You are really going to use the Russians to prove your point? Their navy is not exactly known for its amphibious capabilities. And their usage of Mistral will be more as a command ship than anything else.
The PLAN LCAC Type 726 Yuyi Class
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
franco-russe
Senior Member
It is true that the last Russian (Soviet) combat amphibious operation was the conquest of the Kuriles and southern Sakhalin in 1945. But they have conducted innumerable amphibious exercises since the 1960’s and still do.
They probably have more experience with air cushion landing vessels than anyone else, having built 90 since 1969. Only two remain in service, which would suggest that they are thoroughly disillusioned with the concept.
The Marine Nationale tested the US LCAC and found it too prone to accidents and expensive to maintain.
How do you know that the Russian Navy plans to use the MISTRAL class as a command ship? From their statements it is primarily the ability to carry 16 helicopters that fascinates them. They plan to put a mix of KA-52 combat helicopters and KA-29 troop-carrying helicopters in them.
They probably have more experience with air cushion landing vessels than anyone else, having built 90 since 1969. Only two remain in service, which would suggest that they are thoroughly disillusioned with the concept.
The Marine Nationale tested the US LCAC and found it too prone to accidents and expensive to maintain.
How do you know that the Russian Navy plans to use the MISTRAL class as a command ship? From their statements it is primarily the ability to carry 16 helicopters that fascinates them. They plan to put a mix of KA-52 combat helicopters and KA-29 troop-carrying helicopters in them.
I don't think its the helo capacity that thrill Russian for Mistral. But rather its large capacity to move large number of troops , armour and support in one package at sea which they desperately lacking during the Georgio war in 2008....
If they want large helo capacity, Kutnezsov can be a even bigger platform for that.
But I agree Russian are not going to use Mistral as just a command ship. In fact, it will be a mobile battlion.
If they want large helo capacity, Kutnezsov can be a even bigger platform for that.
But I agree Russian are not going to use Mistral as just a command ship. In fact, it will be a mobile battlion.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
its funny how Russia has bought LHD from France, so called superpower now cant even make LHD, could Russia vast industrys in future end up buying submarines and LPDs from China? I dont think Russia has ever bought foreign military purchase on this scale before, its very suprising
going back to LCAC i think its not a great idea for PLAN, too vunerable and too inpractical, not many navys use them Royal Navy doesnt use them for thier LHD/LPD either
maybe a new watercraft will emerge as these 2 new LPDs go operational
going back to LCAC i think its not a great idea for PLAN, too vunerable and too inpractical, not many navys use them Royal Navy doesnt use them for thier LHD/LPD either
maybe a new watercraft will emerge as these 2 new LPDs go operational
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The lack of air cushioned craft operating in the Russian Navy could, and is probably more likely to be a result of the financial hardship they suffered up till quite recently.
Lots of quite promising technology and equipment were abandoned or shelved for a lack of funds. That does not mean that the Russians were 'thoroughly disillusioned' with them all. After all, how much of an amphibious capacity did the Russians retain for them to have to buy Mistrals from France? Were they disillusioned with amphibious operations also?
Sorry. Cannot agree with this. The US has 91 air cushioned landing craft and uses them all the time. In exercises, and in actual combat operations.
...and has used them continuosly since they were introduced to the fleet in 1986, so for the last 25 years continuously. The Russians have not used them much at all since the Soviet downfall 20 years ago.
No...it is simply a fact that the US Navy from World War II on has had vastly more amphibious operations experience than any other country and have used that experience to come up with their current mix of landing craft which include LCACs, LCUs, and LCMs. Most all of which can be and are launched from their well-deck LPDs, LHAs, LHDs, etc.
I believe the PLAN will use LCACs and other landing craft from their LPDs and any other well deck vessels they build because they recognize that wealth of experience and as a result of implementing similar strategies (not necessarily the same) will leap frog decades of hard won experience and not have to repeat mistakes.
But time will tell.
The Russians are going to station the first Mistrals in the Pacific fleet. Does that make you think of a platform purchased for the purpose of just amphibious operations or one that's used to command a fleet, to project force and such?
Kuznetsov is in constant repairs. If you look at the couple of times it did leave the docks in the recent years, it's barely had any kind of operational air wing. Let's not overstate Russian amphibious power here.
Because I actually constantly read a Russian defense blog with many entries on mistral alone. If it's just for the amphibious roles, Russians really had no need to buy Mistral class for operations in Georgia. The real reason behind the Mistrals is the technologies that Russia can get from France. Specifically the command and control systems and the shipbuilding technologies. That's not to say Russia won't use it for other purposes, but I'm just stating why they bought mistrals here.
As for only having a limited number of air cushion landing vessels left, that's because the entire Russian navy has been decaying. Other than some nuclear submarines, several Udaloy class (which are the workhorse of RuN), a couple of Krivaks and one kirov class ship, what else is still really active?
Well, the Russian shipbuilding industries is only capable of building submarines and corvettes now. When it comes to nuclear submarine, the costs for each boats have escalated. Even for conventional submarines, they are only trouble building Amur class and have ordered for more Kilo class. When they are trying to expand on the surface fleet, it's having trouble with the new 22350 class and have basically ordered Talwar class, because the shipyard are already proficient with those.
franco-russe
Senior Member
The only post-1945 real amphibious operation I can think of is Inchon, but that may be due to limited historical knowledge. But before getting lost in historical details and difficult comparisons, let us get back to the LCAC vs. LCM issue.
As I said, it is not useful to compare other navies with the USN, which is in many ways unique, has vast operational experience and can spend money in a way that no other country would dream of. The Soviet Navy was in a similar situation, but the Russian Navy has evidently been severely underfunded for 20 years
That is why they have all but abandoned ACV’s and instead looked for cheaper, but fast, alternatives. They have built or ordered 9 SERNA class (Pr. 11770) and 6 DYUGON class (Pr. 21280). The French Navy has come to the same conclusion, and the Royal Navy. I think that the Chinese will also conclude that they are better served by simpler craft than 3320 (Type 726).
For tphuang, ADMIRAL GORSHKOV (Pr. 22350) has no doubt been much delayed, but as you will know from reading a Russian defence blog, it is now scheduled to be completed by November 2012. Of course the six Pr. 11356 for the Black Sea Fleet will be much cheaper, being a very well-tested design, basically an update of the KRIVAK class. And you are forgetting three SLAVA class cruisers, which are not insignificant ships.
As I said, it is not useful to compare other navies with the USN, which is in many ways unique, has vast operational experience and can spend money in a way that no other country would dream of. The Soviet Navy was in a similar situation, but the Russian Navy has evidently been severely underfunded for 20 years
That is why they have all but abandoned ACV’s and instead looked for cheaper, but fast, alternatives. They have built or ordered 9 SERNA class (Pr. 11770) and 6 DYUGON class (Pr. 21280). The French Navy has come to the same conclusion, and the Royal Navy. I think that the Chinese will also conclude that they are better served by simpler craft than 3320 (Type 726).
For tphuang, ADMIRAL GORSHKOV (Pr. 22350) has no doubt been much delayed, but as you will know from reading a Russian defence blog, it is now scheduled to be completed by November 2012. Of course the six Pr. 11356 for the Black Sea Fleet will be much cheaper, being a very well-tested design, basically an update of the KRIVAK class. And you are forgetting three SLAVA class cruisers, which are not insignificant ships.
You don't seem to understand. The problem with Admiral Gorshkov is not just with that one ship. It's with the entire Russian shipbuilding industry. They have shown a complete inability to build ships on time whether military or civilian. The budget allocated to build the Borei class was basically a black hole for the Russian navy. There has been no real innovation in Russian shipyard. Aside from Mistral which will be used mainly for command purposes as I've said, the main amphibious asset they are building is the Ivan Gren class. That's not exactly a ship you need for LCAC for.
As for what PLAN, they have had landing craft and smaller air cushioned craft in the past. They are ordering Type 726 and Zubr class right now, so they clearly see value in it. Only time will tell, but PLAN does like to follow the USN model, so it seems that they will go wide with it. PLAN is not going to follow RuN model unless you want PLAN to transform back into a coastal force.
As for what PLAN, they have had landing craft and smaller air cushioned craft in the past. They are ordering Type 726 and Zubr class right now, so they clearly see value in it. Only time will tell, but PLAN does like to follow the USN model, so it seems that they will go wide with it. PLAN is not going to follow RuN model unless you want PLAN to transform back into a coastal force.
franco-russe
Senior Member
We do indeed seem to have quite different perceptions of the Russian Navy and where it is going, depite your pedagogical efforts.
I agree that it was a disaster to order eight Borey class SSBN’s in view of the chronic underfunding that the Navy and industry is suffering from, but they are at least being built and becoming operational (first four in Pacific Fleet). I would hardly consider them coastal combatants.
As far as I remember, the eight Pr. 636M the PLAN ordered were delivered fast and on schedule 2005-06.
I agree that it was a disaster to order eight Borey class SSBN’s in view of the chronic underfunding that the Navy and industry is suffering from, but they are at least being built and becoming operational (first four in Pacific Fleet). I would hardly consider them coastal combatants.
As far as I remember, the eight Pr. 636M the PLAN ordered were delivered fast and on schedule 2005-06.