Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Amphibious warfare ships

    Share

    par far

    Posts : 1459
    Points : 1618
    Join date : 2014-06-26

    Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  par far on Sat Feb 13, 2016 7:42 pm

    Where does Russia rank in this race, it would have been great to get those dam Mistrals.

    http://southfront.org/naval-arms-race-multirole-naval-platforms-of-the-21st-century/
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:31 am

    Russia is moving from very low to very high in this race.

    Starting with corvette sized vessels the new Russian corvettes with UKSK launchers can engage ships and subs and land based targets with large accurate missiles

    No cold war era corvette on any side has that capacity.

    Larger vessels are equipped with more launch tubes and better sensors and other supporting equipment.

    Once they have dealt with the problem of Ukrainian engines and propulsion systems they will be able to produce vessels much faster... the first vessels in a series always take the longest as everything needs to be thoroughly tested... from then on production should pick up dramatically.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    par far

    Posts : 1459
    Points : 1618
    Join date : 2014-06-26

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  par far on Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:23 pm

    GarryB wrote:Russia is moving from very low to very high in this race.

    Starting with corvette sized vessels the new Russian corvettes with UKSK launchers can engage ships and subs and land based targets with large accurate missiles

    No cold war era corvette on any side has that capacity.

    Larger vessels are equipped with more launch tubes and better sensors and other supporting equipment.

    Once they have dealt with the problem of Ukrainian engines and propulsion systems they will be able to produce vessels much faster... the first vessels in a series always take the longest as everything needs to be thoroughly tested... from then on production should pick up dramatically.


    How long will it take for this to happen GarryB?
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:39 pm

    2017 or 2018

    par far

    Posts : 1459
    Points : 1618
    Join date : 2014-06-26

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  par far on Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:46 pm

    sepheronx wrote:2017 or 2018


    That long?
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:57 pm

    par far wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:2017 or 2018


    That long?
    Yeah.  It isnt as simple as just starting production.  While some components of previous engines were Russian, they now have to make all components Russian.  I have seen pictures of an example engine that is modular for ships. Meaning bigger model of the same type and design meant much bigger output, etc.  It was quite impressive.  And it was a test from last year.  But it takes time to set up manufacturing of all the components and such.

    In mean time, they can always purchase Chinese as an example.

    par far

    Posts : 1459
    Points : 1618
    Join date : 2014-06-26

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  par far on Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:14 pm

    sepheronx wrote:
    par far wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:2017 or 2018


    That long?
    Yeah.  It isnt as simple as just starting production.  While some components of previous engines were Russian, they now have to make all components Russian.  I have seen pictures of an example engine that is modular for ships. Meaning bigger model of the same type and design meant much bigger output, etc.  It was quite impressive.  And it was a test from last year.  But it takes time to set up manufacturing of all the components and such.

    In mean time, they can always purchase Chinese as an example.


    I did not know Ukrainian parts had such a big impact on Russia but it is very good because now it will force Russia to become self sufficient.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:27 pm

    Ill put it like this in a scenario:

    So I am building a boat and need an engine for it.  I dont hve the full production of it myself so I need to acquire it.  Would I purchase one that is already made, fairly cheap to obtain amd I have built various other boats with same engine, so I have more experience in fixing it? Or do I purchase one from someone else for a higher price with no experience in maintencance? Or should I spend the initial cost in building and designing my own and take the longer time and eat into costs due to lack of sales inbetween?

    You see, the reasoning is, Ukraine was once a friendly nation to Russia until the US grubby hands got involved.  Ukraine was relatively reliable in the engine sales to Russia and production existed since soviet times.  So it all made sense.  Now? Well, this is good for Russia now that the engines will be their own, and means more money for themselves, but at same time too, have to make the initial investment and development that will eat into the profits and building time initially.  Sucks but much needed.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 15, 2016 1:44 am

    Let me take it a little bit further.

    Previous generation Russian/Soviet naval vessels were custom made for a very specific role.

    The Sovremmeny Destroyer was designed specifically to destroy AEGIS class cruisers... it carried 8 Moskit anti ship missiles that flew below 7m above the wave tops, so in the 1980s, when the standard SAM on the AEGIS class cruisers was the Standard-2 SAM which could not hit targets below 7m above the wave tops the only defence the American vessel had was its Phalanx CIWS. The Phalanx CIWS is a 20mm calibre gatling gun firing rounds at about 4,500rpm that are sub calibre rounds... in other words the actual projectile is 12.7mm calibre. Its effective range was from 500m to 1,800m... an incoming 4.5 ton missile with a warhead protected by titanium armour plate angled to deflect incoming rounds would be in that danger zone for a few seconds only... changes are the warhead would not be hit so even if the missile what "shot down" it would still hit the ship and explode.

    In other words it was ideal for the job it was designed for.

    A similar size and developed at a similar time, the Udaloy had completely different propulsion and completely different armament and was optimised for use against Subs.

    With the new multirole standardisation, new destroyers can carry the weapon load of either vessel... or both in its UKSK launcher able to carry anti sub missiles, anti ship missiles, and also conventional land attack missiles which no Soviet Navy vessel carried.

    The problem as mentioned above is that a factory that used to produce engines and engine parts for Soviet ships is now in a foreign unfriendly country.

    It is not enough to just say... OK we will just make these engines and parts ourselves.

    The factory that will make the parts was already making parts and engines, so expanding their factories and tooling up to make different engines takes time and money and has to be done in a way to avoid effecting existing production.

    The fact that they might start producing the new engines in 2017 or 2018 does not mean they will be able to suddenly produce them at the rate the Ukrainians were making them with their mature production facilities and existing work force.

    Of course the new production facilities can be made new and state of the art and upgrades to existing engines can be made where it doesn't effect their compatibility with those boats already built.

    They will likely also have a backlog of components they will need to make for their existing engines and power systems to keep them operating properly too.

    the point is however that now that these systems are all made in russia then investing money in new production and new designs stays in Russia, and the work created with new designs stays in Russia too.

    They are no longer subsidising the Ukraine, or its industry... the west can have that burden now.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  Militarov on Fri Feb 26, 2016 6:53 pm





    I am really hoping they wanted to say 14-16 helicopters... coz 4-6 does not make much sense. I see two elevators, there is no logic for it to operate only 4 helicopters.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5428
    Points : 5532
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:00 pm


    ^^^ Those are two different boats and upper one will not be built, it is old Soviet project, new one will be similar in size but different design.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  Militarov on Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:08 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    ^^^ Those are two different boats and upper one will not be built, it is old Soviet project, new one will be similar in size but different design.

    They look like two totally different ships, however that chart was supplied with that model, so... i am just reading what i see and i am very confused. Lavina project is supposed to be what we are looking at.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5428
    Points : 5532
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Feb 26, 2016 10:53 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    ^^^ Those are two different boats and upper one will not be built, it is old Soviet project, new one will be similar in size but different design.

    They look like two totally different ships, however that chart was supplied with that model, so... i am just reading what i see and i am very  confused. Lavina project is supposed to be what we are looking at.

    Lavina is similar to the top one but this one is not it. (Mistral look alike)

    Found the pic:







    Priboi is the lower one you posted (Rotterdam look alike). That one will have 4-6 helicopters. In fact this is what will most likely "replace" Ivan Gren-class in the shipyard roster.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 823
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  Isos on Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:20 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    ^^^ Those are two different boats and upper one will not be built, it is old Soviet project, new one will be similar in size but different design.

    They look like two totally different ships, however that chart was supplied with that model, so... i am just reading what i see and i am very  confused. Lavina project is supposed to be what we are looking at.

    Lavina is similar to the top one but this one is not it. (Mistral look alike)

    Found the pic:





    Do you have the characteristics of this one ? Size, weight, number of heli carried ...
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5428
    Points : 5532
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:48 pm

    Isos wrote:
    ..........................
    Do you have the characteristics of this one ? Size, weight, number of  heli carried ...

    We were all going into details during that Navy Expo in St. Pete last year, I'll try to track down the page but no promises...

    EDIT: found this on RT

    ......Lavina will have a full load displacement of 24,000 tons, as opposed to 21,300 tons for the French-designed ship. It will also have a maximum speed of 22 knots, compared to 19 knots for the Mistrals, two of which were ordered by the Russian Navy four years ago.

    Just like the Mistral, Lavina will house 16 helicopters, about 50 armored vehicles (about 10 fewer than the French amphibious assault vessel) and a potential six smaller boats, as opposed to the Mistrals' four. All figures are likely rough estimates, with numerous variables, and it is unclear how advanced the Lavina blueprints are at the current stage.......

    https://www.rt.com/news/268504-mistral-replacement-avalance-lavina/
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1570
    Points : 1608
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Lavina class

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 7:13 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    ......Lavina will have a full load displacement of 24,000 tons, as opposed to 21,300 tons for the French-designed ship. It will also have a maximum speed of 22 knots, compared to 19 knots for the Mistrals, two of which were ordered by the Russian Navy four years ago.

    Just like the Mistral, Lavina will house 16 helicopters, about 50 armored vehicles (about 10 fewer than the French amphibious assault vessel) and a potential six smaller boats, as opposed to the Mistrals' four. All figures are likely rough estimates, with numerous variables, and it is unclear how advanced the Lavina blueprints are at the current stage.......

    https://www.rt.com/news/268504-mistral-replacement-avalance-lavina/


    almost 3000t bigger displacement and less vehicles? unless they mean 4 tanks instead of APCS on French I got it but otherwise what is that displacement needed for? a nuclear reactor? fuel? armament?

    nastle77

    Posts : 196
    Points : 256
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  nastle77 on Tue Mar 08, 2016 2:56 am

    Previous generation Russian/Soviet naval vessels were custom made for a very specific role.

    The Sovremmeny Destroyer was designed specifically to destroy AEGIS class cruisers... it carried 8 Moskit anti ship missiles that flew below 7m above the wave tops, so in the 1980s, when the standard SAM on the AEGIS class cruisers was the Standard-2 SAM which could not hit targets below 7m above the wave tops the only defence the American vessel had was its Phalanx CIWS. The Phalanx CIWS is a 20mm calibre gatling gun firing rounds at about 4,500rpm that are sub calibre rounds... in other words the actual projectile is 12.7mm calibre. Its effective range was from 500m to 1,800m... an incoming 4.5 ton missile with a warhead protected by titanium armour plate angled to deflect incoming rounds would be in that danger zone for a few seconds only... changes are the warhead would not be hit so even if the missile what "shot down" it would still hit the ship and explode.

    In other words it was ideal for the job it was designed for.

    A similar size and developed at a similar time, the Udaloy had completely different propulsion and completely different armament and was optimised for use against Subs.

    is multi-role always a good thing ?
    I'm not sure in a big war I think purpose built ships but more of them are probably better as you can afford to lose a few without it significantly depleting your resources and striking power
    Plus less fatigue on the crews and ships if they are doing all kinds of missions in wartime

    multi-role appeal is more in smaller localized brief conflicts

    correct me if im wrong
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 08, 2016 9:16 am

    is multi-role always a good thing ?

    Having ships weak in some areas and strong in others means your ships are only effective in groups where every capability is present.

    With larger ships there is the capacity to have more capabilities even if they will normally operate with smaller ships that can add capabilities too.

    I'm not sure in a big war I think purpose built ships but more of them are probably better as you can afford to lose a few without it significantly depleting your resources and striking power
    Plus less fatigue on the crews and ships if they are doing all kinds of missions in wartime

    Having specialised ships means if you take a few losses you might find yourself vulnerable.

    Imagine if all your anti sub ships are taken out with anti ship missiles... suddenly your fleet is very vulnerable to enemy subs...

    Also with dedicated role ships how many of each do you need? Remember these need to be spread around several fleets and different fleets have different needs.

    Having a ship that has sensors to detect targets and threats in the air on the water and under the water and weapons to deal with such threats and targets means you can just build one or two types in large numbers and arm them according to the roles they will be needed for.

    multi-role appeal is more in smaller localized brief conflicts

    For any conflicts your vessels will need to perform all sorts of roles... a group of four ships that are able to perform any role needed when needed is more useful than a group of 4 ships with two anti sub, and two anti surface vessel.

    Imagine two Sovremmenys and two Udaloys... each has decent air defence, but the Udaloy has 8 anti sub missiles that can be used against surface ships, while the Sovremmenys have 8 anti ship missiles and a decent medium range SAM.

    Now Imagine 4 Gorshkov Frigates each with anti sub and anti ship and land attack Klubs and Kalibrs... 16 missiles each.

    8 Subsonic torpedo delivery missile SS-N-14 Silex per Udaloy for a total of 16 missiles from two boats. 8 Supersonic Moskits SS-N-22 per Sov for a total of 16 missiles on the two boats.

    In comparison the 4 Gorshkov frigates can EACH carry 8 rocket powered mach 2.5 ballistic rockets able to deliver a torpedo payload up to 40km from the ship in seconds AND 8 supersonic Onyx anti ship missiles, for a total of 64 missiles from the four Frigates... that is double the main armament fire power of the group of 4 Destroyers.

    More importantly they will have Sigma, a command, control, communications network system that allows them to share data and get other data from other platforms in the area including subs, ships, aircraft, and satellites and land stations.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nastle77

    Posts : 196
    Points : 256
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  nastle77 on Tue Mar 08, 2016 1:11 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    is multi-role always a good thing ?

    Having ships weak in some areas and strong in others means your ships are only effective in groups where every capability is present.

    With larger ships there is the capacity to have more capabilities even if they will normally operate with smaller ships that can add capabilities too.

    I'm not sure in a big war I think purpose built ships but more of them are probably better as you can afford to lose a few without it significantly depleting your resources and striking power
    Plus less fatigue on the crews and ships if they are doing all kinds of missions in wartime

    Having specialised ships means if you take a few losses you might find yourself vulnerable.

    Imagine if all your anti sub ships are taken out with anti ship missiles... suddenly your fleet is very vulnerable to enemy subs...

    Also with dedicated role ships how many of each do you need? Remember these need to be spread around several fleets and different fleets have different needs.

    Having a ship that has sensors to detect targets and threats in the air on the water and under the water and weapons to deal with such threats and targets means you can just build one or two types in large numbers and arm them according to the roles they will be needed for.

    multi-role appeal is more in smaller localized brief conflicts

    For any conflicts your vessels will need to perform all sorts of roles... a group of four ships that are able to perform any role needed when needed is more useful than a group of 4 ships with two anti sub, and two anti surface vessel.

    Imagine two Sovremmenys and two Udaloys... each has decent air defence, but the Udaloy has 8 anti sub missiles that can be used against surface ships, while the Sovremmenys have 8 anti ship missiles and a decent medium range SAM.

    Now Imagine 4 Gorshkov Frigates each with anti sub and anti ship and land attack Klubs and Kalibrs... 16 missiles each.  

    8 Subsonic torpedo delivery missile SS-N-14 Silex per Udaloy for a total of 16 missiles from two boats. 8 Supersonic Moskits SS-N-22 per Sov for a total of 16 missiles on the two boats.

    In comparison the 4 Gorshkov frigates can EACH carry 8 rocket powered mach 2.5 ballistic rockets able to deliver a torpedo payload up to 40km from the ship in seconds AND 8 supersonic Onyx anti ship missiles, for a total of 64 missiles from the four Frigates... that is double the main armament fire power of the group of 4 Destroyers.

    More importantly they will have Sigma, a command, control, communications network system that allows them to share data and get other data from other platforms in the area including subs, ships, aircraft, and satellites and land stations.

    true but in this case you are comparing 80s era technology with todays , what I meant was in the heyday of specilaized ships 70s and 80s they were borne of neccesaity esp given they were needed to fulfill multiple roles in a large scale conflict

    e.g lets says a full scale naval war between Japan and USSR
    They both need lots of naval platform for
    1-escorting convoys ( ASW) and AAW
    2-attacking hostile enemy vessels and SAG mostly ASUW
    3-ASW picket duty guarding SSBN bastions
    some of these roles will have high attrition and lets say if there are fewer specilaized ships they will be stretched to the max but if more cheaper and specilaized platforms they can be used to fulfill specific roles and have some attrition reserve without significntly depleting the overall fighting capability of the fleet

    wHILE the fleet with a smaller number of specialized ships would be hard pressed to stretch out their assests over multiple fronts

    However in a very local or single engagement specilaized ships can be a big advantge e.g
    JSDF 3 destroyers with 8 harpoon/ASROC and SAM capability would be matched by 3 ASW destroyers 3 ASuW rocket ships

    Your thoughts
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 09, 2016 10:09 am


    true but in this case you are comparing 80s era technology with todays , what I meant was in the heyday of specilaized ships 70s and 80s they were borne of neccesaity esp given they were needed to fulfill multiple roles in a large scale conflict

    The difference is not so much technology... there is nothing 21st C about the Onyx or Klub and the main thing that separates the Kalibr is the terminal guidance which takes its accuracy down to levels where a conventional warhead could be used... it could as easily have had a TV guidance system for terminal guidance like the Kh-29T.

    The real breakthrough has been a universal launcher for the main armament and the new SAMs that will used unified launchers.

    newer ships can have armaments that mix weapons to enable a wider range of targets to be engaged. This of course requires a wide range of sensors as well but with their C4IR system sharing information they should all be more aware of the situation around them.

    JSDF 3 destroyers with 8 harpoon/ASROC and SAM capability would be matched by 3 ASW destroyers 3 ASuW rocket ships

    I don't think that would be a match... and I think the chances of Harpoon and Subroc would be rather poor, while those 3 ASuW vessels... if they are Sovremmenys would have a very good chance of defeating any enemy Destroyer of the age.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10523
    Points : 11000
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  George1 on Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:18 pm

    Russian navy reports specifications for Mistral-class helicopter carrier analog ready

    More:
    http://tass.ru/en/defense/891514


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10523
    Points : 11000
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  George1 on Fri Sep 09, 2016 2:37 am

    The expert explained why the Russian Navy needs landing helicopter ship

    Krylovskiy Center developed the concept of amphibious assault ship type "Priboj", the displacement of which is estimated at 23 thousand tons

    Kubinka / Moscow region /, September 8. / TASS /. The Russian Navy needs four amphibious assault ships, one of which is required for a permanent group in the Mediterranean, said Head of Development of military-technical cooperation Krylov State Research Center Yuri Eremin.

    Krylovskiy Center developed the concept of amphibious assault ship type "Priboj", the displacement of which is estimated at 23 thousand tons. The ship has to carry up to 900 Marines with the technique, and its air group of 16 helicopters.

    For the Northern Fleet is needed one such ship for the Pacific Fleet - two.
    Given the increased importance of the Mediterranean - a permanent grouping of ships it operates - one ship should be put on the Black Sea fleet, although this is not necessary for the ship of the Black Sea Fleet. For the Baltic Fleet also does not make sense to build a ship of this class, Yuri Eremin Head of Development of military-technical cooperation Krylov State Research Center

    According to him, the interest in "profit" in the Russian navy has, "but it is no solution."

    The cost of one ship of this type, according to experts, will be 40-45 billion rubles in current prices. To build such ships may be on the Baltic Shipyard "Yantar" in Kaliningrad or "Severnaya Verf" in St. Petersburg.

    Now the Russian Navy has not amphibious assault ships.

    Helicopter type "Mistral", commissioned in France in 2011, and has not been supplied RF. In the United Shipbuilding Corporation said that domestic shipyards may create an analogue of "Mistral".

    In late July, the Deputy Navy Commander Victor Bursuc said that the terms of reference on the amphibious assault ship has already been prepared.


    More on TASS:
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3604615


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10523
    Points : 11000
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  George1 on Fri May 26, 2017 12:55 am

    RF Ministry of Defense: The project of GPV-2025 included the construction of a helicopter carrier
    May 25, 2017 at 17:19 Theme: Industry

    The construction of helicopter carriers, similar to the "Mistrals", is incorporated in the state program of armaments of the Russian Federation for 2018-2025. On Thursday, May 25, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said.

    "The construction of helicopter carriers takes an average of four years, so I think that somewhere after 2022 you can expect a ship of this type," Yuri Borisov said, answering a question from RIA Novosti.

    http://flotprom.ru/2017/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0102/


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    Benya

    Posts : 528
    Points : 532
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  Benya on Mon May 29, 2017 4:16 pm

    Russian MoD: First LHD Amphibious Assault Ship to be Built in Russia by 2022

    The Russian Ministry of Defense informed that the first domestic general purpose landing ship will be built in 2022, while a new high-speed military helicopter will have to make its first flight by 2025. The performance requirements for the helicopter have already been determined, and now the project details are being specified in conjunction with the Russian Helicopters Company. As early as 1980, Chiefs of the General Staff, led by Deputy Chief of the Navy Admiral Nikolai Amelko, appealed to the country's leadership for the construction of domestic helicopter carriers, the online newspaper Gazeta.ru writes.


    Priboy LHD scale model showcased by Krylov during Army 2016 exhibition

    On May 25, 2017, Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said at the HeliRussia 2017 helicopter industry exhibition that the first Russian helicopter carrier will be available by 2022. "The helicopter carrier construction cycle is at least four years, the ship will be completed by around 2022," he said.


    Image showing Krylov Central Scientific Research Institute's Avalanche (Lavina) Project with the official seal of the Russian Navy.

    Chiefs of the General Staff, led by Deputy Chief of the Navy Admiral Nikolai Amelko, appealed to the country's leadership for the construction of domestic helicopter carriers back in 1980. Light and relatively cheap anti-submarine helicopter carriers could be built according to simplified requirements on the basis of hulls and machinery of civilian vessels instead of heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers (HACC).


    Priboi LHD scale model showcased by Krylov during Army 2016 exhibition.

    This group of commanders managed to achieve the inclusion of the construction of two such ships at the Black Sea Shipyard in the military shipbuilding program for 1981-1990 directly after the HACC Baku and instead of the Project 1143.5 HACC.


    The former Russian Navy Mistral class LHD Vladivostok

    However, at the same time, the General Staff expanded the range of missions that helicopter carriers had to accomplish, which led to the need to revise the issued performance specifications. In the new version, amphibious helicopter carriers could no longer be built around civilian vessels and approached the HACC in cost. With the help of these arguments the Navy Command and the leadership of the Ministry of Shipbuilding Industry managed to convince the government of the inexpediency of building helicopter carriers.

    The ceremony of handing over to Egypt the first of two Mistral class landing helicopter dock (LHD) ships, built for Russia at the French STX shipyard in Saint-Nazaire, was held a year ago, on June 2.

    The history of the Mistral class LHD ships lasted for a total of five years since 2011 when Anatoly Serdyukov, then Russia’s Defense Minister, decided to order LHD ships of this class from the French shipyard. The contract for the construction of two ships for the Russian Navy was signed in June 2011 between French DCNS/STX and Russian special arms exporter Rosoboronexport. The value of the contract amounted to 1.2 billion euros. The helicopter carriers were to join the Pacific Fleet of the Russian Navy.

    The Mistral class general purpose landing ship is able to develop a speed of more than 18 knots and has a cruising range of up to 20,000 miles. It has a length of 199 meters. Its draft at the displacement of 22,600 tons is 6.42 m. The crew of the ship consists of 177 people, plus it has the ability to carry 480 people on board. The air group includes 16 helicopters, six of which can be simultaneously located on the take-off deck.

    Two Mistral class LHD ships - Vladivostok and Sevastopol - were built under the contract with Russia, and the handover of the first LHD Vladivostok was to be held in the fall of 2014, and the second, Sevastopol, in the fall of 2015. However, on November 25, 2014, the president of France decided to suspend the delivery of Russia’s ships for geopolitical reasons, because of the events in the southeast of Ukraine.


    Image showing Krylov Central Scientific Research Institute's Avalanche (Lavina) Project

    Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov then said that Russia would wait for the final decision of Paris and would not make any claims, but only act in strict accordance with the contract. For a long time, DCNS claimed that the US and the policy of sanctions against Russia would not interfere with the construction and handover of the Mistrals.

    The contract was not terminated until nine months later - in August 2015 Moscow and Paris officially declared: the Mistral theme was closed. The Kremlin press service reported on August 5: "The President of the Russian Federation and the President of the French Republic made a joint decision to terminate the contract for the construction and delivery of two Mistral class landing helicopter dock ships, signed in June 2011."

    As a result of the agreement, Russia should fully receive reimbursement of the amounts paid in advance under the contract. Termination payments on the contract amounted to about 950 million euros. As explained in the Ministry of Industry and Trade and Rosoboronexport, it turned out that Russia received almost twice more than paid in advance for the ships in ruble equivalent due to devaluation of the ruble.

    Russia had to approve the resale of the Mistrals by France to a third party. Before the handover to the new owners, it was necessary to remove all Russian equipment from the ships, in particular the communication system, the online newspaper Gazeta.ru recalls.

    Navy Recognition Comment
    Russian Krylov State Research Center has developed the Priboy LHD on its own initiative. It is significantly different from the Mistral landing helicopter dock designed by French DCNS. Priboy is intended for seaborne movement of troops and military equipment and landing on beaches during amphibious operation in conjunction with other naval forces. It can support projection of soldiers and hardware, take part in offensive mining actions and mount sonar beacons of suspended array surveillance systems.

    Priboy has a normal surface displacement of 23,000 t, a length of 200 m, a width of 34 m, a designed draft of 7.5 m, a full speed of 20 kn, a cruise speed of 14 kn, an endurance of 6,000 nmi or 30 days. The LHD can withstand storms of force 6-7 on the Beaufort scale (strong breeze/near gale). The ship has a crew of 400 sailors and can transport 500-900 soldiers, about 50 infantry fighting vehicles (IFV) and 10 main battle tanks (MBT).
    Up to 12 military-transport and search-and-rescue (SOR) helicopters can be based on Priboy. The ship incorporates six fast landing craft with 45 t lifting capacity each and six assault boats located on davits.
    Polyakov pointed out that Priboy is equipped with tactical-level integrated combat management system. The LHD features electronic warfare (EW) and hydroacoustic hardware that includes three-axis detection radar, navigation system, integrated EW and communication suites and underwater sabotage forces detection system.

    The Priboy`s armament suite includes two anti-air gun-missile combat modules, two close-in weapon systems and one 76mm naval gun.

    Source: Arrow http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/may-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/5235-russian-mod-first-lhd-amphibious-assault-ship-to-be-built-in-russia-by-2022.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 30, 2017 10:18 am

    The main reason they went with Mistrals was speed... it was a mature design they could have modified (ie higher roof in the hangar for Ka-52s coaxial rotors, and strengthening the hull for operations in ice covered sea... and of course better armament...) and get into service quickly.

    Of course the cowardice of the French government bowing to US pressure has led to this no longer being the best option, but not only did the Russians get their money back, they also got a copy of the full plans for the vessels and produced half of each one, they also now have the potential to sell the components to fit out the ships for Egypt including helos and electronics etc.

    This information will hopefully be passed on to the ship builders to allow improvements and new designs base on what has been learned...

    The result should be a fast build and a better product.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Amphibious warfare ships

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:23 pm