• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Russia's Mistral class LHDs: updates

Oldgateboatdriver said:
I don't know what the resistance to corrosion is on Chinooks, but the US Marines have some of them embarked all the time. And the elevator for the airplanes are at the stern of the Mistral's, so folding rotors and letting the Chinook's tail hang over the side, they would fit on the elevator. Moreover, the "Russianized" Mistrals have a higher height in the hangar in order to accommodate the taller Russian helicopters.

You are thinking of CH46 Sea Knight. We operated the same machine as Voyageur and Labrador in the past. The USMC has never operated Chinooks, whose blades do not fold.

The RAF sent four Chinooks to the Falkland War in 1982, aboard Atlantic Conveyor, a container ship which was sunk by the Argentinians, taking three of the Chinooks with it. All that is really necessary is a big enough patch of deck.

We do daily engine desalination runs whenever we operate anywhere near a coast - including Vancouver Airport during Winter Olympics.
 
Moscow still wants the refund...

Defense News

Clock Ticking On Mistral Decision, Russia Tells France

MOSCOW — Russia will gladly take back the money it paid for French Mistral-class warships whose handover has been delayed by concerns over Moscow's role in the Ukraine crisis, a deputy defense minister said Saturday.

Yury Borisov also indicated that Paris should make a decision before the new year.

"It doesn't matter if the calendar shows December 31, 2014, or January 1, 2015, but we are waiting for France's decision," Interfax news agency quoted him as saying.

"We would be content with either development – the Mistrals or the return of all the invested money," he said.

Given the currency crisis in Russia, which saw the ruble rapidly devalue by 50 percent, taking the money from the euro-denominated deal "may actually be preferable," he added.

(...SNIPPED)
 
You can see our Griffons operating from them in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vSbA4CydQM

A quick look at Wiki shows it's deck can support helo's up to 33 tonnes, the lift can lift 13 tons, so an empty Chinook weight wise would work. The biggest helo stated as landing on one is the Sea Dragon.

If we got them, we could have the landing craft built here
 
Colin P said:
If we got them, we could have the landing craft built here

Doesn't the Canadian Coast Guard hovercraft Siyay have a forward open deck and a ramp? Thus wouldn't it be similar to the USN's LCACs?

How about a larger version of the Siyay then instead of an off-the-shelf-purchase of LCACs? Her builder, Hike Metal Products, is in Ontario.

Photo source: dive.roko.ca
CGSSiyay2.jpg
 
but can it support a LAV? or a Leopard? leopard not so much but a LAV would be important to be able to do that kind of work if we had that kind of capability
 
MilEME09 said:
but can it support a LAV? or a Leopard? leopard not so much but a LAV would be important to be able to do that kind of work if we had that kind of capability

She lifts just over 26T, and a LAV 3 weighs about 17T.
 
I think the landing crafts are also part of the overall deal.

In any events, why would we get our own "air cushion" landing crafts if they can only carry one LAV at a time? The standard landing crafts can carry a lot more. Moreover, air cushion crafts cost a lot more and require a lot more maintenance.

The main reason the US developed the LCAC was to have a capability to strike from farther offshore by having a faster vessel than the standard landing crafts.

Two other solution to the speed/distance problem have been developed that are a lot cheaper:

1) the Norwegian SB90E combat boats if you wish to land troops only; or,

2) the new French designed "catamaran" landing craft. You can see one of them on an opposite tack in the vid attached to Colin's latest post. It is a beautiful concept they developed: the whole central hull of the landing craft, which carries the load, can be raised out of the water leaving the two side 'pontoons" in the water and turning the craft into a deeper draft and mush faster vessel (24 kts IIRC). As you get near shore, the central hull is lowered back in the water, transforming the landing craft back into a shallow draft wide and flat bottomed barge that can get in all the way to the beach and unload.
 
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
The main reason the US developed the LCAC was to have a capability to strike from farther offshore by having a faster vessel than the standard landing crafts.

Air cushioned landing craft also open up more beach to potential landing.  The amount of accessible beaches worldwide is estimated at about 30% for conventional landing craft and 70% for air cushioned landing craft.  This article provides a synopsis of most of the factors related to amphibious landings.

https://www.tjomo.com/article/52/Over_the_Beach_The_Enduring_Utility_of_Amphibious_Operations/



 
I just watched Colin's video.  It was very interesting to see her much closer, however, I am horrified to see the French are still using the old style Bunker Gear we were using when I first re-mustered.  Makes me shudder some.
 
jollyjacktar said:
I just watched Colin's video.  It was very interesting to see her much closer, however, I am horrified to see the French are still using the old style Bunker Gear we were using when I first re-mustered.  Makes me shudder some.

I agree, but it looks fabulous on them. A certain Latin/Romance quality about the material. ;D
 
I worked on the SRN6's and moved on just as the AP1-88-400 came online. They are great craft, but require a fair bit of maintenance. for what we do the French landing craft would be better. Where the AP1's would shine is in the Arctic
 
Colin P said:
I worked on the SRN6's and moved on just as the AP1-88-400 came online. They are great craft, but require a fair bit of maintenance. for what we do the French landing craft would be better. Where the AP1's would shine is in the Arctic
Is the Arctic not what we are supposed to do?
 
I would summer base them from land, at a cruising speed of 30+(up to 60 empty) knots they can cover a lot of territory in a hurry. You need to do it in pairs. 2 in Western Arctic and 2 in the Eastern Arctic. Supplement with CB-90's at a couple of other locations (Coppermine, Cambridge Bay) and you can respond to most stuff with a local presence. (building a naval reserve up there is a whole other thread)

The reality is that if we bought the Mistrals most of the stuff they end up doing is away from Canadian waters. Perhaps one exercise a year or every 2 in the Arctic. Not worth creating a whole new arm and tech for. Also Hovercraft work is so specialized it's considered a bit of a career killer even in the CCG. although people who go there are generally content with that. but if your goal is to become a big ship captain then best to stay clear of that.
 
Colin P said:
Also Hovercraft work is so specialized it's considered a bit of a career killer even in the CCG. although people who go there are generally content with that. but if your goal is to become a big ship captain then best to stay clear of that.

Not really relevant to the Navy, as the boats coming out of a Mistral (any type) would not be driven by officers but by  Boatswains Petty Officers and Chief Petty Officers with a charge ticket. They would likely consider this the crowning achievement of their career and would seek it out.

 
The "Mistral drama" continues:

Defense News

Russia Wants Formal French Statement on Mistral
By Pierre Tran 12:05 p.m. EST January 13, 2015

PARIS — The French procurement office Tuesday declined to comment on a report Russia has asked for a written statement on whether the Mistral class helicopter carrier will be delivered to Moscow.

Russia officially sent a written request to France for an explanation of the refusal to deliver the Mistral warship, Russian news agency Ria-Novosti reported, according to Agence France-Presse.

A Russian official in the military and technical cooperation service sent the letter to the Direction Générale de l'Armement (DGA) procurement office, "with the aim of receiving an official reply," the report said.

(...SNIPPED)
 
The other Mistral class LHD slated for Russia begins sea trials.

Agence-France-Presse

France's second Russian-bought warship tested at sea

The second of two French Mistral warships whose delivery to Russia has been suspended due to violence in east Ukraine began its first open sea outing Monday, AFP journalists observed.

The Sebastopol was eased from its Saint-Nazaire port in western France by tugboats just after 1:00 pm (1200 GMT) for a scheduled five-day test voyage without Russian navy personnel aboard.

The nearly completed "projection and command" warship is theoretically slated for delivery to Russia in the autumn of 2015 after undergoing a barrage of technical verification tests at sea.

(...SNIPPED)
 
IMHO France should not deliver these ships to Russia, Canada could buy these ships they would complete fitting out in Canadian yards.
HMCS Vimy Ridge and HMCS Juno Beach would be great names.
To promote ships to Canadian public emphasize ships disaster relief role and large on board hospital.
 
Putin wants a refund...

Canadian Press

The Latest: Putin expects refund from France if it doesn't deliver warship

By The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – Thu, 16 Apr, 2015

MOSCOW - 2:56 p.m. (1156 GMT; 7:56 EDT)

President Vladimir Putin says Russia expects France to return the advance payment if it fails to deliver a warship built for the Russian navy. France has suspended the delivery of the Mistral warship amid Russia-West tensions over the Ukrainian crisis.

Putin said Thursday during a televised call-in show that Moscow would not demand fines or any other extras. He said France's failure to deliver the warship wouldn't damage the Russian navy capability, adding that Russia had placed the order in a bid to strengthen relations with France.

(...SNIPPED)
 
Back
Top