helicopter carriers sold to Russia as unarmed civilian ships, and it is too early to say whether the €1.2 billion deal (US $1.7 billion) would be canceled in view of the Ukraine crisis, Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said Wednesday.
“We will deliver civilian hulls,” Le Drian said at an aeronautics and defense conference organized by business daily Les Echos.

 

[Grey Havoc]

ORIGINAL CAPTION: A Mistral-class LHD, built for Russia, being floated out on 15 October 2013. Source: DCNS

http://www.janes.com/article/35646/france-may-scrap-russian-mistral-class-lhd-deal​

 

[Grey Havoc]

Her sister ship Sevastopol:

(h/t D-Mitch over at MilitaryPhotos)

 

[GTX]

My prediction is that the sale will go ahead unchanged (except maybe a little toned down on the media releases) since cancelling would hurt the French economy etc more.

 

[_Del_]

We should offer to purchase them. Win-win.

 

[sferrin]

We should offer to purchase them. Win-win.

What country is "we"?

 

[_Del_]

Forgive my nationality-centric comment. The US is the only country really able to dish out that sort of cash on a whim to annoy the neighborhood bully. Though if the UK or Spain decided it could use two more hulls, then that would work, too. Thinking a bit out of the box, perhaps we throw some money into a kitty and give the ships to Poland or Turkey. Or France could try to generate some outside interest from India or Brazil.

 

[GTX]

I can't see the USN wanting to introduce two new ships that are not of the same class to what they already have.


Turkey is already going with the rival Navantia design plus I seem to recall Turkey and France having less than harmonious relations due to France's comments regarding the Armenian massacres.


Poland would he hard pressed to afford them and don't really have any practical need. Besides, if Russian ships were suddenly given to Poland it would just infuriate the Russians more and rightly so.


India is already going down their own path so I doubt much interest there.


Brazil maybe, though it doesn't really fit as a San Paulo replacement and they would be hard pressed to afford as well.


I doubt France could afford them either now.

 

[_Del_]

Poland would he hard pressed to afford them and don't really have any practical need. Besides, if Russian ships were suddenly given to Poland it would just infuriate the Russians more and rightly so.

I didn't think the idea of imposing sanctions (or in this case seizing ships) was to give the Russians the warm fuzzies. The idea would be to protect the French while still punishing the Russians. With something tangible, not sanctions against private citizens in Russia who already moved their assets. It's no more provocative than say invading a sovereign nation and seizing those ships and shore installations is it? It'd require political will, and frankly I don't know if it is there right now in the West. It certainly wouldn't be finalized until it looked like an acceptable resolution was going to be impossible. But it's a card that seems ripe for playing. If our intention was simply to accept a new status quo with a Russian Crimea we would have been better off quietly going about our business than making stern statements to the wind.

I don't know what the state of the Polish navy is. I imagine if the US or a combination of NATO countries were to front the acquisition costs, they would find the resources to operate them. It would be a political bone after we cancelled the missile shield in Poland. I think northern countries (Poland, Canada?, Japan?) or southerly (Australia?) would make the most sense given the modifications the Russians asked for.

Canada has pondered amphibious ships before. Australia and Japan seem to be increasingly nervous. I'm sure there would be any number of potential operators for a subsidized purchase of two capable and proven hulls.

Alternatively, France could bring the new hulls into service and sell two of the older ships in class to Poland (via the US or NATO or whathave you) or Brazil at whatever market value on slightly older but relatively new ships is. France gets brand new hulls with less wear and tear, and still makes money off the sale of the older ships. Similar to Chile which bought the old French LSD's when they were replaced by the Mistral class or when the Royal Navy sold the Largs Bay to Australia.

 

[GTX]

It's one thing for the US or even France to piss off the Russians in such a manner. It is an altogether different thing if one is closer or smaller. This would be a consideration for Poland, trust me. Besides, as I explained, such a ship would be of limited benefit to Poland.


Australia already has two Navantia ships in the works (look up Canberra class).


Canada maybe but I doubt it. They haven't exactly shown any recent interest and once again would probably not want a ship coming with such baggage (the Pakistani F-16s were in a similar situation).


Japan would be similar. Besides, Japan already has ships in a similar class (or close enough to) despite calling them destroyers.


As I have already said, the ships will end up in Russian service despite all the 'noise' at the moment over the Crimea.

 

[_Del_]

As I have already said, the ships will end up in Russian service despite all the 'noise' at the moment over the Crimea.

I'm pretty sure they will. I'm not so sure they should.

 

[GTX]

They have paid for them. I am quite happy for them to have them.

 

[Apophenia]

Canada maybe but I doubt it. They haven't exactly shown any recent interest and once again would probably not want a ship coming with such baggage ...

Canada has not exactly been quick off the mark with such opportunities in the past, either. Nor does it fit with the Government of Canada's much-ballyhooed National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.

I'm not sure about the "baggage" part though. The GoC has been fairly outspoken on Crimea (and this government, at least, mostly hostile to Russia). The former is probably mostly about getting in on potential natural gas exports to Western Europe. But, I suspect, Stephen Harper would enjoy renaming the Sevastopol

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140330/DEFREG01/303300015/Commentary-NATO-Should-Buy-Mistrals

 

[_Del_]

Operating with a multi-national crew sounds like a nightmare under a NATO buy. France should operate them because they already have the type in use. Perhaps you could have a small portion of the crew on rotating exchanges. Other than that, I'm all for it.

 

[GTX]

France should operate them because they already have the type in use.

France already has 3 ships of the class in service (Mistral, Tonnerre and Dixmude) so I seriously doubt they would want or need more. Besides, as previously explained to do so would cost both upfront and ongoing + come with a lot of baggage...despite how much people might try to ignore or downplay.

 

[TomS]

I wonder if you could man them using civilian mariners (as in the US Maritime Sealift Command or UK Royal Navy Auxiliary Service).

 

[_Del_]

France already has 3 ships of the class in service (Mistral, Tonnerre and Dixmude) so I seriously doubt they would want or need more.

I do not see what that would have to do with a NATO buy? It's like saying the US already has thirty-two E-3's, so I seriously doubt they would be interested in helping to man or service more of them if NATO bought several and paid for their operation.

Besides, as previously explained to do so would cost both upfront and ongoing + come with a lot of baggage...despite how much people might try to ignore or downplay.

You see it as "baggage". I imagine many others including countries involved would see it as "the point".

 

[GTX]

I do not see what that would have to do with a NATO buy? It's like saying the US already has thirty-two E-3's, so I seriously doubt they would be interested in helping to man or service more of them if NATO bought several and paid for their operation.

I was responding to your comment that "France should operate them because they already have the type in use. "

As for the baggage issue, I guess we will have to agree to disagree there.

 

[_Del_]

I was responding to your comment that "France should operate them because they already have the type in use. "

I meant only that in a NATO buy, having France oversee the operations makes more sense than a truly international contingent trying to operate the vessels. The cost would be split among the members.