Russia’s hostile takeover of the Ukrainian navy

In the past days we saw a fast chain of events that altered the balance of power within the Black Sea. In the earlier days of the Russian invasion of the Crimea we saw efforts by the Russian Black Sea Fleet (BSF) to preserve the Ukrainian navy. The BSF even went so far as to sink the old anti-submarine vessel Ochakov to block Donuzlav Lake on the 7^th of March. About 7 Ukrainian warships were trapped in Donuzlav Lake as the sunken ship blocked the only channel out of the lake.

At that point nobody was really sure what game the Russians were playing. It was obvious that they were trying to neutralize the Ukrainian navy but nobody could really tell whether the trapped Ukrainian ships were to be used as a bargain chip for negotiations or to be taken over by the Russians. The past days we witnessed the answer as Russia seized several ships of the Ukrainian navy and put them into their service.

Russian forces seized three Ukrainian warships in Sevastopol on Thursday. The ships concerned are the corvettes Ternopil, Lutsk and Khmelnitsky . Afterwards things happened fast. Several other ships were reported to be seized while others spontaneous defected to the Russian side and joined the Black Sea Fleet.

The submarine Zaporizhzhia also defected to the Russian navy on Saturday on March 22. The Zaporizhzhia is the only submarine in the Ukrainian navy. She is an Foxtrot class submarine, build in 1970 and transferred from the Russian to the Ukrainian navy in 1997.

Latest news reports on Sunday speak of 54 out of 67 ships of the Ukrainian navy have joined the Black Sea Fleet, including the flagship of the Ukrainian navy, the Slavutich. Most of the ships are support ships but the Russians have by now already taken over 3 Grisha class corvettes, 1 Foxtrot class submarine and 1 Matka class missile boat.

The strategic implications are enormous. By taking over the ships Russia manages to neutralize the Ukrainian navy as an effective fighting force. Although most ships are in a worse shape than the ships of the Black Sea Fleet, the input of Ukrainian ships have strengthened the Black Sea Fleet. With the transfer of Ukrainian ships, the Black Sea Fleet, already the most powerful navy in the Black Sea, made sure that it remains the dominant force in this area. Russia also made sure that Ukraine will not deliver any significant increase of NATO naval forces in the Black Sea if Ukraine should join NATO in the future.

Also important to note is that Russia changed its tactics. In august 2008 Russian forces pillaged the Georgian naval base at the port of Poti on 12 august 2008. They also sank every warship in the port to prevent their use against Russia in a possible new conflict. Already suffering from a bad western image, the destruction of the Ukrainian ships wasn’t in the Kremlin’s best options. Instead it choose the lesser of two evils and the Russians took over as much ships as possible to prevent the Ukrainian navy to mount an effective threat in the future.

At the same time, the annexation of the Crimea allowed the Russians to get control over the Sevmorverf shipyard. The shipyard is engaged in the repair, modernization and re-equipment of Russian and Ukrainian Naval ships and submarines.  The shipyard also operates 3 dry docks:

	Length	Beam	Height
Dock #1	290.0 meters (951.4 ft)	36.0 meters (118.1 ft)	11.0 meters (36.1 ft)
Dock #2	173.4 meters (569 ft)	25.8 meters (85 ft)	9.1 meters (30 ft)
Dock #3	152.0 meters (498.7 ft)	25.8 meters (85 ft)	8.1 meters (27 ft)

Having control over the Sevmorverf shipyard allows the Russians to start building and repairing ships of the Black Sea Fleet completely on their own. This would be a further increase in the autonomy of the Black Sea Fleet and allows it to operate independent of Russia’s other fleets and shipyards. In the aftermath of the Russian takeover of the Crimea it is the Black Sea Fleet that emerges as the biggest winner of this conflict.

Amphibian landing ships: a versatile tool for smaller navies

The end of the Cold War brought a new era in which small localized conflicts and wars became the new norm. This forced navies to change their organization. Instead of a major battle against the Soviet Navy the need for an expeditionary navy transporting troops and equipment was born. Seas were no longer considered barriers but became highways. From Somalia in 1992 to Mali in 2013, or even the most recent crisis in Crimea, navies were used to transport troops and equipment to intervene in these conflicts. The amphibian landing ships became the new capital ship in most navies.

 US Navy San Antonio class LPD

During the Cold War the capital ships were mainly aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines and missile cruisers. Designed and operated for a major sea battle against the Soviet Navy these ships had to reinvent their role in the post-Soviet era. The amphibian landing ship played a secondary role in the Cold War strategy. Only after the defeat of the Soviet Navy could the sea be used as a highway to land troops on enemy territory and open a new front against the USSR. In the post-Soviet era the sea became a highway rather than a barrier. Amphibian ships could operate freely, transporting troops and equipment to several small conflicts and wars to deliver troops to intervene. A perfect example are the American Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU's)’ Standing by on their landing ships, these units can be directed to several places to create a first and fast response against limited conflicts.

We now see that more and more smaller navies start to operate these versatile ships. Until recently only the larger navies operated amphibian landing ships as Cold War doctrine dictated that these ships needed the necessary protection against an enemy attack. Since most limited conflicts take place in countries without a large navy, or even in land locked countries like Mali (see further). Amphibian ships now usually sail under the protection of a single destroyer or frigate, depending the tactical situation.

Whether there are Landing Helicopter Docks (LHD’s), Landing Helicopter Assault (LHA), Landing Platform Helicopter (LHP) or Landing Platform Docks (LPD’s), all these ships have the same basic design. They have a dock at the stern part from which landing craft can be deployed; large storage decks for tanks, vehicles and trucks and a helicopter platform to operate assault and transport helicopters. These basic features already show how versatile these ships can be.

Amphibian ships have 3 main tasks:

-          Transport of either men and vehicles or supplies either for an amphibian landing or supplying troops already in the country

-          Air support either with helicopters or vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) planes

-          Serve as command or hospital ships and support of humanitarian operations

Each task can be perfectly illustrated by examples of the past.

During 2011, in Ivory coast, French and UN forces were faced by the demands of president Gbagbo for them to to leave the country and stop supporting the newly elected president Ouattara. French forces were separated from the UN forces on the other side of the city Abidjan. The arrival of a French Mistral-class ship reinforced the French peace keeping mission and allowed the French to keep supporting the newly elected president Ouattara. Likewise the French used their amphibian ships to support their operation in Mali. Vehicles and supplies were offloaded in Dakar and Ivory Coast and transported overland to Mali. This maritime transport of heavy equipment like armored fighting vehicles took longer but was less costly than air transport.

Amphibian landing ships can also be used to patrol vast areas of ocean and shore line. The deployment of helicopters give these ships an extended range in which they can patrol and diminish the forces needed to secure a certain area. The Russian version of the Mistral-class ships will be used in this role to patrol in the Pacific and survey fishing and illegal activities in the far east according to earlier Russian statements. The use of helicopters to patrol was also applied during the EU operation ATALANTA to search for pirate vessels operating from Somalia. Algeria also announced that its amphibian landing ship will be used to patrol its coastline for illegal activities like human trafficking and drug smuggling.

Amphibian ships play a very useful role in disaster relief and humanitarian operations. They are capable of reaching places on the coast that would be otherwise inaccessible to other services. The main reason for Turkey buying an amphibian landing ship was to have a ship capable of delivering humanitarian aid along its coastline as Turkey is a country that is frequently struck by earthquakes.

As one can read from just the small grasp of examples mentioned above, amphibian landing ships have a high functionality by performing a wide arrange of tasks. At is this functionality that smaller navies are seeking. Amphibian landing ships allows smaller navies and countries to play an important and versatile role in the maritime theater without having to pay a relatively high cost. It also allows smaller countries to participate in operations that would otherwise be out of their range and become an important ally for larger navies.

Looking into the future it is hard to say if the amphibian landing ship will remain the most important ship in a fleets inventory. Amphibian landing ships have no real offensive warfighting capabilities of their own. Without the protection of frigates or destroyers, they have no role in a high intensity conflict were control of the sea is still in doubt. With the rising tensions concerning China’s military rise and the new naval race in the Southeast Pacific, amphibian landing ships are resorting back to their secondary role there, namely performing amphibious landings against islands and on hostile shores after other capital ships (submarines, aircraft carriers) have secured control of the sea.

The impact of the crisis in Ukraine for the Russian Black Sea Fleet

The current crisis in the Ukraine which the West condemns as a Russian invasion and the Russians call an operation to protect the ethnic Russian population in the Crimea, will have long term effects for both the Russian Black Sea Fleet (BSF) and the Ukrainian Navy.

A quick comparison between both navies makes it clear that the BSF has the upper hand as shown in the following table:

	Black Sea Fleet	Ukrainian Navy
Guided missile cruiser	1	0
Large anti-submarine ship	1	0
Frigate	3	1
corvettes	7	7
minesweepers	11	5
Landing ships	9	2
Missile boats	5	1
Diesel submarines	2	0

Of course figures don’t tell anything. This table excluded support ships as well as smaller patrol boats. At all times a certain amount of ships are undergoing maintenance and aren’t seagoing or capable of performing operations. One also has to take into account that the BSF is providing the bulk of the Russian naval ships patrolling in front of the Syrian coast.

Although the crisis so far hasn’t escalated at sea and no shots have been fired, there is the possibility that the crisis could escalate into a regional war between Russia and the Ukraine. Although the Ukrainian Navy is smaller and in a worse shape than the BSF it still poses a threat that has to be neutralized. Since the Ukrainian Navy is smaller it has to be capable of concentrating its forces against the BSF. In order to prevent the force concentration of the Ukrainian Navy, the Russian Navy sank the old anti-submarine vessel Ochakov to block Donuzlav Lake on the 7^th of March. About 7 Ukrainian warships are reported to be trapped in Donuzlav Lake as the sunken ship now blocks the only channel out of the lake. At the same time 2 ships are also blocked at Sevastopol. The 2 ships have pushed themselves off the dock to prevent boarding by the Russians. However 6 Russians vessels are blocking the channel out of Sevastopol, thereby preventing the 2 Ukrainian ships to leave the port. These acts assure that the BSF now has complete dominance over the Ukrainian Navy. Unlike the war against Georgia in august 2008 where the Russians sank several ships of the Georgian Navy, the Russians are now more interested in preserving the Ukrainian ships. Of course the situation in Georgia in 2008 was different and Ukraine and Russia aren’t at war so sinking or even damaging Ukrainian ships would serve as an escalation to  war. This is something that the Russians off course want to avoid as long as possible.

The blockade of the Donuzlav Lake does open up several scenarios, all depending on what game the Russians are playing. The 7 intact ships could be used as leverage during negotiations between Moscow and Kiev. Russian aid in removing the sunken Ochakov and the intact release of the 7 ships could be used as a bargaining chip in either the demand of the secession of the Crimea or Kiev giving the Crimea the status of an autonomous region. It is also possible that the trapped ships could be turned over to the BSF if local authorities in the Crimea secede from the Ukraine. The crisis in the Ukraine also opens unexpected possibilities for the BSF. The most advantageous scenario would be that Russia annexes Crimea and makes it a Russian republic. This would free the BSF from any treaties concerning the use of the naval base of Sevastopol. The BSF would then be capable of stationing any amount of troops and warships in the Crimea as it sees fit. The BSF could then be built up and further expanded in the next decades to support operations in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean. This would expand the range of Russian influence in these regions and curbing US and EU influence.

However the crisis in the Ukraine causes a further polarization between Russia and its neighbors around the Black Sea. On March the 5^th the Turkish government gave the US warship USS Truxtun the permission to cross the Turkish Straits which the ship did on March the 7^th. Being a destroyer of the Arleigh Burke class, the USS Truxtun is now the most powerful warship in the Black Sea. The 1936 Montreux convention regarding the regime of the Straits limit the time and amount of ships the US Navy can send into the Black Sea. No more than nine non-Black Sea state warships, with a total aggregate tonnage of no more than 30,000 tons, may pass at any one time, and they are permitted to stay in the Black Sea for no longer than twenty-one days. The USS Truxton will be joined by the frigate USS Taylor. The USS Taylor however is currently docked in a Turkish port in the Black Sea after scraping the seafloor on the 12^th of February while entering the port of Samsun. This means that the USS Taylor will have to leave the Black Sea very soon.

The mission of the USS Truxtun in the Black Sea will be a training mission with both the Bulgarian and Romanian navies. Although these exercises were planned long before the crisis in Ukraine, the timing comes at a critical moment. With tensions rising and the BSF having total dominance over the Ukrainian Navy the US sends a powerful signal towards the Russian Federation. Both Bulgaria and Romania are NATO members and talks and exercises concerning how to tackle the BSF will be held as a preparation for the eventual but highly unlikely possibility that NATO intervenes on behalf of the Ukraine. As a military organization NATO does prepare plans for interventions even when it is clear that such interventions are very unlikely to happen. Every military organization has the duty to itself to be prepared for all kind of different scenario’s through contingency planning. Nevertheless, the conduct of the NATO exercises in the Black Sea will most likely be closely monitored by the Russians.

Expansion of the Algerian Navy

The Algerian Navy ordered 2 new Kilo class submarines in a further attempt to expand its navy with modern ships. (For the news article see following link)

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33763:algeria-ordering-two-kilo-class-submarines&catid=51:Sea&Itemid=106

The Algerian Navy has been undergoing expansion in recent years as it faces problems such as smuggling, illegal migration and indigenous terrorism. These threats mainly affect Algeria's harbors and maritime communication routes as well as ships passing through the Straits of Gibraltar. Consequently, the Algerian Navy maintains a well-trained and well-equipped fleet to provide security to more than 1000 km of coastline. The country is also maintaining a strong navy to deter its neighbors, notably Morocco that operates 6 modern frigates, the oldest dating back from the year 2002. The end result will be that Algeria operates the strongest navy of all the countries in the southern Mediterranean.

In April 2012 it emerged that Algeria had signed a contract with the China Shipbuilding Trading Company for three light frigates, after ordering two Meko A-200N frigates from Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems in March 2012. All three light frigates will be of the F-22P Zalfiquar class. These ships were built in China for the Navy of Pakistan which currently operates 4 Zalfiquar frigates. The Zalfiquar class is bassed on the Type 053H3 class frigates (Jiangwei II class). They displace around 2 800 tons fully loaded, and will be powered by MTU diesel engines. Algeria has also ordered two new Tiger class corvettes from Russia. The Tiger corvette (Project 20382) is an export model of the Project 20380 Steregushchy class, which is the Russian Navy’s newest corvette class.
In January Italian shipyard Fincantieri launched the Algerian Navy’s Kalaat Beni-Abbes landing helicopter dock ship (LHD), which will be delivered to Algeria later this year. Algeria may order a second of the type in the coming months. The Kalaat Beni-Abbess LHD is capable of transporting 15 armoured vehicles and 440 soldiers and has a crew of 150 sailors.

Apart from buying new ships the Algerian navy is also refitting its 3 Koni class frigates at the Russian naval base in Kronshtadt. These ships date back from the 1980’s and by refitting them Algeria makes sure that their lifespan is prolonged and that these ships can keep up with their new modern counterparts. Currently the last frigate, the Rais Kellich, is being refitted.