0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
2,640 $

Russia To Develop Its Own Universal Landing Ship After Collapse Of French Mistral-Class Deal

Support SouthFront

Russia To Develop Its Own Universal Landing Ship After Collapse Of French Mistral-Class Deal

The Soviet-era “Leningrad” cruiser. Click to see full-size image

Russian shipbuilders, designers and military are already agreeing on the details of the project and the tasks of the future Russian universal landing ship (ULS).

The plan is for the Russian Navy to receive its first ULS in the mid-2020s, after the fiasco that was the purchase of the Mistral-class landing ships from France.

After 6 years of waiting, negotiations and even training of sailors, in mid-2015, the deal completely fell-through as the French side said the ships wouldn’t be delivered due to the Crimean referendum, and the situation in Eastern Ukraine. Russia, too, said it no longer wanted the Mistral-class ships, and ultimately received its front payment back, with the funds spend on training 400 sailors and stripping off equipment and shipping it back to Russia.

The ULS will essentially be helicopter carriers, since the Mistral-class warships had special Russian KA-52K helicopters developed to be used on it.

The laying of two ULS is planned for 2020, their transfer to the Russian Navy is scheduled for 2025 and 2026. In the future, the class may enter serial production.

Under what project the ships will be built is yet unclear. In 2015, the Nevsky Design Bureau introduced the concept of ULS Surf.

This ship with a displacement of 14 thousand tons is capable of autonomous navigation for up to two months, and a range of up to 11,000 km. The Surf is designed to accommodate eight Ka-27 helicopters and six landing boats. In addition, the ship can carry up to 500 paratroopers and 60 armored vehicles.

Krylov State Scientific Center proposed its own version of a helicopter carrier. It is larger, half-trimaran with a displacement of 24 thousand tons. 16 Ka-52 attack helicopters, Ka-29 transport and combat and Ka-27 multipurpose helicopters could be position on deck and in its holds.

It could carry up to 500 paratroopers and 50 armored vehicles. Marines are supposed to land on the shore with the help of several landing boats “Serna” or “Raptor”. The ULS’ speed is more than 20 knots, the cruising range is about the same as that of Surf, but autonomy is lower — only about 30 days.

For self-defense, the ship has a 76-mm AK-176M artillery mount, in addition to several 30-mm AK-630 Duet artillery mounts, a pair of Pantsir-ME anti-aircraft systems and Package-NK anti-submarine systems.

The Soviet Union did have ULS in the past, but they are quite dissimilar to the typical “foreign” ULS, which are used to specifically get to the shore, open up and let marines and troops out.

In the past, the Black Sea Fleet was equipped with two such cruisers of Project 1123 Condor.

The ships were named “Moscow” and “Leningrad”. Their design could be considered unusual. If the front part looked quite familiar – in the form of a Latin V – then closer to the midsection, the body expanded significantly. From above, the ship looked like a pear. This decision allowed to increase the area of ​​the flight deck.

The hangars housed up to 14 anti-submarine helicopters, which took turns in combat patrols, dropped sonar buoys into the sea and conducted reconnaissance. The Condors had powerful radar equipment and weapons on board. The cruisers were equipped with an anti-submarine missile launcher, capable of firing even missiles with a nuclear warhead, torpedo tubes, jet bombs, anti-aircraft missile systems and artillery mounts.

However, there were significant disadvantages. For example, because of the irregular shape in the storm, cruisers buried themselves in the wave. Water overflowing from the deck could easily disable parts of the equipment. In addition, a lot of hands were required to control the ship and maintain its systems – the numbers of the crew could reach up to 800 sailors and officers.

Nevertheless, the helicopter carriers successfully completed tasks in the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic. And they were engaged not only in the direct task – the fight against submarines – but also participated in rescue and search operations. In particular, in 1974, Leningrad was involved in the mine clearance mission of the Suez Canal.

The ULS Leningrad was sold for scrap in 1991, while the ULS Moscow was decommissioned in 1993.

Western countries have much richer experience in building helicopter carriers. The Americans were especially successful in this matter.

The US has had huge expeditionary ships capable of delivering up to two thousand marines, dozens of armored vehicles and helicopters to the landing operation site since the 1970s.


Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Larry Rabinowitz, Ph.D

Another reason why France should LEAVE NATO ASAP. France doing business with the Russians and SELLING THEM NAVAL SHIPS? Unacceptable behavior


They can’t pay 2% for their own military lol

Concrete Mike

I dont want to pay.2% on military, more money for infrastructure please.

Jens Holm

We have decided that by Parlamentarisme and by that signed treatmenets as well.

Being internal political I will say, that there is a lot of money in Nato but too many among the rich. Unfartunatly thats a Parlament decission too.

So changes should be taking some of those money for infrastructure.

Our new Goverment is doing that, but they are only able to find some few billions here and there, as it is now.

I cant sompare with Yours, but I see ours also can be more effective here and there. That helps too.

Jens Holm

Thats a WONT.

2% as 2% says nothing. Its 2% according to their budgets, which is much higher then most other countries in money just as GDP. .

Jens Holm

Thats a demand. It is an aliance. Being in that makes no choise even some are just below that and some has more then 2%.

Danes silently goes up to 2% and within a few Years we will be as wished (and needed). For one time Iagree with Trump. The USA pays too much and we do have the money.

Jens Holm

1) I comment from what I know as living in Europe being a member of Nato and EU and not (only) from tje threat here.

The threas is biased in a way, whoch mainly dont like EU as well as Nato and also preafare the most unrealic devellopment for EU/Nato, partly Eastern Europe and partly mobility for mobile action outside Our part of the world. 2) Energy for electricity and warmoin up in the wintertime is a palette. Therefore EU has seveal changes at the same time.

The carbon tax is a try use of less carbon. You can compare with cigarettes. If the price goes up, the smoking goes down. If the tax for tobacco is too high, people will try to grow tobabco themselves, be smuglers or maybee use fx drugs instead.

Its also of importance that the EU plan for less carbon use is a long term one. We cabt do that from day to day, but we can replace more and more.

Your “freedom” gas is an expensive “rescue” gas for Eastern Europe(mainly Ukraine), so the bad driven Country at least have some gas for warming.

Cutting relations to Russia is no option and both ways. As dane we work hard to invest in the non carbon planes. Therefore we want to invest in the cheeper and less polluting alternatives, because they now are very realitic.

Danish electricity now some few says a year cover mpore then 100% of the use of the danes. In the other hand some countries dont have wind for that in their countries and in parts of them.

So we workd for wind, where its a good idea as well as the other non fossile possibilities.

By that we – as it is now – will continue to need oil, gas and coal but in smaller amounts.

That is very big investments and a long time plan. As almost anybody else we hjave hopes for better solutions.

I lived in Copenhagen, Our Capitol, for 12 years. At that time we were warming up our houses with everything which could burn and the cars did not drive so many kilometers pr liters as now.

We had smog, we had to buy TV antennas and other things extra protected against HSO4 minus. The old and the children had astma, bronchitis, the living age was shorter aso.

Today those bad things are a saga even the City has grown and there are several times more cars. All warming up is centralised and every appartment and house gets its heat from big powerplants, which clean the air from the burning as well as they burn garbage in stead of storing it on the fields. The transport of heat hardly has any losses by good insolation.

Only parts of it is by none carbon, but compared to others we pollutive adn use all we use for fire. When the systems dont make varming up, it makes electricity in % and we can speed it up or slow it down.

Thats very important. When the wind blows we should use the wind making warming but we still need carbon with no wind.

Here solar electricity seemes to be a relative good option. So even we are in front, we can omprove a lot. Some might forget, that cars using electricity is a long time replacer as well. We have no solutions for long distance transportation by batteries but are replacing the local transportations.

Well, my 2 fingers are tired for now…:)

I dont know much about the French apart from, what they have in the warfare production and who they sell to.

Jens Holm

English is common second language so learning whats needed for the military forces are OK.

I only see elderly french insist french is above everything. Look here:

The top non-native English speaking countries 1. Netherlands 70.31 2. Sweden 70.72 3. Norway 68.38 4. Denmark 67.34 5. Singapore 68.63 6. South Africa 66.52 7. Finland 65.86 8. Austria 63.13 9. Luxembourg 66.33 10. Germany 63.74 11. Poland 62.45 12. Portugal 60.02 13. Belgium 63.52 14. Croatia 60.16

When danish land troops educates incl. the hard ones, the main parts of it is in english as well we almost fight as them and therefore are corners of the brittish troops fx in Afghanistan.

If we take Iraq, where our new job is to make Iraqian officers better, we this time replace 200 Canadiens. The Canadians are very semilar to the Britts. We are in the light armed but very well educated version. Thats cheeper then the american version as well as we can be moved anywhere fast.

Since the USSR collapse many danes has been tourist there and we see several here mainly from Poland, Hungary and Eastern Germany.

Its no big problems even we as well as soldiers has to learn unknown tradtions here and there.

Its is possible to fit in. When I worked with children several years ago some Dutch united has HQ at the local school.

They gave the children candy and camouflaged painted them and played with them, when they were off duty.

We and our children were shown their lines and positions on and even airphotos. Some children: And I live there. Nice houise, the sodier said.

I held a Stinger missile at my shoulder too but were not allawed too fire it. Haha it was not armed using electricity.

By that the children and other locals was not afraid and slept well during those 7 days.

I am a little mixed about things like that, but are the soldiers like them, they will be accepted as defenders being nice and polite people.

Tey used the school because the children had winther vacation.

Jens Holm

The purpose is to integrate as much as possible. We are very different.

I allow me to see the socalled driven apart as a positive sign. The USSR threat is lowered. They have shown they are smaller then they think and are.

Therefore there also is more space for being more ourselves as single countries.

I admit – so to speak – we do have problems too. But I also recall probæpems making WW1, WW2 as well as the Iron curtain.

Wayne Nicholson

I agree except how cool would it be to intimately know the capabilities and vulnerabilities of one your enemies primary naval assets …. and make a buck to boot. Now that opportunity is lost forever.

AM Hants

Not for Russia. France provided them with the designs, full costs of order, plus a bonus on top. So they still have full knowledge of the weaknesses in French ship building projects.

Wayne Nicholson

My post was really made just to troll the good doctor who is obviously just a bullshit character meant to troll the anti-semites that post on this site.

It is funny to watch however countries like France kick themselves in the ass for supporting the obvious US operation in Ukraine which cost them huge in trade with Russia and all they get out of the deal is a failed Ukrainian state to support.

They started all this thinking Russia would be brought to their knees without the west and would have been back begging to be let back in but instead they got a more independent stronger Russia that’s forged an economic and security alliance with China.

Then there’s Iran.

Jens Holm

Many scenaries can be made about this and that.

I also dont see Russia as stronger. They are more their correct seize not having learnt much by their collapse.

We also see how difficult it is to the regained countries to change from the quaqmire made by Communista and Tzars.

They dont have traditions as we have for a lot of thing and they do have to implement their versions of it. I dont think they can understand fx a Chinese or Japanese way out …

Taking only the best parts is the option but as in computer language the “plug and play” is very difficult.

Changes like that for Russia might be take generations but less generations even for Ukraine.

To be nasty and compare the EU and China could send them all they need and let the Russians live in their Daccas for free:)

AM Hants

Until 2014, I was in my media induced, zombia coma and then I woke up, courtesy of events in Ukraine. Everything they threw at Russia, did not even make her blink.

Crimea – took three weeks to sort out and less time than the EU to arrange an emergency meeting.

The gas, Ukraine kept refusing to pay and Russia was patient, then Russia decided they had enough chances and turned off the gas, unless paid in advance.

The sanctions, which the EU rushed to support. With the EU losing $billions, plus, the EU agricultural market/industry, took one heck of a hit, with Russia now one of the primary exporters of grain, and GM Free to boot.

Not forgetting President Putin, addressing the UN, for some birthday and a couple of days later, he was sending Russian Military, forces and lethal weapons to Syria at a time when Syria desperately needed a friend.

They turned Russia away from the G8 and all that was left were 7 G7 nations, with so much debt to support. The G20 had the movers and shakers, whilst the G7 crowd has the misery, arrogance, ignorance and lack of intelligence. Hightly noted, when the SCO held a summit, around the same time as the G7 members, last year I believe. One group, was professional and diplomatic and the other group. well, you would find more diplomacy in a kindergarten, after the kiddies had been loaded with sugar and ‘E’s’.

The Yamal LNG Project, that Exxon pulled out of, believing there was no way that Russia could go ahead, without heavy duty oil drilling equipment, which Exxon could provide. Russia moved ahead, China got involved and the first $400 billion Siberia-China Pipeline is now in active service, I believe. Plus, Yamal, is having to help out the UK and US in cold weather.

With all that is going on at the moment, whether it be the NATO freebie in the UK, or the Impeachment Trial in the US, I seriously cannot believe just how pathetic those we elect just happen to be. Especially when compared to those in the Kremlin.


It’s amazing how the penny eventually drops. I used to ridicule “conspiracy theorists” once upon a time. Which was before I discovered Paul Eisen. After that, the whole NWO / anglozionist thing started to make a lot of sense.

AM Hants

Ditto. A conspiracy is only a hunch, till it becomes fact. Still conspiracy theories I smile and shrug my shoulders. Not sure what makes sense, courtesy our politicians.

Concrete Mike

Whats wrong with making thousands of ship building job for french people?

Russian euros are still euros dumbass. Its good capitalist behavior.

Your Ph,D must be on bullshit!

AM Hants

Article 42 Lisbon Treaty, we will have an EU Army, whether we want to or not. Hasn’t it been arranged, including the UK, will form the EU Army, whether in or out of the EU, if May’s agreement goes ahead, under Boris?

EU Forces will deal with internal unrest and NATO will carry on destroying the planet, as they work together. With the MIC rubbing hands and more than happy with the arrangement.

Jens Holm

Thats the closest treaty You can make into a not know to make a few countries and politicians happen.

We just saw it last year. The entlargements were only syymbolic.

No EU force.

We already has the Nato one as well as every country in princip has ists own.

In military matters the only new is to keep those forces upfated and have money for it.

AM Hants

‘…EU treaties The European Union is based on the rule of law. This means that every action taken by the EU is founded on treaties that have been approved voluntarily and democratically by all EU member countries. For example, if a policy area is not cited in a treaty, the Commission cannot propose a law in that area.

A treaty is a binding agreement between EU member countries. It sets out EU objectives, rules for EU institutions, how decisions are made and the relationship between the EU and its member countries…

Article 42

Article 42

(ex Article 17 TEU)

1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.

2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as ‘the European Defence Agency’) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

4. Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State. The High Representative may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission where appropriate.

5. The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union’s values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article 44.

6. Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by Article 46. It shall not affect the provisions of Article 43.

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation…’


Jens Holm

The world is not like that. Its best to the price and then some more or less secret modications.

I see no resosns for France leaving Nato. They for many years has been a kind of affiliates and will remain so.

A ship or 5 make no change in that.

Some ogf us also remember, that a reason for France is insisting in making their own weapon systems for themseleves. Financing parts of that is sale.

Jens Holm

Hardly none in EU think so. I think many think Nato should be renewed better.

Assad must stay (gr8rambino)

absolutely, it will probably be better than the mistrals


probably! in the long run much better! however what France did was totally fucked up! They deserve massive financial fines to be awarded to russia for doing this!


Off topic: Check out The Permian extinction and the Siberian trap. An asteroid did not cause the K-T boundary, just so happened that it occured during volcanic activity. Not so wise to create a lot of CO2 in a short time period and increase ocean temp. :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6ig6zKiNTc


If you want to down vote me, you should act like a man and say something. Or perhaps I am wrong?


i didnt down vote u at all! An apology is in order and i agree on your “Turks are an invasive species” comment! u are paranoid!


Sorry about that. I found this interesting about severe global climate changes and why dinosaurs went extinct at the KT boundary: The comet hit in the middle of volcanic flood activity. The Deccan traps in India covered an area of 1.5 million km2, and volume of lava was .5 million km3. this activity lasted about 1 million years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrbdYcNTo7Y


just so u know, we are within 18 months of DISproving that man made CO2 is causing “global warming / climate change”! those in power are creating carbon taxes to enrich themselves! its always about power and money! Dont trust these peple! Start listening to the ICCC Scientists who are the Highest of their kind who sued the ICCC for adding their names to the list of “300”! its a giant lie!

here is an example of “the Good people u trust at work” Money to charities never goes to the people u are trying to help! Money wont go to the environment either! Climate change is a False Flag Climate LIE! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZIizLVlZp8

AM Hants

They ended up paying Russia the full balance for the ships, plus a bonus and I do believe even the design of the ship. Ironic, when Russia only ordered them from France as a favour to Sarkosy.

Might have ended up with a major delay, but, at least with helping out Syria and all that is going on in the Black Sea, Russia has found what she needed from the ship and what she did not need. Didn’t Egypt, which purchased the ships, end up buying Russian helicopters, that had been designed specifically for the Mistral Class?


Yes Egypt did! However, those ships would have come just in time or perhaps at the perfect time to be used! They also can act as MASSIVE troop carriers or cargo carriers! My guess is that these ships would have been heavily used in Syria and also act as a great asset if / when things break out in Ukraine! These ships are perfect for the black sea and the Med! Now they have to wait another 7 years

AM Hants

Still doing a lot better with what they have than NATO.

Ivan Freely

Should have contacted the Chinese. They’ve launched their own LHDs.

Gregory Cooley

Russia is more than capable of building their own . thats why they didnt contact China.its more of a money issue and building what is more important that year vs the next year. A LHD needs logistical support and escorts first. Russia just started construction of 2 LHD’s in Zaliv Crimea. the only reason they were buying french mistral was political reasons and to get get LHD’s 5-10 years ahead of time.

Mehmet Aslanak

Even Turkey produces its own landing ship. So why Russia not.


Because Turks are an invasive species. Russia not.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x