Russian Navy: Status & News #1

TR1 wrote:They are not cells though, at least not that I have seen in any models.

Yes I know. There are no models that have those spaces defined in any way but still if you look at the size of that marked area isnt it impossible to imagine UKSK or Redut VLS there?

One would hope, but I would rather not prematurely get excited . UKSK, I think not, 16 is already many, more Redut cells would be nice, hard to say without seeing internal layout though.

1155 has a similar-ish layout, Kinzhal VLS tubes behind hangar, so its not an unheard of layout.

There's a meddling America, a growing China, and other countries with a mindset we can't necessarily predict. ( eg that nutjob Sakashvilli).

Quite true, but a ship needs a balance of systems/weapons. If the galley will keep the crew fed for a year and the ship is nuclear powered then the limiting factor in combat might be weapons numbers, but weapons can be reloaded at sea so it isn't a huge issue normally. Enough weapons for a few engagements and then a run to a nearby friendly base is about it.

The big question is, what is Russia's place in the modern world? I suspect the best situation would be closer working with some European countries eg Fra, Ger, Italy. And key partners like Vietnam, Venezuela, India.Maybe Brazil and places?

The introduction of the Mistral class carriers in the Pacific should enable Russia to offer the same sort of humanitarian aid that the US has in the past.

Ironically a helicopter carrier like Mistral would be ideal as it carries plenty of helicopters which are critical to reach outlying areas, it can carry landing craft and lots of trucks to transport supplies, and of course the onboard 100 bed hospital would be invaluable too. The onboard communications and command electronics would make it ideal for coordinating things if the land based communications is damaged or non functioning.

Add in one of the ship based nuclear power vessels that can provide electricity and fresh water and they could be very useful.

Personally I think the Russians should expand their influence using their navy... traditionally countries didn't become powerful and then develop a powerful navy... they usually did it the other way as really the only way to be a global power is with a navy because it is the only way to assure global access.

I don't think a 10k destroyer is that big - if its nuclear. Wouldn't the plant add 3k tons over a conventional power system?

With modern more efficient and more powerful nuclear reactors I would expect destroyers at 6-8K tons. 10K or more is cruiser size and with different duties and responsibilities.

They were called "technological openings"...so likely reloading spaces or something similar.

The vertical launch tubes of UKSK and Redut are tube loaded from the top.

I rather suspect these blank areas could be used for other weapon types like anti sub/diver depth charge launchers, or perhaps even dedicated launchers for short range AAMs perhaps.

If it was for more UKSK or Redut tubes why not include them in the model? It is not like they would have run out of launch covers and just put blanks there.

For all we know they might eventually put Duet turrets there.

Austin is right. There are two UKSK sized spaces at the back only marked by just as in front by the UKSK launchers.

For all we know they might actually be retractible systems like Medvedev or the new naval grad systems.

Not necessarily VLS reloading, but for other things, ASW weaponry, whatever.

IMO they will remain on production ship.

They might be spots for undecided additions ie like future expansion slots, or places for alternative systems for different customers.

It might be that they have a separate SAM launcher for short range IIR seeking naval versions of the Morfei/9M100 that is not as long as the Redut system so instead of taking up Redut launch tubes it could be a separate shallower system that allows space below it for more equipment, unlike a redut system which is longer and penetrates deeper in terms of deck space.

Or it might be where a couple of Duet turrets could be positioned.

It will be interesting when we finally find out...

Plate from Admiral Makarov laying down ceremony. Looks like confirmation that it will have Vertical Shtil!

http://balancer.ru/forum/punbb/attachment.php?item=269019

No problem there, it should be a decent missile, and a very good boat.

Lack of Poliment should make it a lot cheaper too...

I was more concerned it would be the old Shtil, not VLS.
36 VLS cells probably.

TR1 wrote:I was more concerned it would be the old Shtil, not VLS.
36 VLS cells probably.

Me too,considering second batch for India will have old Shtil.

The Russians seem to have adopted the sensible policy of not buying stuff that has been superseded by newer better stuff.

The single arm Shtil launcher is not bad, but in terms of complexity and moving parts and firing rate limitations, including the external arm launcher and indeed the much larger internal automated ammo rack that delivered missiles to the arm launcher for loading, the new multi cell vertical launch system is much better.

I wonder if they will improve the sensors used with the system and increase the number of guidance channels.

http://balancer.ru/cache/sites/s/0/s019.radikal.ru/i625/1203/56/800x600/a5b8a53afd79.jpg

Great pic, you can see many of the small ASW and missile ships, as well as diesel submarines of the pacific fleet.

http://balancer.ru/forum/punbb/attachment.php?item=269286&download=2

Good pic of the MTK-201M optical device found on the 20380.

http://balancer.ru/forum/punbb/attachment.php?item=269301&download=2

4th 955 hull delayed again, 2 months, construction/payment disagreements.

Any news as to the fate of the Ukraina Slava-class missile cruiser?

The Zaporozhiye Foxtrot class sub was restored and put out to sea very recently; I thought it a perfect test-case of Ukrainian-Russian naval co-operation; both have been co-operating since 2009 to restore the sub.

http://iliketowastemytime.com/restoration-ukrainian-submarine

And now that they have successfully done so, perhaps they will move onto a more ambitious project such as the Ukraina?

That's a stretch. The Zaparozhye is the result of some Ukrainian political ambition to have a submarine, even if it a useless ancient bucket.
It's combat ability isn't even ready yet (not that it will be good when completed in any case).

The Ukraine cruiser would need massive amounts of work, in both scope and money, new systems, totally different scale compared to Zaporozhye. Ukraine can't afford it, and if Russia was to buy it, it would probably make sense to have the project be an all Russian enterprise. Problem is, there are far better surface ships that Russia could put the money into, hence why I don't think the cruiser is gonna end up as anything but scrap.

The Russians pretty much have to decide one way or the other.

They already have Slava class vessels in service and as they would be applying upgrades to these vessels anyway then getting hold of an incomplete vessel would actually be a good thing as it is generally easier to upgrade something that hasn't been fitted yet... you don't have to take anything or perhaps much out.

If the Russians are planning only very minor upgrades to their Slavas and do it all on the cheap then an extra hull might not be so useful.

If they are prepared to spend a bit of money and make these upgrades substantial and not only make them very capable vessels but vessels with a lot of commonality with the rest of the new vessels and something that can operate for 20-30 years then adding another hull might be worth while.

TR1 wrote:That's a stretch. The Zaparozhye is the result of some Ukrainian political ambition to have a submarine, even if it a useless ancient bucket.
It's combat ability isn't even ready yet (not that it will be good when completed in any case).

I too would question the wisdom of using such a rustbucket for anything. But I would like to think that Russian specialists together with their Ukrainian collegues did a good enough job restoring the sub so that it can be used for another decade or so in a low-stress capacity. Which is exactly what the plans are; the Ukrainians want to build a sub force of their own, and in order to do that they decided to restore the Zaporozhye in order to have a place where to train the sailors and officers, test sub-systems and weapons, perhaps take part in some excersises with other countries, see what operating a sub is all about. Of course in terms of combat value - it's absolutely useless and obsolete - I highly doubt that the Ukraine will be eager to use it in this capacity whether before it acquires other subs or after.

The Ukraine cruiser would need massive amounts of work, in both scope and money, new systems, totally different scale compared to Zaporozhye. Ukraine can't afford it, and if Russia was to buy it, it would probably make sense to have the project be an all Russian enterprise.

The Ukraine wanted to sell it. Russia offered... 0 roubles for it.. basically it said, give us this tin of scrap metal for free because you sure as hell aren't going to do anything with it yourselves, and afterwards we can see about getting Ukrainian companies involved in its restoration.

But IMO, this is an opportunity lost. Russia is playing hardball for the sake of a couple dozen million dollars; I'm pretty sure that the Ukraine will accept even this small amount as they know all too well that the vessel isn't finished, what is finished is completely obsolete and requires replacement anyway, and the combat value of the vessel right now is 0. But if Russia were to come to an agreement; this would indeed be money re-invested into the Russian economy as well as the Ukrainian one; it would be a big juicy project for some defense companies. If the work is done in Nikolayev - even better; as a revival of this shipyard will heavily benefit Russia if Rus-Ukr defense co-operation continues in the future and the Ukraine is able to serve as additional capacity for Russian military shipbuilding (and we will need a lot soon; what with the plans for destroyers, frigates, corvettes, carriers, support ships, etc...).

Problem is, there are far better surface ships that Russia could put the money into, hence why I don't think the cruiser is gonna end up as anything but scrap.

I have to disagree with you there TR1. The Russians are planning on introducing nuclear-powered destroyers. Considering the latest advancements in VLS for anti-air and cruise missiles, as well as the increasing commonality between the sizes and models of all sort of cruise missiles such as anti-ship, anti-sub and anti-surface; it's safe to say that those ships will be probably be packing an amount of heat approaching the Kirov's of old, but in a much tighter and smaller package. From this point of view, yes the Slava-class is obsolete, as it would carry less weapons, even if they implement the new angled tubes that can carry up to 3 missiles, and it is not nuclear-powered.

However there are plenty of opportunities that an existing big-platform can fulfill better than a more compact, but smaller platform. The Slava can be outfitted with better electronics, bigger radars. It's not nuclear powered, it will be operating near Russia's seas mostly bringing heavy fire-power to the East Asia & Arctic Ocean regions and ensuring defense against EU/US/Japanese carrier and fleet groups, while the destroyers and Kirovs are taking it easy or making their rounds in South America or India or whatever, escorting Russian carriers or carrying out other blue-water missions. As such it can be outfitted with more gear that requires more frequent maintanance and so on; it doesn't need large provisions for long voyages and it's always expected to never stray too far from Russian naval bases. It also has the opportunity to be outfitted with some older weapons and missiles that Russia can't figure out what to do with, but which won't fit onto the newer ships. So really, the Slava-classes fill a valuable niche; adding another 1 would make 4, that's 2 for the Pacific and Northern fleets each, pretty much ensuring constant coverage of the Far East and Artic regions - no matter what the current state of Russia's other naval assets are. The destroyers are a while off from being made yet, much less introduced in numbers.

flamming_python wrote:
Which is exactly what the plans are; the Ukrainians want to build a sub force of their own,
Problem is, what is the use? There are no plans, and no reality for any new submarines in the Ukrainian navy in this decade at least. The Zaparozhye is useless in learning contemporary submarine operation, and won't last until new subs arrive (if they ever do). They could simply train on modern Russian subs when the time comes in any case (like they did for the Zaparozhye)

test sub-systems and weapons,
Realistically though, what sensors and weapons are gonna be tested on it? I would bet none.

The Ukraine wanted to sell it. Russia offered... 0 roubles for it.. basically it said, give us this tin of scrap metal for free because you sure as hell aren't going to do anything with it yourselves, and afterwards we can see about getting Ukrainian companies involved in its restoration.
And it was a correct response IMO. No need to hand out Ukraine freebies for a rusting old cruiser.

But IMO, this is an opportunity lost. Russia is playing hardball for the sake of a couple dozen million dollars;
But do we even know the actual terms that Ukraine was offering? I don't know what price they wanted, and if they demanded that Ukranian companies would benefit in the overhaul/completion of the ship
But if Russia were to come to an agreement; this would indeed be money re-invested into the Russian economy as well as the Ukrainian one; it would be a big juicy project for some defense companies.
Much better to just upright order more ships from Russian shipyards IMO. No need for freebies to Ukraine, recycle the money completely in Russia, and build a ship with more combat value and resource for the future. To make the cruiser usefull at all, it would have to be completely gutted and re-equiped, even if the hull is in an ok state.
If the work is done in Nikolayev - even better; as a revival of this shipyard will heavily benefit Russia if Rus-Ukr defense co-operation continues in the future
I just don't see how this is a benefit to Russia. Everything that can be done in Ukraine, at this point, can be done at Russia. They intend to build large destroyers, and carriers, eventually in Russia. No point in the Nikolayev yard as far as Russia is concerned.Ukraine itself isn't ordering anything worthwhile in the near future, so the yard would have to be propped up by RUssia.
and the Ukraine is able to serve as additional capacity for Russian military shipbuilding (and we will need a lot soon; what with the plans for destroyers, frigates, corvettes, carriers, support ships, etc...).

IMO, better to just continue expanding existing shipyards and new ones in Russia, as they are doing right now. Ukraine is not a stable ally, and having something so critical to national security in a foreign country is unacceptable.

I have to disagree with you there TR1. The Russians are planning on introducing nuclear-powered destroyers. Considering the latest advancements in VLS for anti-air and cruise missiles, as well as the increasing commonality between the sizes and models of all sort of cruise missiles such as anti-ship, anti-sub and anti-surface; it's safe to say that those ships will be probably be packing an amount of heat approaching the Kirov's of old,

I think they will be scaled up 22350s essentially, but we will see

However there are plenty of opportunities that an existing big-platform can fulfill better than a more compact, but smaller platform.
No doubt, size does matter. But cost effectiveness is important too, this is where the cruiser is pointless.
The Slava can be outfitted with better electronics, bigger radars.
If the cruiser was taken today, into the RuNavy, it would need complete electronic overhaul, weapon installation, the works. That requires huge, expensive modification, as well as testing, for a ONE off ship. That is just not worth the input required, and in terms of length and expense, I doubt it would be significantly cheaper than a new frigate.

As such it can be outfitted with more gear that requires more frequent maintanance and so on; it doesn't need large provisions for long voyages and it's always expected to never stray too far from Russian naval bases. It also has the opportunity to be outfitted with some older weapons and missiles that Russia can't figure out what to do with, but which won't fit onto the newer ships.
Well it seems here you are suggesting instead of a radical modernization, it could be simply completed in the best possible, but conservative manner. Problem is, it is 2012, and accepting such a fundamentally outdated ship would be a bad spending of resource, IMO. It is big on manpower, big on operation/dock expenses, yearly overhauls, what not, it is simply time to move on. The other side of the problem is half of the systems needed to complete the ship in its current state are not even produced anymore. You can't just stick in some old, some new, some extra systems and hope it works- the process of integration is long and often painful, even with simpler ships, like 20380s, let alone a modern 1164.

So really, the Slava-classes fill a valuable niche; adding another 1 would make 4, that's 2 for the Pacific and Northern fleets each, pretty much ensuring constant coverage of the Far East and Artic regions - no matter what the current state of Russia's other naval assets are. The destroyers are a while off from being made yet, much less introduced in numbers.

TLDR: IMO, the ship has sailed (no pun intended ) on the "Ukraina".
Much better to invest into the modern series of ships coming out of Russian shipyards.

TR1 wrote:Problem is, what is the use? There are no plans, and no reality for any new submarines in the Ukrainian navy in this decade at least. The Zaparozhye is useless in learning contemporary submarine operation, and won't last until new subs arrive (if they ever do). They could simply train on modern Russian subs when the time comes in any case (like they did for the Zaparozhye)

Realistically though, what sensors and weapons are gonna be tested on it? I would bet none.

That's their plan. While they're still struggling to procure tanks in the single digits - then sure it can seem unrealistic; but its good to have ambition and I see plenty of signs that the Ukrainian economy will take off this decade.

As for Russian subs - I guess they just don't want to be dependent on Russia too much - it seems like our co-operation on any single project with them is strictly dependent on our relations and subject to change at any time. In comparison, even our relations with the US are far more mature; no matter how much we disagree on missile defense and NATO and so on - we co-operate heavily in space. And of course this whole situation leads to both the Ukraine and Russia frantically looking for alternatives to each other in every single field.

And it was a correct response IMO. No need to hand out Ukraine freebies for a rusting old cruiser.

The calculation is that such a project, together with others, could 'bind' our relations with them closer, and in time make such relations and military co-operation, much more stable.

But do we even know the actual terms that Ukraine was offering? I don't know what price they wanted, and if they demanded that Ukranian companies would benefit in the overhaul/completion of the ship

No idea, but the demand for Ukrainian companies to be involved in its overhaul and completion would be quite reasonable IMO; and in fact it could probably save the Russian MoD money too, by getting the Ukrainians involved the MoD would have another avenue of pressure on Russian domestic defense companies.

Much better to just upright order more ships from Russian shipyards IMO. No need for freebies to Ukraine, recycle the money completely in Russia, and build a ship with more combat value and resource for the future.

Nikolayev is a very valuable resource to have, seeing as its got the largest capacities of any shipyard in the ex-USSR. Since the Ukrainians sure as hell aren't planning any big naval ships of their own - it would be very much in their interests to clear obstacles for Russian orders to Nikolayev, even if in other areas our co-operation will never rise above a certain level

To make the cruiser usefull at all, it would have to be completely gutted and re-equiped, even if the hull is in an ok state.

No doubt, we should plan modestly. If it costs too much or would take too long - shelve it. There is only a narrow window of oppurtunity left to make something usefull out of this hulk. But given that other such revival projects are progressing concurrently and we are somewhat lacking in large surface combat ships (with the questionable ability to produce any at all for another decade or so); it might just be a good oppurtunity. The same parts that are being bought for the modernisation/resurrection of other Slavas and Kirovs can be used for this one, and it would lead to better value for money.

I just don't see how this is a benefit to Russia. Everything that can be done in Ukraine, at this point, can be done at Russia. They intend to build large destroyers, and carriers, eventually in Russia. No point in the Nikolayev yard as far as Russia is concerned.Ukraine itself isn't ordering anything worthwhile in the near future, so the yard would have to be propped up by RUssia.

Yes but there is nothing inherently wrong with that. We will need a lot of capacity over the next 10 years, and there are projects to expand Sevmash and so on; but it will end up very expensive, especially with the high wages, infastructure, material and upkeep costs in the far north. Why invest all this money if we can secure a deal with our neighbours instead? Russia is not the USSR, it's not possible for us to have the capacity to build everything and anything; and even its possible, it would be far from desirable from a market economy perspective. Let's say our order for large ships did dry up again. Would you rather have a huge out-of-work shipyard as a Russian problem, or as a Ukrainian one?

IMO, better to just continue expanding existing shipyards and new ones in Russia, as they are doing right now. Ukraine is not a stable ally, and having something so critical to national security in a foreign country is unacceptable.

Yes certainly a valid point, and quite right. But it could be that the opportunities outweigh the risks.

I think they will be scaled up 22350s essentially, but we will see

Except with nuclear reactors, much more powerful radars/sensors and quite possibly the S-500 platform

However there are plenty of opportunities that an existing big-platform can fulfill better than a more compact, but smaller platform.
No doubt, size does matter. But cost effectiveness is important too, this is where the cruiser is pointless.
The Slava can be outfitted with better electronics, bigger radars.
If the cruiser was taken today, into the RuNavy, it would need complete electronic overhaul, weapon installation, the works. That requires huge, expensive modification, as well as testing, for a ONE off ship. That is just not worth the input required, and in terms of length and expense, I doubt it would be significantly cheaper than a new frigate.
Well it seems here you are suggesting instead of a radical modernization, it could be simply completed in the best possible, but conservative manner.

Anything that will be undertaken on it should have as much commonality as possible with the programs for the other cruisers, in order to keep the costs low. And yes, conservatism is a must, we certainly don't need to build an uber-ship on top of a 25-30 year old platform that has been rusting in port most of its years. But what we do need; is surface firepower and stopgaps that will be able to serve another couple decades, until the new Russian ships enter the navy in numbers. Right now we have both a deficit of large surface ships (an acute deficit), and smaller support ships, but at least the later are being built in increasing numbers and better time frames. But still, given that even a lowly Steregushchiy corvette can take 5 years to make FFS; I'm not at all optimistic in terms of seeing large nuclear-powered destroyers in service (at least in significant numbers) until the 2030s or so; which is why until then - we need the Slavas.

Problem is, it is 2012, and accepting such a fundamentally outdated ship would be a bad spending of resource, IMO. It is big on manpower, big on operation/dock expenses, yearly overhauls, what not, it is simply time to move on. The other side of the problem is half of the systems needed to complete the ship in its current state are not even produced anymore. You can't just stick in some old, some new, some extra systems and hope it works- the process of integration is long and often painful, even with simpler ships, like 20380s, let alone a modern 1164.

Yes very good points, it may be these considerations over all else will win out. I'd add that the manpower demands alone are very heavy; given the huge cutting down on conscript forces that have taken place just over the last year. I remember when I was in service; from my draft some +500 conscripts were assigned to a naval base in the Northern fleet for crewing some ships there. By the time I left - from the draft that replaced me - do you know how many people were assigned to that same place? Something like 14. But this is a very extreme example.

Some news on 22350:
-Turbine production and assembly on Kasatonov is entirely without Ukrainian participation. This contrasts the Gorshkov, the turbines of which had parts from Ukraine and undertook testing and such @ Nikolayev.
-Palash about to be installed on Gorshkov.

Apparently there is strong initiative for Russia/India to design aircraft carrier together.

3/31/12 USC AND THE "ROSOBORONEXPORT" INTEND TO CREATE AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH INDIA
March 31 2012 .

Agency Business News, March 30. USC and the "Rosoboronexport" plan to create an aircraft carrier, in partnership with India. This was announced by the President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation Roman Trotsenko.

United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) in conjunction with the "Rosoboronexport" is considering the possibility of a long-term partnership with India's aircraft carrier on a single platform.

According to Rosoboronexport, almost a third of the portfolio of orders Russian arms exporters accounted for by India. In monetary terms this amounts to almost 11 billion dollars.
http://www.abnews.ru

Viktor wrote:Apparently there is strong initiative for Russia/India to design aircraft carrier together.

3/31/12 USC AND THE "ROSOBORONEXPORT" INTEND TO CREATE AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH INDIA
March 31 2012 .

Agency Business News, March 30. USC and the "Rosoboronexport" plan to create an aircraft carrier, in partnership with India. This was announced by the President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation Roman Trotsenko.

United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) in conjunction with the "Rosoboronexport" is considering the possibility of a long-term partnership with India's aircraft carrier on a single platform.

According to Rosoboronexport, almost a third of the portfolio of orders Russian arms exporters accounted for by India. In monetary terms this amounts to almost 11 billion dollars.
http://www.abnews.ru

Wonder if India is going to sell technology on to russia with their Vikrant class On a serious note I would see this as:
1. The present inability of russian shipyards to produce such monsters
2. Lack of technology in the naval field on the russian part.eg the grades of steel required
3.Russia India friends strong!!!!
Honestly i dunno what to make
Now, when will russia acquire Mistral ships and its technology tranfer form france? Would these shipyards be busy taking up the Mistral projects. WHen do these projects commence on the russian shipyards?Or also will russia get full technology transfer on the Mistrals? Is India seeing troubles for their vikrant class and seeking russian assistance ?....Lots of questions

I would suspect this is an attempt to reduce the overall cost of carriers to both countries by sharing the development and production costs.

If there are 12 carriers built then it will work out cheaper than of only 6 or 4 are built if it is managed well...

Both countries clearly see a need for carriers, and India actually has more experience with carriers than Russia does, though they types of carriers we are talking about will be relatively new.

It will likely be nuclear powered, and have EM catapaults and will likely need an AWACS type, though I rather suspect that by the time they enter operational service in 2025 or later that they will operate a mix of fighters (PAK FA/FFGA) and UCAVs (something like Migs Skate). It will likely have enough SAMs to protect itself too.

A little off topic but the Russian Army has shown for a while a small UAV that they can launch via a 300mm Smerch rocket. Perhaps that technology could be used to create a UCAV that can be launched via a 533mm torpedo tube. The Smerch UAV is designed to fly out to about 120km or so and fly for about 30 minutes to find targets and to assess the effect of an attack to determine if a follow up barrage is needed. For a naval UCAV perhaps the larger volume of the tube could be used to have a larger UCAV equipped with a long slim missiles like Igla-S in a pack of 4 or so in a small aircraft with the fuel to fly around for an hour or two.

The purpose would be to deal with anti sub aircraft like helos and P-3s and P-8s.

The UCAVs themselves can be made much bigger than Smerch because of the wider tube, but it could be made shorter so that perhaps for each torpedo sized space on board you could fit two UCAVs. The ability to carry say 4-6 of these could be very important for a sub for the loss of only 2-3 torpedoes.

Some naval news:
-Boiky starting dock trials.
-In may the Stoiky is planned to be launched.
-Admiral Gorshkov to start dock trials in may as well.

Firebird wrote:
I suppose undercover teams planting suitcase nukes too.

I certainly hope not, that would be horribly destabilizing and not preventative at all.

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6104/7492933.12/0_5d4b5_b6146495_orig

Good photo, Bistry and Varyag are operational, but Burny as we know has been non-operational for a long time. Apparently it went into dock recently though, since that red coat is new.

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4803/vitalicus75.d/0_3a495_b09a0819_orig

Bistry out in water. What a looker.