Mistral News thread

medo wrote:Russia need to prolong those negotiations and not accept any agreement for two years. After that time Marine Le Pen will become new president and her government will deliver ships to Russia and maybe even pay some penalties for good relations. Hollande will not be reelected, he made too much damage to France.

I hope you are right about Le Pen, but i have no trust in this dictatorship and their vassals, they will select who they want, there won't be an election.

medo wrote:Russia need to prolong those negotiations and not accept any agreement for two years. After that time Marine Le Pen will become new president and her government will deliver ships to Russia and maybe even pay some penalties for good relations. Hollande will not be reelected, he made too much damage to France.

Amen !

medo wrote:Russia need to prolong those negotiations and not accept any agreement for two years. After that time Marine Le Pen will become new president and her government will deliver ships to Russia and maybe even pay some penalties for good relations. Hollande will not be reelected, he made too much damage to France.

The ships are not worth two years additional drama.

ExBeobachter1987 wrote:

medo wrote:Russia need to prolong those negotiations and not accept any agreement for two years. After that time Marine Le Pen will become new president and her government will deliver ships to Russia and maybe even pay some penalties for good relations. Hollande will not be reelected, he made too much damage to France.

The ships are not worth two years additional drama.

It's not about ships, it's about princips and politics and yes, they are worth of it. Here is far more in the game than those two ships. Receiving them after two years of waiting is just a bonus. With a change in France, Germany will follow and US will lost its influence in Europe. Those two ships are just one of the tools to help Le Pen to replace Hollande and to change the course.

Tentative deal reached apparently, just need Putin and Holland to sign off;
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-and-russia-reached-deal-over-mistral-ship-2015-7?ref=yfp

franco wrote:Tentative deal reached apparently, just need Putin and Holland to sign off;
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-and-russia-reached-deal-over-mistral-ship-2015-7?ref=yfp

For future reference, no one should ever cite business insider and it's 'Red Scare' Joseph McCarthy style agit-prop themed articles.

As I see it the Russian Navy needs those two ships like a hole in the head.

I disagree, I think the Mistral carriers are rather capable vessels and would add considerably to the capabilities of the Russian Naval Infantry, in terms of force projection as well as humanitarian and good will visits and indeed in disaster relief.

Some of the most valuable things in a disaster area are helicopter transport, plus truck transport vehicles, plus a modern sophisticated 100 or 200 bed hospital would be invaluable in both war and peace.

Add to that significant command capabilities and it would be a very useful vessel to have on hand in a range of roles... from anti piracy roles, troop landing roles, humanitarian roles, and disaster relief roles.

Not so long ago there were problems in Myanmar... western help was largely rejected because the government didn't trust them... with Russian help from a Mistral class carrier group they probably could have saved rather more people... I am sure North Korea or Cuba or Venezuela would prefer assistance from a Russian Mistral than a US carrier...

Being able to offer such assistance strengthens ties and create trust.

Western countries didn't become global powers and then developed powerful navies... they developed powerful navies which allowed them to become global powers.

There is little reason to invest in more power projection when more and more of the navy has to be replaced.
Mistrals are useful, but hardly needed in the current time.

There is little reason to invest in more power projection when more and more of the navy has to be replaced.
Mistrals are useful, but hardly needed in the current time.

Just its command capabilities alone would make it the valuable core of a carrier force... the fact that it can also be used for humanitarian and disaster relief roles is just a bonus... and it is not just for foreign countries... Kamchatka is on the Pacific Ring of fire...

They need to decide what they want of their navy... a coastal self defence force to protect their ports, or a projection force that can operate world wide.

The numbers of vessels they had during Soviet times would be excessive and just a waste now or in the near future... a 25K ton helicopter carrier would be rather more value in a landing than any number of frigates with single helos on their rear deck... it would be an enormous force multiplier... and would make the Baltic States sht their pants as an added bonus. Even just the potential to land Russian Naval infantry behind NATO front lines is worth every penny spent to remind countries like Norway and Sweden that having the Ukraine in NATO in no way makes them safer.

However the world is a very large place and with only two vessels it might take a while to get them to the right place, unlike the US who seems to have 'flat-tops' all over the world.

Basing them in the Pacific should allow reasonable access to half the world... especially with the Pacific ring of fire being a volatile place... a Russian Mistral with nuclear propulsion should be able to get to anywhere in reasonably good time anyway.

Given the very defensive strategic stance of Russia and the offensive nature of the military function of the Mistrals, it does seem a crazy amount of money to tie up in what might be humanitarian assets. I can't see anything that says that Russia wants to be a global power, China yes.

I don't expect them to start bombing and invading countries the way the west seems to believe it has the right to, but a powerful navy leads to substantial international power... not the other way around... Britain was never a wonderful land power... it was her navy that made her powerful and the same could be said of the US.

Besides which, as we found with the Atlantic Conveyor (although not a 'flat-top') which went down with many helicopters in the South Atlantic, losing one to an ASM can leave a big asset gap and they are very vulnerable.

I am sure you will agree however that a Russian built Mistral type design will be rather better protected from enemy air power and anti ship missiles than British ships have ever been.

Just look at the distribution of air defence systems on Russian vessels... with new vessels sporting naval versions of Pantsir, TOR, BUK, and S-400....

I mean... if we use history as a guide why bother with frigates when a missile corvette tied up at a pier can destroy an enemy frigate?

One of the driving forces for buying Mistrals was the surprise Georgian attack on South Ossetia... the Russian Navy had a good look at itself and its situation and realised that if Japan had been the protagonist that there would be little chance of Russia mobilising to defend the Kurile Islands... and experience showed they could not rely on the international community or the US or West to condemn such an aggressive action.

The Mistral was chosen because it is a capable vessel and was proven in terms of sea keeping and performance and most importantly it should have already been entering service... by the end of this year they should have had both in service and fitting out... likely fully operational by next year or so.

Because of political BS however that seems like it will not happen, and while efforts have been made to bolster the Pacific Fleet there is still lots of work to be done.

GarryB wrote:

There is little reason to invest in more power projection when more and more of the navy has to be replaced.
Mistrals are useful, but hardly needed in the current time.

Just its command capabilities alone would make it the valuable core of a carrier force... the fact that it can also be used for humanitarian and disaster relief roles is just a bonus... and it is not just for foreign countries... Kamchatka is on the Pacific Ring of fire...

What I said about the Mistrals does also apply to carrier forces.

GarryB wrote:They need to decide what they want of their navy... a coastal self defence force to protect their ports, or a projection force that can operate world wide.

The former plus naval component of the strategic deterrence.

GarryB wrote:The numbers of vessels they had during Soviet times would be excessive and just a waste now or in the near future... a 25K ton helicopter carrier would be rather more value in a landing than any number of frigates with single helos on their rear deck... it would be an enormous force multiplier... and would make the Baltic States sht their pants as an added bonus. Even just the potential to land Russian Naval infantry behind NATO front lines is worth every penny spent to remind countries like Norway and Sweden that having the Ukraine in NATO in no way makes them safer.  

A Russian helicarrier is useless in the Baltic Sea which has become increasingly NATO-dominated.
It is just too vulnerable and all areas where Russian helis have to operate are already covered by land-based helis.

What I said about the Mistrals does also apply to carrier forces.

So you just want a little coastal force with a sub fleet.

As Russia expands its customer base beyond the European continent and starts exporting to Asia and central and south american countries and indeed Africa it will find a coastal navy to be very limiting... subs are like snipers... fairly useless against most enemies until you actually use them and then they become the hunted...

Carriers for the Russian navy is like the air force for the Russian army.

Just looking at the Falklands war you could argue that the British could easily have lost that war against a fairly weak enemy air force of Mirage 3s and A4 Skyhawks.

You could of course just as easily say that the reoccupation of the islands would have been rather more assured if the Brits had not withdrawn the Ark Royal fixed wing carrier with Phantoms and Buccaneers.

A Russian helicarrier is useless in the Baltic Sea which has become increasingly NATO-dominated.

I agree, but that means nothing... those idiots will still yap like the little lap dogs they are and demand NATO protection and spend way too much on so called defence... and that is the point.

the real use for Mistral like ships is in the Kurile Islands, but with their strengthened structure to allow icebreaking operations they could easily be sent to Antarctica to support operations on the ice in winter and summer.

It is just too vulnerable and all areas where Russian helis have to operate are already covered by land-based helis.

Really? Does Russia have complete northern coverage by helicopter? ....don't think so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMmL6bF15co

I just show news from euro news 10 member of French Parliament visiting Crimea this MP from the oppositions Leader is Nicolas Sarkozy
This could mean if this guy become the president of France next election he could be provide to give the Mistral to Russia

GarryB wrote:So you just want a little coastal force with a sub fleet.

Considering how much coast Russia has (2 oceans, 5+ seas), it has to be a very substantial force.

GarryB wrote:As Russia expands its customer base beyond the European continent and starts exporting to Asia and central and south american countries and indeed Africa it will find a coastal navy to be very limiting... subs are like snipers... fairly useless against most enemies until you actually use them and then they become the hunted...

Carriers for the Russian navy is like the air force for the Russian army.

Why is expanding Russia's blue-water navy component so important for Russia's trade?
It won't protect it in peacetime against anyone but pirates, but everyone opposes pirates.
And in wartime, it would not be enough to make enough difference against the main opponent.

GarryB wrote:Just looking at the Falklands war you could argue that the British could easily have lost that war against a fairly weak enemy air force of Mirage 3s and A4 Skyhawks.

You could of course just as easily say that the reoccupation of the islands would have been rather more assured if the Brits had not withdrawn the Ark Royal fixed wing carrier with Phantoms and Buccaneers.

The Falklands like other British overseas territories are isolated and far away from each other and the British Isles.
The British need carrier to protect them effectively.
Russia does not have this problem because almost all of its territory is contiguous.

GarryB wrote:I agree, but that means nothing... those idiots will still yap like the little lap dogs they are and demand NATO protection and spend way too much on so called defence... and that is the point.

That is a very bad point.

GarryB wrote:the real use for Mistral like ships is in the Kurile Islands, but with their strengthened structure to allow icebreaking operations they could easily be sent to Antarctica to support operations on the ice in winter and summer.

If you want to improve the defence of the Kuril Islands, invest in the military infrastructure in the Russian Far East.

Antarctica?

GarryB wrote:Really? Does Russia have complete northern coverage by helicopter?   ....don't think so.

A network of land bases would allow more coverage at the same time.

Why is expanding Russia's blue-water navy component so important for Russia's trade?

Because the conflict with South Ossetia and Georgia showed that Russia cannot rely on the international community for support in anything... if 8 8 8 had been an invasion by Japan on the Kurile Islands then they probably would have taken them and there would be little international support for any attempts to get them back.

It won't protect it in peacetime against anyone but pirates, but everyone opposes pirates.

Why would it not protect it in peace time? Do you think other countries that neighbour Russia will just respect its naval rights and economic exclusive zone and fishing rights?

And in wartime, it would not be enough to make enough difference against the main opponent.

Over the last 20 odd years Russia has been in conflict several times and not one of those times was their main opponent a naval power of any worth so it was not important. That is not to say that there never will be a need for large navy and I repeat I am not suggesting anything like the Soviet navy let alone anything bigger, but in this day and age with sophisticated vessels able to perform a variety of roles you don't need that many ships.

What you need are capable vessels able to attack and defend... Mistral adds to the landing capability of the Russian Navy, but it is not going to happen now so the vessels the Russians develop and build will also do such a job... perhaps even better.

The Falklands like other British overseas territories are isolated and far away from each other and the British Isles.
The British need carrier to protect them effectively.
Russia does not have this problem because almost all of its territory is contiguous.

Most of Russias allies and its best trade partners are isolated from Russian territory, and the lines of communication and trade also need protecting too.

That is a very bad point.

The baltic states will complain... just like the sun will continue to shine... there is no point in developing the Russian Navy in a direction dictated by haters like the baltic states... they should and will be ignored.

If you want to improve the defence of the Kuril Islands, invest in the military infrastructure in the Russian Far East.

Do you not think introducing landing vessels and all the support equipment they will require and forces they will deliver is investing in the military infrastructure of the Far East?

Antarctica?

Russia has a manned scientific base on Antarctica.

A network of land bases would allow more coverage at the same time.

Land bases need to be supported and are rather more expensive if permanently manned... plus you will need forces to protect them... and guess what... a helicopter carrier with 200 bed hospital, lots of transport helos, landing vessels and trucks is actually ideal for such support... along with other vessels too of course.

zidzu wrote:

I just show news from euro news 10 member of French Parliament visiting Crimea this MP from the oppositions Leader is Nicolas Sarkozy
This could mean if this guy become the president of France next election he could be provide to give the Mistral to Russia

Not gonna happen. Sarkozy was the man who brought France fully back into the NATO fold, the Mistral deal was part of a larger drive by the man to match Germany's influence in the EU, it's why he oversaw the peace process after 8/08/08. Nowadays the stagnating French economy combined with Hollande's pathetic presidency has lead to Germany holding all the reigns and Merkel has sided with the US. For an example look at the Greece debt negotiations, France has been sympathetic behind closed doors but falls in line with Germany once the cameras are on.

Mistrals are gone, let's use the money to speed up the replacement of Zorya mash turbines. We need those frigates yesterday.

Russia is not going to wait until 2017 to get Mistral delivered.  
Sarkozy very well may try to repair relations with Russia, but forget about the Mistrals (unless Hollande decides to turn them over ASAP).
If Europe has their shit together, they will soon enough try to repair relations with Russia, and recognize Crimean accession.
A direct pipeline from Crimea would be even cheaper then the planned South Stream anyways,
and provide a safe gas supply without relying on Turkey... If EU pays for the pipeline, Russia will be happy to sell gas.

Hollande is just fucking with us at this point. Can't post the link but it's on flot.com and Bloomberg, apparently he's going to make the final decision in the "coming weeks".

Looks like nobody wants to buy and the upkeep cost is annoying.


(Still don't think we'll get em)

GarryB wrote:Because the conflict with South Ossetia and Georgia showed that Russia cannot rely on the international community for support in anything... if 8 8 8 had been an invasion by Japan on the Kurile Islands then they probably would have taken them and there would be little international support for any attempts to get them back.

Why would it not protect it in peace time? Do you think other countries that neighbour Russia will just respect its naval rights and economic exclusive zone and fishing rights?

Don't confuse freedom of navigation and claims on territorial waters, EEZs and continental shelves.
The latter has to be enforced with your own forces, but the former is more universal and should be defended by political means as it is easier to find allies for its defense.

GarryB wrote:Over the last 20 odd years Russia has been in conflict several times and not one of those times was their main opponent a naval power of any worth so it was not important. That is not to say that there never will be a need for large navy and I repeat I am not suggesting anything like the Soviet navy let alone anything bigger, but in this day and age with sophisticated vessels able to perform a variety of roles you don't need that many ships.

The costs stay the same because the sophisticated vessels cost more than their predecessors.

GarryB wrote:What you need are capable vessels able to attack and defend... Mistral adds to the landing capability of the Russian Navy, but it is not going to happen now so the vessels the Russians develop and build will also do such a job... perhaps even better.

No disagreements here.

GarryB wrote:Most of Russias allies and its best trade partners are isolated from Russian territory, and the lines of communication and trade also need protecting too.

Who are these allies and trade partners?

GarryB wrote:The baltic states will complain... just like the sun will continue to shine... there is no point in developing the Russian Navy in a direction dictated by haters like the baltic states... they should and will be ignored.

Exactly, they should be ignored and not provoked for no reason.

GarryB wrote:Do you not think introducing landing vessels and all the support equipment they will require and forces they will deliver is investing in the military infrastructure of the Far East?

Yes, but they are better ones.
Well-armed bases on the southern Kurils offer a much better deterrent and protection, especially against surprise attacks.

GarryB wrote:Russia has a manned scientific base on Antarctica.

Considering that Russia has no territorial claims in that area, there is no need to get the military or any other armed forces involved.

GarryB wrote:Land bases need to be supported and are rather more expensive if permanently manned... plus you will need forces to protect them... and guess what... a helicopter carrier with 200 bed hospital, lots of transport helos, landing vessels and trucks is actually ideal for such support... along with other vessels too of course.

Yes, as support, not as core of the forces in that region.